Something I have scratching my head on

Feels like many DCS WWII servers don't have many players on. Just wonder why it is not evolving into something as popular as Il-2 used to be. I was trying to post a poll, but don't know how to do so. But anyway here are the questions I have been thinking:

1. WWII flight sim genre is dying. Who cares about propeller and machine guns when we have missiles and jets

2. High fidelity study sims are too complicated for people to grasp. People like to hit one key then engine starts. People are inherently loving arcadish stuff. If I need read a book to play my game, count me out.

3. Lack of supporting infrastructure: after all, we don't have a proper WWII map, no tiger tanks to bounce around, no bombers to escort. We just teleported some WWII fighters over modern day Caucasus region where they can do nothing else but dogfight all day long until eventually people get bored and quit.

4. ED should tap into the community resources to create some of the infrastructures. Let fans build up non-essential items such as maps, vehicles, ships, ground installations etc. ED should concentrate on what they do best: creating kick-ass modules and integrating different 3rd party modules and fan-base creations.

5. DCS WWII is still too young. After it matures, its popularity will be totally different. It's still too early to pass on some judgement.

It's meant to be a friendly discussion so people can explore the issue together. After all, it is in everybody's interest that DCS WWII flourishes and becomes more successful.

I would have to go with number 5 right now. Only time will tell on some of the other comments.

I have played IL2 CoD and liked it to a certain extent, but for me DCS's attention to detail on the modules keeps me here. They are a real challenge in themselves, not counting the combat too :joystick:

The folk I have talked too on IL2 servers say that DCS isn't fully fleshed out yet, ie no WW2 map, but that is coming soon hopefully, and the server limitations on DCS, numbers of players and lag etc keep them away for now.

I think that DCS WW2 servers would become as popular if not more so than say IL2 CoD servers if some of these issues were addressed, and lets face it, if they can achieve this then there's quite a large customer base there (and it's associated income!) just waiting to jump on board the DCS train.

I really hope they include Southern England in the Normandy map, in my view it is vital they do!, as that would open up lots of possibilities for different periods of the WW2 conflict, not just 1944. Ok we wont have a MK1a Spitfire, Blenheim or Hurricane for a Battle of Britain scenario (at least not yet!) but we do have a damn fine 109, soon a Spitfire MkIX, and a Stuka, so I guess the basics are there for a BoB scenario even if it isn't historically accurate.

I for one am really looking forward to seeing how DCS WW2 pans out.

My two cents. :)

For me it's the server lag issues and damage modelling that keep me from playing MP. The other two WW2 sims can handle large numbers of players with very few issues and have good damage modelling so I play there for MP. I know ED is going to be looking at both these areas - once they're improved I'll definitely play MP in DCS as all the flight modelling and systems are top notch.

Right now, there is very little to offer the online players in terms of realistically recreating a WWII environment, other than the ability to get into a P-51 and fly against a 109 or 190. The airfields and static or dynamic ground units are all way out of their time period. Of course, this is not counting the many superb mods available for adding some WWII immersion, but not everyone is into the mod thing.

I believe that once the Normandy map is out, along with various WWII era ground units, we will see a wider attendance in WWII servers. :thumbup:

I don't think point 1. is valid, WWII is very enjoyable and not everyone only wants to fly jets.

Otherwise IL2 would never have been popular (LOMAC and BMS were already there).

Right now, there is very little to offer the online players in terms of realistically recreating a WWII environment, other than the ability to get into a P-51 and fly against a 109 or 190. The airfields and static or dynamic ground units are all way out of their time period. Of course, this is not counting the many superb mods available for adding some WWII immersion, but not everyone is into the mod thing.

 

I believe that once the Normandy map is out, along with various WWII era ground units, we will see a wider attendance in WWII servers. :thumbup:

I agree we don't have the proper backdrop yet.

Point 5 is the key one. Not just DCS WWII though, but DCS as a platform. It's finally getting there though.

Once Normandy map, revised damage models and hopefully the dedicated server come out, you'll start seeing more people using it.

Plus we'll probably get at least one more WWII aircraft in the form of a Spitfire this year.

