Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate This Thread
Hop To
Page 2 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
#4338573 - 02/18/17 02:07 PM Re: Normandy Terrain ***** [Re: - Ice]  
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,042
cichlidfan Offline
Member
cichlidfan  Offline
Member

Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,042
Woodbridge, VA, USA
Originally Posted By: - Ice
Just can't let it go, can you? Did you really think I meant "half built airfields"?? What use is a runway that is 50% of it's intended length? Or 50% of it's intended width? And how are we going to model the hangars? Are we going to split them vertically or horizontally? Did you really, REALLY think that's what I meant by 20% or 50%?


OK, I'll bite. What did you mean then?


ASUS ROG Maximus VIII Hero, i7-6700K, Noctua NH-D14 Cooler, Crucial 32GB DDR4 2133, Samsung 950 Pro NVMe 256GB, Samsung EVO 250GB & 500GB SSD, 2TB Caviar Black, Zotac GTX 1080 AMP! Extreme 8GB, Corsair HX1000i, Phillips BDM4065UC 40" 4k monitor, VX2258 TouchScreen, TIR 5 w/ProClip, TM Warthog, VKB Gladiator Pro, Saitek X56, et. al., MFG Crosswind Pedals #1199, VolairSim Pit, Rift CV1
Inline advert (2nd and 3rd post)

#4338588 - 02/18/17 03:41 PM Re: Normandy Terrain [Re: - Ice]  
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 481
*Striker* Offline
Member
*Striker*  Offline
Member

Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 481
Originally Posted By: - Ice
How long does it take to create a new theatre, really?

I've wondered about this many times over the last few years.
The Bohemia people crank out maps in a year or less.
The community people crank out maps even faster with the same level of detail.
They have stunning quality and are open BF environments and everything is destructible.
They're smaller size territories but if you compare the dense building areas they would probably equal what's on the Caucuses map.
They take up a tenth of the hard drive space in comparison to ED's NTTR map.
They're incredibly well optimized so I almost never see any lag.
So what's ED's excuse?

#4338592 - 02/18/17 03:55 PM Re: Normandy Terrain [Re: *Striker*]  
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 1,943
Nate Offline
Member
Nate  Offline
Member

Joined: May 2001
Posts: 1,943
Dublin, Ireland
Originally Posted By: *Striker*
Originally Posted By: - Ice
How long does it take to create a new theatre, really?

I've wondered about this many times over the last few years.
The Bohemia people crank out maps in a year or less.
The community people crank out maps even faster with the same level of detail.
They have stunning quality and are open BF environments and everything is destructible.
They're smaller size territories but if you compare the dense building areas they would probably equal what's on the Caucuses map.
They take up a tenth of the hard drive space in comparison to ED's NTTR map.
They're incredibly well optimized so I almost never see any lag.
So what's ED's excuse?


What's even more interesting is all the terrains created that bypassed DCS. The Corsica one in particular would have been great.

Nate

#4338599 - 02/18/17 04:15 PM Re: Normandy Terrain [Re: *Striker*]  
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 4,798
ST0RM Offline
Senior Member
ST0RM  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 4,798
Altus, Ok
Originally Posted By: *Striker*

So what's ED's excuse?


This isnt their priority! Why wont people understand this?
They're division of time and resources, lean toward their Mil contract obligations. Those have set deadlines and a level of expectation. The game is purely an off-branch from those efforts.

As for the size of Normandy, it's scaled in accordance to the aircraft it's expected to use. WWII fighters wont be ripping across it at Mach 1+, so the size looks to been tailored that way. Combat would be over the mainland, hence its more detailed. The UK bases are functional but werent detailed fully. For me, I'm not interested. I'm not wanting a third full install on my HD of a terrain that isnt very compatible for my jets.

Blame one side or the other (WWII prop lovers vs jet people) for the delays. But in the end, ED has their fingers in many pots. They're in it to make money, and they've got an agenda. Pure and simple.

#4338605 - 02/18/17 05:01 PM Re: Normandy Terrain [Re: - Ice]  
Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 430
Vaderini Offline
Member
Vaderini  Offline
Member

Joined: Jan 2016
Posts: 430
Originally Posted By: - Ice

Didn't aircraft back in the day have good range? Normandy-only map would be pretty "small" even for these fighters, right?

It depends on the country.

What people tend to forget in the whole "This DCS aircraft is over/underperforming!" Is that after World War I, the Treaty of Versailles banned Germany from developing motorised aircraft. Because of this, the german aviation community and government were focusing on gliders instead.

