Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Ala13_ManOWar

  1. I guess it depends on everyone own experience, I find the P-51 the easiest despite Komandogerat feature, it's not just management, it's also the ease to master with regard to flying the thing. Anyway my impression might be biased by the fact that P-51 is like a big Cessna engine management wise. Still the easier to learn and the best ground since you can apply everything you learn with it to any other plane. Germans on the other hand aren't that alike, there are important changes between Bf109 and Fw190 with regard to management. My feeling is from a pedagogical perspective you can learn P-51 and then go Spit and you're at home, then P-47 and it's only a step forward but still similar, then go German and you perfectly know and appreciate what they "simplified" with Komandogerat and everything so you will be able to fly them right away with just a couple tips for 190 or 109. The other way around on the other hand means you can learn to fly a 190, it's not exactly the same as 109 so you'll have to get used to it, but then if you go allied you'll have to learn again how an actual aircraft is flown, and I mean to these days since they are exactly the same management wise as today standards, so in my experience it's not as optimal as a learning curve. S!
  2. The weathering matter is an endless subject in model kit groups, and I can tell you even "factory fresh" aircraft get weathered even before they are sent to front line units, pretty easily seen in many pictures. The cockpit isn't different, once you use it it gets weathered, front line service means usually several sorties a day and they got worn pretty soon. Old paints and finishes seemed to hold almost nothing compared to modern day ones. Pristine museum examples aren't "the thing" exactly. S!
  3. Don't worry, we all have been there at some point . S!
  4. No problem at all, here or anywhere. 25cm extension on my Warthog, works flawlessly . S!
  5. That settles the argument, I guess . Thanks for posting. Would my RL experience count at all since it's not in a Mossie or anything alike? Does it count I've seen instruments do that in many other planes, IRL but also warbirds vids? You would have to just believe me. And, my point anyway was, stop worrying about little unimportant things and enjoy the beast. Anyway, I'll tell you an argument . The easy thing to do would be making those needles point a perfectly defined value and that's all. To make them dance in a precise range matching the exact behaviour of the engine at any given time, take a closer look, both engines aren't synchronized at all, and "dancing band" ( I just made the name up, right) doesn't match either, and not just making them move the same bit always and just that… That my friend is a hell of a lot coding. Why would they bother in the first place to depict such a thing if it weren't real? Remember, on top, Mr nick Grey, their boss, has flown the type and knows the behaviour, what would it look like to him with something so blatantly wrong if it weren't real? You're welcome . S!
  6. Just don't take "other sims" as a measure for anything . Yes, RL engines, props and governors do change and needles in instruments do dance up and down, that's how it works, sometimes it's due to engine, governor, props, themselves, sometimes it's just how the instruments work (remember, 80yo instruments, they weren't perfect), who cares, it happens as seeing it depicted like that is cool as hell. S!
  7. Don't know about liveries but you can check the country the aircraft is set for, maybe the skins aren't available for every country. With regards to stick movement, it's perfectly smooth. What you tell sounds like you have doubled axis controls with something else, so check doubled controls in settings, axis settings specially. S!
  8. Bearing in mind Clostermann's memories are known to be mostly a novel with few real events to back him up don't take those words as real. S!
  9. It's been, how long? since the last time it was asked… Some would say there have been no news, there were a few indeed, some pics of a WIP 3D, some explanations about how they are, veeeery slowly, working on it. I just wonder why on Earth if you all are so interested in this module are at the same time so impatient and so careless and impervious to those news since apparently you didn't even notice them. They're still committed to their goal of finishing the products they already have, remember? and at the same time maybe launch at some point their expected next new modules, F-15E and South Atlantic map, so even if they are working on MiG-23 those obviously comes first all the way, if not something else like promised MiG-19S. Then… lets hope they aren't so tired of your impatience and rudeness and they don't ditch the module so they have not to listen to you all ever again. I would do it if I were them . For the record, make no mistake, I crave and expect this module like the most eager ones, but I just wait flying other things (like we didn't have anything else to fly, right?), patiently and respecting them and their work. Let them work people. S!
  10. Channel map features lights blackout during nights since that's historical, there were no lights at night during the war. Never read a thing about Normandy but perhaps that could be either the case. S!
  11. Por no hablar de que hay que poner la fuente de donde sale esa información, que luego siempre hay quien se queja de que eso no se ha dicho o no se sabe dónde. Las informaciones sobre Eagle Dynamics y demás siempre tienen que ir comentadas con fuentes bibliográficas cual tesis doctoral, y aun así te las ponen en duda como terraplanistas de tres al cuarto… S!
  12. It's an unsupported product since you can have DCS for free nowadays. FC3 is still available for purchase featuring a way better MiG-29 than that you're using now but still with the same simplified avionics, and really cheap on sales (every now and again). There's no point in supporting such an old piece of software. S!
