What's wrong with the Jug, why so little interest ?

[grafspee]

32 minutes ago, CoBlue said:

 easy to land & take-off, super nice cockpit & sounds. 

For this you need to thank the p-47 designers.

I thank ED for recreating this warbird.

[bomkata]

the main problem with WW2 stuff is the way bombs work in dcs and the lack of stuff to attack. If you look at a game like IL2 the ground attacking is far more rewarding in that than this. 

[Steel Jaw]

Good buy now?

[grafspee]

It was good to by from begging  imho.

[catchforusthefoxes]

Still need a couple of things to be fixed on the 3D model aspect, internally and externally.
 

they fixed the prime pump labeling though

Edited June 22, 2021 by catchforusthefoxes

[Brigg]

agreed, i was always gonna be a day 1 buy for me whatever state it was released in. 

 

yeah it was fixed in the last update and hasd already caught me out a few times 

Edited June 22, 2021 by Brigg

[Steel Jaw]

On 9/12/2020 at 8:34 AM, Reflected said:

I’m making a VERY serious campaign for it

It just takes time.

 

 

Got it and its EXCELLENT, well done.

[S. Low]

Im a younger dude and I like the modern stuff, and also WW1 / WW2 stuff. I also know a lot of 20-30 year old simmers who are in to ww1 ww1/ ww2. Why isn’t the ww2 scene as big here? Personally I like dcs more than all other sims. But the headache with cost of entry for dcs ww2, and poor spotting, and lack of aircraft diversity, are all problematic given the competition. There’s also a lot of simmers out there who want nothing to do with clickable cockpits and full systems modeling. 

Also, p47 is on my wishlist. I want to get into growling sidewinder’s multiplayer mission when it releases 

[Mogster]

2 hours ago, S. Low said:

Im a younger dude and I like the modern stuff, and also WW1 / WW2 stuff. I also know a lot of 20-30 year old simmers who are in to ww1 ww1/ ww2. Why isn’t the ww2 scene as big here? Personally I like dcs more than all other sims. But the headache with cost of entry for dcs ww2, and poor spotting, and lack of aircraft diversity, are all problematic given the competition. There’s also a lot of simmers out there who want nothing to do with clickable cockpits and full systems modeling. 

Also, p47 is on my wishlist. I want to get into growling sidewinder’s multiplayer mission when it releases 

Starting as EDs Su 27 Flanker series 25 years ago DCS has always been about modern jets. DCS WW2 is a relatively new departure as is modelling WW2 aircraft to the level ED are doing. As it’s a relatively new niche the business model is a bit up in the air also, I’m not sure EDs bare bones, “here’s your plane, go fly it” approach seems as reasonable for WW2 as it does for modern avionics heavy jets. Also it takes time to draw players away from established products like IL2 46, IL2 BOS and MSFS, flight simmers tend to be older players who are set in their ways… 

[S. Low]

7 hours ago, Mogster said:

Starting as EDs Su 27 Flanker series 25 years ago DCS has always been about modern jets. DCS WW2 is a relatively new departure as is modelling WW2 aircraft to the level ED are doing. As it’s a relatively new niche the business model is a bit up in the air also, I’m not sure EDs bare bones, “here’s your plane, go fly it” approach seems as reasonable for WW2 as it does for modern avionics heavy jets. Also it takes time to draw players away from established products like IL2 46, IL2 BOS and MSFS, flight simmers tend to be older players who are set in their ways… 

I meant to quote a specific post claiming that DCS WW2 wasn't as big becuase young guys just wanna fly the fast modern jets or something. I think DCS WW2 has an impressive foundation, it just needs a little more and it'lll be golden. I really hope one day they also do a WW1 package like Flaming Cliffs 3. 

[WarbossPetross]

10 часов назад, Mogster сказал:

Starting as EDs Su 27 Flanker series 25 years ago DCS has always been about modern jets. DCS WW2 is a relatively new departure as is modelling WW2 aircraft to the level ED are doing. As it’s a relatively new niche the business model is a bit up in the air also, I’m not sure EDs bare bones, “here’s your plane, go fly it” approach seems as reasonable for WW2 as it does for modern avionics heavy jets. Also it takes time to draw players away from established products like IL2 46, IL2 BOS and MSFS, flight simmers tend to be older players who are set in their ways… 

There you go. With the two other combat sims DCS is frequently measured against you get procedurally generated campaigns that simulate an actual war. That adds a lot of immersion. In DCS you either need to bust your chops to make an interesting mission full of exciting action or wait for someone else to do it for you. That's probably the biggest turn-off in DCS for me. I know that ED's developing a dynamic campaign mechanism of their own, but I will judge it when I see it.