As you may well know, gliders are ridiculously light weight. Germany, with no other avenue of flight to focus on, made large advancements in light-weight aircraft design. (Google "Wasserkuppe" for more information on this subject)

This light-weight experience, being the only experience the Germans had, was the red thread through German aircraft development in the 1930's. If you look at the design of the Bf 109/Fw 159/Ar 80/He 112 they really are nothing more than powered gliders.

In German doctrine terms, we can add into the mix that the German armed forces were focused (and optimised) for a war against France: A neighboring country with excellent infrastructure and as industrialized as Germany. Therefore, long duration wasn't necessary and would only hamper aircraft performance.

So the culmination of all this were a series of ridiculously light fighters, with small fuel tanks and increasingly large engines. Germany developed more advanced designs during the war, but they were never put into production. The German ministeries and Luftwaffe decided that new designs would hamper production of the 2 main fighters already being built. Increasing production numbers of those aircraft was prioritized.

The US didn't have these limitations. They had a massive production base (I believe they had 60% of all mechanized factory output in the world in 1939, versus 4% of Germany) that wasn't bombed and their experience before the war resulted in a very different design philosophy.

But there was one problem: Allied fighters only had the range to escort bombers up until the moment they entered the German air defence zone. After that, the bombers were on their own. The solution: Add a lot of guns on the bombers.
This worked in the beginning, as the Luftwaffe was concentrated on the Eastern front, but as time passed more and more fighters were allocated to defending the homeland.
The US bombing campaign started showing cracks and massive losses were the result. (At the end of the war, 1 in 3 of the people in the 8th Airforce had died).

Enter the P-51D: A fighter that was designed to escort bombers above Germany. The job required a large fuel tank, heavy armor and heavy guns. This was fine against the heavy twin-engine Air Superiority fighters of the germans and the lightweight fighters that weren't optimized for high-altitude combat, but as the war progressed the Germans modified their fighters for high altitude fighting; Protecting Germany.

This didn't require large fuel tanks and the fighters themselves were still the lightweight interbellum designs. The engine got increasingly powerful though, so fuel consumption didn't allow for long range. This didn't matter: Long range isn't necessary for defence purposes.

So this is why I find the discussions by the typing chimpanzees over at ED Forums so very tiring. They really fail to understand that real-life isn't Air Quake.

TL,DR version: A lot of Allied aircraft had long range, A lot of German aircraft had short range.

#4338607 - 02/18/17 05:13 PM Re: Normandy Terrain [Re: ST0RM]  
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 481
*Striker* Offline
Member
*Striker*  Offline
Member

Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 481
Originally Posted By: ST0RM
This isnt their priority! Why wont people understand this? They're division of time and resources, lean toward their Mil contract obligations. Those have set deadlines and a level of expectation. The game is purely an off-branch from those efforts.

Not trying to start a fight with you Storm, but what you are saying isn't exactly correct.
All you need to do is go to The Battle Sim website and you'll see for yourself.
ED has planned on multiple theaters and modules for both versions of DCS now for years.
It's parallel development but essentially a lot of the same stuff.
The difference in the military branch is the development of the fighter modules.
For instance, the A-10C has a military only version that has more functional equipment.
ED stated this several years ago.
They and their third party developers are also working on modules like AH-64D Longbow which is for military only.
But they're also tinkering around with the idea of releasing an AH-64A for the civilian side.
So the theaters are essentially for everyone but the modules are based on military contracts.
(I think there are some 3rd party developers working on theaters that are for military contracts only though)
The WWII Normandy map was delayed because the third party developer failed to deliver so ED had to do it from scratch.
The Normandy map is about 350 x 350 miles.
The Caucuses map is about 600 x 500 miles.
The NTTR Map is about 650 x 650 miles.
The Strait of Hormuz is about 450 x 450 according to the last post I read.
The size of the map has very little to do with which modules are going to be used on them.
It has to do with their decision to include what map detail and relevant air bases and maximum file size.

#4338619 - 02/18/17 06:12 PM Re: Normandy Terrain [Re: *Striker*]  
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 1,943
Nate Offline
Member
Nate  Offline
Member

Joined: May 2001
Posts: 1,943
Dublin, Ireland
Originally Posted By: *Striker*
Originally Posted By: ST0RM
This isnt their priority! Why wont people understand this? They're division of time and resources, lean toward their Mil contract obligations. Those have set deadlines and a level of expectation. The game is purely an off-branch from those efforts.

