DCS WWII Poll

I’m feeling a bit contrarian today, as our coffee grinder stopped working and we’re out of espresso :zombie:. I’m currently chewing a raw bean and was wondering what the Mudspike zeitgeist thinks about the following question…

Do you think DCS should be investing in the WWII period (aircraft, maps, campaigns etc)?

  • Yes
  • No

0 voters

If you want to further explain your vote or position, please use the topic below. Thanks!

3 Likes

As a server host of a WWII mission I may be biased but I have been enjoying the WWII aircraft quite a lot despite the quirks of the AI and what not.

To startup and fly a Spitfire, Mustang, 109, or one of the 190s at this fidelity is very enjoyable to me. I would certainly enjoy more places to just fly these birds too.

4 Likes

But I don’t want to answer this!

You know, if I won the lottery, I’d ‘invest’ in ED to help bring some of these things, and other things, to life in game.

So, my answer is going to be dependent on me avoiding the concern that adding to the WWII environment costs me on other fronts. Don’t get me wrong, I love WWII flight simming.

3 Likes

We copy your mayday! SAR units are airborne…

6 Likes

Hell, yes! I do love all the modern planes but for pure flying I prefer the WWII props. If I get era apropriate maps and scenarios as well that’s great.

2 Likes

100 times YES!

3 Likes

I like the extra attention that you have to keep on the aircraft. Granted, it makes it harder to fight with it because of that :slight_smile:

I would … not be able to handle that.

3 Likes

So, do you think that with IL-2 GB doing such a good job covering WWII, ED should bail out of the era?
I guess it’s a reasonable question…
IL-2 GB is actually a very good WWII simulator, so maybe we don’t actually need DCS WWII.
But the thought of a DCS level clickable Mossie cockpit, in VR, makes me feel like a kid at christmas.

2 Likes

Only without coffee. I’m keeping an eye out for helicopters.Things are getting bad here.

Put it this way, in one hand I have a McD F-4 Phantom and the other I have a Ju-88 Stuka and A6M Zero (I have big hands). Which hand do you go for?

4 Likes

Yes, but with many, many, many caveats:

  • What I find hurts DCS most is the separate buy-in of the WWII assets. These should either be included with purchase of a WWII map or with a WWII aircraft. Bump up the price of either by $5 or $10 to cover the assets being included. Seriously, this is probably the largest pet peeve I have with DCS’ WWII model. If someone buys a WWII plane, give them the bare minimum to play around with it. It shouldn’t be this hard.

  • Assets are inconsistent. I have a big honking huge M12 GMC artillery piece for the Allies, but a lowly Sturmpanzer for the Axis. On the flip side, the Allies only have a 40mm Bofors for AAA! I have to use Axis 88s on the Allied side for additional airfield defense. Yes, the incoming quad .50 turret will help some of that, but it’s not a substitution for all the assets needed. Get me some towed howitzers, more allied AAA systems, more tanks and vehicles – these are all required to make a proper scenario.

  • Poor decisions with the direction of DCS’ WWII theme. P-51D-25/30 with no high octane gas or boost, a '43 era Spitfire IXc, up against a 1945 Fw-190D-9 and Bf-109K-4 is not an even matchup. The Fw-190A-8 was a good addition for this reason, but it needs more field and factory kits, plus an F-8 sub model. We should have had the Bf-109G-6 and Fw-190A-8 from the start or a mixup of the Spitfire variants to properly make up the era.

  • On that note, poor direction of theatre. Going from Normandy to the Channel is like going to Normandy again and asking people to pay again for the same map. Yes, I know it’s not the same, but the perception is there that it may as well be. This is topped by the fact that scenario design is again restricted by the planeset for the map. Had a Spitfire MkI/II/V, Hurricane MkI/II, Bf-110C/E, and Bf-109E-4 been announced, then the Channel map would’ve made perfect sense. As it stands, they should have aimed for the Ardennes and done a recreation of the Battle of the Bulge, which would have aligned perfectly with the current and projected planeset, both AI and players.

  • Dipping their toes in the water of WWII Pacific is an exceptional plan, but it also has a huge resource draw. Will the WWII asset pack cover Pacific assets, or will we have to buy yet another asset pack specifically for this theatre? All we’re looking at here is an F4U by a third party, who are also being shrewd enough to make a WWII era carrier alongside the aircraft, and quite possibly an AI A6M. The impression is that ED is stretched thin as it is, and taking resources away from WWII ETO will hurt the overall environment. This isn’t to say the F4U shouldn’t be done as it technically could still fit inside the ETO, nor that the PTO shouldn’t be attempted, but there’s a huge logistics background here that has to be filled to make a believable environment. The only good part is that the ground war is more limited than the ETO, but you’re making up for it by needing more planes, ships, and things like AAA.

  • The AI. Dear god, the AI! Pardon my french but THAT ■■■■ AIN’T FUNNY. The plane AI has got to be fixed to operate in a semi-believable fashion. Aim for at least old IL2 quality! The AI needs to suffer effects from taking damage, potentially crashing from loss of control, to AI pilots bailing out from light hits if they’re green. They have to obey the laws of physics, same as the players, with no infinite energy prop hanging with no engine overheats. Catastrophic damage should not be a requirement for taking down a plane or causing them to finally cease and desist. I have not heard anything about this, only some vague hopes that a new damage model is coming; we have no idea if said damage model will affect the AI. On that note, the ground AI is infuriating to deal with on Normandy, because they can’t seem to handle the narrow road networks and tight turns. I don’t mind the AI clipping through buildings, but I do mind when they clip and get stuck, holding up the entire column.

