Vision - Mission Statement - Road Map

Any information, or direction to information, that could be provided regarding the vision, mission statement or road map for the DCS WWII Europe 1944 Project would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks in anticipation.

Talisman

Talisman, I 'm not sure if you 're expecting a reply from someone involved with ED. I 'm a casual simmer and gonna have a go anyway.

Right now, what we know is that DCS WW2 is in the process of almost completion of the Spit Mk IX LF CW and then the P47 with the 262 will follow. We 've already seen cockpit shots of the P47 and 262. Normandy with period units is WIP, my guess is that we will see it sometime in the end of 2016. Beyond that, nothing has been stated from ED, AFAIK.

There are however 3rd parties working on WW2 stuff. VEAO have the P-40F almost ready, and at least 2 more as WIPs which should be ready in 6-9 months : Spit Mk XIV and F4F (i 'm not including the bearcat and buchon which strictly speaking were not part of ww2). After these there are many other Warbirds in their roadmap, like the Typhoon and the Mossie. You can check out their part of the forum for more. A planned map of Tobruk has been announced, but work has not started on it yet (so 2017 the earliest).

Leatherneck is expected to announce 2 new modules in 2015, one of which is almost certainly a warbird. They have hinted at it as a PTO bird that will come with a small map. Whether it will be an F4U, F6F or A6M, it is not known, but once released, it is reasonable to be followed in the future by its opponent.

I think that's about it right now, there seem to be a lot of modules plus Normandy and maybe a PTO small map with carrier ops coming in 2016.

DCS WW2 is not moving along the concept of the original kickstarter. Developers are going into the direction of a modular sim and not in the direction of a fully historical WW2 project (this is my opinion and I 'd like to be proven wrong).

In my view, we can only hope that diversity will come as a result of more WW2 modules being popular and Normandy coming out, attracting people from the community, increasing sales and providing motives for ED and additional 3rd parties. But this will have to take a lot of time.

Thanks airdoc. It would be nice to have something from DCS along the lines of what you have put together, but with more detail of the companies vision for the future and what they aim to deliver, in there own words.

I have been holding off getting too involved in DCS pending a clearer view of what the WWII project will deliver as an overall package. I have been encouraging WWII enthusiastic squad mates and fellow flyers from other combat flight sims to take a look at DCS, but have found it hard to pass on any firm idea of what is happening to get them hooked.

Since my original post on this topic, todays news release has at least indicated a strong commitment to the project, which is very welcome.

I think there are a lot of new potential customers waiting in the wings as far as WWII aircraft and an associated historic combat environment are concerned.

Happy landings,

Talisman

They are probably tied up with DCS 2.0 at the moment but hopefully next year we will start hearing about the map/ground forces and other possible release estimates.

I'd be surprised if the Normandy map took that long. It's massively simpler in many ways than NTTR or the Persian Gulf map currently in production:

- We don't have ultra detailed photographic evidence of what most of it looked like, unlike modern Las Vegas or the Gulf. A good chunk of the map can be ad-hoc.

- No sophisticated ground control

- Much sparser urban/suburban landscapes

It might still take that long, but my money would be on late Spring. And didn't they farm most/all of the development of Normandy out to one of the third party devs?

And yes, it's hard to do a vision plan when you've got third party devs making whatever they feel like making. We just have to hope we can eventually string available models together into a coherent, historic WWII experience.

I AM DYING FOR SOME KIND OF ANNOUCEMENT...

on a multiseat WWII aircraft, particularly with a copilot gunner, turret position!!!!!!

... vision, mission statement or road map ...

I feel ED is just churning out the models because they are bound to the promise of doing so.

There's not much love for this one, despite the "realism". And so it will go down in the history books I'm afraid.

If you're looking for a full-on WWII flightsim, look elsewhere.

Edit: It's never too late to lose hope, but I'm sad about the unused potential of a possible franchise that would blow away any other existing franchise.

If you like a "Roadmap" check here:

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=116893

VEAO have the P-40F almost ready, and at least 2 more as WIPs which should be ready in 6-9 months : Spit Mk XIV and F4F

HA!