Not trying to start a fight with you Storm, but what you are saying isn't exactly correct.
All you need to do is go to The Battle Sim website and you'll see for yourself.
ED has planned on multiple theaters and modules for both versions of DCS now for years.
It's parallel development but essentially a lot of the same stuff.
The difference in the military branch is the development of the fighter modules.
For instance, the A-10C has a military only version that has more functional equipment.
ED stated this several years ago.
They and their third party developers are also working on modules like AH-64D Longbow which is for military only.
But they're also tinkering around with the idea of releasing an AH-64A for the civilian side.
So the theaters are essentially for everyone but the modules are based on military contracts.
(I think there are some 3rd party developers working on theaters that are for military contracts only though)
The WWII Normandy map was delayed because the third party developer failed to deliver so ED had to do it from scratch.
The Normandy map is about 350 x 350 miles.
The Caucuses map is about 600 x 500 miles.
The NTTR Map is about 650 x 650 miles.
The Strait of Hormuz is about 450 x 450 according to the last post I read.
The size of the map has very little to do with which modules are going to be used on them.
It has to do with their decision to include what map detail and relevant air bases and maximum file size.


The Bit in Bold isn't exactly correct. As I mentioned above there are a few terrains that never made it to DCS.

Nate

#4338632 - 02/18/17 07:23 PM Re: Normandy Terrain [Re: Nate]  
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 481
*Striker* Offline
Member
*Striker*  Offline
Member

Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 481
Originally Posted By: Nate
The Bit in Bold isn't exactly correct. As I mentioned above there are a few terrains that never made it to DCS.

Nate

ED has always stated that the terrains "they" are developing are for both sets of clients.
It's irrelevant what "hasn't" made it past the idea stage.

#4338637 - 02/18/17 07:56 PM Re: Normandy Terrain [Re: Vaderini]  
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
- Ice Offline
Veteran
- Ice  Offline
Veteran

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
Philippines / North East UK
Originally Posted By: cichlidfan
OK, I'll bite. What did you mean then?

Read. The. Posts.
I can't really explain it more than that. wink


Originally Posted By: ST0RM
This isnt their priority! Why wont people understand this?

So what exactly is their priority? Is it 1.5? 2.0? 2.5? Normandy? IIRC, they said in one of the latest newsletters that their priority is shifting to the Normandy and WWII section, which resulted in a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth from those that wanted 2.5 out the door sooner rather than later. You post as if you have greater understanding of ED's priority as far as the commercial side goes, please enlighten us.


Originally Posted By: ST0RM
As for the size of Normandy, it's scaled in accordance to the aircraft it's expected to use. WWII fighters wont be ripping across it at Mach 1+, so the size looks to been tailored that way.

Sorry, what?? duh So a Normandy map for WWII is smaller in scale compared to a Normandy map for modern jets? Isn't Normandy supposed to be Normandy regardless of who is flying over it?


Originally Posted By: ST0RM
But in the end, ED has their fingers in many pots. They're in it to make money, and they've got an agenda. Pure and simple.

You hit the nail right on the head! Unfortunately, it seems that ED doesn't have the skills or resources to be having their fingers in that many pots. Instead of having their fingers in, say, 10 pots and have them half finished, would it not be better for them to put their fingers in 1 or 2 pots and see those projects through to the finish? Then again, they have a market that consumes whatever they release and takes it upon themselves to defend ED when criticism, logic, and common sense are applied, so why should they have to clean up their act?


Originally Posted By: Vaderini
TL,DR version: A lot of Allied aircraft had long range, A lot of German aircraft had short range.

I'm in no way any expert in WWII events, so what I'd like to know is how long were Allied aircraft flying out of England and when did they start getting based in Europe instead of England?


- Ice
#4338653 - 02/18/17 08:28 PM Re: Normandy Terrain [Re: - Ice]  
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,042
cichlidfan Offline
Member
cichlidfan  Offline
Member

Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,042
Woodbridge, VA, USA
Originally Posted By: - Ice
Originally Posted By: cichlidfan
OK, I'll bite. What did you mean then?

Read. The. Posts.
I can't really explain it more than that. wink


I am not surprised.


