What is the possibility of a BoB scenario.

Guys, lets not discuss other sims, the question was about a Battle of Britain scenario in DCS, I for one would love to see it, but it would be a ways down the road I am sure...

Sure, I would love to see it, IMO the poor previous attempt was a so huge failure that hardly something can go wrong with a BoB scenario in DCS (hence my previous comment). The early 109 and Spitfire, not to mention a properly modelled DCS level Hurricane, cannot be anything but gorgeous :beer:. Nonetheless, yes, I don't think than could happen anytime soon :(.

 

Not initially.

Pitty.

 

 

S!

Not initially.

 

Not? I thought southern england would be included, although initially as a plain surface (like northern turkey on the caucasus map) that might be extended/populated in the future?

I would be OK with BoB but I would rather see Holland, Belgium and P38L, Fw190A8 and Tempest added.

Personally, I'd love one too. Or even just a cross-channel map to add a spot of added spice.

 

 

Not quite sure why there is this focus on the last year of the war, and the early not-quite-ready-for-the-war jets, when there are *years*-worth of WW2 aircraft to model prior to D-Day.

 

The war in Europe didn't start in '44. Actually, those of us from the UK learn that WW2 started in '39 - not '41, when the US and USSR finally rubbed the sleep from their eyes...

 

I dont think this has anything to do with when another country thinks when the war started for them.

 

the planes that we already have are from late war. P51D was developed, before idea of DCS ww2 was conceptualized. it makes more sense to have late ww2 scenario, with additional late ww2 aircraft, to the ones already in. this time period saw better pistons, definitive versions, and the appearance of jets, which spite of thier performance were totally next gen aircraft, which imo makes it interesting.

 

or maybe thats just the aircraft and setting the devs are interested in. I think they chose the right scenario, because there hasnt been a late ww2 western front since the old IL2. and newer ones are set in Eastern front, and BOB already. so perhaps just to have something different, the western front Normandy 44 -45 is not a bad idea at all. its likely at some pint ED or 3rd parties will expand into earlier period of ww2 and other theatres. Besides Normandy Front front allows for a Combined arms expereince. The BOB was fought over the air, and Uk and German ground armies didnt clash.

 

TBH if any theatre id want to see next, would be the pacific just for carrier ops, and to have another Axis member, but at the same time i cant help but want a late war eastern front map in berlin 1945, just for the sake of making the European theatre more complete.

 

 

this has

Edited November 1, 2016 by Kev2go

I would be OK with BoB but I would rather see Holland, Belgium and P38L, Fw190A8 and Tempest added.

 

Yes lets get those planes first , the spit 14 , thunderbolt and then discuss the planes from BOB ,ww1 or the midle ages :D.

I for one would love to be able to see the Cliffs of Dover while in the cockpit of a Spit, and to be able to squeeze by The Needles if the Isle of Wight sneaks in too.

 

Obviously we're not getting that in the first release, but ED were asking for airfield data in Southern England a while back, so it's not off the cards.

Not quite sure why there is this focus on the last year of the war, and the early not-quite-ready-for-the-war jets, when there are *years*-worth of WW2 aircraft to model prior to D-Day.

C'mon guys, it's really necessary every now and then tell the story again? It was Luthier choice, nothing to do with ED even though the P-51 was the first module. No, nobody knows why that planeset choice but Luthier, let's only point out how ED is having problems getting the P-47 info they need.

 

P51D was developed, before idea of DCS ww2 was conceptualized. it makes more sense to have late ww2 scenario, with additional late ww2 aircraft, to the ones already in

Yeah, Luthier built up his bluff using the P-51 and Dora already in development or released by ED without link to him, that's right :lol:.

 

 

S!

Edited November 3, 2016 by Ala13_ManOWar

C'mon guys, it's really necessary every now and then tell the story again? It was Luthier choice, nothing to do with ED even though the P-51 was the first module. No, nobody knows why that planeset choice but Luthier, let's only point out how ED is having problems getting the P-47 info they need.

 

Who? Never heard of him/her/them. Is this something to do with the WW2 Kickstarter that went belly-up?

 

The matter of the late-war aircraft/maps seems pretty simple to me. Either:

A) This is ED's decision, in which case it should be open to debate. Or,

B) This isn't ED's decision, in which case they don't have to stick to it.

 

 

Whilst Joe Public may certainly have heard of the Normandy Invasions, it seems... illogical... to start one's WW2 setting at that point. Similarly, the desire of some people to have the "best" model of a particular aircraft not withstanding, it seems to have been a curious decision to do the late-model German fighters first.

