Current Status of DCS WWII

[Shadepiece]

Hello gents,

I'm here to start a conversation with people who's opinions I value, and know what they are talking about. I want some honest opinions from straight shooters. I want to know what we think about some of the major issues with DCS WWII, and what is holding DCS back from being everything we want it to be. Some talking points are,

1. The damage model. (Personally the biggest turn off about DCS)

2. Lack of a proper theatre/map to fly in.

3. Devs lack of communication when it comes to WWII stuff.

4. AI issues. (Most of us play multiplayer, but those who like single player are being neglected in my opinion.)

5. Spotting issues

6. Anything else that you can think of that I didn't list.

I think DCS could be everything we could want it to be and more, but it is falling terribly short in my opinion.

[Goat]

The main problem is multiplayer support when it comes to numbers. It probably can't handle the numbers we need it to handle. Then there's the lack of a proper theatre, inconsistent aircraft variants in terms of time of operation, snail's pace of release, lack of aircraft, lack of WWII era ground assets, and a myriad of other issues.

We'd love for DCS to be what we need because Cliffs is a decaying corpse, but the only viable option for our numbers.

It's been more than a year since we have seen a new aircraft come to DCS, which is worrisome. I think Cliffs will see TF 5.0 long before any notable improvements come to DCS. Personally, I'm tired of waiting and hype around DCS and am not spending any more money on it.

Aircraft spotting, in my opinion, is much better than it is in Cliffs. The realism is also better, obviously. I do have a TrackIR problem in the LW aircraft when watching my 6. If I'm looking back and to the left, I can't switch to the right while continuing to look back. If I do this, I get stuck on some kind of invisible barrier at the top rear of the canopy and must move around it, thus, losing eyes on my contact for a brief moment.

[Redeye]

There are more problems as well...

7. The lack of radio menu/options to be coherent constistent in a WW2 setting. The current one functions for modern combat (at best), but it is limited and sounds and has the terminology of modern aviation.

8. Lack of AI units, for ground, air and sea.

9. The possibility of making flights of 12+ aircraft to fly together


MAP: The map is referred to as the "Normandy" map, but it might be a Channel map (and should be- to open up for pre-invasion sorties, long range bombing etc) because Wags has requested info on SE anglo airfields and NW french airfields.

The map is being developed by a 3rd party, that Wags has expressed great confidence in, that has not yet been named. Hopefully, its one of the hevy hitters like ORBX or some such. Wags has also stated that relevant AI units are to be released together with the map. Last summer he expressed that he had little interest himself in DCS ww2 modules due to the fact that they lacked a proper theatre. He then said "hopefully that will all change next summer" (Summer 2016).

VEAO are supposed to be developing a Med/Africa threatre- but given the abysmal development time and LOADS of cancelled modules I am not holding my breath.

Leatherneck are developing a pacific (Iwo Jima?) threatre to support the F-4 module. Loads of fun for pacific lovers once we get a flyable Jap aircraft. The map is said to be limited in scale. (I guess Iwo+ Ocean with carriers)

However, given the extreme development time, endless alphas and betas, the priority of modern units and aircraft, the things we need for a ACG operations could very, very possible be several years into the future. And I am NOT saying it to diss ED, I just say it from my years of experience with ED development cycles.

But when the above DOES come....the few of us that are still alive will have a great time.

[Boyezee]

Yes not much more to add to the above really, I'm just really pleased that TF5 is on the horizon and that should keep COD going for now, hopefully DCS WW2 will be a viable option in the next couple of years.

With regards to the spotting, I must say this is a huge issue for me and I hope they can finally get it sorted, I think COD has it nailed, I don't really care if it is more or less realistic than DCS in this regard, it works fine in COD and that is good enough for me.

[Shadepiece]

Yes overall I have to agree. As much as DCS does well it just doesn't work out when the rubber meets the road. I will mention it again that I cannot stand the damage model, it is by far one of the most frustrating things I've seen in a flight sim. I too am tired of the hype. I am absolutely disturbed by the lack of communication by ED on the WWII front. I love Cliffs, honestly I do believe it's the best sim in the market at the moment if you can find the sweet spot of getting it to run well on your system. The Western Front WWII is my favorite theater, and I honestly do not care much about the Pacific Theater. I love flying German aircraft, and you just don't have them in the Pacific. I would like to see a modern sim do late WWII like DCS is trying to do, but there is just not enough there for me to be interested, and the lack of communication by the Devs is heartbreaking, because there is a lot that is good about what we have so far in DCS. Also, on a final note, the spotting is still ridiculous in my opinion. With the spotting assistance on normal I can't see a damn thing ever, with it on low I can sort of see occasionally, and with the assistance on "high" I have laser vision, and see everything as soon as the game renders it. I have to agree with Boyezee, I feel as though CloD has spotting down. I like a lot of things about BoS as well, but the spotting in that game is absolutely awful. I don't want to be lead on anymore, and I might readdress DCS when the Devs have something to show.

