PDA

View Full Version : Poll - DGen or DCG: Which Campaign Generator Do You Use?!



Nimits
05-13-2006, 04:32 PM

Nimits
05-13-2006, 04:32 PM

Enthor1
05-13-2006, 05:42 PM
I have tried DCG several times but always revert to DGen.

XyZspineZyX
05-13-2006, 06:06 PM
I have answered DGEN because I use this the most, however I do use DCG & I like its flexibility & simplicity alot. Both are excellent programs that really make offline campaigning a brilliant experience.

I find the third party DGEN campaigns " TruePacific" are far superior to the stock "out of the box" dynamic campaigns of Pacific fighters. I still enjoy the stock campaigns of FB-AEP, however Amagi`s Disaster on the Frontiers & GregSm`s Enhanced DGEN are in my opinion superior. As far as Western Front campaigning goes I consider Battle over Europe & Jumbo`s Western Front to be works of art. Tankerivs The Last Days is another piece of DGEN "DaVinci"

DCG & The third party campaigns are in the same class, I have only concentrated on Tailspins Grand Fatherland. What I LOVE about this campaign is the ability you have with DCG of changing the entire OOB. Having YAK9UT`S dueling with BF109Zs at 5000m is something else. With DCG you can let you imagination run wild (& I do)

Nimits you need an "I use both" selection

ojcar1971
05-13-2006, 06:39 PM
DGEN with True Pacific and BOE rules!

mortoma1958
05-13-2006, 06:53 PM
I tried DCG several times over the years and while it has some advantages, I prefer Dgen. Mostly because Dgen is easier to use and very powerful once you learn to tweak and edit the files. Dcg has a confusing interface and it's easy to do something wrong and delete an entire career. I did it many times.

Scharnhorst1943
05-14-2006, 12:54 AM
DCG is the only way to fly. Scripted missions bore me. DGEN is random, randomly selected scripted missions. I only fly with DCG because it is pure Dynamic campaign. True, it is complicated at first, but did anyone bother with the readme file on lowengrin's web site? It is very detailed and practically explains every function of the program. For anyone who has an hour will find everything you need to know.

Besides, <span class="ev_code_RED">ALL</span>DGEN campaigns work with DCG, and DCG adds additional campaigns as well. More campaigs, truly dynamic missions, as well as missions with more going on = http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

arrow80
05-14-2006, 03:08 AM
I tried DCG several times, but always revert to DGEN. DCG is for me too player centristic and in my opinion does interfere with the concept of Il2, as Il2 tries to simulate war on a tactical level, DCG tries to do it on more strategic level, which doesn't work given number of units present in Il2. Nimits' True Pacific and Amagi's Disaster on Frontiers are great, very fine and immersive additions to stock DGEN.

Hoarmurath
05-14-2006, 03:58 AM
Used both, but honestly, none of them can compare to a good static campaign. After a while, they just became boring...

Fox_3
05-14-2006, 05:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hoarmurath:
Used both, but honestly, none of them can compare to a good static campaign. After a while, they just became boring... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I quite agree. Static campaigns are superior.

BillPosters
05-14-2006, 06:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Scharnhorst1943:
Besides, <span class="ev_code_RED">ALL</span>DGEN campaigns work with DCG, and DCG adds additional campaigns as well. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My understanding was that all the stock dgen campaigns were re-created for DCG rather than DCG using the actual DGEN campaign files. 6 of one, half a dozen of the other I know but it means that the campaigns that really show DGEN's true potential are not available for DCG. True Pacific, Disaster on the Frontiers, and the Enhanced Eastern DGEN improve on the stock campaigns to no end.
I have used both campaign generators and I can't say exactly why but I seem to enjoy the DGEN campaigns much more. I love the ease with which DCG can be configured but I've also found that the DCG campaigns I've played have required too much tinkering to make them feel "right". The DGEN campaigns just seem to feel more right straight out of the box, so to speak.

SeaFireLIV
05-14-2006, 07:26 AM
DCG - it`s an amzing add-on with so many options that DGEn doesn`t even begin to hint at.

I`ve just restarted the dreaded Lvov Campaign as an I16 fighter pilot. For added realism I disable the `radio` for all I16s so I can`t communicate. I set the advantage to the Germans and high aircraft density.

Had an amazingly difficult mission where all 3 TB3s we had to escourt were shot down http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif . I got attacked by 4 109s, but somehow escaped...

This was with 4.05.

What makes DCG for me is the fact that EVERYTHING has an affect. Your side can win or lose the war. From what I`ve seen everything doesn`t just hinge on the Player pilot, but with effort you can have some affect depending how difficult you make the war. In that last mission we lost all TB3s, nearly all our I16s (in our squad) and I ran away...

But when I saw the after battle reports it was the Germans who were making a tactical retreat! Seems like things went better elsewhere! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Rebel_Yell_21
05-14-2006, 10:44 AM
DCG is an incredible piece of software. The only thing that makes this game worth playing offline. DGEN is garbage.

joeap
05-14-2006, 12:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:

What makes DCG for me is the fact that EVERYTHING has an affect. Your side can win or lose the war. From what I`ve seen everything doesn`t just hinge on the Player pilot, but with effort you can have some affect depending how difficult you make the war. In that last mission we lost all TB3s, nearly all our I16s (in our squad) and I ran away...

But when I saw the after battle reports it was the Germans who were making a tactical retreat! Seems like things went better elsewhere! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I love DCG, but the last two paragraphs are what I don't like about it...not at all realistic given the scale of FB and for example the real historical situation in Lvov in 41.

Again great program otherwise.

SeaFireLIV
05-14-2006, 12:23 PM
Ahhh, Joeap, but that`s just a small retreat along one part of the battlefront. I`ve flown Lvov as the Soviets in the I16 maybe 20 times and only ONCE did the Germans lose the Campaign right at the start.

DCG is weighed and can be further weighed so that mostly historical parameters can be set given the initially winning side a boost. With DCG, the Germans gain a boost until around Stalingrad where things become more equal, making it tougher for the Germans to win - but they HAVE won Stalingrad (a most depressing outcome)http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif .

This is why I love DCG, it`s possible to get an alternative outcome in a relatively realistic way.

The point is I have a genuine fear of actually LOSING to the enemy, which gives me a REASON to fight, to destroy every truck, every tank, every AA gun. In static campaigns or Campaigns that follow the war historically, I KNOW what`s going to happen, no matter how badly or well I do... It gets boring, what`s the point when I know the Allies WILL win - ALWAYS. I stop flying...

That`s why dynamic campaigns with the possiblity of the OTHERSIDE winning is so important to me.

Do you think that anyone would fly ONLINE campaigns on the Axis side if they knew that all their efforts of shooting down Allies made no difference? No one would play German.

SeaFireLIV
05-14-2006, 03:59 PM
I should also add that historically when the Germans attacked at Lvov, they DID have some short-term set backs from Russians who actually put up a fight, even in those disorganised days of the invasion.


I find reading some of the actual historic events useful for learning how things can turn out to be.

mortoma1958
05-14-2006, 04:18 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Scharnhorst1943:
DCG is the only way to fly. Scripted missions bore me. DGEN is random, randomly selected scripted missions. I only fly with DCG because it is pure Dynamic campaign. True, it is complicated at first, but did anyone bother with the readme file on lowengrin's web site? It is very detailed and practically explains every function of the program. For anyone who has an hour will find everything you need to know.

Besides, <span class="ev_code_RED">ALL</span>DGEN campaigns work with DCG, and DCG adds additional campaigns as well. More campaigs, truly dynamic missions, as well as missions with more going on = http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>What a bag of phooey....Please know what you are talking about before writing such nonsensical mish-mash. The old IL2 campaign generator before Forgotten Battles was released was randomly selected, pre-scripted campaigns. There were several pre-made scripted missions, then the generator would randomly select one of them before each mission, each one varied in difficulty.

Dgen is no such thing, it's semi-dynamic. You can't change the outcome of any campaign or the outcome of the war. The Germans will never win the whole war, for example. And if they didn't win the Stalingrad battle in RL, then they never will in Dgen. In DCG ( totally dynamic ) however, the Germans could win when the whole shebang, which is stupid IMO. Also DCG is not user friendly. Tried it many times, always disliked it. The clunky, awkward interface of DCG is nasty.

Every time you finish a mission in Dgen, if you contine by clicking on the Apply button, Dgen will generate a new mission that did not exist on your hard drive before, it's created, this makes it somewhat dynamic. How is that scripted?? The old IL2 system had all the possible missions/sorties on your hard drive when you installed the game, now <span class="ev_code_RED">that's </span> scripted.

Scharnhorst1943
05-14-2006, 05:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mortoma1958:
What a bag of phooey....Please know what you are talking about before writing such nonsensical mish-mash. The old IL2 campaign generator before Forgotten Battles was released was randomly selected, pre-scripted campaigns. There were several pre-made scripted missions, then the generator would randomly select one of them before each mission, each one varied in difficulty.

Dgen is no such thing, it's semi-dynamic. You can't change the outcome of any campaign or the outcome of the war. The Germans will never win the whole war, for example. And if they didn't win the Stalingrad battle in RL, then they never will in Dgen. In DCG ( totally dynamic ) however, the Germans could win when the whole shebang, which is stupid IMO. Also DCG is not user friendly. Tried it many times, always disliked it. The clunky, awkward interface of DCG is nasty.

Every time you finish a mission in Dgen, if you contine by clicking on the Apply button, Dgen will generate a new mission that did not exist on your hard drive before, it's created, this makes it somewhat dynamic. How is that scripted?? The old IL2 system had all the possible missions/sorties on your hard drive when you installed the game, now <span class="ev_code_RED">that's </span> scripted. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I kind of take this personally. Are you attacking my enthusiasm for DCG or my bias to DCG? you don't like DCG, I respect and understand that. But I do, so maybe you could show the same courtesy. I already agreed that at first it can be confusing. However, once understood it is realatively simple and very easy to use. Did you even bother with the extra downloadable file from Lowengrin's site?



I think DCG offers more than DGEN. There are campaigns and planesets, not to mention a couple of simple yet useful maps not available in DGEN. In addition, While using DCG, the user has the ability to create or modify the paramaters of the campaign, such as flyable planes or the order of the maps. This gives rise to new options such as a Korea campaign with the new Korea map and jet planes comming in 46 add on, for an example.

You said yourself that DGEN is semi-dynamic. DCG is completely Dynamic. I agree with most of the others who have posted in favor of DCG and with all they have to say. I find while flying DGEN, the environment is lonely and lacking. While flying DCG I have had missions in all extremes of weather at all times of day, in addition to having missions where I don't ecounter a single enemy plane to missions where I jump a 10 plane bomber formation escorted by 8 fighters! There is always something going on other than the player's flight. Sometimes it is really cool to watch the AI stukas dive on a supply column. It helps with long missions and gives a little extra something to do. Even though my flight never encounters the enemy, in DCG the enemy is still there, which I can watch with my camera views. In DCG there is a populated world, which I believe adds to immersion and realism. For me DCG adds so much more immersion by letting the player experience the beautiful weather effects as well as filling the environment with other planes and ground vehicles both friendly and enemy.

I think you misread me my friend. Yes, Dynamic is the only way to go offline. Yes, DGEN is dynamic. But I personlly feel that DCG is more immersive than DGEN, which adds to the gaming experience. And as I have already stated, users can modify existing campaigns by completely changing planesets or even changing the order of the maps. I even created a Pe2 campaign. It was nice, as I am able to bypass some of the problems with 4.05. DGEN does not give me such freedoms and liberties as to add planes or maps, or both.

You like things very historical. I respect that. I too enjoy history. I am just trying to maximize the fun and experience I can get out of this absolutly wonderful sim. I believe DCG can provide that better than DGEN.

SeaFireLIV
05-14-2006, 07:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by mortoma1958:
What a bag of phooey....Please know what you are talking about before writing such nonsensical mish-mash. The old IL2 campaign generator before Forgotten Battles was released was randomly selected, pre-scripted campaigns. There were several pre-made scripted missions, then the generator would randomly select one of them before each mission, each one varied in difficulty.