 

(NB: Kev2Go, "definitive" does not necessarily equate to newest/fastest/whatever. Rather it would be the model that defines the design. One could argue that the definitive model of Spitfire was the mk V, the mk IX or even the mk II. These are what people think of when they hear "spitfire", rather than the later griffon-engine bubble-canopied models.)

 

I digress though. Here's a question: would you rather upgrade your favourite aeroplane, or downgrade her?

 

Or, to put in another way, would it not be more sensible to start with scenarios and aircraft from the start of the war? That way, ED could release new content that would allow people see how the aircraft were refined, rather than - for lack of a better term - going backwards with new content?

Going WW2 in DCS is just an awfully bad decision IMHO. We don't even have support in the current game engine for various aspects of modern air combat (AG radar, ECM, etc.), we have only one and a half theaters, etc. To get the DCS to do props as well as CloD (for ex.) will take ages (in aspects like the DM and other).

 

And not to mention that the most important aspect of a combat simulation is to have a complete environment. What do I mean by that? For Normandy you can't have a map WITHOUT England! What's the point of simulating a P-51D until your eyes bleed, if you are going to fly it over distances of 100km and at altitudes of a few thousand feet??? If it is true that there will be no part of the British Isles modeled on the Normandy map, then I really have to question the judgment of the devs.

 

I am not going to discuss other sims, but just to put things in context, IL2 is a fantastic SIMULATION not just because it had a good FM and DM for its time, but also because you could have a combat theater of large size as well as the engine support to design and perform many different types of combat missions.

 

A large combat theater can demonstrate to a virtual pilot what is the value of altitude performance, endurance, comfort and ease of flying a plane, damage resistance and battle worthiness, etc, etc. Toggling switches in your cockpit on cold start is not the ONLY aspect of simulating real life of a combat pilot. Try flying a 3-hour-long mission in an I-16, which is unstable and has simple trim options, and then go into a P-51 and fly for 3 hours. You'll see a big difference, and your arms and legs and back will hurt much less. Of course, you can't really fly the I-16 for 3 hours since it will run out of fuel. :)

 

There are some servers running DCS which are trying to simulate some additional aspects of combat such as reconnaissance or troop transport. Well, that has been done for a very long in IL2 using mods and SEOW campaign framework. Until you get all such aspects into a sim, no matter how well the FM and the systems are modeled, you, the armchair pilot, will not EXPERIENCE any difference. You will still wonder, why was that particular plane so important? Or, this plane is awesome on paper, why did it not have more of an impact?

 

I think ED and some 3rd party devs really need to get a competent manager and make a sound long-term plan. This branching of development directions is not going to yield any finished and well-rounded products for any era.

 

Just to say that I am really sorry for all of you guys here who never played a SEOW campaign in IL2. Its a shame that the developer of SEOW is not interested in porting it to DCS since DCS really has a lot of core options which could allow a very good simulation of the battlefield. What it needs is more development effort put into various ground objects and maps. I am just afraid that simply making new planes is only good from a commercial point of view and that the core game features are more and more put aside.

 

Sorry for the rant gents... I am just so unhappy as to the state of the sims today...

Who? Never heard of him/her/them. Is this something to do with the WW2 Kickstarter that went belly-up?

 

The matter of the late-war aircraft/maps seems pretty simple to me. Either:

A) This is ED's decision, in which case it should be open to debate. Or,

B) This isn't ED's decision, in which case they don't have to stick to it

:doh: You're pretty new to this, right? Luthier is a historical old Il-2 dev, since Pacific Fighters DLC IIRC, like 12 years back. Luthier was responsible (as project chief) for the CloD failure. Luthier came in and made a kickstarter then later just run away, if we have to trust him :music_whistling: after all kickstarter money was spent.

 

A) No it wasn't ED decision but, should be open to debate… You kidding, right? :lol: When did ED nor any other third party ask you what they should work on?

 

B)No they can't, ED has to honour those people that put their money in the kickstarter, they can't just run away like Luthier did. And I have to say they are doing a terrific work with something that wasn't in their mind or schedule at first.

 

 

So well, probably schedule for WWII is pretty tight and a bit closed given the background ED inherited. I would like to see other scenarios (BoB for sure) but, if ED has any thoughts on this yet, I don't think those are very far from the period they are already working on. But mainly, that was given by Luthier choice.

 

 

Going WW2 in DCS is just an awfully bad decision IMHO. We don't even have support in the current game engine for various aspects of modern air combat (AG radar, ECM, etc.), we have only one and a half theaters, etc. To get the DCS to do props as well as CloD (for ex.) will take ages (in aspects like the DM and other).

IMHO it's the best thing happening to simulation ever. Yes, it's taking a long time (and I'm longing for the maps and new modules like the most eager of you), but once we have a whole theatre it's going to be gorgeous mate.