ASUS ROG Maximus VIII Hero, i7-6700K, Noctua NH-D14 Cooler, Crucial 32GB DDR4 2133, Samsung 950 Pro NVMe 256GB, Samsung EVO 250GB & 500GB SSD, 2TB Caviar Black, Zotac GTX 1080 AMP! Extreme 8GB, Corsair HX1000i, Phillips BDM4065UC 40" 4k monitor, VX2258 TouchScreen, TIR 5 w/ProClip, TM Warthog, VKB Gladiator Pro, Saitek X56, et. al., MFG Crosswind Pedals #1199, VolairSim Pit, Rift CV1
#4338655 - 02/18/17 08:32 PM Re: Normandy Terrain [Re: cichlidfan]  
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
- Ice Offline
Veteran
- Ice  Offline
Veteran

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,082
Philippines / North East UK
Originally Posted By: cichlidfan
I am not surprised.

That's fine. I do hope you've understood what I meant. Selective reading doesn't really help you at all.


- Ice
#4338693 - 02/18/17 11:51 PM Re: Normandy Terrain [Re: *Striker*]  
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 1,943
Nate Offline
Member
Nate  Offline
Member

Joined: May 2001
Posts: 1,943
Dublin, Ireland
Originally Posted By: *Striker*
Originally Posted By: Nate
The Bit in Bold isn't exactly correct. As I mentioned above there are a few terrains that never made it to DCS.

Nate

ED has always stated that the terrains "they" are developing are for both sets of clients.
It's irrelevant what "hasn't" made it past the idea stage.


Even so Corsica and the Fort Rucker maps would be cool to play with.



Nate

#4338707 - 02/19/17 12:29 AM Re: Normandy Terrain [Re: *Striker*]  
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 4,798
ST0RM Offline
Senior Member
ST0RM  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 4,798
Altus, Ok
Originally Posted By: *Striker*

So the theaters are essentially for everyone but the modules are based on military contracts.

The size of the map has very little to do with which modules are going to be used on them.


There was the Ft Rucker, Al area that was used for Mil training. It wasnt released publicly. There was another for Bagram, Afghanistan. Same deal, not released to the public. So theaters are not for everyone.

In regards to Normandy. It's built for the 1944 era. Modern jets will be out of place. I understand that WWII fighters have range that exceeds the map area, but people will become board with forming up over England, flying to Berlin to fight. They chose to specifically place combat in Normandy and expanded outward a bit.

ICE-- I've got no clue what their priority is. My understanding of simulation and their updates, are that they are in incremental phases. Ours works that way. Graphical updates came after some basic functions were tested and ensured to be working. This hasnt followed the model I'm used to seeing or how we've managed our program. Heck, the company that built and programmed ours, started out years ago with the F-16 sim "Back to Baghdad". They progressed to real-world mil sims from there.

But it's obvious that the game isnt priority #1. I think they had to push Normady out to appease the WWII crowd since taking it on. Time had to come from somewhere.

#4338734 - 02/19/17 05:24 AM Re: Normandy Terrain [Re: ST0RM]  
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 481
*Striker* Offline
Member
*Striker*  Offline
Member

Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 481
Originally Posted By: ST0RM
There was the Ft Rucker, Al area that was used for Mil training. It wasnt released publicly. There was another for Bagram, Afghanistan. Same deal, not released to the public. So theaters are not for everyone.

As far as I can tell, this was 3rd party stuff that never even made it past the idea stage. Please link to some relevant 100% verifiable information on actual development status.

#4338768 - 02/19/17 02:44 PM Re: Normandy Terrain [Re: - Ice]  
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,042
cichlidfan Offline
Member
cichlidfan  Offline
Member

Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,042
Woodbridge, VA, USA
From The Battle Simulator web site.

Quote:
The current theaters included in TBS are the Caucasus region, the Nevada Test and Training Range (NTTR), and the Strait of Hormuz region. As we develop additional theaters such as Afghanistan and the Ukraine/Crimea, we continue to update and add to these current theaters (such as the National Training Center).


http://www.thebattlesim.com/theater_environment/

It seems that nothing else has actually been made available, even to the mil customers.

Last edited by cichlidfan; 02/19/17 03:05 PM.

ASUS ROG Maximus VIII Hero, i7-6700K, Noctua NH-D14 Cooler, Crucial 32GB DDR4 2133, Samsung 950 Pro NVMe 256GB, Samsung EVO 250GB & 500GB SSD, 2TB Caviar Black, Zotac GTX 1080 AMP! Extreme 8GB, Corsair HX1000i, Phillips BDM4065UC 40" 4k monitor, VX2258 TouchScreen, TIR 5 w/ProClip, TM Warthog, VKB Gladiator Pro, Saitek X56, et. al., MFG Crosswind Pedals #1199, VolairSim Pit, Rift CV1
#4338772 - 02/19/17 03:05 PM Re: Normandy Terrain [Re: - Ice]  
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 481
*Striker* Offline
Member
*Striker*  Offline
Member

Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 481
Thanks, I remember reading that now. At ED's pace, those are 10 years down the road minimum. I do remember someone from ED stating that the terrains would be for public release as well but I can't find it now.

