Jump to content


Photo

WW2 Flight Sims


  • Please log in to reply
23 replies to this topic

#21 Barton

Barton

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 936 posts

Posted 01 April 2017 - 02:38 AM

I thought they were going to have non flyable bombers? Having a 3D model in game would be a step closer to flyable planes. I'd imagine that if the Normandy Module does well the ground pounders would be next

#22 Luftritter

Luftritter

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 957 posts

Posted 01 April 2017 - 01:22 PM

Are the people who make DCS any more trustworthy for doing what they say they'll do than the 777 team?

 

Also, I hear a lot of people say that DCS is a "high fidelity" sim.  What exactly does that mean?  Because if it refers to graphics it doesn't look like they're anything special (not referring to terrain; stuff like the inside of the cockpit).  If it refers to FM/Dms, what's the big improvement?  In Barton's video, there was a guy flying around practically the whole time that had a huge cloud of black smoke billowing out behind him, and he didn't even seem to have much loss of performance from the way he was flying.  Forget that the smoke cloud looked pretty hokey and that at times it looked like lightning was striking inside his storm cloud; how could a person that severely damaged fly around for so long?  Most gun camera footage from the time shows the victim breaking up the way that Barton's victim did when he shot the tail end of his fuselage off in one burst, LOL (good one).

 

There's probably a good reason.



#23 Klaiber

Klaiber

    Advanced Member

  • Administrators
  • 8,482 posts

Posted 01 April 2017 - 04:21 PM

Are the people who make DCS any more trustworthy for doing what they say they'll do than the 777 team?

 

I've found that Eagle Dynamics to be very trustworthy.  Yes, it may take them a long time to deliver on their promise (i.e. if they say 2 weeks, assume 5 months).  But... they've always provided exactly what they said they would.  And they've actually gone above and beyond to maintain that trust with their customers.

 

I think the best example is what happened with DCS WW2.

 

Originally, DCS WW2 was a project managed by Ilya Shevchenko (Luthier from RRG Studios and Maddox games).  He started a kickstarter, and made promises.  These promises fell through and the money donated to kickstarter was used and depleted.  Nothing illicit.  But it's safe to say the project got away from them, and things fell apart.

 

Rather than let the project die, Eagle Dynamics stepped in and promised to finish what RRG started, even though they weren't obligated to do so.  DCS Normandy and all of the WW2 aircraft in DCS are the result of that act by ED.  For me, this shows a dedication to follow through on promises, even if those promises were made by their partners.

 

https://forums.eagle...ad.php?t=126824

 

 

Also, I hear a lot of people say that DCS is a "high fidelity" sim.  What exactly does that mean?  Because if it refers to graphics it doesn't look like they're anything special (not referring to terrain; stuff like the inside of the cockpit).  If it refers to FM/Dms, what's the big improvement?  In Barton's video, there was a guy flying around practically the whole time that had a huge cloud of black smoke billowing out behind him, and he didn't even seem to have much loss of performance from the way he was flying.  Forget that the smoke cloud looked pretty hokey and that at times it looked like lightning was striking inside his storm cloud; how could a person that severely damaged fly around for so long?  Most gun camera footage from the time shows the victim breaking up the way that Barton's victim did when he shot the tail end of his fuselage off in one burst, LOL (good one).
 
There's probably a good reason.


As I've mentioned before, DCS in terms of graphics is highly adaptable. You can run it on low-end computers and have it look okay. However, you can also run it on high-end computers with Ultra settings, and have it look amazing.  Especially if you're flying 2.0 on the Nevada Test and Training Range (NTTR) map.

 

Basically, 1.5 is the old terrain engine on the old Caucasus map.  However, 1.5 does have the new rendering engine [Eagle Dynamics Graphics Engine (EDGE) featuring DirectX 11] on top of it.  So it looks good.  Just not great.

 

Meanwhile, 2.0 is the new terrain engine on the brand new Nevada map, with EDGE and DX11 on top of it.  And 2.0 is what the Normandy map will be released on as well.  It looks amazing when you crank the graphic settings.

 

When Eagle Dynamics is able to update the Caucasus map (over the next year), they'll port it over to 2.0, elevate the production number to DCS 2.5, and eliminate 1.5.

 

I have a GTX 1080 card. So, this is basically what DCS looks like to me (keeping in mind that this is not my rig and that you have compression from being uploaded to youtube):

 

DCS 1.5 Caucasus:

 

 

DCS 2.0 Nevada:



Regarding the term "high fidelity", I'm not specifically sure what you mean.  However, DCS' modules are designed to be as correct as possible.  All of them, with the exception of "Flaming Cliffs 3" (which is not as sophisticated as individual aircraft modules) have fully clickable cockpits, authentically functioning systems, and a fidelity to accuracy.  This is true with the Flight Models as well:

 

https://en.wikipedia...c_flight_models

 

If you fly Flaming Cliffs 3 or the free modules, they may not be 100%.  However, if you fly the pay modules, you can be assured that there is an attempt to make them as realistic as your computer will allow.

 

Regarding the smoke cloud from that aircraft in Barton's video, it's a graphical bug, probably due to server instability or lag.

 

DCS isn't perfect though.  The modules are expensive.  The modules are time consuming to learn (especially if they're modern aircraft).  And multiplayer can sometimes be fragile (though it's been massively improved over the last 2 years).  Additionally, as far as WW2 goes, we're not going to have player-flown bombers.  At least not for a very long time.  So that's a limitation that people should be aware of.

 

However, as I said above, it's probably going to be the most historically accurate WW2 experience on the market.

 

Not sure if that helps.


  • Britchot and Luftritter like this

Klaiber_tiny_R.png?dl=0
Klaiber_tiny_O.png?dl=0
Klaiber_tiny_FS.png?dl=0

Hals - und Beinbruch!


#24 Luftritter

Luftritter

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 957 posts

Posted 01 April 2017 - 04:48 PM

It does; thanks.

 

The 3-dimensionality of the trees in the 2.0 version is definitely improved.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users