Dgen is no such thing, it's semi-dynamic. You can't change the outcome of any campaign or the outcome of the war. The Germans will never win the whole war, for example. And if they didn't win the Stalingrad battle in RL, then they never will in Dgen. In DCG ( totally dynamic ) however, the Germans could win when the whole shebang, which is stupid IMO. Also DCG is not user friendly. Tried it many times, always disliked it. The clunky, awkward interface of DCG is nasty.

Every time you finish a mission in Dgen, if you contine by clicking on the Apply button, Dgen will generate a new mission that did not exist on your hard drive before, it's created, this makes it somewhat dynamic. How is that scripted?? The old IL2 system had all the possible missions/sorties on your hard drive when you installed the game, now <span class="ev_code_RED">that's </span> scripted. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Chill out pal. If there`s one thing that`ll never be left out are standard `history that never changes` campaigns which will be in every WWII flight sim cos it`s the easiest of any kind of offline mission Campaign to create for programmers.

And you`re totally wrong about DCG. Clunky, awkward, nasty? NASTY?

Absolute bunkum. If you don`t like it just say, no need to have a mild cardiac arrest about it.

I think your problem is your just too damn impatient.

Rebel_Yell_21
05-14-2006, 11:04 PM
mortoma,

Just as you got irritated when people mentioned DCG in a DGEN question thread of yours a while back, you've made your opinion known. No need for you to keep trashing DCG just because you have a hard time with it. I would really like to fire up the flamethrower here, but I'll leave it at that.

jeanba2
05-15-2006, 12:07 AM
Most of the time DGEN.
Actually, Truedgen and enhanced dgen improved the stock campaigns very much.

WTE_Galway
05-15-2006, 12:46 AM
DGEN .. only becasue my game computer is offline these days and downloading and transferring stuff is a hastle

As for the "change the war" arguments ... the point of a lot of historical gaming (especially with tabletop miniatures) is to explore alternative outcomes. Its quite legitimate to experiment with alternate strategies to see how Germany may have won at Stalingrad for example and what effect that would have long term. its actually likely that they could have taken moscow and stalingrad and still lost through overextending themselves for example.

The problem with Il2 is that generally you are suceeding through hotshot flying or good tactics at a squadron level and the efforts of an individual squadron is not going to actually effect the war except in the odd rare "dambuster raid" scenario.

joeap
05-15-2006, 02:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
I should also add that historically when the Germans attacked at Lvov, they DID have some short-term set backs from Russians who actually put up a fight, even in those disorganised days of the invasion.


I find reading some of the actual historic events useful for learning how things can turn out to be. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well when you put it like this post and the other yes, I see your point...still as I said it's a matter of scale. I love studying this stuff for that reason, after all it is true the Germans had a tactical edge ... but the Russians were masters at operational level warfare (more precisely they learned how to master it). I am currently reading Richard Overy's "Why the Allies Won WWII" and am starting to realise things were never written in stone as we think with hindsight. Again I just thought the scale of IL2 is "probably" a bit small.

Let me say again DCG is brilliant (I keep saying that and will keep saying it).

TacticalYak3
05-15-2006, 08:01 AM
DCG is fantastic. Been using it to host online campaigns for over a year. Always provides great depth and variety. Lots of options. Like anything of this nature, you only get out of it what you put into it. Sorry guys who had a disappointing experience. Perhaps not for everyone.

Static campaigns better? I would agree some (most) are overall, but DCG offers so much without having to build the missions. Moreover, the stats tracking and impact you can have to create a different "story" each time is, IMO, superior to even a hand-made campaign.

Add all the support and constant improvements being made by Paul Lowengrin, best third-party software I believe available to the IL-2 series.

Regards,
TS!

WWSensei
05-15-2006, 10:53 AM
I'm also a DCG fan. Not to trash DGen but unlike some others opinions I find the task of manipulating the various text files for DGen customization far more confusing than DCG.

The basic difference to me is that DCG lets me fly a campaign to my tastes wheras DGen makes me fly a campaign to the tastes of the author. Not worse, just different and DCG's approach better suits my tastes.

Treetop64
05-15-2006, 01:35 PM
I absolutely LOVE DCG! Exactly what this sim needs.

In fact, I don't fly without Stab 5.2 and DCG.

DGen/NGen are great, but as IceFire put it, since you already know how the war will turn out, that takes a lot of the player incentive out of the game, and along with that, a lot of the reasons for playing the campaign in the first place, IMO.

I see a lot of griping about the interface for DCG. I really don't see how it's that difficult, folks. It's more available options, in a simple interface, that only require a few minutes to peruse and understand. It's a very powerful tool with some clever options.

I like DCG because the theater of operation you fighting in is so much more fluid, so much more going on. There's a hell of a lot more going on than what's happening just outside your windscreen - just look at the map if you have the "Map Icons" option turned on. It is "dynamic" in the true sense of the word.

However, a potential downside to all that action is that, with all of DCG's options turned up in regards to unit quantities, it could require a substantial rig to play the campaign properly. Thankfully, I'm covered in that area. Even with those options reduced, though, DCG is still more immersive than DGen/NGen, IMHO.

Yep, for me it's DCG all the way! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Nimits
05-15-2006, 09:24 PM
I think when people say that DCG is to complicated or requires too much work they mean this: To play a campaign in DGen "properly," all you have to do open the Pilot career menu in the game, pick a career, and click generate; "no fuss, no muss." To get the most out of a DCG campaign/career, it is often necessary to go through several extra-game menus and options to get it set up the first time, and starting a new campaign or career can require those options be tweaked again to make the campaign perform optimally.

Some people prefer to simply turn the game on and enjoy the campaign "out of the box." Other's prefer to tweak everything to their personal desire. Neither is right or wrong, but are just to different preferences of play.

ucanfly
05-15-2006, 10:48 PM
I use both (DGEN and DCG) but still have trouble with missions where I fly for a while and see no action ,even with intercept chance at 100% and action radius 200 km (for DCG). If I just want to fly around I prefer MSFS quite frankly. I like the options and flexibility of DCG though, and the inflexibility of DGEN has limited it's usefullnes IMHO.

The static campaigns, when well done, are the best but I usually don't want to repeat them.

This game could have used a better warp or jump to next waypoint feature as staring at a black screen is no one's idea of a fun, and would make some of the longer flights more tolerable for those with limited time.

WWSensei
05-16-2006, 08:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">To play a campaign in DGen "properly," all you have to do open the Pilot career menu in the game, pick a career, and click generate; "no fuss, no muss." To get the most out of a DCG campaign/career, it is often necessary to go through several extra-game menus </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is true only if you like the defaults DGen creates. If you install DCG you can do the EXACT SAME THING. Go to pilot career, pick a career and click generate.

You only have to go to DCG itself if you wish to customize it--just like you have to dive into the various text files if you wish to customize Dgen.

Tikigod78
05-16-2006, 04:12 PM
I am a Falcon 4.0 flyer..Falcon 4.0 has by far the best campaign engine I have ever seen in a flight sim. IL2 reminds me of Lockon in that its very pretty graphicaly but, has missions and campaigns that are very pointless. They feel more like training exercises then actually going into a battlefield since ever mission you fly in puts you up against a small attack force scenerio. (usually a typical mission is to attack a tank column, etc and that is all you see the entire flight no other battles, ai traffic, just your immediate flight and the target)

Microsoft Combat Flight Simulator has alot better battlefield feel and enjoyable campaign where when you hit targets you see their effect the next flight out. Instead of fighting smalls groups you are flying over a huge battle with an actual front line where you can see troops and armor dug in firing back and forth with the enemy...and resupply convoys and trains coming up from behind. What I liek about this is I can see an ally having problems being overwhelmed, etc....and even though its not my target I can drop whatever ordinance I have left over on the enemy to help that column in trouble. IL2 lacks this unless you manually program something for it.

Using the default IL2 DGen you rarely see anything happening unless its mission specific...and attacking targets of opportunity are pointless...you can bomb a bridge and have no effect on the battlefield...where as in Falcon or MSCFS you can hit a bridge and bring an offensive armor column to a halt.

Using DCG I find IL2 to be alot more enjoyable allowing the type of outcomes you see in Falcon's or MSCFS campaign engine. Its still not up to the quality of Falcon but, it does provide a better feeling of getting something accomplished each time you fly in your IL2 campaign. It also adds to the IL2 battlefield environment that the Dgen lacks....I actually get to see friendy and enemy ai traffic coming in and out of the battlefield....Without DCG I find IL2 to be very bland...having about as much of a campaign as flying a cessna in Microsoft Flight Simulator.

JastaV
05-17-2006, 01:24 PM
I definitely left DGen in favor of Il2DCG, some months after Pacific Fighter release.
Then, I no more tried DGen, so I have not idea of most recent DGen performance.

On the contrary, I saw a progressive improvement in Il2DCG, that, at present, is a mature and flexible campaign engine.

""Based on the Dynamic Campaign Generator for Combat Flight Simulator 2, this program generates dynamic campaigns for both IL-2 Sturmovik, IL-2 Forgotten Battles and Pacific Fighters by Maddox Games. Over time, the front lines will shift, airfields may be captured and recaptured and objects appear and disappear. Squadrons will transfer closer to the front as friendly ground forces advance or bug-out should the enemy break-through. Armor, truck columns, and trains will also move from city to city during missions and ships from harbor to harbor, starting the next mission at the city or harbor moved to in the previous mission. Build ups of guns and armor will also appear at the "front" and captured locations will have new defences generated.""
Quoted from Paul Lowengrin DCG introduction.

The high flexibility & player customization are major DCG qualities.
Factors that influence Il2 performance on different PCs, can easely configured so to achive good FR/performance even on low-edge PC.
On High end PCs, most parameters can be set to maximum, producing a high density campaign with plenty of non-mission related flights, ground targets of opportunity, static ground objects.

Accurate Campaign and Missions management allow users to set at will game difficulties, and most parameters influencing boths: kind of missions, distance to target, theater of operation wideness,....
Player can change at will number and kind of squadrons, planes equipping squadrons, replacement rate, ground moving units, ship units, and many more.
Also the balance of power can be changed at will, influencing campaign outcame.

As an example of the detail care used in DCG I will quote the example of pilots career.
DCG creates detailed pilot rosters for any squadron, AI and player one, envolved in a campaign and manages them along the whole campaign: pilots gain experience and skill as soon as they accumulate missions and victories.....Their career and rank advance as campaign advances.
Any crew member career is monitored for multy-crew planes.
Tons of historical aces will be added with next DCG version, (3.27), for Luftwaffe, VVS, Rumanian Rojal Air force, Italian Regia Aeronautica, French Normandie-Niemen Services.....Aces for other nationalities/services, will be added in the future.

The attention to graphic detail in DCG campaign is great: any squadron can use its unique skin, that can be easely changed at will by user.
Aces can use unique plane skins too, at player will.

Although the full campaign management and setup can result quite complex to DCG novice users, it's possible to leave DCG to manage most parameters, according to default setting.
So it's important to evidence that DCG can be easely used by any Il2 user, novice and experienced one.


The plenty of Dynamin Campaigns available for DCG is one more reason in favor of DCG trying.....
The defaul DCG installation includes tons of Campaigns, that can replace Il2 Dgen ones and add more: for example "Normandy 44", "Ardennes 44-45", "France 40", "Poland 39",.....

More DCG campaigns have been developed by Third Party authors: Tailspin, Jurbo, GilB, RedEye JastaV.
These authors added their "interpretation" of some Classic Il2 campaigns.....
In some instances, they created brand new campaigns not available in the DGen Campaigns pool or in Paul Lowengrin's DCG default Campaigns pool:

Winter WAR: Russian-Finnish border, 1939-40.
Mediterranean War: 1940-1943.
China, 1941-1943.
Spanish Civil War, Battle of Ebro, 1938
Operation Zipper, Singapore liberation, 1945
Japan invasion, Kyushu-Island, 1946

see link for a detailed list of free downloadable DCG third party campaigns:

http://www.lowengrin.com/download.php?list.6


Most DCG campaigns, default and third party ones have been organized in GRANDCAMPAIGNS:
single map campaigns are linked each other and action switch to next battle/campaign as soon as victory is achived on a campaign/map.
This dynamic process allows to recreate large pilot careers spanning over years according to DGen pilot career style.