#4338835 - 02/19/17 11:09 PM Re: Normandy Terrain [Re: *Striker*]  
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 4,798
ST0RM Offline
Senior Member
ST0RM  Offline
Senior Member

Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 4,798
Altus, Ok
Originally Posted By: *Striker*
As far as I can tell, this was 3rd party stuff that never even made it past the idea stage. Please link to some relevant 100% verifiable information on actual development status.


Google is your friend:
Bagram/Mi-8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8Q-EOTphG4
Look familiar?

I cant find the Ft Rucker video, but it's obviously the same engine. Whether its a 3rd party...??

#4338838 - 02/20/17 12:11 AM Re: Normandy Terrain [Re: ST0RM]  
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,042
cichlidfan Offline
Member
cichlidfan  Offline
Member

Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,042
Woodbridge, VA, USA
Originally Posted By: ST0RM
Originally Posted By: *Striker*
As far as I can tell, this was 3rd party stuff that never even made it past the idea stage. Please link to some relevant 100% verifiable information on actual development status.


Google is your friend:
Bagram/Mi-8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8Q-EOTphG4
Look familiar?


Three years later and it still isn't part of The Battle Simulator, much less DCS.


ASUS ROG Maximus VIII Hero, i7-6700K, Noctua NH-D14 Cooler, Crucial 32GB DDR4 2133, Samsung 950 Pro NVMe 256GB, Samsung EVO 250GB & 500GB SSD, 2TB Caviar Black, Zotac GTX 1080 AMP! Extreme 8GB, Corsair HX1000i, Phillips BDM4065UC 40" 4k monitor, VX2258 TouchScreen, TIR 5 w/ProClip, TM Warthog, VKB Gladiator Pro, Saitek X56, et. al., MFG Crosswind Pedals #1199, VolairSim Pit, Rift CV1
#4338855 - 02/20/17 01:32 AM Re: Normandy Terrain [Re: ST0RM]  
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 481
*Striker* Offline
Member
*Striker*  Offline
Member

Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 481
Originally Posted By: ST0RM
Google is your friend:
Bagram/Mi-8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8Q-EOTphG4
Look familiar?

I cant find the Ft Rucker video, but it's obviously the same engine. Whether its a 3rd party...??


Third party, absolutely.
And that's not in DCS World.
If you look at the trees and buildings it's all way more advanced than DCS was in 2013.
2-3 years before EDGE.
Here's another one but inside their full training simulator.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLFs2otuilc

#4338889 - 02/20/17 11:28 AM Re: Normandy Terrain [Re: - Ice]  
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,154
Silver_Dragon Offline
Member
Silver_Dragon  Offline
Member

Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,154
Arafo, Canary Islands, Spain
The profesional branch on Youtube
-Avia TD:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCt7W2HUQBQ8LL9WdYVlwM0A
-Corsica
-Fort Rucker
-Baku
-Debre Zeyit, Ethiopia
Smartgraph LCC
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCyTrzyQUIMh7iEtWkiZsE6w
And some Avia video on Dmitry Robustov Youtube
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCyTrzyQUIMh7iEtWkiZsE6w


More News to the Front
Page 2 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Moderated by  Force10, RacerGT 

Quick Search
Recent Articles
Support SimHQ

If you shop on Amazon use this Amazon link to support SimHQ
.
Social


Recent Topics
Kung Fury
by Chucky. 11/26/20 08:12 PM
Need a laugh ?
by WangoTango. 11/26/20 07:02 PM
Fantasy NHL League
by WangoTango. 11/26/20 06:36 PM
Thanksgiving In America!
by Blade_Meister. 11/26/20 03:00 PM
Thanksgiving
by NoFlyBoy. 11/25/20 07:16 PM
Uh oh...
by Nixer. 11/24/20 09:12 PM
meaning of a deck of playing cards
by KraziKanuK. 11/24/20 03:27 PM
Criterion Collection BR/DVD sale
by Patrocles. 11/24/20 03:26 PM
Ex Nazi can be deported
by NoFlyBoy. 11/23/20 11:10 PM
Copyright 1997-2016, SimHQ Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0