Is the Normandy map dead?

Great update thnx

How about a few more AI German aircraft like me410 me110 ju88? They were all flying about in this time period.

Ju-88 is in work, the AI version, would like to see the others as well.

With a rework on AI gunnery and hopefully some improvements on carpet bombing plus performance?

Airplane modules in this sim are, quite simply, much more enjoyable to fly than those in the biggest modern WWII sim.

However, gameplay in this sim is, quite frankly, suck. Things like:

A WWII Normandy map that is SOOO under finished as to have land where water is and large swaths of land where it is evident development was planned and never implemented. And, for crying out loud, we have the P51D and the stupid map doesn't even include Leiston????

There are multiple problems with this unfinished project but, I can not imagine it would be that hard to remove land from the map where land should NOT exist.

Anyway, I keep coming back to this after periods of inactivity on DCS in the hopes of seeing important gameplay aspects fixed because, of the two, this is the one I WANT to play; it is the one I most want to see succeed but, alas, I fear it will not happen

ACG and BURNING SKIES are usually up and running, but hardly any players in them.

 

I don't really understand why. WW2 servers used to be quite popular back when we only had the Caucasus map.

 

We now have more WW2 content than ever, but no one flying.

I think it is because, every time a new module or map comes out, everyone rushes over to try it. I try to stick with the Mustang, Spitfire, and Dora modules all the time, figuring I don’t want to be a jack of all trades, master of none. I prefer to be as good as I can be in those three I have no intention of getting the Hornet, for instance. It would take up all of my time trying to get proficient.

The more modules and maps available, the smaller the slices of a finite pie become. So, where the WWII servers used to be popular, and the more choices people have, the fewer people will populate each server. The solution isn’t fewer choices, but more people. The conundrum is to get more people, you need newer offerings to attract them.

Some folks want to fly as many different planes as possible. I was born during WWII, and those are the planes I want to fly. Like minded people should get together, and form an Allied and a LW squadron, get on a Normandy server and maybe be able to switch from one to the other on any given day. I’m up for it.

Maybe the real question should be about why so few people are using the map? The map, itself, is good. Again, I think the answer is that every one always runs to “the new kid on the block”.

Maybe the real question should be about why so few people are using the map? The map, itself, is good. Again, I think the answer is that every one always runs to “the new kid on the block”.

How do you know how many people are using the map?

It is certainly dead in MP, hardly anyone uses it

Personally I did not buy it because of the Assets pack (which should have been a free part of the core game usable on every map)

Maybe when the dedicated server appears things will be different, time will tell

It is certainly dead in MP, hardly anyone uses it

Personally I did not buy it because of the Assets pack (which should have been a free part of the core game usable on every map)

 

 

Maybe when the dedicated server appears things will be different, time will tell

I would imagine that the proportion of DCS users that use MP is very small, so not a great indicator of how the map is used.

Correct, the Map and asset pack did on par with all other map sales, which was quite well.

I agree MP usage isn't a good indication of total usage, but sales are in the same way not a good measure. Many people might have bought it, but how many actually use it? Quite often people express some kind of regret buying it.

I guess we need some anonymously collected statistics to find out real usage.

Correct, the Map and asset pack did on par with all other map sales, which was quite well.

Interesting, would never have thought that

Question: what % of total dcs users (based on digital simulator accounts) bought Normandy ?

Could not agree more.

I am also tired of using half done maps, planes and objects while awaiting the promise from ED or developers to complete them.

Paying customers serving as beta-testers.

Normandy map is cool but performance is crap even on a beast system I have.

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

Normandy map is cool but performance is crap even on a beast system I have.

 

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

i hear that a lot and this is the only real reasons i haven't yet bought the map.

any plans for improvments in this regard?

I have a 4 year old AZUS laptop. 2 GB 860M graphics card. 8 GB's of RAMM. I did increase the amount of virtual memory. I don't overclock.

I play the Normandy map with no problem. Yeah, I do turn some stuff down. But I do have MSAA on 2X. I even run the Epsom campaign which I'm really enjoying.

Could not agree more.

I am also tired of using half done maps, planes and objects while awaiting the promise from ED or developers to complete them.

Paying customers serving as beta-testers.

Don't buy at the beta stage then. Simple, just wait for the release version if you are that bothered.

I think the real reason you don't see a lot of servers running the map is not related to map performance, which is not as good as Nevada but that DCS WWII hasn't taken off yet.

Once the Assets Pack is complete and we can make interesting missions I would expect an increase in activity. Finishing the Spitfire certainly has reignited my interest and the P-47 will really help.

There's not much modern interest in the map I think because there's a perception that it's only WWII and to an extent that is true, landing a Mig-23 is a handful on normal runways.

i hear that a lot and this is the only real reasons i haven't yet bought the map.

any plans for improvments in this regard?

Truth to be told, after the recent major update we had in June, the map finally got closer to the others framerate-wise, visuals were improved as well. "Closer" doesn't mean "equal" though and the map still performs worse. I wouldn't call it "crap", more like "mediocre" ;).

The old tree, bush and grass rendering technique on it is the most sticking out aspect, affecting both visuals and fps. We've read numerous "politician-style" statements there will be discussions with Ugra-Media Co. about possibility of implementing speedtree code in Normandy somewhere in the future after they're done with Syria map. When/if does that happen, though is anyone's guess for the time being.

Runs like crap in VR, 4K no problems

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

...

...

...

ok. thanks for the info. i think i'll wait until i got myself a new pc later this year with some performance headroom and then check in again to see, if there has been further improvment.

for the price (especially if you add in the asset pack) i want to get a well polished product!

How many air battles were fought in Syria as opposed to Normandy? They should finish the historically more important map before venturing off to a less historically important area of air combat. Just my opinion.

How many air battles were fought in Syria as opposed to Normandy? They should finish the historically more important map before venturing off to a less historically important area of air combat. Just my opinion.

There-in lies part of the problem of few people flying the Normandy (or any other) map: new toys keep coming out before the last one is completely finished. The Hornet comes out, so we’ve got to have a new map for it. Or, maybe this Syrian map will now need something new to use it for. All before Normandy is finished.

Every time we are given a new toy, the old one gets dropped. Just like when we were kids.

The number of toys is expanding faster than the number of new people coming to DCS.