It's safe to say, almost 2 years after the Kickstarter, that there is no vision, mission statement or road map for this project. None.

I feel ED is just churning out the models because they are bound to the promise of doing so.

There's not much love for this one, despite the "realism". And so it will go down in the history books I'm afraid.

If you're looking for a full-on WWII flightsim, look elsewhere.

 

Edit: It's never too late to lose hope, but I'm sad about the unused potential of a possible franchise that would blow away any other existing franchise.

Not to mention the fraudulent business of someone taking a lot of money on Kickstarter with lavish promises then suddenly disappearing without explanation to the paying customer!

We never did quite get a full explanation of how that went down.

Whilst the sense of frustration or pessimism is understandable I fear folks are being a bit naïve about the development time it takes to produce modules and the logistical factors involved from both ED and their partners when it comes to development. I happen to be on good terms with the 3rd party developers of some of the WW2 content and there is a great deal that goes on behind the scenes, both technically and politically, that the community are completely - and rightfully - unaware of.

We are not privy to the strategies for a variety of reasons, NDAs primarily, but also from plain common sense - people are quick to forget this is a business being run in a VERY niche market, competition is small but brutal and it takes very little for promising developments to be canned by bad press, ill-founded rumour or deliberate sabotage.

Teams are TINY by other modern computer game developer standards, and many have come to this idiom via the hobby rather than through professional experience.

The downside is - particularly with Third Party developers - that a lot is being learnt on the job with individuals performing many roles that would in any other arena have specialist individuals - if not small teams - dedicating their entire energies to a particular discipline. Thus development times are much extended.

The upside is that they have as much passion to get it right as you do and you are far more likely to see fixes, and future additional features than in any other game environment as the developers have far more invested, and are as likely to be looking forward to play the game themselves and enjoy the new features they are developing.

Thus development takes time. Squashing bugs takes time.

Also you have a core team that is Russian, and 3rd party developers from across the world. Even in separate teams can be a number of individuals from disparate nationalities, and even given a commonly understood language, there is still a great deal of room for lost in translation.

Add to this a very vocal but finicky community (who are as much a help as a hindrance) with an over indulged sense of entitlement and plenty of partisanship and an environment rapidly evolves where demands and critiques far outweigh positive comment.

Developers are only human too - shockingly! - and this toxic environment can actively drive developers away - the "it just isn't worth the grief" effect. Then everyone loses as we either lose an entire module, or it's development get's set back considerably whilst Developers search to replace lost personnel.

This community in effect is part of the management team as our 'carrot-or-stick' effect is considerable. Bear that in mind next time you offer criticism on an as yet unreleased product or report a perceived issue with available content.

Regards WW2 content from ED - I'm not surprised that it's taking time. They never planned to do it! They gave it to Ilya and co for the very good reason that their own team were busy planning an entire graphics engine upgrade and a DCS level F-18! Does that sound to anybody like a small undertaking? Does anyone think they've hired more people in to do this given the sheer amount of money already invested and the limited returns likely considering the amount of promised free content to backers? I suspect that thanks to being tied in to backer awards they'll see a limited return on WW2 content for a while to come. Given everthing else they are working on currently it makes no business sense to focus on the WW2 content at the expense of products that will pay bills (NTTR now, F-18 & Hormuz near future). It makes much better financial sense to deliver WW2 content piecemeal so that the hit to the accounts isn't so hard. For them to have picked up the pieces and be delivering the content at all, albeit at an extended timescale I am only too relieved about.

Ultimately this is a particularly niche market - the high fidelity sim within the already niche world of the flight sim. We do not number many and no-one's gonna make millions from this. As a business endeavour it is more a labour of love than a cash cow. Thus as a HiFi simmer one must cultivate patience because this is the only way it will ever be.

It's safe to say, almost 2 years after the Kickstarter, that there is no vision, mission statement or road map for this project. None.

I feel ED is just churning out the models because they are bound to the promise of doing so.

There's not much love for this one, despite the "realism". And so it will go down in the history books I'm afraid.

If you're looking for a full-on WWII flightsim, look elsewhere.

 

Edit: It's never too late to lose hope, but I'm sad about the unused potential of a possible franchise that would blow away any other existing franchise.