DCG Grandcampaigns can be really different in style, according to Designers taste.

Paul's default DCG campaigns and Tailspin's Minigrandcampaign are fully dynamic open-end grandcampaign where action can flow back and forward over the same maps more times in turn....
An example: winning "Smolensk-map campaign" Axis advances to "Moskow-map campaign". Here being defeated, Axis is pulled back to "Smolensk-map campaign", and has to play it again.
Due to dynamic nature of DCG, even campaigns played more times over the same map are any time different...Sides strengh balance and Order of Battle change, as new units are available and older ones replaced.

JastaV & co-workers' "Spanish Civil War, Battle of Ebro, 1938" campaign is as historically accurate as possible for a dynamic campaign set over a "generic" Il2 Map.

JastaV's "Stalingrad Campaign" - to be released in a near future - is an example of DCG grandcampaign, where the main phases of the Battle for Staligrad have been recreated with great care to historical detail.

JastaV's "Operation Zipper, Singapore liberation, 1945" and "Japan invasion, Kyushu-Island, 1946", are examples of "What if"-hipotetical campaigns....
The first one is based on the historical "Operation Zipper" plan: its execution aborted due to Japan surrender following A-Bombs attacks of August 1945.
"Japan invasion, Kyushu-Island, 1946" was based over Allied Japan invasion plans, developed before the decision to use the A-Bomb to enforce Japanese to surrender.
Both campaigns are based over realistic O.o.B and balance of forces....

GilB's "Mediterranean War: 1940-1943" campaign is an example of an historical campaign, set over available Il2 maps that resembles the Mediterranean theater of operations as near as possible.


All DCG users & members of DCG official site forums are supported by Paul Lowengrin and other experienced DCG users when meeting any trouble.
Indeed, in almost 2 year I experienced a quick and proffesional assistance to manage common and unknown troubles.

Tailspin's notes to DCG and DCG campaign, ver3.21:

http://www.lowengrin.com/download.php?view.85

is an exaustive support to DCG users and to anyone that like to try designing his own campaign.

Although a mature and competitive Il2 dynamic campaigns engine, Il2DCG is work in progress.....
New, updated and improved versions are released about any one and half month.
The contribute of users is of capital importance to evidence DCG troubles & bugs or to report any troubles related to third party campaigns.

Finally, I need to evidence that DCG installation is a really simple, and reversible operation.
Also, with a simple LM click users can enhable DCG or restore DGen campaign engine, without any need to uninstall il2DCG.
In other words users can have both DGen and DCG installed and operative in their PC, and can easely switch between the two, without complex uninstallation routines.

And, MORE IMPORTANT, DCG and DCG-ADD-on CAMPAIGNS are FREEWARE PRODUCTS !!!!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

My suggestion is to try both, letting your experience and taste take the decision.

---------------------------------------------

JastaV, Il2DCG beta tester team member, and Il2DCG third party campaign designer.

TacticalYak3
05-18-2006, 08:31 AM
Now that's a post JastaV! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

SeaFireLIV
05-18-2006, 04:27 PM
What a plug, jastav! But he`s absolutely right. I must try that patriotic War and China war which I never knew about... I also want to add that Tikigod78 is pretty right too about DCg and DGEN. DGen is good, but I found it very empty because you only ever did the mission allocated to you, you could never involve yourself in targets of opportunity that would make any difference. And Falcon`s Campaign engine`s amazing, DCG is the closest to it...

And it really isn`t as hard as some say, just run the default and alter as you become used to it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

JastaV
05-19-2006, 02:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">... I must try that patriotic War and China war which I never knew about... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Never heared about ?????

I usually add posts at more relevant Il2 dedicated forum to announce my campaigns release !!!!!
That including present forum !!!!!!

As regard Great Patriotic War "Stalingrad campaign" I uploaded such a campaign almost a year ago.....Anyway a brand new one, dedicated to the same subject is near to be released....I suggest you wait some days to try this last one !!!

JastaV

SeaFireLIV
05-19-2006, 03:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JastaV:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">... I must try that patriotic War and China war which I never knew about... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Never heared about ?????

I usually add posts at more relevant Il2 dedicated forum to announce my campaigns release !!!!!
That including present forum !!!!!!

As regard Great Patriotic War "Stalingrad campaign" I uploaded such a campaign almost a year ago.....Anyway a brand new one, dedicated to the same subject is near to be released....I suggest you wait some days to try this last one !!!

JastaV </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yep. Life`s a funny old thing. Sometimes we just have other stuff to do and don`t have time to peruse a site completely and continuously...

Looking forward to the Stalingrad Campaign. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Nimits
05-20-2006, 01:13 AM
The DCG fans are nothing if not passionate . . .

PLowengrin
05-20-2006, 11:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nimits:
The DCG fans are nothing if not passionate . . . </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well for those fans, the latest build of IL2DCG is now available at Lowengrin.com (http://www.lowengrin.com/news.php).

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1241.gif

Nimits
05-25-2006, 04:50 PM
Just a last bump, in case someone that would like to vote missed it the first time.

That is all.

Nimits
05-25-2006, 08:56 PM
I lied in the above post. It was not the last . . .

Just an question:

DCG does have a "Full Replacement" mode that is almost completely "plug and play." For PTO fans particularly, how willing would people be to use DCG, in "full replacement mode", if it included a series of historically accurate careers, similar to those in True Pacific, and if it could be made completely "plug and play"?

PLowengrin
05-28-2006, 11:45 PM
Nimits,

If this is any help, this was a recent poll on lowengrin.com (so most of the respondents would be DCG users).

Completely replacing DGen with DCG is:

the only way to go. 49.28% [Votes: 102]
a good way to go. 30.43% [Votes: 63]
an okay way to go. 14.49% [Votes: 30]
a bad way to go. 5.8% [Votes: 12]

Total votes: 207

SeaFireLIV
05-29-2006, 08:14 AM
lol. Good to see you, Lowengrin. Never thought you`d visit the `zoo`! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

PLowengrin
05-30-2006, 07:08 PM
I had an account here long, long ago but used it so infrequently I forgot the password and/or they just locked it up. But with the release of Pe-2, I had to get a new account to download the thing so I might as well use it for other things as well. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

TSmoke
05-30-2006, 07:21 PM
Tried using the Lowengrin DCG. It is to complicated for a computer dummy like me to use. And yes I read the read me, it doesn't help.

If that much time is put into making the DCG why not take some time to make a short tutorial for other people like myself who can barely turn on the bloody computer.

So far True Pacific is the best, the stock stuff is junk.

PLowengrin
06-01-2006, 12:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If that much time is put into making the DCG why not take some time to make a short tutorial for other people like myself who can barely turn on the bloody computer. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's actually a good question and I keep having to remind myself to maintain the existing documentation (nevermind new documentation and/or tutorials). The main problem is that I prefer programming code to writing documentation and as there are only so many hours in the day....

Nevertheless, your point is taken. I'll see what I can do.

JastaV
06-01-2006, 02:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PLowengrin:
[QUOTE]If that much time is put into making the DCG why not take some time to make a short tutorial for other people like myself who can barely turn on the bloody computer. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

We have Tailspin's notes to DCG and DCG campaigns as an exaustive guideline to DCG management, campaign editing, campaign editing.

See the documentation section at downloads page of IL2DCG official site.

JastaV

major_setback
06-01-2006, 04:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JastaV:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by PLowengrin:
[QUOTE]If that much time is put into making the DCG why not take some time to make a short tutorial for other people like myself who can barely turn on the bloody computer. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

We have Tailspin's notes to DCG and DCG campaigns as an exaustive guideline to DCG management, campaign editing, campaign editing.

See the documentation section at downloads page of IL2DCG official site.

JastaV </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can someone post a link to that site please?
I too found the DCG a pain in the neck to get going. I followed the documentation to the letter but it wouldn't work. I get really frustrated when that happens (and very annoyed) and turned my back on it.
There is a step or two missing in the instructions (or it's assumed we know what we're doing)- it's enough to throw some of us off.

I'm semi computer littetate and can usually work out how to tweak most things in this game (altering missions etc) so I don't think the fault is all on my part.

I really think that the documentation should be revised. Not all of us have the skill or patience to work through it. If this was done I'm sure even more of us would be using the DCG.

GilB57
06-01-2006, 05:36 AM
Here it is :
http://www.lowengrin.com/download.php

http://www.lowengrin.com/e107_images/newspost_images/medwar200.jpg

Major_V
06-01-2006, 09:20 AM
I use both DGen and DCG, but nowadays mostly DCG. However, the learning curve for DCG is a bit steep. After installation, it has to be manually configured and then re-configured to create different types of campaigns, and there are several "rules" which are not clearly stated in the documentation. This creates too many crash opportunities, which leads many frustrated users (like me in the past) to simply uninstall it and stick with DGen, despite its shortcomings.

I think that DCG would become everyone's dynamic campaign generator of choice, IF its code could be modified so that it does not require manual re-configuration. By "manual reconfiguration", I am not talking about individual campaign settings--one great strength of DCG is that you can manually alter campaign settings as you go, and this is fantastic. I am talking about the initial settings that must be set just right so that the new campaign you want will be properly and reliably generated each time.

Most people (like me), want to be able to install DCG and then "set and forget" it. They want the flexibility to switch from static to in-game dynamic ("*" campaigns) to DCG stock to DCG third-party campaigns and then back again without any hassle. Since Paul has posted to this thread, I'll use this opportunity to suggest a few changes that I believe would make DCG everyone's dynamic campaign generator of choice:

1. Get rid of all the extra modes. All of the mode options are likely to make a new user's head spin right off his neck. Why not just have DCG PRE-configured to "auto-generation" and "replace in-game generator" modes every time it starts, so that the user doesn't even have to worry about this? You could still leave the option for advanced users to manually use other modes, but I would save this explanation for the technical notes rather than the basic installation documentation. In conjunction with this change, the initial installation instructions could be greatly streamlined so that new users can easily follow them.

2. Program DCG so that it always finds the right campaign folder on its own. This in my view is the biggest shortcoming of DCG--why can't it find the correct third party campaign folder on its own? Why do I have to manually set it to "third-party campaign folder" and manually pick the correct "allcmpaigns.dcg" file each time I want to generate a new third party DCG campaign? I am sure that a script can be written (not by me) so that DCG can always figure out where the correct folder is without any manual user intervention.

3. Better in-game identification of each DCG campaign. When everything goes right and the intended campaign has been created, the campaign is identified in the game only by the country, "DCG" and map. After a while, I can't remember which plane I flew and whether the campaign was a stock or third-party DCG campaign. Other campaigns at least list the plane involved. Including more info in the in-game description would be a big plus, although the game probably restricts this to some extent.

4. Setting of custom mission parameters before campaign is generated. As I mentioned above, one of the best things about DCG is that you can change almost all campaign settings even in mid-stream. One small pet peeve I have, however, is that I first have to generate a new campaign (and the 1st mission) and then open DCG to set the custom mission settings (like 100% intercept chance), which then only take effect when the next mission is generated. I would like to have these settings in place before the 1st mission is generated (how about allowing new default custom mission settings which apply to every new campaign unless changed?).

Paul, thanks for hearing me out. (If you don't respond here, I'll re-post in the Lowengrin.com forums.) Thanks for your tremendous efforts in greatly enhancing everyone's enjoyment of IL2/FB/AEP/PF.

Major V

JastaV
06-01-2006, 03:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Major_V:
I use both DGen and DCG, but nowadays mostly DCG. However, the learning curve for DCG is a bit steep. After installation, it has to be manually configured and then re-configured to create different types of campaigns, and there are several "rules" which are not clearly stated in the documentation. This creates too many crash opportunities, which leads many frustrated users (like me in the past) to simply uninstall it and stick with DGen, despite its shortcomings.