[Dave]

It's frustrating, because DCS does one major thing right that CloD does horribly wrong (and bothers me immensely) - and that's the systems modelling. The study-level of fidelity of their existing WW2 planes is something I dearly wish existed in CloD, but last I heard TF have pretty much ruled that out (according to Buzzsaw anyway) because they want to keep the sim "accessible", even though CloD's engine is fully capable of supporting that level of simulation. These days I truly find it difficult to take seriously a supposed "sim" in which you start the engine by leaving the throttle at idle(!) and hitting the "I" key.

But... yeah. It's clearly going to be a long time before DCS offers a proper WW2 simming experience. Hopefully TF5 will prove to be the big improvement we've been waiting for.

[Vanguard]

Absolutely agree of Dave here, the systems modelling is incredible (with very few minor issues here and there) but in the foreseeable future, there is no historical scenario which we can recreate on DCS in the same way that the ACG has done on CloD.

On the spotting issue, I find it is very inconsistent between very good and bad depending on the position of your 'head' in the cockpit and render distance. At times in my default position, I can't see squat but if I lean in or out, aeroplanes magically appear where there was nothing before. I don't think it's a hardware issue as well, I fly on a 24" screen at 1920x1080. Overall, it certainly needs fine tuning and I agree with Boyezee that CloD does it extremely well.

[Mauf]

I would say some points are unfairly made.

"Damage Model":
You have to seperate visual damage representation and actualy damage modelling on a systems level. The systems level damage modelling is actually superb, far better than CloD actually. Problem is that the visual damage representation is still bogged down in DCS' modern fighter combat philosophy (you never need very detailed damage visuals there, most thing simply go boom and break apart after missle impacts).

Lack of communication:
To be fair... what else can they currently tell us except "This stuff is currently being worked on"? If past is any indicator, telling more is only creating more hassle because of some vocal shindiggers who think they've got it all correct. The reason VEAO drastically reduced their feedback until much later stages of development. You should also notice that Yo-Yo for example is VERY willing to discuss things and present data IF approached in a proper and respecting manner.


The rest I more or less agree with:
Lack of scenario is a big one. This goes for map aswell as selected planes for modelling. The reason why they decided to model the K4 instead of a G-model (which they have pretty much the same docs on and also access to the real thing) eludes me. Instead they haphazardly throw the game into massive imbalance between the opposing factions which is the reason we now have P-51s being slaughtered left and right most of the time.

AI is a big downer too. AI always was bad in flight sims to be fair but DCS ones are especially annoying, flying to completely different rules and using a massively simplified damage model.

Spotting is still work in progress but yes, there are some weird problems with it... First the imposter system is strangely jumpy where you can't really tell anymore how far a plane is away from you. Also I swear for some angles, the planes still become invisible for a few seconds until they turn. Having to play Boom&zoom against 109s makes this doubly annoying as the ground detail noise makes the 109s disappear very quickly, especially if there's no consistency of size and color of the distant spots.

[Stig]

MAP: The map is referred to as the "Normandy" map, but it might be a Channel map (and should be- to open up for pre-invasion sorties, long range bombing etc) because Wags has requested info on SE anglo airfields and NW french airfields.

So very similar to the Kanalkampf mission in Clod on the ATAG server. Possibly the least popular mission in rotation due to the long flight times.

[Redeye]

MAP: The map is referred to as the "Normandy" map, but it might be a Channel map (and should be- to open up for pre-invasion sorties, long range bombing etc) because Wags has requested info on SE anglo airfields and NW french airfields.

So very similar to the Kanalkampf mission in Clod on the ATAG server. Possibly the least popular mission in rotation due to the long flight times.

Just because it has the Channel in it does not mean people have to cross it. Especially not for D-Day+ Scenarios. But to simulate the massive aerial campaign leading up to Overlord, having England in it is a huge bonus.

STIG- Edited your post by mistake, have not changed anything:P