Right win+home starts your engine if you don't feel like a cold start. Even if you know the whole procedure, the 'cheat' can be useful if you feel like getting up for a beer and have the aircraft waiting for you. The only professional pilot I know who plays flight sims prefers runway starts!

IMO,in order to make for enticing gameplay we need a type of war server that one joins which runs a war for say a month or two.You choose a side and can only fly from your sides plane list until wars end.You have access to your stats(which is easily accessible)and which details how much of a part you have done to help your side.

Your kill count drops one kill for every time you get killed yourself.

Medals can be awarded for each milestone of kills you manage to achieve.

If its just a server to join and fight a few then I don't think it will be a full house experience.WT maintains a high player count for its leveling system which pulls players to keep at it.

#3 and #5.

Our JG is ready and waiting to bring our 30 pilots to DCS, but we need a proper sandbox in which to play.

Give us a map and some targets and we will be here en mass

I really want to play multiplayer but just can't enjoy it while we have one allied plane, 2 axis planes, and a 1990s-era caucuses theatre to use them in. When a more compete WW2 theatre is available, I'll be in like Flynn.

In its current state DCS is simply not a good WWII sim. It's three WWII fighter aircraft thrown into modern combat simulator that wasn't designed with WWII combat in mind.

And if you ask me, WWII is not high on my priority list for DCS. I'd rather see them go in the direction of jet combat and more modern conflicts.

1. WWII flight sim genre is dying. Who cares about propeller and machine guns when we have missiles and jets

Lots of ppl do. Maybe DCS isn't well known to the public for WW2, because it started as a modern air combat simulator, but I think it will get better by time, especially with the addition of WW2 maps.

2. High fidelity study sims are too complicated for people to grasp. People like to hit one key then engine starts. People are inherently loving arcadish stuff. If I need read a book to play my game, count me out.

Tastes are different. To me it's quite the opposite. What makes DCS so enjoyable for me is the study stuff. That's why I don't use FC3, because just pressing a random button to get my engines started without having to read a manual and learn how the systems work is a no go for me. There are other sims that, like IL2. DCS is a study sim and should stay that way imho.

3. Lack of supporting infrastructure: after all, we don't have a proper WWII map, no tiger tanks to bounce around, no bombers to escort. We just teleported some WWII fighters over modern day Caucasus region where they can do nothing else but dogfight all day long until eventually people get bored and quit.

That's indeed a major issue, but a WW2 map (Normandy) is in development together with WW2 infrastructure like ground units and AI planes.

Latest news: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2737668&postcount=23

Discussion: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=163427

4. ED should tap into the community resources to create some of the infrastructures. Let fans build up non-essential items such as maps, vehicles, ships, ground installations etc. ED should concentrate on what they do best: creating kick-ass modules and integrating different 3rd party modules and fan-base creations.

See post #4 in this thread.

5. DCS WWII is still too young. After it matures, its popularity will be totally different. It's still too early to pass on some judgement.

I hope so too :thumbup:

I've also wondered why not many people seem to play DCS WWII online.

I don't think the WWII genre is dying at all. Personally I much prefer WWII era stuff over modern jets, because fighting in modern jets is too much about handling the avionics for my taste. I like prop planes, I like how "real" they feel, I like how you have to do it all yourself - no computer assistant, I like that high performance tail draggers can be a handful. Many people feel the same. Personally I like learning the starting procedure, but if people don't there's always the magic "start my engine for me" button.

I think #3 is the key. At the moment DCS feels like a modern jet sim, set in modern environments with a few WWII era prop planes that you can fly about in ... probably because that's what it is. There's not a lot to do ... it's not like you can seriously go tangle with some SA-9s in you P-51. There aren't period bombers to protect or shoot down, or sensible missions you can make ... so all you can do is "AirQuake" against other planes. The WWII planes in DCS are great, the attention to detail is incredible and I love the way they fly ... but a few WWII planes doesn't make a functioning WWII flight sim experience.

But the good news is I think it's coming. Looks like the Normandy map is coming along, more planes are coming, period units are coming. The damage modelling and net code is apparently getting some needed love. So it'll take some time, but if the quality of the WWII planes we have is anything to go by then when we do get it it's going to be great.