[Nealius]

I don't find any of the WW2 modules to be "bare bones." In fact, the only "bare bones" modules at the moment are the Supercarrier and Yak-52. The Viper was bare bones for a period of time, but no other modules have been. 

On 8/19/2021 at 4:02 PM, WarbossPetross said:

draw players away from established products like IL2 46, IL2 BOS and MSFS, flight simmers tend to be older players who are set in their ways… 

 

This is the more relevant claim. Particularly the last bit if you think about how much endless tweaking it takes for DCS to work properly, and the poor state of AI. The older crowd is not likely to be flying online PvP. 

Edited August 26, 2021 by Nealius

[grafspee]

45 minutes ago, Nealius said:

I don't find any of the WW2 modules to be "bare bones." In fact, the only "bare bones" modules at the moment are the Supercarrier and Yak-52. The Viper was bare bones for a period of time, but no other modules have been. 

 

This is the more relevant claim. Particularly the last bit if you think about how much endless tweaking it takes for DCS to work properly, and the poor state of AI. The older crowd is not likely to be flying online PvP. 

 

Actual flying PVP is much easier, PvE in DCS not doing well mainly because AI.

[Nealius]

Precisely. The older crowd is more likely to want single player, of which other titles like IL2 give a much better experience due to AI. 

[71st_AH Rob]

9 hours ago, Nealius said:

This is the more relevant claim. Particularly the last bit if you think about how much endless tweaking it takes for DCS to work properly, and the poor state of AI. The older crowd is not likely to be flying online PvP.

 

I fly both, my squadron is firmly divided and I am now just getting some traction on getting interest growing again in DCS.  I find the AI in DCS to be far superior to iL2.  En aircraft make relatively realistic decisions on tactics, engagement and disengaging when the odds are bad. Many people conflate the SFM that the AI use with poor AI in DCS while in iL2 they use the same FM as players, which is pretty poor all around compared to DCS. AI fighters in iL2 however seem to have only one defensive/offensive tactic, the Luffberry and once engaged they only disengage when they reach bingo fuel or destroy all en a/c. Hopefully ED can find a way to let the AI use the PFM with minimal impact on performance.

 

I'm not sure what form the endless tweaking is that you are referring to.

 

Control settings do need to be set up for each a/c and this is a simple and refreshing change from iL2.  For DCS I find it quick and easy to set up once when I get a new module and forget about it while in iL2 I am constantly remapping control settings whenever I fly a different a/c, it drives me crazy and I can't for the life of me figure out why they abandoned the really slick control settings they had in RoF where each a/c idiosyncrasies could be catered for.  Now if I am fly a Spitfire, then next flight our squad is going to fly P-47, I just leave and fly DCS, it's easier.  Even worse if I switch to FC, which is where my controls are set now and for the next couple of months at least.

 

As for graphics yes, we are all in a constant pursuit of better frames and spotting, particularly those in VR it seems but I find the same in iL2 where for six months I could not play at all because of the constant screen tearing and artifacts no matter what settings. 

 

As for the editor, I am my squadrons primary mission maker and I am constantly tweaking missions and completely frustrated with the need to update missions whenever we have an update to DCS. The situation is much better now with the less frequent updates but still frustrating since we now all play on OB instead of stable so I still have a limited window where a mission may be viable. I can't express how frustrated I was when the first Normandy map update came out a couple of years ago after spending a hundred or more hours of my free time building and testing a mission, scheduling it for a Sunday and to have an update that Friday break it. As for the iL2 mission editor, I don't know, after years of working the RoF editor, when I saw the iL2 one I just said no, not going through any more of that frustration and I only build missions with an external tool.  We can only hope to get a 3D mission builder like ArmA III someday for DCS and anything better than the status quo for iL2. 

 

So, those three areas I find do take a frustrating amount of tweaking, however I find the same in iL2.

 

That is quite the blanket statement about the "older crowd". Our squad is older and most active online players are in thier 50-60s.  Most of the members who are not flying online in MP are also no longer flying SP either due to cataracts, back problems, dementia etc. 

 

Here's another blanket statement FWIW, most older players have been flight simming for years and did not come from War Thunder et al. They therefore have an unreasonable expectation that when they purchase a simulation it will be complete with the environment including map, ground assets, OPFOR and friendly a/c that are appropriate for the environment and time frame a la CLoD, iL2, Aces Over Europe etc. 

 

 

[71st_AH Rob]

I really love the potential of DCS and find it frustrating at the same time. The frustration comes not from the software itself, the tweaking and complexity of setup is actually less in DCS, but from inexplicable decisions by ED on things like:

 

a seperate paid assets pack for WWII;

 

not being able to fly online on all maps; 

 

not being able to use the editor in a stand alone mode or as part of the DServer so I need to have a full version of DCS on my server anyway to make some mission update without needing to download and upload missions to my gaming PC from the remote server;

 

Having to deal with a half assed DServer instead of the slick DSever that iL2 has;

 

no way to efficiently deal with mods, even ArmA has a decent method dealing with the Steam Workshop;

 

lack of transparency in updates and realistic management of expectations;

 

I was going to say an effective bug tracker, but really any public bug tracker would be a great benefit. 