 

 

Just to say that I am really sorry for all of you guys here who never played a SEOW campaign in IL2.

Don't be. I've been in command of many SEOWs campaigns, I've flown even more. Thanks :smilewink:. You guys seem very far to understand how different sims are right now. Il-2 was a good thing in its time, but that will be no more, Il-2 was a very simple thing to develop compared to modern ones, they could release new aircraft like mushrooms grow because of their simplicity. That happens no more, that's it.

 

 

Anyhow, provided we get the new version, new maps possibilities and so I expect new modules and maps release would be a constant and steady. Too much delays has accumulated since 3-4 years ago, Luthier, new engine required to honour Nevada map (another bluff). Now it appears we can see the light at the end of the tunnel, at least I hope so :lol:. So back OT :D, I would be glad to see a good simulator on BoB subject, from ED itself (I wish) or a third party.

 

 

S!

Edited November 3, 2016 by Ala13_ManOWar

IIRC ED had no obligation of any kind to continue with the "Normandy project" started by Luther. I believe I read that they felt a kind of moral responsibility, because ED had some kind of 3rd-party agreement with Luther.

 

That was a very honorable thing for ED to do, but I wish they had decided on something else. I think, Luther's Kickstarter-donators may have been satisfied with a different product, than exactly what Luther had planned; maybe a BoB map and aircraft, maybe a Market-Garden and Wacht am Rhein map, maybe some section of Germany, like the Ruhr Valley, which was the target of extensive strategic bombing, but also provided the opportunity for CAS and other tactics support mission.

 

I think a really good strategy would have been to pick one fat end to the time-line and gradually work toward the other end, even if it meant not integrating the already developed P-51D. Compared to the dozen or so aircraft to populate an era-theater, it would have been a drop in the bucket to lose its use.

 

One wouldn't have to start with the Spanish CW, nor Fall Weiß - the invasion of Poland. BoB would have been a great start, which probably could include covering Fall Gelb - western Europe invasion through the low-lands. Then on to North Africa. Hell, if you wanted to avoid clashing with CoD/IL2 ED could have started with North Africa.

 

Following a time-line one could slowly add new maps and new aircraft, while retaining the use of the already developed aircraft. Old aircraft would be phased out, after being replaced over time with newer, more technically advanced aircraft. But you could still call them up for a mission representing some back-woods area of the war, where they were still in use. It would make the best use of all resources available, while developing further in a logical direction.

 

That's kind of an awesome dream, I think.

IIRC ED had no obligation of any kind to continue with the "Normandy project" started by Luther. I believe I read that they felt a kind of moral responsibility, because ED had some kind of 3rd-party agreement with Luther.

Well, yes they had the third party agreement which content isn't known by I nor anybody off ED, but anyway they honoured it. Of course that's very honourable for ED. But let's be honest, what would people say if ED wouldn't honour the kickstarter where they put their money? It never happened and still I can hear the complains from this parallel Universe mate.

 

 

I would still like to see a BoB scenario in a DCS level and I don't know we will ever see it even in ten years, but to be truthful no matter the choice ED makes always there will be people demanding a different map, theatre, planesets, whatever.

 

 

S!

I think a possibility for Mission Makers to create Rhubarb Missions. Would be good for the Spit 9 to tangle with both the 109 and Fw-190 already in the DCS Line up. Thoughts any one?

VEAO maintain Tobruk map plans (when get the Map SDK), and BoB aircraft's in the future. If ED expand Normandy map (South UK / Calais), a BoB can be plausible.

Well, yes they had the third party agreement which content isn't known by I nor anybody off ED, but anyway they honoured it. Of course that's very honourable for ED. But let's be honest, what would people say if ED wouldn't honour the kickstarter where they put their money? It never happened and still I can hear the complains from this parallel Universe mate.

 

This is true, but then again, if any of the other 3rd parties started a kickstarter to develop some other module and then went belly-up, I don't think ED would have to feel responsible in that case either.

 

The decision on the part of ED was probably a combination of trying to prevent the kickstarter investors from feeling that ED was responsible for their failed investment, but also the realization that there is a market for a WWII environment. Now everybody is happy, so that in itself was a sound decision.

 

I would still like to see a BoB scenario in a DCS level and I don't know we will ever see it even in ten years, but to be truthful no matter the choice ED makes always there will be people demanding a different map, theatre, planesets, whatever.

 

 

S!

 

Well, that's an understatement :D, but it does go to show how much interest there is.