  13. So, you described a 50's-60's aircraft basically, what's the problem with that? MiG-21 wouldn't cut it either, or mostly any other aircraft from the era. Phantom should be in DCS because it's an historical aircraft used in many battlefields, not because it should wipe out everything effortlessly. DCS simulations is about experiencing what we most can't or couldn't, so if that's the experience with Phantom as it should be so be it!! S!
  14. I don't speak Russian or am specially acquainted to it, but the few words I could know show me that Indoeuropean roots, structures and everything makes it closer to other European languages than one could think at first making it rarer that it actually is only due to the Cyrillic alphabet we all see. Latin root words, coming from French influence I guess, are more common in Russian than it seems, so not that weird they use those Bis and Ter names. Anyway, perhaps some Russian fella here at the forums could enlighten us, are they occidental names to Russian models or they also use those terms and names? In wikipedia in Russian I see the Bis term used in several of those aircraft mentioned here, MiG-21Bis is one of them, not the Ter name as far as I could find, but maybe it is or was used. Anyway one has to be careful with sources since many, many, soooo many aviation related books only re-write once and again the same mistakes from decades ago and names is one of those things one has to be really careful about. But apparently in MiG-21 it was used for sure. S!
  15. I always wonder with this kind of threads… what now?? You all bashing, Ugra here but any other third party or ED themselves on any other forum section any day, what now? Don't you have anything to say now? I mean, it wasn't to be finished ever, they are unable to deliver, it's probably cancelled and they say nothing… now it's there, it's almost finished, it's frigging awesome, Cyprus (not though at first) is there as a bonus you all don't even deserve, we've had already a patch to Normandy and I hope more to come, what now?? It only took time… now what… anybody changed their minds? don't you say a thing now? "Thanks, sorry I was behaving like 5yo with this" perhaps? Nothing?? S!
  16. I-15bis aircraft was the second variant of the model (also called I-152), and I-15ter was the third one (also called I-153). Not an expert on Russian names, but I guess they preferred that to other notating systems, like plain A, B, C, etc (also used anyway). In MiG-21 apparently that somewhat "last" variant was changed enough to be considered a somewhat "new" aircraft so they called it accordingly. In the MiG-15 that was literally, a second model of the aircraft, a new one with all the newly developed refinements. In MiG-21 I don't really know what was changed so much to use that name. S!
  17. Good for you. If I wouldn't purchase any module with an autostart function available (why?? I want to start myself all of them) I wouldn't fly or buy any module . S!
  18. Re-scaled resolutions usually feature that kind of problems not working good enough when it comes to telling shapes one from another. It's not you, I don't use VR but I see people complaining about VR spotting at a distance and not telling the difference between models. That's what you pay for using VR I guess since the technology is still in it's infancy. S!
  19. You mean in VR? Low resolution in VR is definitely not a DCS problem but hardware related. In a screen I can tell models from a distance without much trouble, I guess you have to get used to it. Anyway telling models and resulting friendly fire is a problem also in real life, so even that is realistic I guess . S!
  20. En el tema del radar, mira a ver si este reciente vídeo de Wags te saca de algunas dudas si te apañas con los subtítulos. Es un tema mucho más complejo que simplemente poner más barras y azimuth, Un saludo
  21. You people confuse plain linear Kilometres with actual size and object count. Siria map is huge for DCS standards, and still populated and detailed areas are mostly in the centre of the map. Same as Gulf, thousand of kilometres long, but still detailed areas are in the middle of it, the rest is low detailed or no detailed at all. Current maps in DCS work like that always, a very detailed central area, but relatively small in size (the ~600x600Km you mention), then a low detail area, still usable, sometimes even featuring active detail like some aerodromes (Normandy for instance, Cyprus and Turkey in Siria, etc), but low detailed nonetheless, then a large non detailed at all area around with some textures matching the centre, of course it's an actual ground and you could "drive" over there in CA to say something, you see it from the air and it's no weird surprise, but no detail at all and only acting as a courtesy buffer so central detail isn't surrounded by non textured emptiness. With current technology we're still very limited in size despite ED's efforts, and I'm sure they're working in a way to overcome that and enhance their maps, but we aren't there yet. S!
  22. Well, that's exactly Eagle Dynamics honouring a pledge by RRG/Luthier from whom apparently they never saw a penny, so they are honouring promises from others ditching their projects with their money and development effort. I don't know yours, but In my book that only speaks good about ED despite those others making promises they could never deliver. S!
  23. Yep, I believe already commented that, LODs can be hideous at times. Agreed. But even though it definitely affects spotting, that's not exactly a "spotting" problem. S!
  24. Yeah, but the difference is LW aircraft are a way more hairy subject whenever you search for info. Not that easy, and even P-47 was a pain in the ass for wind tunnel data. People usually say it's just copy/paste, but I believe it's quite more complicated than that if you try to keep it out of speculation. S!
  • Create New...