Surely that's part of the risk inherent in supporting Kickstarter projects? It's a bit of a gamble... a punt in the dark, rather than actually paying for an established project.

DD Fenrir,

Thanks for your thoughtful and informative post. It is particularly informative because I think customers and potential customers can be newly attracted to DCS via WWII content and the project moving forward, but have no knowledge of the history or politics behind the project.

For the totally un-initiated or partially initiated new customer to DCS, the way things are on the WW2 front can appear very puzzling indeed.

Customer relations and the management of expectations, both ways, is not always an easy nut to crack.

Happy landings,

Talisman

Not to mention the fraudulent business of someone taking a lot of money on Kickstarter with lavish promises then suddenly disappearing without explanation to the paying customer!

 

We never did quite get a full explanation of how that went down.

The Normandy Map was always reliant on EDGE; ergo we are continuing with the wait on a stable full release version of DCS 2.0.

Thereafter I would expect the Straits of Hormuz map first for the financial reasons outlined in my previous post (and also that previous posts from Wags have intimated that this map is actually quite well along in it's development).

The simple fact is that whilst a good theatre is missing for a homogenous WW2 experience the current stable still provides a great experience in DCS, particularly in online multiplayer 'Airquake'; and whilst some might recoil, I, who regard myself as an authenticity buff, still take a great deal of enjoyment from this arena.

There's also an elephant in the room in that, even if we do end up with a Normandy map tomorrow, it's still not prototypical for the plane-set we have, particularly regards the Luftwaffe a/c. An Ardennes map would be far more appropriate IMHO.

There are some very attractive mods for those who cannot live without WW2 era ground units, and whilst not entirely satisfactory should suffice in the interim.

I believe it's a case of celebrating what excellence we have, pragmatically identifying what needs improvement and patiently hoping for more content.

It ain't perfect but DCS is imminently playable and enjoyable except for the very particular purist. Aspects need work, but all recent posts point to these things at least being acknowledged if not actively in progress.

So why are we complaining?

Because we are impatient.

Hello nick10, well I wouldn't want to have that discussion again but I also don't feel looked after very well from a customer perspective. I do give ED a lot of credit for what they did produce to date, but there's something missing that translates to "take me seriously and throw me a bone from time to time". We already know the models are coming together slowly, but what about the map?

We already know the models are coming together slowly, but what about the map?

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=151478#3

"We are committed to creating the most authentic recreation of World War II air combat ever done."

Doesn't sound like DCS WW2 is being confined to the history books as far as ED are concerned... ;)

Normandie, Persian Gulf, Kaukasus Nevada.......

Am i the only one who thinks that Skandinavia with the Fjords, the mountains the sea and the wild weather would make the best theater? Does not anyone recall EF2000 and its awesomness?

Whilst the sense of frustration or pessimism is understandable I fear folks are being a bit naïve about the development time it takes to produce modules and the logistical factors involved from both ED and their partners when it comes to development.

Clearly, this "project" took the back-burner. Please don't try to dissect the way I think and label me. I would label you an ED bandwagon pup in return.

There is a bit of mention of it in this news letter ...

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=151478#3

Thanks, that was actually quite helpful.

This "project" is 2 years down the line without much updates, and you dare to call me "naive" and "impatient"?!

Untangle your underwear Hans. I observed people posting a great deal of hyperbole without much consideration for the reasons I outlined above. If you believe this applies to you then, well.... if the cap fits....

Clearly, this "project" took the back-burner.

If you re-read my post again you will observe that I agree with you, except I have proffered some fairly logical reasons why as a business this would be a logical plan of action, given the fact that ED had to pick up all the work and the financial losses from a Partner who dropped the ball..

Please don't try to dissect the way I think and label me.

I have not. You made the leap that I was accusing you directly when at no point have I directly accused you of anything.

There is a section of this community that takes umbrage with any delay, and takes it as a perceived slight, their sense of entitlement so engorged that they attack other human beings for this heinous act - and never forget that developers are humans too, with the attendant egos, sensitivities and flaws - when all they accomplish is to alienate community from developer, creating a gap for information swapping and these periods of update blackout. At worst their behaviour dissuades development or even stymies it. These are the people I call out.