Many people backed up the kickstarter project not despite of shoddy record Luthier had as a developer, but very much because of ED & TFC announcing their partnership/involvement from the get go, thus providing more credibility to the whole project. As a result some think it was ED's obligation to take partial responsibility for its further development - that's a very different thing compared to "they didn't have to save the fiasco, but they graciously did, praise the Lord!" mindset. Some think they actually HAD to save it, and I can see the reasons behind it.

 

Anyway, I think ED is doing a reasonably good job at it. The delays are there, but the content is coming. The question is, will the WWII scenario go beyond Normandy set indeed. As a customer, who came to DCS strictly because of WWII content, I hope it will. Would be pity to see it abandoned by the core developer, because 3rd party developers are still dependent on core features included in the game itself.

The main question is, what the partnership contract between RRG and ED entailed. I recall reading that partnership agreements with ED currently define that ED will 'assist' with technical information pertaining to creating modules for DCSW, and possible some technical know-how for developing the project, but the 3rd party is responsible for funding, executing the development, and meeting ED standards for quality and fidelity. Unless the contract with RRG was different, i see no basis for ED being responsible for RRG's operations, nor do I imagine ED would have signed a contract in which they carried financial responsibility, without having operational control. That would not be a 3rd party agreement, but rather contracting the development out to RRG, and I have never heard anything of the such.

 

If this is correct, the operational responsibility for the DCS WWII project lay completely with RRG. If investors understood something else, either they were misinformed, or they misinformed themselves. If you know of the kickstarter investors being misinformed, I would be interested in hearing about that.

 

 

BTW I actually found DCSW while looking for the heirs to Jane's AH-64D Longbow, Microprose Gunship 2000 and the such. From what I could find out, DCS Blackshark was the best there is, and I started poking around DCS. Then I discovered they have the P-51D, BF-109-K4, and Fw-190-D9 too :blink:. I suddenly so desperately wanted to fly the Mustang, I went on a binge and bought all of warbirds, plus some other stuff during a sail last year, just out of pure excitement :laugh:. All-in-all I got 10 modules for an average of €12 each. I installed the P-51D first and got my feet wet, and discovered that my old rig just wouldn't do, got a new R9-280X graphics card, which helped, but I still ended up building an entirely new PC :yes:.

 

So I've been flying the P-51D for almost 2 years now, and have the license-key for the KA-50 for just as long, but I've yet to install it once yet :D

I have the optimistic view The Normandy map will expand. Many want BoB which is great but I would also like to see Late war areas like Italy and Germany. I would love escorting the Bomber missions to Berlin with a P51 from Italy bases with all the goodness in between.

Hopefully so. However the Norman map and how it will be used will be up to the mission designer. Technically they can make a mission whereby before the bombers hit the flak fields luftwaffe aircraft have to intercept or after bombers are rtb then they are again intercepted. It's all in your imagination. I'd like to see a campaign with some escorts or with low level attacks on German targets in the callais.

 

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

Going WW2 in DCS is just an awfully bad decision IMHO. We don't even have support in the current game engine for various aspects of modern air combat (AG radar, ECM, etc.), we have only one and a half theaters, etc. To get the DCS to do props as well as CloD (for ex.) will take ages (in aspects like the DM and other).

 

Sorry for the rant gents... I am just so unhappy as to the state of the sims today...

 

not having AG was fine, as we still dont have any aircraft that rely on it anyways. Besides AG mapping it is nearly complete and will debut with the release of the F/A18C. Besides, before you complain about aspects of modern air combat please name a SIm that actually does this better than DCS whilse having comparable visuals, Physics, as much content from various aviation era or more....

 

aslo you cant compare as OLder sims from the early 2000s or even from the 90s, as with older graphics and more simplified physics, development of content was easier to create, and within a quicker timeframe. I think DCS does fine for a modern sim and is certainly much more refined than older ones.

 

Ultimately with Flight sim genre being Niche, compared to other genres or games on the market, we should be happy that a flight sim along the lines of DCS even exists.

Edited November 4, 2016 by Kev2go

I have the optimistic view The Normandy map will expand. Many want BoB which is great but I would also like to see Late war areas like Italy and Germany. I would love escorting the Bomber missions to Berlin with a P51 from Italy bases with all the goodness in between.

Definitely. From my point of view it's not only having a bit of South England for a BoB, or 1941-42 channel battles with earlier Spit and Fw190-Bf109 models, but also we need the bomber bases to dig into Europe in escorting missions in 43-44-45. It's a matter of the need for England and further Europe sooner or later :D :thumbup: .

 

 

S!

Ultimately with Flight sim genre being Niche, compared to other genres or games on the market, we should be happy that a flight sim along the lines of DCS even exists.

That's the point. +10

 

 

S!