I think that DCG would become everyone's dynamic campaign generator of choice, IF its code could be modified so that it does not require manual re-configuration. By "manual reconfiguration", I am not talking about individual campaign settings--one great strength of DCG is that you can manually alter campaign settings as you go, and this is fantastic. I am talking about the initial settings that must be set just right so that the new campaign you want will be properly and reliably generated each time.

Most people (like me), want to be able to install DCG and then "set and forget" it. They want the flexibility to switch from static to in-game dynamic ("*" campaigns) to DCG stock to DCG third-party campaigns and then back again without any hassle. Since Paul has posted to this thread, I'll use this opportunity to suggest a few changes that I believe would make DCG everyone's dynamic campaign generator of choice:

1. Get rid of all the extra modes. All of the mode options are likely to make a new user's head spin right off his neck. Why not just have DCG PRE-configured to "auto-generation" and "replace in-game generator" modes every time it starts, so that the user doesn't even have to worry about this? You could still leave the option for advanced users to manually use other modes, but I would save this explanation for the technical notes rather than the basic installation documentation. In conjunction with this change, the initial installation instructions could be greatly streamlined so that new users can easily follow them.

2. Program DCG so that it always finds the right campaign folder on its own. This in my view is the biggest shortcoming of DCG--why can't it find the correct third party campaign folder on its own? Why do I have to manually set it to "third-party campaign folder" and manually pick the correct "allcmpaigns.dcg" file each time I want to generate a new third party DCG campaign? I am sure that a script can be written (not by me) so that DCG can always figure out where the correct folder is without any manual user intervention.

3. Better in-game identification of each DCG campaign. When everything goes right and the intended campaign has been created, the campaign is identified in the game only by the country, "DCG" and map. After a while, I can't remember which plane I flew and whether the campaign was a stock or third-party DCG campaign. Other campaigns at least list the plane involved. Including more info in the in-game description would be a big plus, although the game probably restricts this to some extent.

4. Setting of custom mission parameters before campaign is generated. As I mentioned above, one of the best things about DCG is that you can change almost all campaign settings even in mid-stream. One small pet peeve I have, however, is that I first have to generate a new campaign (and the 1st mission) and then open DCG to set the custom mission settings (like 100% intercept chance), which then only take effect when the next mission is generated. I would like to have these settings in place before the 1st mission is generated (how about allowing new default custom mission settings which apply to every new campaign unless changed?).

Paul, thanks for hearing me out. (If you don't respond here, I'll re-post in the Lowengrin.com forums.) Thanks for your tremendous efforts in greatly enhancing everyone's enjoyment of IL2/FB/AEP/PF.

Major V </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



Plenty of interesting ideas MajorV !!!!!
...and I already had the time to apreciate your competence....


Now, as regard your topics:

point 1. The different "modes" available with DCG are evidences of flexibility, and not a limit !!!!!!
Also, users have not to ""PRE-configure DCG to "auto-generation" and "replace in-game generator" modes every time it starts !!!!!!
Once you have properly configured DCG it keeps your last selected configuration !!!!!


point 2. I think will be not easy to have DCG finding the right campaign folder on its own, in so far the installation directory for Il2 can be - and ofter is- different for different PCs.

As regard, configuring DCG so to work with third party campaign, it's a simple three mouse clicks routine !!!!

point 3. Recently Paul has changed DCG campaign identification, inside campaign Il2 menu.....
May be the trouble is now with third party campaign designers that not always use easely recognizable names for campaign templates: if so, I'm in the number of those responsible for this trouble !!!!

point 4. "Setting of custom mission parameters before campaign is generated" could be not so easy !!!!!
Also, please remember that the flexible and dynamic nature of DCG campaigns is to be related to the fact that plenty of parameters are RANDOMLY determined any time a new campaign is generated !!!!
If you pre-order most of those parameters before generating a campaign Randomnes, flexibility and variability will be missed !!!!!


FINALLY, AND MOST IMPORTANT, IL2DCG IS WORK IN PROGRESS.....ANY NEW DCG VERSION ADDS PLENTY OF NEW ISSUES/IMPROVEMNTS...AND SOME TIME NEW BUGS/TROUBLES TOO !!!!!!

May be Il2DCG can result a bit more complex to manage, when compared to DGen.....but definetely DCG offers a great flexibility and player interactivity when compared to DGen....so, I invite users to consider DCG complexity a smal tribute to pay for great benefits !!!!!
Anyway you can always consider DCG setting-panels/pages as your tactical/strategic HQ, where you have most opportunities to take charge of decisions - by changing DCG parameter setting - that can influence Campaigns outcame....Anyway users that feel not selfconfident with the responsabilities of comand, can always play defaul and third party DCG campaigns as they come, without adding any change !!!!


JastaV

Major_V
06-01-2006, 03:35 PM
JastaV:

Thanks for posting your detailed and thoughtful comments. My only disagreement is with your reference to my supposed "competence"--I assure you I don't have any! I could never do any scripting, code-authoring or campaign development like you and Paul.

Please understand that my comments were not intended to be critical of Paul's work--I merely wanted to point out the aspects of DCG that I believe make it somewhat challenging, intimidating and sometimes frustrating to a brand new user. I know because I have felt that way in the past, although now I am pretty comfortable with using DCG and can generally avoid crashes.

I also realize that some or all of my suggestions might be very difficult or even impossible to implement. But since I don't know for sure, I offered them anyway as feedback to Paul.

On point 1, I agree completely that "the different modes available with DCG are evidences of flexibility, and not a limit". However, I think all of these options discourage a first-time user, because it is hard to figure out all the advantages and disadvantages of each mode when one first downloads the program. Most first time users expect the program to be set optimally right out of the box--that is the only point I was making. As for my pre-configuration suggestion, I meant that the DCG program could be re-written to select these codes automatically upon start up of the program, without the need for any other action by the user. I do realize that currently, the manual configurations stay in place until they are changed.

I also agree that "DCG's complexity is a small price to pay for great benefits". As I mentioned, I primarily use DCG now, and I appreciate its many advantages. But if some of these complexities could be avoided or significantly reduced, I think that just about everyone would use DCG, so that Paul's work would get the broader use it deserves.

Anyway, keep up your own excellent work. I look forward to trying your Stalingrad campaign!

Major V

Nimits
06-01-2006, 05:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">On point 1, I agree completely that "the different modes available with DCG are evidences of flexibility, and not a limit". However, I think all of these options discourage a first-time user, because it is hard to figure out all the advantages and disadvantages of each mode when one first downloads the program. Most first time users expect the program to be set optimally right out of the box--that is the only point I was making. As for my pre-configuration suggestion, I meant that the DCG program could be re-written to select these codes automatically upon start up of the program, without the need for any other action by the user. I do realize that currently, the manual configurations stay in place until they are changed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is one of my dislikes with DCG at the moment; it is mitigated by using DCG replacement mode, and it is possible that further improvement in that direction will be forthcoming and then DCG coule become the "plug and play" campaign simulator many desire. With a few improvements to DGen and some modifications (for historical accuracy) and additions to the campaigns, DCG in replacement mode could become the just about the best PTO air campaign engine available.

PLowengrin
06-01-2006, 10:35 PM
MajorV,

My comments to your post are at that "other" forum. I just happened to check it first.

Major_V
06-01-2006, 11:38 PM
Saw it, Paul. Thanks!

JastaV
06-02-2006, 03:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Major_V:
JastaV:

Thanks for posting your detailed and thoughtful comments. My only disagreement is with your reference to my supposed "competence"--I assure you I don't have any! I could never do any scripting, code-authoring or campaign development like you and Paul.

Major V </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your supposed competence has been inspired by your ability to report troubles with my Pac41-45ver2.02 campaign, and by the smart strategy you used to temporaty catching a solution by yourself.....It's a plesure to receive such detailed feedbacks, that greately helt to fix troubles !!!!!

JastaV

SeaFireLIV
06-02-2006, 06:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Major_V:


1. Get rid of all the extra modes. All of the mode options are likely to make a new user's head spin right off his neck. Why not just have DCG PRE-configured to "auto-generation" and "replace in-game generator" modes every time it starts, so that the user doesn't even have to worry about this? You could still leave the option for advanced users to manually use other modes, but I would save this explanation for the technical notes rather than the basic installation documentation. In conjunction with this change, the initial installation instructions could be greatly streamlined so that new users can easily follow them.

Major V </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I highly disagree with this.

It`s the extra modes that make DCG.

These modes are OPTIONS to me and I like OPTIONS. If there`s something I don`t understand, I simply leave it until I get more experience with DCG after a bit of flying.

Many of these modes came from user requests on Lowengrin`s site and he graciuosly included them.

"Please dumb down the game for me!"

Perhaps this is why I see more and more `simulations` and games coming out that reduce the options because people like you might get dizzy. The funny thing is later, these same people bitterly complain when they`ve gotten used to it and want more.

Reducing modes may make it more `fun` for you, but then you get less and you`re treated more like a child than an adult.

I would say, keep ALL the modes. I think what you want is an interface that didn`t show you anything except the very basics. I can understand the need for a smoother user-friendly, streamlined interface and an auto-installer, but that is all. Even then it is NOT hard to do and I am NO computer whizz, everything I`ve learned has been thru simple trial and error. Just cos I may be an `advanced` user doesn`t mean I want things made even more complex for us by sticking extra stuff somewhere else.

But reducing modes? I highly disagree. You might as well go back to DGEN.

Scharnhorst1943
06-02-2006, 10:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
I highly disagree with this.

It`s the extra modes that make DCG.

These modes are OPTIONS to me and I like OPTIONS. If there`s something I don`t understand, I simply leave it until I get more experience with DCG after a bit of flying.

Many of these modes came from user requests on Lowengrin`s site and he graciuosly included them.

"Please dumb down the game for me!"

Perhaps this is why I see more and more `simulations` and games coming out that reduce the options because people like you might get dizzy. The funny thing is later, these same people bitterly complain when they`ve gotten used to it and want more.

Reducing modes may make it more `fun` for you, but then you get less and you`re treated more like a child than an adult.

I would say, keep ALL the modes. I think what you want is an interface that didn`t show you anything except the very basics. I can understand the need for a smoother user-friendly, streamlined interface and an auto-installer, but that is all. Even then it is NOT hard to do and I am NO computer whizz, everything I`ve learned has been thru simple trial and error. Just cos I may be an `advanced` user doesn`t mean I want things made even more complex for us by sticking extra stuff somewhere else.

But reducing modes? I highly disagree. You might as well go back to DGEN. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I dissagree with this http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif I think what MajorV is saying is not "get rid of them, but to have DCG set to a default and automatically be set to auto replacement mode. He also has noted manually setting DCG to find 3rd party campaigns. Why not have an already set 3rd party folder inside DCG? It would be easy to set DCG to look in that folder. That way you just install your campaigns in that folder. He is just trying to make it less complex. And I totaly agree. For the new user DCG is overwhelming. It is not that people don't want the options, it is that they don't want the hassle.

If you were going to buy a new car, are you going to buy a car that you have to assemble with a long @ss instruction manual that is confusing or not complete or are you going to buy a car that is already built and ready to drive off the lot?

Don't get me wrong. I love DCG. But I agree with the Major in that the documentation needs some dire assistance as well as just making it a little more simple. All of those little things he mentioned can make a huge difference.

csThor
06-02-2006, 10:56 AM
IMO DCG offeres way too many options without providing guidance! This will overwhelm a lot of folks - it did overwhelm me. To me there is no real structure in the GUI to guide the new (and old) user through the configuration and what I especially disliked was the complete lack of a separation between essential options (= things you need to adjust/configure) and non-essential options (= optional options http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif).

And quite frankly - for me the documentation (including the forum posts) was not exactly what I'd call "crystal clear". I had the impression that - beyond the most basic configurations (i.e. folder config) - it was aimed more at experienced users than firsttimers. I never found the answers to my questions and i certainly did not find cures for some of my gripes with campaigns (i.e. when I saw a Hungary 1945 campaign and saw III./JG 53 flying Fw 190s I felt my toenails curling).