I also think #4 will happen when #3 happens. When we get some believable scenarios I think many squadrons will start moving over. Then all the modelling talent in those communities will start helping flesh out DCS. There's some incredible talent in those communities, for example I've been amazed at what Team Fusion have achieved with CloD in what is essentially a dead product.

Overall I'm feeling pretty optimistic about the future of WWII in DCS :-)

Probably for a number of reasons together, and not just one.

First, one should look at the competition, which seems to be Il-2. Now, I've never flown Il-2, and I'm sure many here know and can assess the Il-2 products far better than I, but just looking quickly at the lates Il-2 product home page, Assuming 1 C Game Studios and 777 Studios are offering two products consisting of a map and 8 or 10 aircraft; either set during the Battle of Stalingrad (BOS), or the Battle of Moscow (BOM).

With each basic set you get 8 flyable aircraft:

BOS:

LaGG-3 (series 29)

Bf 109 F-4

Yak-1 (series 69)

Bf 109 G-2

IL-2 AM-38 (1942 year's model, single-seat)

Ju 87 D-3

He 111 H-6

Pe-2 (series 87)

BOS Premium Edition has 2 additional aircraft:

La-5

Fw 190 A-3

BOM;

I-16 Type 24

Bf 109 E-7

MiG-3

Bf 109 F-2

IL-2 Model 1941

Bf 110 E-2

Pe-2 Series 35

Ju 88 A-4

BOM Premium Edition has 2 additional aircraft:

P-40 E-1

MC.202 Series VIII

So, if you are interested in combat flying, either against AI or MP, you have an entire environment servicing the player, with 2-3 times as many aircraft as DCS is offering, and all the aircraft fit to their environment. IE each group is from the same era.

Now, I don't know how exact Il-2 simulates actual flight, but the warbirds of DCS are all PFM (Professional Flight Model), which means they are not really a game. They are a true simulation similar to professional flight simulators, minus the hardware, which the customer must supply him/her self :smilewink:.

Assuming 1 C Game Studios and 777 Studios did not put the fidelity, and complexity, into their products, for the sake of access to more casual customers, well, that is exactly what it would do.

Not even trying to look at the previous Il-2 products, but from a quick glance, I know they offer a very wide range if aircraft.

So that which from my understanding is the greatest competition to DCS-WWII, aside from the fidelity, is offering a far better gaming environment.

DCS, I imagine is also not nearly as widely known, especially for customers looking for a gaming experience.

Will the coming Normandy map offer a solution to this disparity? I honestly don't think so; at least not the map and the era equipment which will also, but separately, be coming.

Why? Let's start with the aircraft, which will be available around the time the Normandy map will be released. Currently we have access to the P-51D, Bf-109K-4, and the FW-190D-9.

The P-51D is not a 'dog-fighter', as you probably already well know. Its designed as a long range escort for high altitude bombers. This is its environment. Putting the P-51D primarily into missions which do not fit into this environment, does the P-51D an injustice, and--as is well know to most members of this forum--is not a satisfying experience for its virtual pilots. The P-51D's competition are more suited to the lower level dog-fighting mission we are seeing on the MP servers today, and this affects directly on the experience of the P-51D's virtual pilots.

Will the Normandy map alone address this? No; without AI bomber aircraft to use in setting up escort missions, whether you are flying over Normandy or the Caucasus will make little difference. The P-51D is currently a kind bottleneck for the gaming environment.

Sometime in the 'near future', however, we will be getting some new allied aircraft, the P-47D, Spitfire Mk. IXc, and the P-40E, I believe.

How the P-40E will fit in, I can only speculate, but from my understanding, it's not really fitting the environment at all, although the P-40E's were built to the end of the war, I believe.

The P-47D and the Spitfire Mk. IXc should be better at home in the non-escort-mission environment between the Channel and Germany, so this should be an improvement already. I know a lot of virtual pilots are looking forward to their release, as I am also.

As far a gaming environment goes, though, it still will not offer the gaming experience Il-2 can offer, just the fidelity, without missions to fit the aircraft. But this issue may also be solved by the community itself, which in my experience is very creative, so we will see about that.

