DCS WWII

[magnus]

 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.

[jomni]

Is this supposed to be big news?  Who's Luthier?  777?

[magnus]

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.

[Ubercat]

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.

[undercovergeek]

tis a flight sim uber

that of the black shark if im not mistaken

[Silent Disapproval Robot]

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?

[JudgeDredd]

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

[Toonces]

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.

[magnus]

  I will remember to explain myself better on future posts.

Sorry, about that.

[Nefaro]

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.

[magnus]

 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.

[Jack Nastyface]

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

[Toonces]

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. 

[Toonces]

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.

[Nefaro]

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.

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.