These are the reasons why I'm sticking to DGen (which shows the other extreme - no GUI and only textfile editing).

SeaFireLIV
06-02-2006, 11:25 AM
Seems to me then some people want some kind of attractive pretty interface that `hides` options until they want it. Fair dos.

Well, if you want to fly a dynamic campaign bad enough, if you want a scenario that allows what-if situations of all kinds, then you`ll make the effort to get it.

When I first saw Lowengrin`s little utility years ago, it answered for me what DGEN lacked. Dynamic campaigns are very important imho and seeing one guy make the effort by himself to bring us this for free made me decide to make my own effort to show appreciation and make it work. If you don`t understand stuff, you`ll make time to read and understand. The infos all on the site. I printed mine off for good reading.

This ain`t some company producing for profit that can use time and effort on glossy ultra-nice interfaces.

I guess you guys just don`t want a truly dynamic campaign badly enough.


Perhaps, if you`re lucky, Lowengrin will provide this....


p.s And I still don`t think it`s that complex as you guys are making out. I`m really not that intelligent. I`m sure it`s just patience on your part...

PLowengrin
06-02-2006, 11:34 AM
"(i.e. when I saw a Hungary 1945 campaign and saw III./JG 53 flying Fw 190s I felt my toenails curling)."

I'm a one-man band and have to make sacrifices in one area or the other. Programming the code has always been the first priority, researching historical accuracy and writing documentation are secondary. If anyone would like to have things better documented or have a campaign more historically accurate, visit my forum and give me the info. I'd be more than happy to update accordingly - updating is the easy part, it's the research/compiling that's time-consuming.

UberDemon
06-02-2006, 11:51 AM
Amen brother.

You shouldn't have to explain... your software is just about the most talented piece of code I've seen... You have more talent in you pinky than I have on all my fingers put together... and I hate and envy your talents!!! (j/k) http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

csThor
06-02-2006, 01:10 PM
I am not blaming you, Paul. Far from it. Vadim has the very same problem and I know it's not ill will on the programmer's side or lack of historical interest - it's lack of time and other priorities.

Seafire - don't accuse us of being not interested enough. That's impolite, self-righteous and a tad snotty. There's a multitude of different approaches to a dynamic campaign and quite frankly while DCG provided a full environment it also added things I heartily disliked (IMO overdone influence on campaign flow is one of them). There's no piece of software that will ever please everyone. I for once want a strictly historical campaign without all that mumbo-jumbo about influencing the war (if I wanted that I'd play a strategy game). I want to see documented historical facts (right units, right planetypes, right paintschemes etc) used as fundament and I know that I can't get that from the developers (as they don't have the time). I did change a lot of stuff in the DGen campaigns so I am hesitant to download any of the mods available for them (neither Amagi's "Disaster" nor GregSM's templates) as I don't know in advance what they changed or which sources they used. The basic problem I had with DCG is simply that I couldn't figure out how to adjust the campaigns according to my needs and found myself confused and overwhelmed by the GUI. DCG is not the holy grail of campaign generators and neither is DGen - the latter is simply easier for me to understand and modify. My 2 cents ...

Nimits
06-02-2006, 05:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The basic problem I had with DCG is simply that I couldn't figure out how to adjust the campaigns according to my needs and found myself confused and overwhelmed by the GUI. DCG is not the holy grail of campaign generators and neither is DGen - the latter is simply easier for me to understand and modify. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Actually, having tried modifications for both DGen and DCG, I would say DCG is as easy (or difficult) to mod as DGen; in some ways, it is arguably easier to do things such as assign the correct units and planes in DCG than in DGen. While laying out truck and plane routes in DCG is very tedious, the template building process is identical and adding or removing new squadrons actually more intuiative, IMO, than in DGen.

As I have said many times before, my main problems with DCG was its "win the war by yourself" and its over-complicated setup (sometimes requiring accessing the external mena multiple times during a pilot career to keep things accurate). I want a campaign generator that I or anyone else can drop into IL-2 and play with historically accurate options setup and maintained indefinately, and where the US always holds on to Midway and the Russians always take back Stalingrad. From what I have seen, that may be reality soon.

As for historically correct units, etc. I would invite those with knowledge of the Eastern Front to either do some modding themselves, or at least submit the info to others who can do the modding. Personally, I plan to adapt a few of the True Pacific campaigns to DCG as an expirament, hopefully sometime this weekend (though, since I am going to hear Anthony Tully speak Saturday and hope to cath a ride on a B-17 either Saturday or Sunday, we will have to see . . .).

Scharnhorst1943
06-02-2006, 09:19 PM
I absolutly love DCG. I also find it very easy to set up and modify campaigns. The problem for me comes when I do hardcore editing, or adding my own campaign. When I have to delve into the code and make my own DCG files, I get very confused and frustrated when things don't work.
For example, I have just finnished a fictional invasion of Japan map. It is not necessarily historical, but it should be a blast to play. I even was able to add an airfield for the US on an Island. I can at least take off and land that way. I got everything done and it would not work. Thankfully Paul helped me out and now I am good to go.

I guess I just don't want to come across as one of the whiny types that wants wine on a beer budget. I understand and very much appreciate the time and work Paul and JustaV as well as others have done. I just hope they feel they are getting my support and praise and not gripes, grumbles and wish lists.

Lipfert_5JG52
06-03-2006, 09:36 AM
I would have to say our preference at Combat Sim Group is for DCG.

We have flown over 1500 online DCG missions and I think it's safe to say, we'd never have been able to keep the interest up using DGen / NGen.

Perhap's the avid DCG users should put together a DCG Support Group.

It is correct to say that the power of DCG is also what makes it harder for new users to master.

JastaV
06-03-2006, 11:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nimits:
As for historically correct units, etc. I would invite those with knowledge of the Eastern Front to either do some modding themselves, or at least submit the info to others who can do the modding. Personally, I plan to adapt a few of the True Pacific campaigns to DCG as an expirament, hopefully sometime this weekend (though, since I am going to hear Anthony Tully speak Saturday and hope to cath a ride on a B-17 either Saturday or Sunday, we will have to see . . .). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It takes some months to create a complex campaign as the New "Stalingrad" one I'm on the way to upload.....
A try to take care of historical accuracy any time I dedicate my efforts to a new project, but often I have to accept some mid-mesure solution.....Also, editors and DCG beta testers attention is mostly dedicated to the stability of new campaigns and new DCG versions.....

Finally, I already asked for historical documentation support more times at Il2DCG forum, but often I had to base my project developments on my own !!!!!

Anyway I'll be gratefull for beta-testing and suggestion over my projects for the future....so if you or anyone is interested to cooperate, here is my e-mail address:

JastaV@libero.it
JastaV@virgilio.it

Sincerely
JastaV

JastaV
06-03-2006, 11:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Scharnhorst1943:

For example, I have just finnished a fictional invasion of Japan map. It is not necessarily historical, but it should be a blast to play. I even was able to add an airfield for the US on an Island.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I did something like that in my Pacific42-45 campaign, too.

JastaV

JastaV
06-03-2006, 11:19 AM
As regard Historical Accuracy with Il2-DCG campaigns and add-on I like to remenber that it is not always possible, in so far DCG is definetely Il2 related....

For example, I recentely collected plenty of historical material to create a detailed Ace pack add-on for Il2DCG campaigns.....
I collected information from most available sources as regard Luftwaffe, Italian Regia Aeronautica, Rojal Rumanian Airforce, VVS,...

All my informations were accurate and trustable, but when I tried to encode those into DCG files I met troubles in so far most historical Squadrons/Regiments were not available into Il2 database !!!!!
So I decided to assign aces to those Squadrons/Regiments available, although not the historical ones.....

JastaV

JastaV
06-03-2006, 11:25 AM
I like to remember here that having a common and unique Il2 version will greately simplify any future third party add-on creation !!!!

I invite anyone to support my petition:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/26310365/m/6551057934

Your sign will be precious !!!!

JastaV

rmorgansmith
06-05-2006, 09:56 AM
Just started using Lowngrins's program and at first it seemed great. I have been having problems with stuttering, lockups, and even got a memory error message once. Went back and played a campaign I had going from the stock game and all went smoothly.

Using Dell XPS M-170, 1 gig ram.

PLowengrin
06-05-2006, 11:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by rmorgansmith:
Just started using Lowngrins's program and at first it seemed great. I have been having problems with stuttering, lockups, and even got a memory error message once. Went back and played a campaign I had going from the stock game and all went smoothly.

Using Dell XPS M-170, 1 gig ram. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sounds like you need to reduce the squadron density and/or the number of flights per squadron on the DCG "General Settings Panel" before creating a mission.

rmorgansmith
06-05-2006, 12:34 PM
Thank you very much for the suggestion, will try it. It really looked like a lot of fun as I was playing as a A-6m Zero in the Coral Sea and was escorting Vals, on the way back was going to polish off a few Wildcats as they were coming back from hitting my fleet.

I am also thinking of doing a ram upgrade to the full 2 gig capacity of my machine, any suggestions on make, Kingston, Corsair, Crucial?

cpirrmann
06-07-2006, 08:48 PM
I like to use DCG. I fond it keeps getting better. Today I saw something I never saw in DGEN (it may be possible, I don't know) when I attacked my target, there was a ground action going on there. Arty explosions, etc. Plus DCG lets you try several what if situations...like the Navy helping out in France 1940.

WWSensei
06-08-2006, 05:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by cpirrmann:
I like to use DCG. I fond it keeps getting better. Today I saw something I never saw in DGEN (it may be possible, I don't know) when I attacked my target, there was a ground action going on there. Arty explosions, etc. Plus DCG lets you try several what if situations...like the Navy helping out in France 1940. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's the uncertainty DCG adds I like...like the ground battles you mentioned. Contrary to the rumor you cannot "win the war by yourself" in DCG. At best, you can tilt the odds in your favor on a tactical scale in small battles. String enough of those together and you might win the battle.

I'm flying P-38s in Ardennes 1944. As air-to-air we are doing quite well and killing more than being killed. But, enemy Panzers are stomping all over my little AI Sherman defenders.

Despite my repeated attacks on a German tank column in 3 sorties they punched through and captured Manhay and I had to abandon the airfield. A thrilling mission in an of itself because the transfer came in the wee hours of the morning while the airfield was being shelled. You can fly 100 successful sorties and still lose. You can also fly crappy and win.

Our 38s got off the ground but one of the C-47s got hit half way down the runway. Nothing like rolling down a runway with huge explosions going off on you rleft and right and wondering if the next one will be on target... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

SeaFireLIV
06-08-2006, 04:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWSensei:
Our 38s got off the ground but one of the C-47s got hit half way down the runway. Nothing like rolling down a runway with huge explosions going off on you rleft and right and wondering if the next one will be on target... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I second this. had one on the Russian front where we had to leave cos we were being overrun. We were lined up, fighters with transports at the back. We were getting shelled. I and most of the fighters got airborne, but to my surprise, TANKS appeared and started shelling the transports. despite mine and the efforts of fighters to stop the tanks they decimated the transports. We had to fly away transportless - but what an encounter.

This also goes along with historical accounts at stalingrad when the Russian tanks encircled the 6th army, tanks actually got onto one runway destroying fleeing transports - one tank even collided with a transport (I think an He111).

Nimits
06-17-2006, 10:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It takes some months to create a complex campaign as the New "Stalingrad" one I'm on the way to upload.....
A try to take care of historical accuracy any time I dedicate my efforts to a new project, but often I have to accept some mid-mesure solution.....Also, editors and DCG beta testers attention is mostly dedicated to the stability of new campaigns and new DCG versions.....

