Normandy Map Discussion

Update from newsletter 20th april 2018

"Since the map’s release, there have been several improvements like new period objects (windmills, water towers, farm houses, etc.), better beach lines, corrected mesh errors, cleaned up textures, and more detail in the England portion of the map. Currently, Urga Media (the developer) is occupied with their Syria map. However, once the Syria map is complete, we will discuss with them further improvements to the Normandy map like use of speedtrees."

Looks like the concrete runways and reworked airfields turned out to be not as "soon ready" as we hoped from Ugra Medias update 6+ months ago. They have moved to Syria instead.

Ask myself also what happen with the Airfields? currently they look not really good compare to the rest of the Map the and the Trailers...

What happen with the updates announced last Year?

Currently, Urga Media (the developer) is occupied with their Syria map. However, once the Syria map is complete, we will discuss with them further improvements to the Normandy map like use of speedtrees.

So from working hard on Normandy we went to working on a other map.

I'm sure (hope?) there are good reason for not finishing A before B, but I am really disappointed about this route of action and this drives me away from putting any money into the Syria map. Especially because of the lack of speed trees on the Normandy map.

I also feel same. Normandy is still not playable for me. Trees don't look realistic, buildings looks too bright. Sea and rivers don't have depth tones. And airfields are too edged between runways and grass. (Should be some dirt and dust on grasses I guess?)

Check the first Spitfire trailer. Airfields had a way different texture before they decided to move away from it. It looked superb in comparson.

Speedtrees was never a promised feature for Normandy.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G891A using Tapatalk

Speedtrees was never a promised feature for Normandy.

It's not like the content is on full release with or without Speed trees according to ED/UGRA anyway, is it? So bear with my (well actually our) frustration on reading that they went on to make a other map before finishing the one that already is being sold, without an explanation.

Update from newsletter 20th april 2018

Looks like the concrete runways and reworked airfields turned out to be not as "soon ready" as we hoped from Ugra Medias update 6+ months ago. They have moved to Syria instead.

When i read the last Newsletter i was disappointed and unhappy about that.

Finally i realized that they actually save my money...

If it's just a few tweaks, why not do that before moving on to the next project? One product less on Open Alpha status, right?

I don't think this is a "make a unfinished product money grab", but based upon the information at hand i can't blame people for getting the impression that it is.

We pretty much got told, after 4 months of silence that work on the map is on hold, in favor of something else, that from my understanding doesn't benefit the map in a active manner.

If it's just a few tweaks, why not do that before moving on to the next project? One product less on Open Alpha status, right?

 

I don't think this is a "make a unfinished product money grab", but based upon the information at hand i can't blame people for getting the impression that it is.

We pretty much got told, after 4 months of silence that work on the map is on hold, in favor of something else, that from my understanding doesn't benefit the map in a active manner.

Every industry starts development of the next product way before the old models are even in the shops. Why is it so difficult to see that software development is just another product lifecycle?

If they would need to send their devs home (or fire), while waiting for some implementations from say ED, or another programmer in the team, they won't survive as a company for long.

I guess the majority of people here have a normal job somehow? Would you think it is a good idea if your company would work in the same fashion, you "demand" from DCS development teams?

The problem is not that they have started another map. It is that this one is drifting dead in the water without develiring very simple and basic features they themselves said they would. We are not expecting a revolution here- just basic, concrete fixes that the communty has pointed out and they said that they would fix. Some tweaking of the colourbalance, moving a few buildings around (Move permant buildings FROM the ad-hoc landing ground TO the permanent ones), get rid of the 5 kg stone boulders littering the ground at all airfields, get the concrete runways where they should and consider staying in touch with the community. We are loyal, paying customers, and we all want the best possible solution. Many members here have provided tons of valuable and accurate info that can be used to fulfill the maps potential. The community has been very helpful, and dare I say it- very patient. By all means- do Syria, but consider our input and requests. I dare say they are not out of place.

As in a normal shop you do produce new goods before the old ones are sold.

Every industry starts development of the next product way before the old models are even in the shops. Why is it so difficult to see that software development is just another product lifecycle?

 

If they would need to send their devs home (or fire), while waiting for some implementations from say ED, or another programmer in the team, they won't survive as a company for long.

 

I guess the majority of people here have a normal job somehow? Would you think it is a good idea if your company would work in the same fashion, you "demand" from DCS development teams?

After seeing how they handle their first map project, though, I sure as hell won't spend a cent on their next offering. I suppose I'm not the only one. Let's see how long they'll "survive as a company" then if they keep on doing what they do the way they do.

I can turn a blind eye on Normandy colours being out of whack, as the whole DS implementation in 2.5 is still rough around the edges, so let's pretend / presume that maybe, just maybe they wait for it to be more complete before doing final tweaks. I can also understand the lack of speedtrees, as these were not available when the map was built initially, nor were they planned for it. However, there are zero tech limitations for implementing other features and fixes, nor was it ever explained why U-Media guys' own superior texturework visible on early screens and vids was replaced with sub-par content we have now. Therefore no other excuses are acceptable.

