Luthier is out and ED has picked up the ball.
They gave a release timeline for the 190 D as August 2014, with others to follow.
Some people are looking for a Kickstarter refund.
Is this supposed to be big news? Who's Luthier? 777?
He was the head on pacific Fighters and then CLOD.
It means there is no more RRG studios and they are, or most of them, working straight for ED.
It also means that perhaps, the planes and games we payed for are now going to be coming.
What is DCS WW2 so I can know what you're talking about? Is there a link? All I can think of are the Decisive Campaign (system?) games Warsaw to Paris and Case Blue, which implies in my head that they are Kickstarting a whole series.
tis a flight sim uber
that of the black shark if im not mistaken
I'll believe it when I see it but as it stands now, glaciers are outpacing DCS's development speed. Still just P-51s fighting each other in the skies over Georgia, isn't it?
Not interested in the slightest in WWII flight simming really. Especially not in DCS. DCS for me is modern aircraft - not WWII stuff.
Never say never, but I doubt very much if I'll be buying into this one. I'm waiting very, very patiently for the Mig-21
This was explained sort of poorly in the OP (sorry Magnus!). If you don't follow flight simming then the significance of this might be lost on you.
Several months ago, Luthier, the creator of Pacific Fighters and the fiasco that was Cliffs of Dover, announced a Kickstarter campaign to fund "DCS: WW2" to integrate with DCS (Digital Combat Simulator, eg. Flaming Cliffs, Blackshark, A-10, etc.). This sim was to be in direct competition with IL-2: Stalingrad being developed by 777 Studios (Rise of Flight).
For those of you that weren't following, Cliffs of Dover was promised to be this super revolutionary Battle of Britain flight simulator. It was released in a horribly bugged state, and also incomplete. Many promised features were not included, and those that were included didn't work. And, rather than fix it, Luthier and his team just bailed on the project- basically said, "This is our last patch, sorry, but it's not financially viable for us to continue working on this project anymore."
Obviously he burned a lot of political capital with the flight sim community with this, so when he announced a kickstarter for DCS:WW2 people were understandably skeptical. He put together a video to help promote the kickstarter and it was such a mess that people who had already pledged were like, "uh oh..." and the rest of us were like, ;D at the idiots that pledged. Fortunately for him he put together a second, much better video, but then there was a continuous restructuring of the pledging goal reward levels. It was a mess.
At any rate, a few months after the first kickstarter he approached the community to see what it would take for those that hadn't backed to support a second kickstarter. And now, finally, we get word from Eagle Dynamics (creator of DCS) that Luthier is no longer part of the project and that ED has taken over production of DCS:WW2. Basically, the guy that burned the flight sim community with CLoD burned the community AGAIN with this DCS:WW2.
The folks that pledged are understandably concerned if and what they're going to see for their pledge. And, there is a worry in the community that any shift of DCS development focus to something other than normal DCS will slow the glacial pace of development even more.
I might have some of this wrong, but this should be pretty close to correct.
I'm a big fan of what DCS is attempting, but the way they are going about it is...it's like a 12-year old is directing this mess. They could have something really amazing if they could just develop a focus and vision, and then build towards it rather than this potpourri of modules in the same tired theater.
I will remember to explain myself better on future posts.
Sorry, about that.
Quote from: JudgeDredd on June 08, 2014, 12:27:45 PM
Not interested in the slightest in WWII flight simming really. Especially not in DCS. DCS for me is modern aircraft - not WWII stuff.
Never say never, but I doubt very much if I'll be buying into this one. I'm waiting very, very patiently for the Mig-21
While I'm not opposed to WW2 flight sims, I certainly prefer DCS to stop screwing around with such disjointed efforts and start focusing on a specific period of modern aircraft. I, too, want a MiG-21 but that will also introduce the issue of not having a proper match-up once again regarding eras. I mean.. are they then gonna promise an F-4 to go with the -21 at some point? I don't want to be flying an outdated MiG-21 against F-15s. It's the same mess caused by their release of a lone P-51 sim (never bought it), even though it's still vaguely feasible in relation to their others (unlike the Mustang) at the moment. At least it's a jet.