Finally, I already asked for historical documentation support more times at Il2DCG forum, but often I had to base my project developments on my own !!!!! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


No doubt. I have been working on True Pacific off and on for over a year. However, much of the work is research, and I am in pretty good condition for everything up till Eastern Solomons in that regard. Plus, making True Pacific for DCG would necessarily require me to reinvent the wheel. I already have ground object templates built for every campaign (excepting Singapore) from December 1941 to June 1942, and your Pacific War and Lowergrin's default Pacific campaigns could be used as starting for the rest, with only minor tweaking to make them as historically accurate as possible. My main effort would be building various mini-campaigns (mainly the various carrier raids and some self-christened "defensive campaigns") to flesh things out. Once I get the hang of working with DCG, the defensive and raid campaigns would seem fairly simple projects, since once really should not have to worry about advancing front lines, etc. After that, it would only remain to organize the campaigns into group or squadron based careers within the DGen interface, and things are complete. It would probably be serveral weeks, possibly even months worth of work, but at this point I do not beleive it would take significantly longer than completeing the remaining True Pacific campaigns in DGen.

sledgehammer2
06-18-2006, 09:11 AM
Nimits,

Do I hear you saying that instead of finishing Tru Pacific out in Dgen that you are going to switch over to DCG?

Sledgehammer2

Nimits
06-18-2006, 09:51 PM
Maybe. There are some very cool things about DCG. For instance, you can put squadrons in a campaign, have it mean something. In other words, if you are flying a campaign for VF-2 at Coral Sea, you will fly of the Lexington, not the Yorktown (actually the Essex, but . . .). Another example, I can put the Tainan Airgroup in the New Guinea or Guadalcanal campaigns, give them a skin with their markings, and make them an Ace level squadron, so that when you see a Tainan Airgroup Zero, you know you are messing with some of the best, and when you kill a Tainan Airgroup Zero, you are seriously damaging Japan's best fighter squadron in the campain. In DGen, while you can assign skins and planes, there is nothing else to distinguish squadrons (e.g. skill, base, strength, etc.) and there is just as much chance of encountering a rookie (or ace) in a Tainan Airgroup Zero as in a 3rd Airgroup Zero.

I think I can say this without disclosing anything sensitve, but a new version of DCG should be coming that will answer some of the problems with the "win the war/battle by yourself" complaint and make it possible for the campaign builder to keep things more historical. Plus, a recent poll on Lowergrin's sight suggest that full fledged squadron management may be coming in a future build . . .

sledgehammer2
06-19-2006, 04:17 AM
Well, i know that whatever happens you are doing it for the good of the community. I just ask because I struggle with tech stuff and have always been put off by DCG. Not that it isn't a great thing but I hear people say that it's hard to figure out and install, and TBH, I guess I am easily intimidated by that and haven't wanted to fool with it.

JastaV
06-19-2006, 05:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nimits:

No doubt. I have been working on True Pacific off and on for over a year. However, much of the work is research, and I am in pretty good condition for everything up till Eastern Solomons in that regard. Plus, making True Pacific for DCG would necessarily require me to reinvent the wheel. I already have ground object templates built for every campaign (excepting Singapore) from December 1941 to June 1942, and your Pacific War and Lowergrin's default Pacific campaigns could be used as starting for the rest, with only minor tweaking to make them as historically accurate as possible. My main effort would be building various mini-campaigns (mainly the various carrier raids and some self-christened "defensive campaigns") to flesh things out. Once I get the hang of working with DCG, the defensive and raid campaigns would seem fairly simple projects, since once really should not have to worry about advancing front lines, etc. After that, it would only remain to organize the campaigns into group or squadron based careers within the DGen interface, and things are complete. It would probably be serveral weeks, possibly even months worth of work, but at this point I do not beleive it would take significantly longer than completeing the remaining True Pacific campaigns in DGen. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Hi Nimits,

Your "True Pacific" project for Il2DCG sounds great !!!!

Anyway I do not think most static mission templates can be used as templates for Il2DCG campaigns.....considering the dynamic nature of Il2DCG campaigns you have to provide plenty of ground objects at a lot of locations.....
you have also to edit a lot of Il2DCG related files for any a campaign: .RDS, .SRD,.....
That is the most heavy duty when working over a new campaign....

I had plenty of files relative to most pacific maps: Singapore, Guadalcanal, Marianas, Kyushu....They have been used as the core for my Pacific41-45 campaigns.
I have also a detailed route network file, (.RDS) for NewGuinea map that I had never used yet.

Indeed all of them have been edited almost a year ago.....so, may be we need to update them to use present Il2DCG features, at all: anyway they represent a good starting point for the development of a DCG ver 3.28 Pacific campaign.

Although I've planned to rework my Pacific41-45 campaigns, at present I'm really busy over European theater projects: I'm wayting DCG3.28 release to upload "Stalingrad Campaign", I'm working over DCG files related to different Easten-front maps, I'm also at work over a new Europe 43-45 campaign.....
So I'll be really pleased to share with you any of may "Pacific" related files, so to speed up your "True Pacific" project.
If you should be interested to any sort of cooperation, included my unpublished files please contact me at:

JastaV@virgilio.it

sincerely

JastaV

Nimits
06-19-2006, 10:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Not that it isn't a great thing but I hear people say that it's hard to figure out and install, and TBH, I guess I am easily intimidated by that and haven't wanted to fool with it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, the idea would be, with Paul's help, to make the thing as much "Plug and Play" as any other campaign out there. The way I see it, except for the first time to set DCG into DGen replacement mode, you should not ever have to open up the DCG panel again if you did not want to, and would be able to play the DCG campaigns just as if they were DGen campaigns.

JastaV, I am certainly glad of any and all help you can most ably offer, and will contact you shortly.

Also, when you speak of working on the ETO and Eastern Front campaigns, has there been any thought given to addressing any issues of historical "incorrectness" as mentioned by some in this thread and others?

JastaV
06-20-2006, 09:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Nimits:

Well, the idea would be, with Paul's help, to make the thing as much "Plug and Play" as any other campaign out there. The way I see it, except for the first time to set DCG into DGen replacement mode, you should not ever have to open up the DCG panel again if you did not want to, and would be able to play the DCG campaigns just as if they were DGen campaigns. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There's a detailed routine to follow for the proper installation and configuration of Il2DCG !!!!!!
But that does not mean Il2DCG is hard to figure out and install !!!!!
Also installation/configuration routines are properly described in the attached readme file and installation guide: it takes couple of minutes to read and understand that !!!!
Unfortunately many users misregard it, and attempt their own way.....then reporting that they met troubles !!!!!
The same thing is also true with Third Party Campaigns, (TPC): I've been often adressed by users reporting troubles with my TPCs.....Facts proved out troubles were not with TPCs but with users misregarding the properly described TPC/Il2DCG instalaltion/configuration routine.

As a member of Il2DCG beta-testing team I try new DCG beta version almost dayly: any time I have to "install" the new one.....trust me it's definetely a simple operation !!!!!

Finally, and this is not the first time I have to underline this aspect, some complexity in Il2DCG configuration is a small tribute to pay for Il2DCG great flexibility: Il2DCG supports many "game styles", so you have to configure Il2DCG according to the "Mode" You choose to enjoy....
Anyway, "DGen replacement-full auto mode" is first choice when playing a campaign.....Once you have properly enabled it you have no more to do that work again.
Il2DCG TPCs configuration is a different matter: You have to configure Il2DCG to work with the proper Third Party Campaign, any time you start/select a new campaign......Again I remember it's a simple operation you can successfully accomplish this 3-4 Left-Mouce clicks.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Also, when you speak of working on the ETO and Eastern Front campaigns, has there been any thought given to addressing any issues of historical "incorrectness" as mentioned by some in this thread and others? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Incorrectness are definetely related to the nature of Il2DCG and Il2DCG campaigns/careers !!!!!

I consider my new "Stalingrad TPC" an historical accurate campaign: I dedicated large efforts to recreate the different phases of the battle with great care to reproduce the ground units path of movement: the summer Axis advance, the Winter Soviet offensive entrapping German 6th army, Hoth's counter-offensive,....Anyway due to the Dynamic nature of Il2DCG Campaigns I'n not sure things will follow the historical outcame.
Some users like open end campaigns: that's the reason my "Stalingrad TPC" could conclude with the relief of German 6th Army !!!!!
Is that correct ????? Historically, definetely not !!!!!
Is that irrational ???? I don't think so..... Hoth's offensive could had open a breach in Soviet lines allowing 6th Army to retreat South to safety.....at the prize of leaving Stalingrad to Soviets.

Most campaigns have been linked in a Grand-camapign allowing users to play long careers spanning over the entire WWII time-line. Unfortunatly players are not allowed to change their squadron during a campaign/grandcampaign......So you can enjoy battle of France, 1940 campaign selecting an historical accurate squadron, later, when playing Russian campaign you'll have to service with the same squadron even if historically that squadron has never been committed to Eastern front !!!!

A could quote many other examples of "Incorrectness"...we have just to coexist with them.

Finally, Il2DCG and related campaigns are work-in-progress, with new versions fixing known troubles......

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">JastaV, I am certainly glad of any and all help you can most ably offer, and will contact you shortly. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I suppose, discussion over any Il2DCG project could better continue at Il2DCG home: that to say Paul Lowengrin', Il2DCG official site Tech Support forum.

I'm waiting for first e-mail contact from you, expecially to know your e-mail address !!!!


JastaV

csThor
06-20-2006, 10:18 AM
Jasta - what Nimitz means there are "potentially possible changes of history" and "potentially ridiculous changes of history" *g*

Hoth might have been able to tear a hole into the soviet lines, but he was already outnumbered and the 6th Army was incabable of operating as a whole, let alone organizing a breakout or coordinated retreat. It simply lacked fuel and vehicles to make it though the gap in the soviet lines within a reasonable amount of time.
But IMO most importantly air power can only support the combat on the ground - it can never conquer land on its own. You might take down a full flight of Il-2s leaving a platoon of Panthers for their own attack. But you can't influence the outcome of the ground combat unless you're doing everything. Will there be artillery fire? Hidden AT-guns? Hidden enemy tanks? A new load of enemy GA planes? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

But there are other - more obvious - examples of why "change the outcome of war" is not everyone's cup of tea and should be a toggable option IMO. Japan may win the "Battle of Midway". They may even sink the Hornet and the Enterprise, too. But they don't hamper the US's economical potential. The US will still be able to get some ten or fifteen carriers out of the docks within the next 12 - 15 months. And then? What will Japan do then? All of this concerns questions that reach way beyond the scope of our tactical simulation. I simply don't like the simplified "shoot down scores of planes and win the war" approach - it may be attractive as a feature to some but for others it's just "gamey".

SeaFireLIV
06-20-2006, 10:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by csThor:

But there are other - more obvious - examples of why "change the outcome of war" is not everyone's cup of tea and should be a toggable option IMO. Japan may win the "Battle of Midway". They may even sink the Hornet and the Enterprise, too. But they don't hamper the US's economical potential. The US will still be able to get some ten or fifteen carriers out of the docks within the next 12 - 15 months. And then? What will Japan do then? All of this concerns questions that reach way beyond the scope of our tactical simulation. I simply don't like the simplified "shoot down scores of planes and win the war" approach - it may be attractive as a feature to some but for others it's just "gamey". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But then we`re into another area: Politics. Perhaps if the japanese did win Midway, sinking most of the US carriers. Political pressure may come to bear to postpone the war, besides, I could see them reasoning that America`s homeland wasn`t directly under attack, just their Pacific colony/base. As Yamamoto may have hoped a `cessation of hostilities` may result.

(Look at Britain and France. Did you know that they are still technically at war? Yep, it`s true).

This would then create a potential `win` situation for the Japanese. We know that (arguably without an A bomb), it was unlikely that the japanese would have politically stepped back.


Point I`m trying to make is there`s only so much that can be done in dcg to please everyone.

WWSensei
06-20-2006, 11:36 AM
"I simply don't like the simplified "shoot down scores of planes and win the war" approach - it may be attractive as a feature to some but for others it's just "gamey"."

