Greater clarity on DCS: Normandy 2 with new FAQ release

Ugra Media have just put up a FAQ on their DCS World forum with all kinds of follow-up information pertaining to DCS: Normandy 2. It answers some of the questions that have come up since the announcement on Friday. Let’s dig in!

Normandy 2 questions answered

We learned quite a bit with the reveal of DCS: Normandy 2 back on Friday but now we know a little bit more. This map is being created by Ugra Media, the same team behind the original DCS: Normandy map. The very first version of DCS: Normandy released back in November of 2017 and since then it has gone through a couple of significant overhauls to improve its performance and looks.

Now, five years later, Ugra Media are coming out with a much more substantial map. The new map is 400×600 km in size and significantly larger than the map that twas previously available. We now have a map showing off what the expected dimensions will be.

The previously version of the map had a very narrow high detail area and a much larger low detail area. The new one expands that dramatically with high detail areas expanding north, south and east of the original.

Going by the FAQ, this is a complete remake of the map with revised, updated, and otherwise brand new assets. There’s also the inclusion of London and Paris.

One of the biggest areas of concern was how the map would integrate with currently available content. The FAQ answers that:

Because they are different maps, all existing missions and campaigns created for the Normandy 1944 and the Channel maps will continue to function on those maps, nothing changes. However, missions created for the Normandy 1944 map would not work in the Normandy 2.0 map. As such, the Normandy 1944 and Channel map will continue to be for sale.

Also of interest was their answer that Normandy 1944 and Normandy 2 owners may be able to fly on the same multiplayer servers together. This is an curious statement and I’ll be interested to see if this ends up holding true through to the end of development.

There also will not be winter textures like we see with The Channel map so scenarios making use of the winter scenario there will continue to be unique.

Read the full FAQ right here.

Additional thoughts

I’ve seen a lot of different takes on the news of this map and I’ll toss in my own.

Normandy 2 itself sounds like quite a solid upgrade over the original. Released 5 years ago, that version of the map was on the bleeding edge of the technology at the time and it came with some serious problems. It saw, as I mentioned earlier, two major updates that ultimately brought it up into a good place. It’s not going away but I can see Ugra Media’s team being excited to take this scenario to a new level and make use of DCS’ latest map making technology to offer a bigger, more detailed, more impressive and valuable map that covers a much wider area of the Normandy conflict.

It’s remarkably similar in size to the new IL-2 Sturmovik: Battle of Normandy map. That map covers a wide variety of scenarios so I can see this one also being very useful from that standpoint.

This does also slightly confuse the marketplace a bit when it comes to recommendations. Previously, I tended to suggest the DCS WWII map based on what the person wanted to do. If they were interested in some of the campaigns that used either map then I’d suggest either map respectively. If it was multiplayer, DCS: Normandy was the map that the servers seemed to be supporting the most so that was often my recommendation.

With the launch of this map, expected in Early Access at the end of 2022, there’s now three options on the table. If someone wants to play an older campaign, they may need to pick one of the other two maps, while newer content will likely begin to make use of this one.

Seeing as the previous maps aren’t going away this isn’t the fatal blow to campaign makers like Reflected Simulations that some have charged this new map with. Still, consumers will need to make careful decisions on the type of content they will want to engage with and that kind of complexity can be a barrier to new players. We can do our best to help steer them in the right direction for them when the time comes.

16 Comments Add yours

  1. CanadaOne says:

    It’s a bit of a mess to be sure. It would have been better to replace Normandy 1 and the Channel map with Normandy 2. Not almost replace them, mostly, kind of, maybe, perhaps close… but not really.

    It’s all a bit fuddled. To make an announcement that leaves consumers with too many questions, if not outright frustration, is a mistake. I think this was a poorly launched product.

    That said, it’s bound to be a honking good map. Flying from London to Paris sounds cool.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. harryvoyager says:

    Honestly, I’d recommend including Normandy 1 in the Normandy 2 purchase. That would deconflict things without wrecking the older campaigns.

    The Channel should function as an early war map, and leave Normandy for the late war.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Urgent Siesta says:

      The main thing that folks are complaining about is that N2 doesn’t include The Channel area in High Detail.
      It’s literally a carve-out on N2…

      All the conspiracy theories aside, given what Ugra did with Syria, I’ve no doubt N2 will be a great map.

      And as to paid Missions and all the soon-to-be-older maps, it’s good for them all to be left on sale so those that want can still get them (just like they do today).

      Like

      1. LD88 says:

        I think the NE not being in high detail is a minor gripe, as its already covered in depth in another map. Normandy is not intended to replace the Channel map or be the all encompassing European Theater of Operations.

        For a “Normandy” map I want to see the efforts focused in Southern England and expanded Normandy detail as they have done. My major gripe is it appears not to be an enhancement to an existing map, but a content and multi-player breaking separate, but redundant map.

        I’m all for an enhanced Normandy and willing to pay for the work, but not as a separate map for reasons noted above.

