davidtsw

Yeah, I'm getting all of it but for now I've got to stick to the good old keyboard. So it looks like I'm unlikely to find a more suitable ww2 plane than the Mustang. I'll probably wait till I have a proper hotas setup before buying any other planes then. Thanks.

So yeah, I do fly using my keyboard :music_whistling: Get over it please. I actually got pretty decent at it in the Mustang. Anyway, I'm looking into buying another ww2 plane and here's the thing. Some planes in DCS, not just ww2 planes, are more keyboard friendly than others. As far as I remember the Mig 29 is a pain but the Su 25 is perfectly fine. The Mustang seems ok too as long as I have the auto rudder option checked. But the Bf 109 I got through Steam isn't - it's so jerky without a joystick I can't fly it. I took advantage of the generous refund policy and asked for it right away. However, since I don't want to get blacklisted or something for asking for a refund too often, which of the other ww2 birds can be flown with a keyboard ?

Um, have you actually seen and flown over Normandy, even the updated version ? Same goes for the other maps from what I've seen on YT. There's no way it's all done manually. Very obvious, random texture blend in places.

So I found some old info on the Stuka being developed. 2015 I believe. What happened to the project ? Is there any newer project underway ? Since we now have the Channel map, the Stuka wouldn't be completely out of its place.

55" at 1080p? How far are you sitting to not see the pixels ?

I'm playing on a 24" 1080p monitor and considering getting something bigger. I've already cranked up SSAA and adjusted my FOV to be able to spot targets better but it still isn't as good as I'd like it to be. The two options I'm considering are: a) getting a 27" 1080p monitor b) getting a 27" 1440p monitor From what I understand, since the pixels are smaller on a 27" 1440p, it would actually make spotting more difficult, correct ? Will I not lose too much sharpness on a FHD 27" though ?

I don't what did or didn't run and how much it was back in the day. What I do know is that right now I'm flying over a very detailed and realistic map of southern England, northern France and Belgium I got for $10 that is bigger and better in every single way than the $50 joke of a map ED calls Normandy. I don't see the point in defending a shitty product honestly. It's not like we're this or that sim's supporters. We're paying customers. Unrealistic expectations is one thing. Decent texture blending in a map they sell for $50 is a must and I'm glad I saw these shots cause I was going to buy PG. Edit: I think I made it clear in my original post I was talking about the Blitz Edition of CoD. Never played the original one and so don't care what it was like back then. Now it looks and runs good.

First of all, photo real does not have be flat. Textures are just textures. Then you've got the overlays on top of it with all the buildings, trees, etc. Anyway, wanna see a better map ? Have a look at Cliffs of Dover Blitz Edition. It's an improved, updated version of a game released in 2011. The update itself came in Dec 2017 according to Steam. It happens to include parts of Normandy so I ventured there to compare it to the Normandy map in DCS. I haven't touched DCS Normandy ever since. You look at it and it's just authentic. I haven't seen any ridiculous texture blending that makes you realize something is wrong like the ones shown in this thread. Cities look like cities, the road layout is more accurate, etc. If they can sell the whole game including the map, lots of planes, missions and campaigns for $10 on Steam (though apparently it's more in other countries, have a look at your Steam) then don't tell me ED can't do any better for $50.

According to Wiki: IAF operates the Mirage 2000, MiG 21 bis and the Mi-8, all of which we already have. They also have the upgraded version of the MiG 29s so that's another option, especially in case we ever get this version in DCS. PAF flies the F-16C, the Huey - both available, the Mirage III being developed by Razbam and the JF-17 which Deka Ironworks is making. That's 3 aircraft for the Indian side (possibly 4) vs 2 for Pakistan (up to 4 when they're ready). Sounds sweet to me. The map itself is definitely doable in terms of size and terrain features. Looks like 400x500 km would be more than enough. Mostly mountains with no massive cities. Nothing DCS isn't capable of. What are your thoughts ?

Makes me not wanna buy the PG. Unbelievable some people think it looks OK. It doesn't. Those shots look absolutely terrible. ED might wanna consider changing the way they build maps. I wish the maps were more photoreal. It would add a ton of immersion for sure.

Yeah, I would love to see some ww2 carriers and planes for the Pacific theater. Actually I'm surprised they haven't done it yet. It would obviously sell well in the US and I think most European players would be interested in the Pacific, too. Water looks good in DCS right now, the current crappy weather system is perfectly fine for the Pacific and even the maps would probably be easier to develop since they could include some small islands and vast areas of the ocean for realistic carrier but also land-based missions. And there's no competition. Honestly, it's hard to think of a single reason why we're still waiting for the Pacific theater.

Glad to report things have definitely been improved! I took a break from DCS and only fired it up tonight. Created a quick mission in the editor and one of the first things I noticed was that lightly armored vehicles are no longer indestructible . The Sd.Kfz.251 can now be destroyed quite easily even by a not-so-current virtual P51 pilot using good old mouse and keyboard combo :) Trucks seem to take more damage, too. The .50 cals on the Mustang finally feel like a powerful weapon so thanks ED for fixing it. I wonder what you're going to say now Robert. I may not have real-world experience behind the M2 but it turns out you don't need to in order to know what is and isn't underpowered after a little research.

I guess people are complaining about it because: 1) It has no speedtrees which results in worse performance, crappy looking trees and ridiculously low LOD radius 2) Performance overall. Compare your FPS with the other maps. You might have a super powerful PC and not notice it, but with the same settings Normandy runs at around 40% lower FPS, at least for me. That's a lot for a map that's smaller than anything else we have in DCS right now. It should perform better if anything. 3) Too often you see areas of the map that look like random textures put stitched together. The transition isn't smooth. That's absolutely unacceptable for a map of this size (small!) 4) Airfields not accurate in regards to runway types, etc. Not sure how much of this has been fixed though.

But what about the speed ? I swear I used to be able to fly low over ground at around 550 kmh or more. Now it's more like 450. I thought it's got to do with me starting from ramp, but even when starting in the air, it feels way different to what it used to be.

Am I going crazy or has there been an update to the P51's flight model ? I took a short break from DCS but have felt like the Mustang handles differently now. It's more sluggish, slower and less nimble. Has anyone else noticed it ?