That's also not how DCG works. In DCG only ground units can capture territory. You can "shoot down scores of planes" and lose the war. In fact, if you just go aircraft hunting you pretty much guaranteed to get overrun. DCG does NOT make the player some godlike hero saving the world. That's only a misconception by some who havn't really played it. At best you affect things on a tactical level (which is historical) and only if you chain enough of those together do you begin to have any effect on the strategic.

You might swing things IF you intercept enough of their attack aircraft to allow your ground units to not be harrassed--or in the case I just had happen--my entire tank force was defeated by the enemy tank force and my actions in the match did diddly squat to the outcome.

The main thing I like is the persistance of tactical effects through each mission. My wingman doesn't miracously come back alive if he was killed last mission, the enemy ace we downed stays dead, that bridge we destroyed stays destroyed until repaired. To me, those things make the other type sof campaigns "gamey".

As to Midway....arguably a defeat at Midway may have pushed the US to negotiate for peace with either Germany (something Hitler and a good portion of influential people wanted to do to avoid a "European War") to focus on Japan or a peace treaty with Japan to focus on Europe.

csThor
06-20-2006, 11:59 AM
Well ... I have problems with any influence on the pace of war (as tiny as they might be) as there are more factors out of my reach than within my reach.

The "consistency of battle damage" is indeed a problem of DGen. I admit that freely http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

-HH-Quazi
06-20-2006, 01:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWSensei:
"I simply don't like the simplified "shoot down scores of planes and win the war" approach - it may be attractive as a feature to some but for others it's just "gamey"."

That's also not how DCG works. In DCG only ground units can capture territory. You can "shoot down scores of planes" and lose the war. In fact, if you just go aircraft hunting you pretty much guaranteed to get overrun. DCG does NOT make the player some godlike hero saving the world. That's only a misconception by some who havn't really played it. At best you affect things on a tactical level (which is historical) and only if you chain enough of those together do you begin to have any effect on the strategic.

You might swing things IF you intercept enough of their attack aircraft to allow your ground units to not be harrassed--or in the case I just had happen--my entire tank force was defeated by the enemy tank force and my actions in the match did diddly squat to the outcome.

The main thing I like is the persistance of tactical effects through each mission. My wingman doesn't miracously come back alive if he was killed last mission, the enemy ace we downed stays dead, that bridge we destroyed stays destroyed until repaired. To me, those things make the other type sof campaigns "gamey".

As to Midway....arguably a defeat at Midway may have pushed the US to negotiate for peace with either Germany (something Hitler and a good portion of influential people wanted to do to avoid a "European War") to focus on Japan or a peace treaty with Japan to focus on Europe. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This says it all and is the reason Lowengrins DCG is set apart from the games DCG. If you have a flight of IL2's tasked with destroying the enemys' tank column as they are approaching your forces at the front lines and you are unsucessfull, those tanks will lay ibto your ground units and the next mission you pull up you may notice a "dent" (for lack of a better word) in that particular section of the line. And I have found very often that a task of destroying an enemys armoured unit ends up being close air support as sometimes the armoured tank\columns are already so close to the front lines you really have to pay attention and make sure you drop your eggs or strafe the correct targets.

Now I do switch back and forth between both to be able to fly the BoE dynamic online campaigns along with what the game has already. Also, Luthiers patch for BoE and Ostfront also gives us two hosts'choice and two histroical Murmask dynamic campigns to fly. I guess you could say I have used both equally. But I do like the Lowengrins DCG alot.

Nimits
06-20-2006, 08:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Anyway, "DGen replacement-full auto mode" is first choice when playing a campaign.....Once you have properly enabled it you have no more to do that work again.
Il2DCG TPCs configuration is a different matter: You have to configure Il2DCG to work with the proper Third Party Campaign, any time you start/select a new campaign......Again I remember it's a simple operation you can successfully accomplish this 3-4 Left-Mouce clicks. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My goal here would be to make True Pacific playable in DGen Replacement mode, hence "Plug and Play."

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Most campaigns have been linked in a Grand-camapign allowing users to play long careers spanning over the entire WWII time-line. Unfortunatly players are not allowed to change their squadron during a campaign/grandcampaign......So you can enjoy battle of France, 1940 campaign selecting an historical accurate squadron, later, when playing Russian campaign you'll have to service with the same squadron even if historically that squadron has never been committed to Eastern front !!!! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am not a big fan of the "play through the whole war" concept. Obviously, Alled pilots operated on a "tour" basis, flying in combat for several months (or even years), then rotating home. Only one fighter pilot flew at Coral Sea, Midway, and Eastern Solomons, and no pilot flew at all five carrier battles. The VVS and the Axis tended to keep aircrew at the front almost indefinately, but still few, if any, pilots served in every big battle in a theater.

What I want to do is create and Squadron/Group/Wing-based careers, following the combat career of a Squadorn/Group/Wing (or two or three, in cases where Groups were disbanded and most of the pilots transferred to a new Group). Most careers choices would be limited to 1-3 squadrons, eliminting alot of the need for ahistorical squadrons and "squadron jumping." For example: a Lexington Airgroup career would cover the Bougainville Raid and Coral Sea, then switch to Airgroup 10 for Santa Cruz, etc. This type of campaign would not be perfectly historical, since most pilots did not spend their whole careers in one squadron, but it would still be better than anytyhing we have now.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">But IMO most importantly air power can only support the combat on the ground - it can never conquer land on its own. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly. No single squadron could possibly apply enough force to seriously impede or advance Hoth's counteroffinsive above the historical result. Some successful missions might speed it up or slow it down by a few hours or days, but that is is.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">But then we`re into another area: Politics. Perhaps if the japanese did win Midway, sinking most of the US carriers. Political pressure may come to bear to postpone the war, besides, I could see them reasoning that America`s homeland wasn`t directly under attack, just their Pacific colony/base. As Yamamoto may have hoped a `cessation of hostilities` may result. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Politically, there was no way, after the Rape of Nanking, the attack on Pearl Harbor, and the capture of the Philippines, that the US would have accepted a negotiated peace. But even if that were possible, that sort of grand strategic conjecture best left to strategy games like Hearts of Iron II. Even considering that both DGen and DCG allow for the possibility of the Axis winning Coral Sea or Midway, frankly my view is that the campaign should still continue to the next historical battle. Unless building some sort of alternate history campaign, "political considerations" allowing the Axis to win should never be part of a historical flight sim campaign.

The way I see it, DCG's excellence is in the way it sets up missions themselves, with ground units and aircraft actually operation with a purpose, rather than AI air and land units simply appearing to play their roles relative to the players squadron. In that sense, DCG is obviously the more realistic sim. The best of all worlds would be a series of DCG campaigns where, through a combination of careful design of the templates and route files, along with the new "schedule" option Lowergrin is working on, where a "balanced" or 0 player influence result would end in as near exact a historical outcome as possible, while postive or negative player influence could speed up or slow down that outcome. Except for the carrier battles, though, I do not think that the "wrong side" should ever have possibility of winning the campaign.

SeaFireLIV
06-21-2006, 02:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by csThor:
Well ... I have problems with any influence on the pace of war (as tiny as they might be) as there are more factors out of my reach than within my reach.

The "consistency of battle damage" is indeed a problem of DGen. I admit that freely http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Strange philosophy.

Every pilot/soldier in every war influences the war in some way, no matter how small that influence is. Add it all together and you have an army that succeeds or an airforce that wins. See Battle of Britain , for example. DGEN has no effect on the overall war whatsoever (except in new settings in PF), but in real life, you shoot down just one enemy and you`re having an effect.

This is what DCG allows without you actually winning the war. You are having an effect. Otherwise what`s the point?

You sound like you don`t want the player pilot to have any effect whatsoever, not even the tiny effect a REAL pilot would have had when shooting down an enemy plane.

Why don`t you just give DCG a try and you`ll see.

csThor
06-21-2006, 07:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Strange philosophy.

Every pilot/soldier in every war influences the war in some way, no matter how small that influence is. Add it all together and you have an army that succeeds or an airforce that wins. See Battle of Britain , for example. DGEN has no effect on the overall war whatsoever (except in new settings in PF), but in real life, you shoot down just one enemy and you`re having an effect.

This is what DCG allows without you actually winning the war. You are having an effect. Otherwise what`s the point?

You sound like you don`t want the player pilot to have any effect whatsoever, not even the tiny effect a REAL pilot would have had when shooting down an enemy plane.

Why don`t you just give DCG a try and you`ll see. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As I said my main gripe with DCG is the overblown GUI. Tried it three times and went back to DGen ...

The actual influence of a single pilot on the war is hard to measure. Sure I can be the one to dump the decisive bomb into the Hornet's fuselage, count numbers of kills on my rudder but where exactly is the border between a believable representation of my achievements and a simplified extrapolation of some possible events?
Quazi gave an exellent example of what I regard as problematic:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If you have a flight of IL2's tasked with destroying the enemys' tank column as they are approaching your forces at the front lines and you are unsucessfull, those tanks will lay ibto your ground units and the next mission you pull up you may notice a "dent" (for lack of a better word) in that particular section of the line. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's the crux. Am I deciding the following ground combat? Are my buddies on the ground so incompetent that they can't hold the ground without me putting out their enemies before? Don't they have AT guns, artillery, tanks, tank hunters or Molotov cocktails? Additionally an unsuccessful attack on an armored column doesn't equate loosing ground.

Guderian and Fuller taught that tanks can not conquer ground but enable the infantry to do so. In 1941 the Wehrmacht infantry had to face superior tanks in Russia on a lot of occasions, but the standard tactics was to separate the tanks from the infantry (i.e. let the tanks pass but hammer the russian infantry). The tanks might get through and cause some havoc, but without infantry to capture the ground they'll run out of ammo and fuel and that's it for them. (I know we don't have infantry objects in FB, but let's take them into consideration for realism purposes.)

And finally - as a fighter pilot I may be able to shrink an enemy unit pretty much on my own, but who says that the enemy HQ doesn't send an experienced unit into the area to deal with the problem? One day I'm shooting some clay doves in their old Yak-9s and the next day I have 176. GIAP with their new LA-7s on my back.

-HH-Quazi
06-21-2006, 08:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by csThor:
The actual influence of a single pilot on the war is hard to measure. Sure I can be the one to dump the decisive bomb into the Hornet's fuselage, count numbers of kills on my rudder but where exactly is the border between a believable representation of my achievements and a simplified extrapolation of some possible events?
Quazi gave an exellent example of what I regard as problematic:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If you have a flight of IL2's tasked with destroying the enemys' tank column as they are approaching your forces at the front lines and you are unsucessfull, those tanks will lay ibto your ground units and the next mission you pull up you may notice a "dent" (for lack of a better word) in that particular section of the line. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's the crux. Am I deciding the following ground combat? Are my buddies on the ground so incompetent that they can't hold the ground without me putting out their enemies before? Don't they have AT guns, artillery, tanks, tank hunters or Molotov cocktails? Additionally an unsuccessful attack on an armored column doesn't equate loosing ground.

Guderian and Fuller taught that tanks can not conquer ground but enable the infantry to do so. In 1941 the Wehrmacht infantry had to face superior tanks in Russia on a lot of occasions, but the standard tactics was to separate the tanks from the infantry (i.e. let the tanks pass but hammer the russian infantry). The tanks might get through and cause some havoc, but without infantry to capture the ground they'll run out of ammo and fuel and that's it for them. (I know we don't have infantry objects in FB, but let's take them into consideration for realism purposes.)

And finally - as a fighter pilot I may be able to shrink an enemy unit pretty much on my own, but who says that the enemy HQ doesn't send an experienced unit into the area to deal with the problem? One day I'm shooting some clay doves in their old Yak-9s and the next day I have 176. GIAP with their new LA-7s on my back. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And with that csThor sir, I finally can see\understand where you stand and where you are coming from in your thinking\thoughts. I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer, and sometimes it takes an explaination reading several different ways but all aluding to the same conclusion for me to grasp. And with this last analogy, waalaa, I do understand your position, finally. And a good position it is.