        Like

    2. LD88 says:

      If they can’t or won’t design it as a map enhancement vs a new map, your suggestion is the next best thing.

      Like

  3. Urgent Siesta says:

    I swear “the community” is absolutely insatiable…

    Everyone was all excited when London and Paris were hinted as being on the same map.
    And now they are.
    And it took all of a day or so for the Pitchforks of Bitterness to be brought out. Sheesh…
    I’ll happily pay the $10 for the upgrade, and somehow I’ll still manage to enjoy N1 and The Channel, and all the great content already out there for them.
    Can’t wait to see what Reflected cooks up for N2 – hopefully more Mossie missions and such.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. I *think* it is fairly straight forward to import a mission across to a different map, especially one which contains the same area. Shouldn’t take too much work for the mission makers who have previous titles for N1 to bring them up to N2. Whether they want to I guess is entirely up to them. Would be nice of ED to lend some support in this aspect though to ensure a smoother transition for all

    Like

    1. LD88 says:

      You may be surprised how much work it can take, especially for high quality missions and campaigns. Reflected recently shared details that may add some perspective. I’m not sure of a direct link will be allowed in this text, so you can also search in Youtube for “DCS Normandy 2 Map Update & Campaigns ” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72FAHE-QKkg

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Oh nice link thanks! Yeah it does give a perspective from Reflected though it seemed to me like he was saying that it should not be an issue to fly an existing Normandy campaign on Normandy 2.0?
        I know you can copy paste all units from one map to another but as for triggers etc that is probably another load of work.
        I do feel like this is unfair on the guys like Reflected etc who are putting in months of work just for it to be thrown into a “practically redundant” pile but until ED make it easier for them to swap missions from map to map then that is what they will have to put up with and it is then up to them whether they choose to continue making content or move on to other things…

        Like

  5. Redeye says:

    While I would happily pay the sum to upgrade (I own both Nmndy and Channel), there are for sure some big issues here.

    1: How can people fly MP together on different versions of the map when the airfields, buildings etc will be changed and adjusted? Where a north-south runway is present on one map, there might be a completely different layout on the other. Buildings and infrastructure is also likely to be adjusted, so what one person on the server sees, won’t be the same as the other.
    2: All of the premium content that has been developed, most notably Reflected and Wags/Bunyap’s campaigns will not work on this. This is one of the strengths of DCS compared to Il2. While Il2 has the price, variety and ease of access advantage- DCS has more quality hand made content.
    3: Every wants to merge the maps- but that will presents other glaring issues. The maps have different palettes and texture types and the merged bordes will be very visible.

    I will for sure buy this, but I fear it will do little to strengthen DCS’s position in the WW2 sim market.

    Like

    1. LD88 says:

      For the sake of interchangeability, they could take the approach of adopting existing Normandy 1 airfields as is. I’d rather have that with ability to continue to run existing content and allow for multi-player on Normandy regardless of the players map version.

      Liked by 1 person

  6. Redeye says:

    + The main argument, for sure, to include London on a map covering the English channel would surely be to cover early war, Battle of Britain scenarios (BoB planeset is something Nick Grey have said multiple times will be something ED wants to do. Don’t expect two weeks though…). However, a BoB scenario on this map is also defunct, due to the “low detail” areas covering the Kent/Calais area. The mind boggles. For me; it is not about the money. For the price of a take away pizza I can enjoy what will probably be DCS best WW2 map for years. It is the implementation strategy I worry about.

    Like

  7. Sam S says:

    At the end of the day, some people are never going to be satisfied and will complain no matter what. This is probably destined to be the best looking map in DCS, and the old world style will be both charming and thematic. Also it will help boost the WW2 part of DCS. If there is one thing I would like to see in the future, it woul be a cold war version of the map so that we can take advantage of the abundance of cold war aircraft in DSC. Good work Ugra Media

    Liked by 2 people

    1. CanadaOne says:

      You’re absolutely right that this will be a great looking map. But as far as marketing goes, this is a flop. ED and the devs have the whole world to work with and they’ve managed to fungle it up with too much covering too little. There should not be maps inside maps beside other maps that are partially included in the first maps. It’s too much.

      They need to keep it simple and straightforward; this is one new improved map to replace the others, and previously bought campaigns will continue to function. That’s the ticket.

      I’m really looking forward to this, but it was still badly managed.

      Like

  8. Redglyph says:

    Now that I see the map and the “clarification”, it does actually less sense to me. Why didn’t they do the Gulf War theatre instead? Or Korea?

    Or, if they wanted to stay with WWII to take profit of the Mosquito, why not go north and do West England/Holland/Belgium/East Germany? It wouldn’t go as far as Berlin – it would be too long for a flight anyway, but it could easily include Essen, Cologne, Eindhoven and other key locations. It would be a great map.

    Anyway, we’ll see how it goes and if they don’t forget the hedgerows this time. 😉

    Like

  9. Skycat says:

    Thank you for clarifying the new map vs. the two current maps, and how each will be uniquely employed within the series.

    Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s