 

These things I feel are strangling DCS WWII at large, not just stifling interest in the P-47.  Some of them are certainly keeping about half the active members of my squadron out of DCS  and limiting our mission building. Lots of thanks to Storm of War for maintaining a great WWII environment for us to fly online.

[Nealius]

9 hours ago, 71st_AH Rob said:

Here's another blanket statement FWIW, most older players have been flight simming for years and did not come from War Thunder et al. They therefore have an unreasonable expectation that when they purchase a simulation it will be complete with the environment including map, ground assets, OPFOR and friendly a/c that are appropriate for the environment and time frame a la CLoD, iL2, Aces Over Europe etc. 

 

I wouldn't say that's a blanket statement, necessarily. That's an unrefuted fact of product quality going downhill over the past 15 years. Nearly everything these days is riddled with early access, DLC, and planned obsolescence. Anyone born before 2010, if they haven't been living under a rock, knows this.

Edited August 27, 2021 by Nealius

[Mogster]

19 hours ago, Nealius said:

 

I wouldn't say that's a blanket statement, necessarily. That's an unrefuted fact of product quality going downhill over the past 15 years. Nearly everything these days is riddled with early access, DLC, and planned obsolescence. Anyone born before 2010, if they haven't been living under a rock, knows this.

 

The level of graphics, flight physics and systems modelling is stratospheric compared to 15 years ago though.
 

If you want a product with 10 flyables and 30 AI for £30 I’m sure it could be done in 2021 but not with the level of simulation detail that’s present in DCS products. One thing that’s noticeable abut the DCS warbirds is how different the FMs are, there’s no cookie cutter creations with a few values changed here.

[Nealius]

1 hour ago, Mogster said:

The level of graphics, flight physics and systems modelling is stratospheric compared to 15 years ago though.
 

If you want a product with 10 flyables and 30 AI for £30 I’m sure it could be done in 2021 but not with the level of simulation detail that’s present in DCS products. One thing that’s noticeable abut the DCS warbirds is how different the FMs are, there’s no cookie cutter creations with a few values changed here.

 

None of that is relevent to EA release states (which have improved), or product sustainment (which has not improved). I'm specifically talking about releasing unfinished products for finished-price point, being set aside to develop the next hot-ticket item for lengthy periods of time, and the fact that we don't actually own the license to the module(s) we buy. But that's a different discussion for a different thread. 

[grafspee]

@Nealius I buy stuff in EA so often with discount, like now 30% off, but i have similar opinion on this topic, after releasing Mosquito, i would love to see ED zipping up all WW2 modules, like missing versions, features as well as on going bugs, i must say that ww2 situation in DCS become a little messy.

Edited August 30, 2021 by grafspee

[Torri]

On 8/31/2021 at 4:06 AM, gortex said:

Because you simply can't see anything in DCS without labels.  That will stop WW2 in its tracks until something is done.

Strongly disagree, I feel spotting in DCS is over exaggerated, even too easy at times.
I think the discrepancy of opinions comes from the different monitor resolutions being used.
I'm on 2560x1080, and I can easily spot a single aircraft at up to 30nm distance, a distance which is defined as "Beyond Visual Range" in modern terms.

[FlyingTaco21]

The big stumbling block for world War ii is theack of a really strong ai unit library can't even begin to think about dynamic campaigns and such until you have more ai units to build them with. Even thr more modern units like the B-52 look meh are single variants... what is going to happen when the vietnam aircraft start to show up and there are only early 90s 52s around?  I Would pay for an extended unit library at this point though really its a foundational  thing. 

[Nealius]

Spotting isn't "good" or "bad," it's simply messed up. On a flat screen your spotting abiliity is dependent on your FOV. In VR, in my case Quest 2, I can initially spot aircraft way further out than I should be able to, then as they get closer they suddenly vanish before appearing at 0.5nm again. 

[Callsign112]

Just picked this up and really enjoying it. What a gorgeous model!

[badger7966]

Ive just bought it along with the Channel,WWII assets pack,Normandy,BF109,FW190A8 and D9........but Im planning on learning this first.

Always loved it.....especially in ground attack.

Its my first WWII module and its bloody difficult to take it off.....sometimes it pulls to the left and bang into the ground.....or house !!!

A lot of WWII servers dont allow for external view ....which as Im learning I find very helpful...which is a shame.

Is there a simple way to navigate in the Jug /