And yes, "normal job" guy here indeed (building and logistics business). Yes, we do start new projects before finishing old ones, that's normal too, but we're also required to finish the old ones eventually in a contract-specified timeline... For Pete's sake, my company manages to design and construct the whole HVAC and fire safety systems on big construction sites faster than UM guys "manage" to push the last batch of advertized improvements to the map.

When Sith/NL wrote months ago that coders responsible for new DM for warbirds were moved to more "important things", that was pretty much a spit in the face (though I know he was just a bearer of bad news, not the producer himself). Now, the last newsletter confirmed my personal impression that WWII-oriented DCS customers are treated like bastard children / subhumans if you will, who might get some content after few months to make them shut up when they become too annoying. It's "All hands on the deck" for the Hornet, while the others can be shoved down the priority list. That goes for everything from simple communication/updates down to releasing actual content (not talking about the P-47 for obvious and understandable reasons). I'm not amused, given the fact that we paid comparable prices for "our" pieces of the franchise.

How are we supposed to understand the Normandy-part of the newsletter anyway? It was worded in such a confusing way that it's uncertain if the fixes the U-Media allegedly made for the map are coming with (soon after?) 2.5.1, or we'll have to wait for them God knows how long until the Master Race of Jet-Heads get their Syria first.

About the last newsletters, Has some black points about WW2. About them, I return my old questions to WW2 team from four month ago, recompilating some details talked by Racoon when Normandy was in develop.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3313510&postcount=2670

Racoon, any progress on WW2 features and environment?

- trains on maps on editor. Feature never complete

- Convoy trucks delayed or depleted?

- New logistic system delayed or depleted?

- ships (submarines and torpedos ships) and the LCVP? Actually ships disappear from newsletters and all naval environment centred on WW2

- better AAA New 3d explosions effects

- landing strips by editor? Feature never complete

- AI improvements unknown

- WW2 Radar and GCI? unknown or never planned

- new features as cargo air-planes supply from air or landing, para-drops, gliders deploy troops? unknown or never planned

- towed artillery and ability to towed them by tractors? ED team talk as long term plan

- new infantry? unkonow

 

Only little news about 3D models on progress on the newsletters, but no news about the map status (improvements, extension), outside some 3D models. Stug IV

About the last newsletters, Has some black points about WW2. About them, I return my old questions to WW2 team from four month ago, recompilating some details talked by Racoon when Normandy was in develop.

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3313510&postcount=2670

To be fair a lot in that list isn't map related.

What about the grass airfields as seen in the ME? That's been promised for God knows how long and it hasn't been addressed as of yet. That sure would add a lot to the Normandy map.

What about the grass airfields as seen in the ME? That's been promised for God knows how long and it hasn't been addressed as of yet. That sure would add a lot to the Normandy map.

Quite a few people have been asking about this with reference also to some of the airfield textures that were showcased in a previous set of images/ videos that have not yet been included in any releases.

Nineline: just out of curiosity, how many coders/artists are employed by ED? Always wondered the same about the 3rd parties. For some reason I always imagined ED employed around 50 people and 5-10 for the 3rd parties...though I might be way off.

The whole Normandy map and WWII assets thing is a big slap in the face. Anybody I talked to agrees. This map is neither very believable nor enjoyable, the forrests are the biggest immersion killer for me personally. Others are more bothered by the terrible colors or whatnot. Honestly, there are tons of reasons to be disappointed.

And all these allied ALGs make historical campaigns pretty much impossible, as there is only two airfields that actually were german during the Normandy campaign. Some of these ALGs were demolished before others were built, it lacks any coherence whatsoever. Some of them are not even in the right spot and these and other errors (floating bridges eg) have been reported since "early access" release day and it honestly seems like not many fs were given so far...

But ED has made it clear that WWII was the cash cow of DCS and there it ends I guess. :noexpression:

i'm not considering buying anything else until the content i have feels reasonably polished,

they shouldn't move onto new project until previous one is to a decently high standard

to many bits on their lists

The whole Normandy map and WWII assets thing is a big slap in the face. Anybody I talked to agrees. This map is neither very believable nor enjoyable, the forrests are the biggest immersion killer for me personally. Others are more bothered by the terrible colors or whatnot. Honestly, there are tons of reasons to be disappointed.

 

And all these allied ALGs make historical campaigns pretty much impossible, as there is only two airfields that actually were german during the Normandy campaign. Some of these ALGs were demolished before others were built, it lacks any coherence whatsoever. Some of them are not even in the right spot and these and other errors (floating bridges eg) have been reported since "early access" release day and it honestly seems like not many fs were given so far...

 

But ED has made it clear that WWII was the cash cow of DCS and there it ends I guess. :noexpression:

They invested considerable resources, to fulfil somebody else fake promises and not leave the backers in the cold.

I really don't think there was much of a "cash cow effect" in giving away a module like the Spitfire and the map for free, to fulfil somebody else failed Kickstarter promises. Yet they did it, as a support for the community.