Yes, it would be interesting to have a flyable MiG-21 in DCS but I'm not sure if the current virtual DCS world would be very conducive to it unless they do a lot of work creating a new cold war setting for it. Even then, multi-player would suffer from not having appropriate flyables for opponents.
Eagle Dynamics who create and publish numerous modern flight simulations, does have an problem and I will explain.
The are using numerous 3rd party designers for planes to work in their own Digital Combat Simulator world and add ons like Digital combat Simulator World War II.
When a third party designer drops the ball it is perhaps not rational, but normal for the consumer to put some blame on Eagle Dynamics.
So in this instance they decided to pick up the dropped ball from RRG ( creator of DCS WWII ) and complete the planes etc..
Does this mean in the future that they will also pick up after any of the other 3rd party designers work?
The whole reason they went with 3rd parties was because they said they had no money to flesh out their game world.
I understand that DCS wants to create these high-fidelity sims, but are the planes too difficult for your average or even above-average flight-sim fan? How difficult is it to fly a P-51 in DCS than in say IL-2? I recall seeing some very long youtube videos on weapons mgmt etc for A-10, and, while I was certainly impressed by the fidelity of the game, I was also thinking "bugger...that looks way to difficult".
Isn't there a market for a "detailed flight sim with adjustable AI, flight and damage model, environment, AA, etc variables"? I loved playing Falcon 3, but I NEVER was able to play it on the AA at highest settings as it was too difficult. Can't this be done again?
And I know I sound like a broken record, but...why not Korea instead of WWII?
Jack Nastyface
What happens with DCS:WW2 should have been independent of DCS in general because it was being developed 3rd party. In theory it doesn't really require any of ED's DCS resources. I am not sure what the case is now...supposedly the team minus Luthier now works for ED so I suppose it's just a change in management. Still, ED/DCS gets hit with some shrapnel because it has the DCS label on it.
I certainly have no issue with ED farming out the development of modules to 3rd parties in order to free up its own resources. The problem, as mentioned above, is that there doesn't seem to be any overall goal to make a fun game.
In fact, on Thursday or Friday I actually booted up DCS for the first time in a very long time. I went multiplayer with the intent of doing some Combined Arms gaming. First off, there are very few populated servers, meaning more than 2 or 3 people online. Unless I'm missing something. Several of the servers are also password protected. Ultimately I settled on Eno's Firehouse since I recognize the name from SimHQ. There was only one other guy on the server. The mission was, as best I can describe it, sort of like a Skyrim quest. First you had to take a helicopter and move supplies from point A to point B. Then you had to do something else. And then there was some third step. And so on.
And to top it all off, the vehicles were not human-playable in the mission at any rate.
I give credit to the mission designers for doing their best to come up with innovative ways to employ all this stuff in DCS. But, I find it so bloody ironic that so much time and energy is expended in striving for in-cockpit realism with the A-10, etc., but yet at the gameplay level it is so...gamey. I'm biased because I'm an admitted Falcon fanboy, but at least Falcon tries to put you in an immersive, realistic environment. Sure, it fails on many levels, but it tries. DCS just fails.
I am frustrated because I see so much potential. I can almost sense the game I want to play in DCS if they would just focus a bit.
For example, the big new terrain is going to be Nevada with the EDGE engine. So, how does a MiG-21 fit into Nevada exactly? What I would do is say, "Hey guys, we have Nevada coming out. Nellis is in Nevada. Fallon is in Nevada. Let's focus on getting some 3rd party guys to build us jets that fit in this environment. We don't need a BAE Hawk. What we need is a couple of A-4 models. We don't need a MiG-21. We need a solid F-5 and T-38. We don't need an AFM for the Su-27. We need a DCS: F-15." And so on. You build a solid fighter, a solid attack (which you have), and a couple of solid adversary aircraft, and you can almost start to see the potential.