I would suggest that you are somewhat uninformed considering your statement of 'consigned to the history books' if you'll pardon my paraphrasing, especially in light of the post direct from ED you only recently acknowledged. It was certainly pessimistic.

As for your ED fanboy accusation, frankly if your going down that line of argument then there is really no point debating with you further. Those who have the capacity will understand where I'm coming from, because ultimately courtesy and pragmatic discussion will out. I have my gripes with DCS, as I do with CloD, as I do with Il-2 - no game is ever perfect.

But I on the other hand have a massive amount of respect who have the skills, patience and make the necessary sacrifices to develop software that even in a month of Sundays I could not come close to replicating; and to do it well, despite the niggles, and furthermore to support their products (given the amount of bugged releases I've seen over the years left to a disappointed community), well, I raise my hat to those gentlemen.

My appreciation is not merely expressed through dollar signs. I suspect neither is yours.

There is a section of this community that takes umbrage with any delay, and takes it as a perceived slight, their sense of entitlement so engorged that they attack other human beings for this heinous act - and never forget that developers are humans too, with the attendant egos, sensitivities and flaws - when all they accomplish is to alienate community from developer, creating a gap for information swapping and these periods of update blackout. At worst their behaviour dissuades development or even stymies it. These are the people I call out.

 

I would suggest that you are somewhat uninformed considering your statement of 'consigned to the history books' if you'll pardon my paraphrasing, especially in light of the post direct from ED you only recently acknowledged. It was certainly pessimistic.

If you want to be smart-ass about it, please be. I'm not impressed. Just remember this is a forum and as such allows different opinions. I don't need extensive paraphrasing to get my point across either.

The Nevada map took a few years as well beyond what was first announced by ED, so I really see no reason to have this pessimistic outlook. I'm sure they understand the importance of a WWII scenario when they're releasing and working on several WWII birds.

Hans I was not trying to impress you, be a smart-ass or insult you.

I am merely attempting to manage some people's expectations - and yes this time that does include you - by highlighting some aspects they *might* be unaware of, or at least making them consider the business implications of both the situation and the software idiom.

You're right, you are perfectly entitled to your own opinion. But given that the opinion you proffered shed development of WW2 features in DCS in a very despondent manner,

the gist of your argument being that DCS WW2 is headed to vapourware territory given this long gestation, it is one that is - in my equally valid opinion - inaccurate.

I didn't want others to take that at as gospel and spread the bad word without context.

I have merely highlighted the many probable causes for this drawn out development span and that your vapourware fears were likely unfounded; a fact most timely proved by the link to the ED newsletter.

Is further DCS WW2 content taking a while. Yes! Am I disappointed? Mildly. I'd like to see a new map, modules and ground units as much as you, trust me.

I am merely attempting to manage some people's expectations - and yes this time that does include you - by highlighting some aspects they *might* be unaware of, or at least making them consider the business implications of both the situation and the software idiom.

 

You're right, you are perfectly entitled to your own opinion. But given that the opinion you proffered shed development of WW2 features in DCS in a very despondent manner,

the gist of your argument being that DCS WW2 is headed to vapourware territory given this long gestation, it is one that is - in my equally valid opinion - inaccurate.

 

I didn't want others to take that at as gospel and spread the bad word without context.

 

I have merely highlighted the many probable causes for this drawn out development span and that your vapourware fears were likely unfounded; a fact most timely proved by the link to the ED newsletter.

 

Is further DCS WW2 content taking a while. Yes! Am I disappointed? Mildly. I'd like to see a new map, modules and ground units as much as you, trust me.

I'm well aware of development times and the inherited burden, however the amount of updates has exponentially dropped over time and as a customer it's my right to "whine" about it. Just because I still give a damn.

But will this "whining" do any good?

Or will it, as the other fella pointed out, actually damage the morale of the development team (who are not, as far as I can follow, responsible for the Kickstarter debacle or the artificially raised expectations)? One third-party developer has already stopped posting WIP updates due to such whining and are-we-there-yet-are-we-are-we-are-we "feedback"...