DCS: Normandy WW2


You already have the TF-51D.

No excuses for not joining us for some prop pattern practice at Tangmere.

(edit: You also left off the MV-22 Osprey. You know you would buy that day 1)


Cool info! Thanks!


I’m worried I’ll enjoy it too much…like when I flew the Museum Relic campaign…


Listen just come out with us one time. You’ll have fun I promise. All the kids are flying props these days. You prime the engine, start her up, push the throttle forward and you’re off man. It’s not habit forming and your parents will never know - I PROMISE…


I say Bravo to ED. I’ve been a customer of theirs since 1995 with the old Su-27 Flanker. Now, I can fly several different aircraft, helicopters, play trouble-maker to my multiplayer friends by running ground forces and the SAMs that shoot them down and soon fly my helicopters with collidable trees making the tactics oh so much more interesting. All this change since 1995 and they are still in business giving me fun evenings pretending I’m a pilot which I could never do in real life.

And doing this all within the confines of my wallet.


Daily reminder: We have the F/A-18C Hornet, F-14A/B Tomcat and the AV-8B Harrier II all under active DCS development and most probably playable this year. I honestly think it’s a golden age of PC flight sims we’re having and it’s incredibly exciting times.

(I know a bit off-topic but having read the cloudy bits :slight_smile: just wanted to throw that out there).


@Tankerwade I set up a multiplayer mission, spawned it from the mission editor and set time acceleration at 8x. Had a couple of other aircraft spawn and fly fairly far away. I watch my main client ac for most of the time and switched, periodically, to a far away aircraft. Oh and static weather. Result: Clouds stayed but … you know … software :slight_smile: … there are a number of things that might contribute to a false result.

EDIT: 4 hours passed in game while I was watching the Ottawa/NY hockey game


Well, that’s something at least.
It matters for gameplay, which is why that is very positive for me. I don’t care about the graphics much. A great example is the reflection of the sun btw, or whether clouds look great, or if my plane casts lights or shadows on itself.
But I do care VERY much about trees and clouds and smoke columns and heavy rain blocking line of sight for the AI, and my plane being less visible for the AI because I have the sun (or its reflection if you want) behind me. And my search lights being able to light up water below me.
Those are the missing things that make me rage. (and by rage I mean: Write this post while drinking a cup of tea eating biscuit).


Actually these reactions are VERY important! I agree with @Aginor here…
If graphical fidelity is not top notch I’m ok with it, but if a helo is low over water or ground it should kick up dust or particles (as it does now luckily), but also influence smoke (no matter how simply, but it should) and well- essentially anything that could realistically reveal my position!

Leaves being blown up (again, very simply is OK!) but the helo prop wash if I’m too close to them, light reflecting off the canopies, AI reacting to aircraft lighting (maybe this happens alreayd, I’m just saying)…

These are the things I really value- above the polycount of the air intake of the 109 or the Mirage…


Been flying a bit in GTA V, the water and clouds suffer from the same issues, so hey if they can get away with it :wink:

One thing that did impress me was the way the trees reacted and swayed when you hover close to them. That was a fine feature to experience!


Hey @TheAlmightySnark , hook me up online “bogusheadbox” in game, just got back into it aswell. Trying out the ceo features.
“anyhow” back on topic.


Damn, I deleted accidentally my previous post…

Nevermind, here I go again.

Calm down guys, no one said DCS cant be enjoyed because of the reflection. Torso and I just pointed out what seems to be an issue right now or just wip. The reason I posted my request is simply because I personally have always loved that fx in real life and I thought, hey!, maybe its something they can implement without too much effort and would absolutelly rock!!. So then I realized that sun/water stuff looked a bit odd right now in Normandy, so I also pointed this out.

I guess this is the case for Torso also, we just looked into this an after so many improvements it would be a pity not to improve also this which would make a big difference in the sun-water interaction.

Maybe Sith could tell us if there is something in development for this?:slight_smile:

Hope it makes any sense now, and of course, I hope ED can look in to this and surprise us all with a better fx in this regard.:wink:


I’m glad to read we are getting new tech now and then instead of having to wait a lot of years for improvements to come. Really good news!:relaxed:


I think the cloud thing is important. As is the sun. We all prioritize which aspects of a particular sim make it most enjoyable. Some people can handle sub-par visuals but will kick a hole in the wall if an Aim-9X achieves it’s maximum mach 0.038 seconds after leaving the rail. Others want the actual environment in which he flies to look like the environment he sees out his window. Everyone has a right to point out the aspects that ruin any suspension of disbelief. But we also have a responsibility to keep our priorities in perspective. I have found that I must go to different products for different priorities: IL2 for clouds and atmospheric lighting, X-plane for terrain and man-made lighting and DCS to watch my friends blow stuff up. Taken together, it is a beautiful time to be alive.


Great post @smokinhole - the ‘like’ button just didn’t seem enough on how much I agree with that.


Kind of you to say. I just reread my post and I must admit it sounds nothing like me. It was either some damn good Mexican coffee or my account was hacked. You will recognize the Real Smokin’ by excessive whinning and the use of big words that he must google before he types them.



That’s a great pair of statements. I’d throw in that there isn’t a developer I know that doesn’t want to give everyone everything. Sure, a dynamic (realistic campaign) with globe spanning high def scenery, multiple platforms with NASA approved flight models, realistic environmental and lighting effects, and gameplay, gameplay, gameplay. I’ve been lucky enough to see the ideas batted about and see many of them take shape. Some are easy. Some are hard. Some appear easy and turn out hard. Some appear hard and turn out easy. All I know is I’m damned glad I’m a consumer and not a programmer. I’d pull my hair out.

But whenever I say something - remember, I impress easily. I spent an hour playing a mission the other night where all I did was refuel off the KC-135 and I was thrilled at how smooth and realistic the whole affair felt. An artifact of growing up flying sims that had 1FPS and where targets were literally dots on the screen.


Discussing the way clouds reflect on water that has wave modelling, in a flightsimulator, it’s a luxury we can afford these days :smiley:


But will the exhaust trails of my AIM-54s be reflected on the surface of the wave modelled water as they remove communism?

:f14: :fire: :red_circle:
:ok_hand: :100:


Speaking of, anyone notice the black smog emitted from jetliners in XP11 now? Like holy smokes the pollution! It’s not even white contrails, it’s like the black smoke that puffs out of truck exhausts in cartoons! lol

edit: first time I saw it in the sky, I thought I’d found a scenery problem, but I zoomed in and no, it was just a black smoke trail following a 737.