I'd love to be a fly on the wall and listen to their long-term goal discussions...if they even have them.
Jack,
I don't see the point of a lite sim like you describe. Strike Fighters has that completely locked up.
You can scale down DCS to practically arcade-like if that is your preference as well.
I don't think DCS being "too hardcore" is a problem at all, with respect to sales. I don't think the community is looking for lighter sims, frankly.
Quote from: Toonces on June 08, 2014, 03:58:13 PM
What happens with DCS:WW2 should have been independent of DCS in general because it was being developed 3rd party. In theory it doesn't really require any of ED's DCS resources. I am not sure what the case is now...supposedly the team minus Luthier now works for ED so I suppose it's just a change in management. Still, ED/DCS gets hit with some shrapnel because it has the DCS label on it.
I certainly have no issue with ED farming out the development of modules to 3rd parties in order to free up its own resources. The problem, as mentioned above, is that there doesn't seem to be any overall goal to make a fun game.
In fact, on Thursday or Friday I actually booted up DCS for the first time in a very long time. I went multiplayer with the intent of doing some Combined Arms gaming. First off, there are very few populated servers, meaning more than 2 or 3 people online. Unless I'm missing something. Several of the servers are also password protected. Ultimately I settled on Eno's Firehouse since I recognize the name from SimHQ. There was only one other guy on the server. The mission was, as best I can describe it, sort of like a Skyrim quest. First you had to take a helicopter and move supplies from point A to point B. Then you had to do something else. And then there was some third step. And so on.
And to top it all off, the vehicles were not human-playable in the mission at any rate.
I give credit to the mission designers for doing their best to come up with innovative ways to employ all this stuff in DCS. But, I find it so bloody ironic that so much time and energy is expended in striving for in-cockpit realism with the A-10, etc., but yet at the gameplay level it is so...gamey. I'm biased because I'm an admitted Falcon fanboy, but at least Falcon tries to put you in an immersive, realistic environment. Sure, it fails on many levels, but it tries. DCS just fails.
I am frustrated because I see so much potential. I can almost sense the game I want to play in DCS if they would just focus a bit.
I agree that DCS needs to focus more on the sim environment more than the cockpit fidelity. Needs it badly.
Quote
For example, the big new terrain is going to be Nevada with the EDGE engine. So, how does a MiG-21 fit into Nevada exactly? What I would do is say, "Hey guys, we have Nevada coming out. Nellis is in Nevada. Fallon is in Nevada. Let's focus on getting some 3rd party guys to build us jets that fit in this environment. We don't need a BAE Hawk. What we need is a couple of A-4 models. We don't need a MiG-21. We need a solid F-5 and T-38. We don't need an AFM for the Su-27. We need a DCS: F-15." And so on. You build a solid fighter, a solid attack (which you have), and a couple of solid adversary aircraft, and you can almost start to see the potential.
I'd love to be a fly on the wall and listen to their long-term goal discussions...if they even have them.
I suppose a MiG-21 model for Nevada is historically feasible since an Aggressor squadron actually had, and used, some MiG-21s in the late 80s there. It was quite secret at the time but word eventually got out. However, I wouldn't rate simulated training as a fun combat flight sim experience. And this is a facet where the DCS stable could use a lot of improvement.
I'm quite happy with the
Flaming Cliffs 3 level of avionics if we could just get some good campaign & mission content that mimics a wartime environment.
Quote from: Nefaro on June 08, 2014, 06:07:00 PM
I suppose a MiG-21 model for Nevada is historically feasible since an Aggressor squadron actually had, and used, some MiG-21s in the late 80s there. It was quite secret at the time but word eventually got out.
You may be interested in this book: Red Eagles: America's secret MiGs (http://www.amazon.com/Red-Eagles-Americas-General-Aviation/dp/1846039703). I picked it up for my kindle a while back.