I guess what it boils down to is which has the most realistic scenarios to each individual given both have their limitations. At least we have a choice thanks to Lowengrins' hard work and Starshoys' constant work and evolution of the Dgen\Ngen in game. Both do have their short comings from what I have read. But then again, both do have their good points too. At least we have a choice and it is easy enough to mix and match depending on what one is looking for. A simple click of the mouse is all it takes to use one or the other.

JastaV
06-23-2006, 04:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by csThor:
Jasta - what Nimitz means there are "potentially possible changes of history" and "potentially ridiculous changes of history" *g*

Hoth might have been able to tear a hole into the soviet lines, but he was already outnumbered and the 6th Army was incabable of operating as a whole, let alone organizing a breakout or coordinated retreat. It simply lacked fuel and vehicles to make it though the gap in the soviet lines within a reasonable amount of time.
But IMO most importantly air power can only support the combat on the ground - it can never conquer land on its own. You might take down a full flight of Il-2s leaving a platoon of Panthers for their own attack. But you can't influence the outcome of the ground combat unless you're doing everything. Will there be artillery fire? Hidden AT-guns? Hidden enemy tanks? A new load of enemy GA planes? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

But there are other - more obvious - examples of why "change the outcome of war" is not everyone's cup of tea and should be a toggable option IMO. Japan may win the "Battle of Midway". They may even sink the Hornet and the Enterprise, too. But they don't hamper the US's economical potential. The US will still be able to get some ten or fifteen carriers out of the docks within the next 12 - 15 months. And then? What will Japan do then? All of this concerns questions that reach way beyond the scope of our tactical simulation. I simply don't like the simplified "shoot down scores of planes and win the war" approach - it may be attractive as a feature to some but for others it's just "gamey". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>



Looking for history lessons I'll go posting at WWII History dedicated sites, not at Combact Air Sim ones.......

Alternative, although not historical ending is a necessity given the dynamic and player customizable nature of Il2DCG campaigns.

I like historical trustable solutions: I often asked Paul to modify DCG codes to add features allowing an historical approach to DCG campaigns editing.
I'm gratefull to Paul for his efforts to add historical triggers while allowing the classic full open end solution for Il2DCG campaigns: at present the nature of any campaign reflect the editor choices.....

Anyway, alternative, although not historical endings are a necessity given the dynamic and player customizable nature of Il2DCG campaigns, even when working over an historical campaigns.
Randomnes can influence Il2DCG campaigns outcame. Player Il2DCG setting even more.
"Great Patriotic War - Southern Front -, Stalingrad Campaign" will lead to the historical outcame when played according to default editor setting. Anyway players are allowed to alter, throught Il2DCG setting panels, units density, pilots experience, balance of power in favor of any of the two sides at will.......

Now, let say a player modified all parameters dramatically in favor of Axis side: he probably will play a smooth campaign where Axis forces have a ridicolous advantage over Soviets.......Yes it's ridicolous, un-historical, but it's player choice !!!!!
So, after a long campaign where player had feeling of a clear Axis victory a conclusion according to History with a decisive Axis defeat at Stalingrad wil be perceived as illogical......So, here's the need to consider an "happy ending" for Axis !!!!!
Anyway my editing solutions set a limit to Axis side happiness: at their best remnants of German 6th Army......Well, you'll have to play "Great Patriotic War - Southern Front -, Stalingrad Campaign" to discover this point !!!!!!

JastaV

P.S.: I'm proud to announce that "Great Patriotic War - Southern Front -, Stalingrad Campaign" has been sent to Paul Lowengrin for public posting at Il2DCG site.
I guess it could be available for download in the weekend. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

ojcar1971
06-24-2006, 08:39 AM
Nimits, please, DCG seems interesting, but can you finish True Pacific(DGen)? Now, with the new planes, and the Burma map, it will be more interesting than ever! (and maybe you can add new campaings for RAF and IJAAF, because there are no 1943-1944 Japanese Army campaings). Thanks for your work!

Nimits
06-24-2006, 10:24 PM
While I have devoted more time of late to experimenting with DCG, I am not scrapping all support for True Pacific DGen yet, and, if time permits, I might try to maintain simultaneous development for both generators (no promises though). There will for sure be 1 or 2 more versions of DGen, though, since I will have limited access to the computer for the next few weeks, it may not happen for a while.

JastaV
06-27-2006, 04:05 AM
Il2 DCG ver3.28 has been posted.

It's available for free download at:

http://www.lowengrin.com/request.php?103


"Great Patriotic War - Southern Front -, Stalingrad Campaign" posted !!!!!!
For free download see:

http://www.lowengrin.com/request.php?104


Hope you'll like to enjoy boths.

JastaV

SeaFireLIV
06-27-2006, 07:15 AM
GOT IT! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Looks like he`s automated some options. Guess some of the `make it easier` crowd are getting what they were asking for. Hope nothing customisation-wise has been compromised. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif

PLowengrin
06-27-2006, 07:06 PM
&lt;&lt;Hope nothing customisation-wise has been compromised.&gt;&gt;

Of course not! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Scharnhorst1943
06-27-2006, 11:10 PM
Got it up and running!

I was shocked, then gleeful when I got it updated in less time than normal. Then again ... how many times have I updated http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

JastaV
07-08-2006, 10:48 AM
Hi everybody,

I'm at work over a couple of new Il2DCG add-on third party campaigns:

Battle for Berlin, 1945

Germany 1943-45

"Battle for Berlin, 1945" recreates the last WWII ETO battle......I'm trying to edit an historical accurate campaign, where Soviet Armies converge to Berlin for the last struggle.

"Germany 1943-45" is a huge campaign dedicated to Allied strategic bombing offensive over Germany and Luftwaffe efforts to neutralize it.

Most details will been available after the extended beta testing phase over DCG3.29.

JastaV

Ernst_Rohr
07-25-2006, 10:05 AM
I have used both DCG and DGEN, and liked and disliked things about both.

DGEN;
DGEN is pretty simple, which has some positives and negatives. While its simple, and fairly easy to change some things via text editing, its also NOT easy to get things to reflect reality. As Nimits already pointed out, squadrons are effectively meaningless in DGEN except for the possible skin of your plane.

The other frustrating thing about DGEN is that with all of the excellent DGEN campaigns out, its becoming more of an issue in maintaining DGEN versions and getting them to play nice with each other. My latest Luftwaffe campaign in Amagi's Disaster on the Frontiers has just died to a compatability bug, and that REALLY REALLY is annonying a year and 50+ kills into the campaign.

Basically, while DGEN has become a much more immersive experience with the very well done expansion campaigns out there, its also becoming increasingly complicated to maintain the "correct" version of files to support the new campaigns.

Finally, DGEN missions can get INCREDIBLY repetitious. Fly red in the PTO and get ready for a LOT of scramble missions early in the war. Historical? Yes, to an extent. But when you can have nothing but a constant string of them, it gets VERY old after a while.

DCG;
DCG is MODERATELY more complex than DGEN. Honestly, if your using any of the good DGEN campaigns, like True Pacific, or Disaster on the Frontiers, you should be able to pick up DCG pretty easily.

HUGE plus to DCG; squadrons mean something. On both sides! My last DCG campaign as a Russian fighter pilot lasted long enough for me to get to where I could recognize Luftwaffe squadron skins and tell how good they were. Plain nosed 109s? Thats Hauptmann Stimpy and crew, easy kills! Red flashes? Oh hell, 109 experten, this isnt going to go well..... NEVER see that in DGEN!

DCG missions also MEAN something. If I get sent to bomb a bridge and we blow the hell out of it, it STAYS blown up (until it gets fixed). DGEN on the other hand can have you bomb the same objective repeatedly, which isnt anywhere close to accurate. The target of course is miraclously repaired overnight. :P

DCG has definiately got DGEN in the immersion department. I had a Luftwaffe mission where the Russians were overrunning our base, as we were taking off, the Russians started shelling our airbase, and retreating German vehicles where tearing across the airfield while under fire. HAIRY take off on that one! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

HUGE PLUS to DCG;
Campaigns! There are campaigns covered in DCG that are not covered in DGEN, like the Med. And you can carry over pilots to other campaigns just by copying some files. This is ESPECIALLY nice if you have a wierd bug bring your current campaign to a unexpected halt. If it happens in DGEN, your hosed.

Down sides to DCG;
Occassional random stupid things. One of the things I ran into was bombers plowing into the ground/hills/trees on takeoff in DCG, since they didnt seem to "read" the terrain. Since the campaign IS dynamic, that really screws the squadron. Higher AC density can lead to stupid things like a high number of collisions. While thats also a function of the AI and not DCG, the "busier" airspace in a DCG environment can make AI brain farts even more apparent.

Overall, I would have to say that the balance definately tips to DCG on several points;

#1- DCG is being actively supported by Paul, who has been very responsive to upgrading things and squashing bugs.
#2- Immersion. Thats the big one for me. Stock DGEN is very sterile in comparison.
#3- Version contol. DCG is DCG. Campaigns written for DCG work across the board. No issues with file versions!
#4- Your squadron means something! The OTHER guys squadrons mean something! Goes back to immersion as well.
#5- Recovery! Campaign puke in DCG? No big deal, generate a new mission, of copy over some files and restart the campaign. You CANT do that with DGEN. If it croaks, you just lost it all. Since I have been hit with that several times, I find DCG to have a huge advantage over DGEN there.

Since DGEN isnt really being supported at this point, I think that DCG is the way to go. That being said, there are some things that it would be nice to see in DCG.

#1- Increased "plug and play" capability.
#2- Perhaps the inclusion of some of the current DCG campaigns in a "default campaign pack"? Just an idea, but I think that would a pretty killer feature, particularly for the non-computer types.
#3- Along the same lines (simplicity), how about a default set of configuration choices to serve as a baseline for all campaigns? Perhaps grouped by AC type, giving the "plug and play" crowd a quick method of jumping into DCG, while leaving the exsisting features for the more adventurous bit twiddlers? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
#4- I think a big thing would be a better campaign descriptor in the pilots selection menu. Right now its pretty generic, so unless you bother to take notes, its rather confusing trying to remember which DCG campaign is which, especially if your like me and you have multitple campaigns running under the same pilot id. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif If it confuses me, it darn sure will confuse someone who is new to the game.

Well, this kind of turned into a ramble, but its a good thread and it got me to thinking..... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

J_Laakso
07-25-2006, 01:54 PM
Hello everyone!

Since this is my first post here, I hope this isn't an annoying neebie question http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

On the first page campaigns:
- Amagi`s: Disaster on the Frontiers
- Jumbo`s: Western Front
- GilB's: Mediterranean War: 1940-1943

were said to best among the best ones, but I can't find them anywhere. I Browsed through all the fansites listed on the official IL2 site and few others with no luck. Google didn't help either. The others I did find with ease.

Also a bit OT, but if someone knows where I can order the 'Battle Over Europe' from, preferably in Finland/Northern Europe/Europe, please let me know.

Thank you very much in advance!

Ernst_Rohr
07-25-2006, 03:13 PM
Welcome aboard Laakso;

Disaster on the Frontiers can be found here;
Disaster on the Frontiers (http://www.airwarfare.com/Sims/FB/fb_campaigns_dof.htm)

Jumo's Western Front;
Western Front (http://emil.free.fr/)

Med War;
Med War 40-43 (http://gilles.babin.club.fr/simul-uk.htm)

Battle Over Europe can be ordered direct from Just Flight in the UK;
Battles over Europe (http://www.justflight.com/en/(wjsedf550ou1h455xslqnvfj)/index.aspx?a=JFF000399)

One thing to note, most of these use DGEN as the campaign engine except for Med War, its a DCG campaign.

RamsteinUSA
07-25-2006, 03:22 PM
was the UQMG - Uber Quick Mission Generator mentioned in this thread? if it wasn't why not?
it is also very very good.

http://www.uberdemon.com/

WWSensei
07-25-2006, 06:46 PM
UQMG is good for generating single missions. DCG and DGEN generate campaigns around a central theme. UQMG does what it does and does it well but the discussion was around campaign generation--not just single mission generation.