So, what is the solution? If DCS wants to compete in the gaming market, it will have to offer a better gaming environment. A mix of enough aircraft to spark the customer's interest, and satisfy his curiosity, all fitting into an environment, in which players on both sides of the map will find challenge and enjoyment. This is in my mind certainly an achievable goal for ED, and I most heartily wish them the greatest of success in this endeavor.

Honestly I hope they do not try to compete in the game market as you describe.

BoS&M are garbage. 109's that feel like Fokker triplanes and yaks that levitate. It's just not fun. They could throw every aircraft ever flown in we2 into it and it would still be awful.

DCS wins with its aircraft fidelity, that is what makes our virtual JG want it so badly.

I'd be happy with this plane set, add the spit and thunderbolt and it's going to be wonderful, an AI b-17 would just put it over the moon, but without the map and targets it's going to be lacking regardless of the plane set.

1. WWII flight sim genre is dying. Who cares about propeller and machine guns when we have missiles and jets.

Statistically is not dying because War Thunder, but without this game, the genre are shrinking year by year due lack of interest of new generations.

How many under 20 age you know that enjoy these flight sim/games, no considering the WT "mouse play" crowd - they are not flying aircraft, but playing FPS with planes.

And at least in the "flight" community that I know, in 10 people 5 have interest in WWII planes only and not in "jets", 3 fly both (e.g. me) and 2 only in "jets".

So, I want on YT after my last post above, and looked up some videos of BOM & BOS. The short of it, BOM & BOS are about as much a true flight sims as Battle Field 4 is an infantry sim. Well, maybe not quite that bad, but you get what I mean :D

I wouldn't want ED to reorient itself as a 'game' company, but it would be nice if they took a more strategic approach to putting an environment together (map and a set of aircraft in a specific time-frame of the war) to make a more enjoyable gaming experience, including of course coordinating with their partners to reach that goal, as contradictory as that may sound :)

I know the partners are independent developers, and in the end will produce what they decide to produce, in their own interest and interests, but they might also be interested in working toward a common goal to present a specific product pallet. Hmmm interesting :smilewink:

I think that would have a synergy, which would spark a greater interest in this area of true simming :thumbup:

So I own Battle of Stalingrad and in many ways it's a really good game. It has a good map, good period units, a good selection of planes. There are multiplayer servers that are usually populated with interesting stuff happening on them.

I take it for a spin once in a while, usually in the FW-190A which is one of my favourite planes. However, it always ends the same way ... I fly it around for a bit ... then I land .. then I go fly the P-51 in DCS for a few hours. My interest is first in flight sims and second in WWII combat, and for me BoS just isn't a satisfying flight experience. It's hard to exactly point to why ... it just "feels wrong", they don't feel like planes to me, they are too light and floaty. I should love BoS, but in practice I don't play it much.

I also don't see it as a great long term investment, for me that's mostly because their engine is DX9 and so it can't support VR. As a person who is first about the flying and the immersion I really do see VR as the future. DCS for me is a more compelling experience now, and I think it will be doubly so when I eventually get my hands on an Oculus Rift :-)

My experience of BoS has been similar. I see that it is better for WW 2 immersion with many period content and flyables. It's graphics are very pretty too. It does WW2 flight sim/game thing good alright. But it didn't feel much like a good sim to me. Certainly not as much as DCS, and as much as it's predecessor modded by community, the CloD TF.

Anyway, my intention in this post is not a comparison of sims. Rather, to point there are different tastes of sim to cater to. DCS is a niche within another niche. This is part of the reason why there are less online WW2 simmers in DCS. Also WW2 content is a bit limited currently, which keeps away immersion purists, but is in progress of being solved, piece by piece. Finally, there is visibility issue which is being worked on, but still puts people off of dogfighting.

But, even after all of these are fixed, I would not expect it to be nearly as popular as something like Warthunder or even BoS. More accessible will always be much more popular than more hardcore. I don't think DCS' focus is being as popular online as those, and I hope it won't be, as this would inevitably mean bending things askew of their current focus on flight & systems fidelity.