Got confused with DCS WW2 and IL2.
So DCS got the old IL2 devs and IL2 got the ROF devs.
^ LOL. Yes, I guess so!
Wasn't there another original IL2 dev alongside Ilya (Luthier) who started the kickstarter together ?
I am not talking about Oleg Maddox, cause AFAIK he isn't involved in sim development anymore.
Oh well. Doesn't matter I suppose. I agree with your view on this Toonces. And I hope ED will show some focus in the near future and make DCS into a wholistic experience.
Perhaps a historical part and a modern-ish part. Would be nice.
I had no clue things were going pear shaped with DCS WWII. Certainly good news to hear ED has pledged to get it up and flying!
I have to think that WWII aircraft given the same hi-fi treatment as DCS A-10 and Blackshark...done right...is likely to be popular with simmers. Fingers crossed...
@Toonces, et alias,
Having the option of "turning down" the fidelity, etc, definately makes the DCS platform much more compelling. What I was suggesting is that games like the ThirdWire sims - even on most difficult setting - aren't that difficult or are a little bit "gamey", whereas some of the hardcore in-depth sims can be just a little bit over-whelming. As I mention, IMHO flying Falcon 3.0 and 4.0 with the SAM / AAA setting on most difficult was, well, most difficult. Having adjustable difficulty levels also helps with the learning curve, and also helps with those of us who are "controller challenged". For example, I fly with all settings on "realistic" for IL-2, but I allow some of the "external plane and enemy views" patrtially because I don't have a trackIR system, and also because I like looking out at some damage I have caused to enemy planes. Hardcore simmers may criticize this as going "lite", but I enjoy the flexibility that is provided by the multitude of difficulty / realsim settings options. I know everyone is different, and that some folks want to flick all 30 switches necessary to start up an A-10, but I would just like to hit maybe three or four keys to get off the ground.
Quote from: Rekim on June 09, 2014, 10:49:20 PM
I had no clue things were going pear shaped with DCS WWII. Certainly good news to hear ED has pledged to get it up and flying!
I have to think that WWII aircraft given the same hi-fi treatment as DCS A-10 and Blackshark...done right...is likely to be popular with simmers. Fingers crossed...
I wouldn't say it's all gone to hell with DCS, but for having such a thing as "DCS World" they are all over the place. Modern then WW2 then Cold War equipment.. and some ground forces that is uncharacteristically arcade to mix in with the lot? Scattered.
Quote from: Nefaro on June 10, 2014, 04:18:14 AM
I wouldn't say it's all gone to hell with DCS, but for having such a thing as "DCS World" they are all over the place. Modern then WW2 then Cold War equipment.. and some ground forces that is uncharacteristically arcade to mix in with the lot? Scattered.
It sounds like the initial attempt to develop DCS WWII was completely FUBAR'd though. Apparently RRG burned through all of the KS funds without managing to complete a single aircraft...not to mention all of the physical goods that they were on the hook for O0
http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=125454
Quote from: Rekim on June 11, 2014, 08:37:26 PM
Quote from: Nefaro on June 10, 2014, 04:18:14 AM
I wouldn't say it's all gone to hell with DCS, but for having such a thing as "DCS World" they are all over the place. Modern then WW2 then Cold War equipment.. and some ground forces that is uncharacteristically arcade to mix in with the lot? Scattered.
It sounds like the initial attempt to develop DCS WWII was completely FUBAR'd though. Apparently RRG burned through all of the KS funds without managing to complete a single aircraft...not to mention all of the physical goods that they were on the hook for O0
http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=125454
Well.. that
does sound rather FUBAR. If I were looking forward to the DCS WW2 releases, I'd be more concerned. But I'm not. I associate them with more modern stuff, and that's what I want to see more of. I don't think they ever should've left the modern arena for this half-baked side show.