  • Performance is atrocious! Anytime we try to get a real mission going, things lag out in a ridiculous fashion. I had to severely curtail my WWII scenario plans because, for some reason, trying to get anything more than a handful of planes in the air at once causes massive slowdowns. This is due to a multitude of reasons, including turbulence and possibly how larger flak guns are handled.

  • CA integration needs to be properly done! At present, I can only drive a few of the German tanks, some of the flak guns, and that’s it. I can’t even use the main guns on the tanks! CA is already something of an arcade, so I don’t really care how high or low fidelity this is; make it like BF1942 for all I care, but get it done. I’ve grown to like the potential aspect that CA can have on a scenario and it’s a shame that it gets cast aside.

I’m sure I could talk endlessly about the subject because I really wish DCS WWII was a thing, but it feels like everything added to it is always half-baked and never well thought out. There’s little in the way of a coherent plan and that adds a lot of problems in creating an enjoyable scenario with what we’ve got. I’ve gone from feeling that WWII was a waste of time to feeling like I’m going to buy the P-47 when it comes out, but there’s an incredible amount of work to go if they want to convince everyone they’re serious about it. Simple decisions like rolling the WWII assets into purchase with the map or a plane would greatly help expand the audience instead of alienate half the community. It’s entertainment software; going around saying “everything costs money” doesn’t earn you customers. Sacrifice a little up-front to gain more in the long term and they’ll have it made.

11 Likes

I am also looking forward to a clickable B-17 or B-24 with those early autopilots…pipe dream, I know.
Plus the Lancaster is part of my family’s history.

If later I could have my father fly in a Lancaster (VR) as his father did, that would be amazing. ED seems to be the people to perhaps make that happen.

2 Likes

If 3rd parties that aren’t going to do post-Korea jets want to do them for DCS World, that’s fine.

I don’t want ED spending their limited resources on it, though. That’s what Il-2 is doing.
Since 1CGS is NOT making MiG-21s or Phantoms or Hornets, I find the duplication pointless. Now if they started doing that, too, and we had some competition in the jet space, I would see the benefit.

To have a monopoly on the jets, though, and then compete on the props without finishing the jets?

4 Likes

I’m answering yes and putting aside my personal disinterest in most things WW2 simply because I feel that anything they put their efforts to will have trickle down benefits. For some reason, the WW2 battlefield, in my mind, seems more personal and cozy and I’m not sure if the current theater action really would capture that. If that makes any sense. The more modern the planes, the less impact the sort of sterile environment has on things I think. Again, Arma missions sort of capture that feeling a bit better…even though the AI isn’t that great there either…but I do sometimes feel surprised by things in Arma.

All of that said (much of which makes no sense) - I really enjoyed our WW2 flights a couple weeks ago and will definitely be joining for additional ones. I just don’t really have a WW2 plane that really revs me up though.

3 Likes

This, so much.

The simulation environment has to be there, just a handful of planes just doesn’t cut it.

1 Like

Well, to be fair - I think it would if we had terrain variety. If I could take a Spitfire anywhere in the world like FSX, I could forgive the combat environment not being more complete.

This.

I wish DCS would flesh out the 50s/60s era stuff a bit, era appropriate ground targets etc. Some AI aircraft such as the Tu-16, F-105, F-104 etc. I’d rather have that than more ww2 stuff. But wishes are free, unlike building 3D models and DCS is a bussiness. So I’ll take 'em when I get 'em. And love 'em :love_letter:

5 Likes

The map without a doubt… two reasons, number 1, hell its England :uk: 2: any extra map gives us somewhere (in this case only slightly) different to fly

the planes I am slightly more picky about, I have to really like the plane or there is something unique about it. So the mossie no question but not really sure about the P47 (but I will probably end up giving in on a sale)

2 Likes

The crux of the matter is does ED want to make the WWII aircraft as akin to the Yak-52 and Christen Eagle, or do they intend to create a realistic WWII combat simulation environment? Given that they’ve thrown a lot of effort into the assets and have been rebuilding the damage model exclusively for the WWII setting, I would argue that the intent is a combat simulation. To do that, you have to build up the environment; terrain alone doesn’t make up for it. Otherwise, they lose a huge chunk of their business to competitors like IL2, which offers a complete environment that is also very approachable for the average user.

5 Likes

Let me have a cup of coffee and think about it…

I’m so sorry! That was mean.

If the Phantom meant a Vietnam map and campaign, I’d go for that. Because, as I mentioned, I already have a great WWII sim. But just dropping a Phantom into the existing DCS world…not so sure. Actually, the same goes for the other hand. All those aircraft need something to do. I guess what I really want from DCS is campaigns and game. But the airplane collector in me would never turn down a new shiny module.

6 Likes

Dude! What are you doing on line?? That would be a National Emergency in my house! Get to the appliance store ASAP! :open_mouth:

3 Likes
© 2020 Mudspike.com | Articles Website | Forums Rules & FAQ