I don't think it will be nearly as popular as those more gaming titles. But with solving of key issues like visual spotting, damage model, and more WW2 content, I believe it will be popular enough, and more importantly be an unique experience among other options.

I think it's due to:

- lack of content - p-51 vs 109 is only exciting for a while, then it gets old.

- Price - DCS is not the cheapest way to get in the virtual air

- inadequate DM - often makes me say "F-it, I'll just jump into an F-15".

- bad visibility against the ground.

1. Its not dying, its community is scattered. I will explain. Il-2 Sturmovik 1946 was the biggest community with Hyperlobby where people would come and chat in real time, and setup flight, and browse servers. There was Thousand people online daily. Then, Rise of flight came out, then Cliffs of Dover came out, then Il-2 Battle of Stalingrad came out, then DCS P-51, Bf-109, Fw-190 came out (which were a dream for a flight simmer, full switch cockpit), then Il-2 Battle of Moscow came out, and finally you got Thunder.

2. Yes, its harder than arcade flight games, but this sim got 1 button to start all system, so I don't really know what you are talking about. Meaning people who don't want to learn, don't have time, or patience, or inteligence - can hit 1 button to start the automatic startup sequence of the plane.

3. Completelly agree with you on the map aspect and ground assets, but DCS modules can never become boring because they are full switch. Theres nothing like it on the market. When Normandy map comes out its all over for other flight sim publishers.

That being said, DCS needs something that Il-2 was having. Something like Hyperlobby. Developed from ED like a launcher type of thing, where people would meet, talk to each other in global chat, in chat rooms etc. We could see all servers and player count. We could see number of players connected to it. We could have ready up rooms for quick mission start hosting etc. Why we need this and why would this bring in more people? Because community would be more engaged, there would be more things going on around, and its easy to set things up, rather then going and checking various forums around.

Before that we definately need a Normandy map and WW2 AI bombers which we can escort or attack. That will give another good purpose to our fighter modules. One day maybe a flyable module of B-17 and Do-217 or Bf-110 on the German side.

Already some good stuff are coming to us, 2 different Spitfires, P-47 (which I am really happy about, we can do some awesome stuff with that plane set already), P-40 etc...

These are all high fidelity full switch airplanes and with best graphics in the market so far with this 1.5 update we have, DCS can be the king of the flight sim world, and now it kind of is already, but they need to grab the opportunity fully.

My opinion,

Cheers

Rain

DCS is simply lacking of content, get bored after while and much to less player count currently. DCS also feel's much more natural then BOS planes,

especially FW-190 model flying brick.

Hope with Spity and normandy more players will show up.

I think the WWII combat flight community grew in total, thanks to War Thunder, but splitted up.

In the good old days of IL2 Hyperlobby Online-Wars there were over 1000 of players online more or less 24hrs a day. But only about 10% played IL2 in "full real" settings.

Il2 focused more on Air combat simulation, less on plane and flight simulation and there is the dividing element in my opinion.

If you stay with the 10% of the IL2 full real veterans I would guess 90% of them were there for the "air combat experience", the thrill of fighting with the background feeling of the books of old WWII pilots in their minds. Replaying air battles with tactics and doctrines and to some degree fiddling with plane operation. Here the focus is really on the air combat gameplay and balance was always considered to a be relevant element.

This is very well covered by IL2 BoM and BoS for these 90% of the 10% Fuell real crowd of the old Hyperlobby veterans.

The other 90% of the Hyperlobby crowd is very well served with War Thunder or other fast pace mouse and keyboard plane-games.

At the end of the day, we cannot assume that all the +1000 players, which were online 24/7 in the IL2 days, can ever be reached with DCS. I think the number you see online at the moment at any given time (approx. 10 players average), reflects the maximum of players you will see for the DCS WWII online environment over the long term (peaks after a release of a new map or plane not considered). It is simply the truth, that most of the players are more attracted by the "air combat experience" than by the "plane operation and flight" experience DCS is focusing on.

So IMO the DCS WWII community should start to organize events, like "Bomber Night" '(ok, bad example for DCS) to get the maximum ammount of players together and built up some online experience, which could get existing players together at the same time, on the same server.