Of course, this whole mess has probably just thrown a wrench directly into the future development schedule of the stuff I'm looking forward to, so everybody loses. >:(
Quote from: Nefaro on June 12, 2014, 12:17:18 AM
Of course, this whole mess has probably just thrown a wrench directly into the future development schedule of the stuff I'm looking forward to, so everybody loses. >:(
I hope you're wrong on this, but my gut feeling says you're probably right.
Quote from: JudgeDredd on June 08, 2014, 12:27:45 PM
Not interested in the slightest in WWII flight simming really. Especially not in DCS. DCS for me is modern aircraft - not WWII stuff.
Never say never, but I doubt very much if I'll be buying into this one. I'm waiting very, very patiently for the Mig-21
Yep. That's why I originally got some DCS stuff off steam about a year ago, but now my air sim time is probably going to be BoS for the next few years.
I don't know if you guys have been following the utter abortion this has become, but this thread makes for some entertaining reading. The one on the DCS forums is even better.
http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3978452/1
Quote from: Toonces on July 08, 2014, 09:48:57 PM
I don't know if you guys have been following the utter abortion this has become, but this thread makes for some entertaining reading. The one on the DCS forums is even better.
http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3978452/1
I predicted the whole WW2 jaunt a worthless endeavor back when they released the P-51. But people still wanted to continue the charade.
Meanwhile, all the cool modern shit, and improvements that should be made to DCS World overall, has fallen off due to this crap. They split their forces and got caught with their pants down. :(
Quote from: Nefaro on July 08, 2014, 10:21:43 PM
Quote from: Toonces on July 08, 2014, 09:48:57 PM
I don't know if you guys have been following the utter abortion this has become, but this thread makes for some entertaining reading. The one on the DCS forums is even better.
http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3978452/1
I predicted the whole WW2 jaunt a worthless endeavor back when they released the P-51. But people still wanted to continue the charade.
Meanwhile, all the cool modern shit, and improvements that should be made to DCS World overall, has fallen off due to this crap. They split their forces and got caught with their pants down. :(
I bought the P-51 purely and utterly to support their development. I had zero interest in flying it. I know that sounds daft - but DCS were showing signs of giving me something I could get my teeth into - so the price was insignificant for the expected results - imo.
However - had I EVER known that my P-51 purchase may have skewed them to thinking that a WWII set of aircraft was a good idea, I'd have stayed well clear!
I didn't get the P-51 because I just have no interest in flying it in DCSW right now.
I didn't kickstart the WW2 thing. I'll be honest, I didn't have much faith it was going to go anywhere. Having said that, DCS does appear to be going all-in with this stuff. I still don't think DCS:WW2 is going to be a commercial success that they think it is. Maybe it will...maybe it will. I certainly wouldn't gamble my money on it though.
They might...might...be able to pull it off if they can create a substantial amount of modules, a decent map, and can capture the MP crowd...DCS just isn't compelling (to me) for SP. But you're talking oodles of development time here. Like years.
And the same goes for DCS:W as well. I have no evidence to back up this assertion. But I think there is a good chance DCS:W just isn't going to make it to where they want to go. MiG-21 is going to get finished, and I do think EDGE and Nevada are going to come out eventually. But what next is what the big question mark is. They continue to milk these advanced flight models and improved cockpit textures for the tired FC3 aircraft, but at the expense of moving on F/A-18. At the rate at which they are developing new aircraft and maps, it is going to be years down the road before we start to see a realization of their vision. Even with the 3rd party development, this whole deal lacks cohesiveness.
I think I'm not alone and starting to adopt a wait-and-see attitude with DCS. Will I buy the new modules as they come out? I don't know. I haven't even installed Huey or Mi-8...and I've got about 5 minutes of stick time in A-10. Do I need new modules? Some people are going to buy whatever gets released. But I think, especially with WW2, that others are going to start holding out for their favorites...especially at $50 a pop.
I dunno. I'm not a game developer, so I don't really know how the business end works. Fortunately for DCS there isn't a lot of competition for the modern flight sim market (or this would never work).
I don't have much faith in DCS:WW2. I'd be very wary of buying into it on a per-module basis until it's a lot closer to being fleshed out. It wouldn't surprise me a bit if we get 3 planes in and DCS:WW2 goes TU.
Having said all that, I don't know how I'm going to be able to resist pickup up MiG-21 when it comes out. And Nevada. Maybe they're smarter than me after all. ::)
Well that is true for me. I'll buy the Mig-21 and then I think I'll just have to hold out for more content. It needs fleshing out - or I'm going to end up with the flight sim equivalent of Race Room Experience!
A small caveat though - when I think of DCS world, WWII aircraft and modern aircraft - does anyone else think of that old Amiga game - the one where you could have a spitfire against a Tomcat etc?
I really can't remember if it was very good or not - but the idea interests me. Whomever has P-51 and the Dora and any others - I presume they can join an server and fly it against....well, anything? A-10, Huey, BS?
If so - I could well be tempted - but I'd need to know the quality of such gaming. For example would a Sidewinder or AMRAAM be able to track and kill a P-51 - and if so is there anything the P-51 can do to avoid it (like better turning circle or something)? Because there would be no point in flying the WWII stuff against modern kit if it's just a bloodbath
In Strike Fighters 2, Operation Kadesh DLC, you can take Isreaeli P-51s against Egyptian Meteors.
This blows. I pledged to get all flyable A/C in DCS WW2 which was at least 5 at the time. Now I get only two?!?
I wonder if there is a way I can dispute my pledge?
Quote from: jomni on July 09, 2014, 04:23:38 AM
In Strike Fighters 2, Operation Kadesh DLC, you can take Isreaeli P-51s against Egyptian Meteors.
Strikefighters2 is an awesome game. I stopped playing because all I was doing was adding more and more mods...which are wonderful, but I thought I should see what else was around. Probably a mistake. But I will get the DCS Mig21 when it comes out.
DCS World is what needs improvement. Not the WW2 flight of fancy they've pursued.
I'm sure most of us can agree that their single-player "world" could use numerous improvements and added features. Instead we're seeing much of their effort being put towards this mess. It's saddening.
Quote from: Staggerwing on July 09, 2014, 05:13:18 AM
This blows. I pledged to get all flyable A/C in DCS WW2 which was at least 5 at the time. Now I get only two?!?
I wonder if there is a way I can dispute my pledge?
What's the Kickstarter policy on reward changing?
I don't know how I'm going to be able to keep myself from throwing money at the screen when stuff like this comes out, though:
(https://scontent-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfa1/t31.0-8/10454270_788525364502687_7743191516079743435_o.png)
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/t31.0-8/10014898_687920611253529_4416873764755131764_o.jpg)
Quote from: Toonces on July 09, 2014, 09:32:31 PM
I don't know how I'm going to be able to keep myself from throwing money at the screen when stuff like this comes out, though:
If they would return all their focus back, away from this WW2 nonsense, then it'd be a good start.
I really don't mind the FC3 modelling. I actually prefer it in most cases. I'd much rather see the simulated "world" get more attention, especially since they're still creating a variety of aircraft from different eras and we're still stuck in Georgia with one-off randomized missions that are missing some immersion. I don't think there are large multi-player games running very often, are there? So the single-player needs help. Not the Mustangs.
Quote from: Staggerwing on July 09, 2014, 05:13:18 AM
This blows. I pledged to get all flyable A/C in DCS WW2 which was at least 5 at the time. Now I get only two?!?
I wonder if there is a way I can dispute my pledge?
I'm disapointed too by this outcome too. My A/C have been reduced from 6 --> 4. No biggy. Was really looking forward to the printed manual for the Spitfire and the Strategy Guide though.
AFAIK the original kickstarter project went bankrupt...the company now defunct...so zero chance for refunds or dispute your pledge with.