Ala13_ManOWar
-
Posts
3510 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Ala13_ManOWar
-
-
So won't ever fly the Spit again mate :lol:. It was explained, weeeell before Spitfire released in a mythical now post by Yo-yo, that the Spit would be exactly as designed so that means really sensitive in pitch. Think anyway the real Spitfire stick is really long, so that helps with the sensitivity, on the contrary we are at home helpless with only a short stick. A long stick or curves that plays the trick of a longer stick is what it needs. Pitty to give up on such a wonderful module like Spitfire is just because she's tough to tame as IRL.If he has no problem with other planes, it's probably the Spitfire, itself. I have the Spitfire, and I'm not flying it anymore until they work out those controls being waaay overly sensitive. Before you ask, I have tried everything I can think of to dampen them down.Long stick here, bit of curve in pitch axis, works flawlessly.
S!
-
IIRC I've seen both, in CFS I, some time ago :music_whistling: :D . A DCS model featuring those in good quality, though IA, would be awesome. Well, who am I trying to fool, anything to shoot at will be welcome.For 1944 other German bombers are more important.I've never seen a Ju 188 in a flight sim, and a Do 217 would be another good choice.
S!
-
I think you're missing the real point why that happens, that is, you are at home in front of a computer. Provided one has the required controls at home, mainly a long stick available, not to mention rudder pedals, that changes like night and day. You're trying to fight with her probably with a regular short joystick, and yes that can be painful, but in the real aircraft that's not even half a problem, the long stick and aircraft controls can be held easily without great effort out of high speed dives of course where stiffness becomes troubling. But that's not your problem here.I understand what the 109 was built for, but a plane in trim is easier to hold your sights on the target. That should be important to a 109 pilot.S!
-
It's very well known that while your biggest engine in the smallest airframe statement was exactly like that, gear was fitted in a way so the airframe could fit in train wagons. The reason why they needed it to fit is Germany had a poor infrastructure for maintenance and a limited industrial capacity, so they had to reuse every single destroyed airframe to the best they could, but those works were done really far away from the battlefront, so they needed a transport. Some people say that was a stunning feature, I say that was a drawback. Blame that for the quirks in the 109.While it may not be the way things actually worked here's a theory.It's 1935 or 36, there hasn't been much in the way of engine development over the years but you need a high performance fighter quick.
You take the biggest engine you have available and put it in the smallest airframe you can. You attach the landing gear to the fuselage so the wings can be lighter even though ground handling will suffer.
Then you only add those things that are absolutely necessary because every little thing you put in adds weight and that kills performance.
Since the plane you've designed hasn't the range for long flights anyway you don't add the luxury of rudder trim and you save 20 lbs.
S!
-
109 was a close range interceptor, P-51 was a long range escort plane. Obvious why one of them need to be more comfortable to fly for hours while the other doesn't.You going to follow me around like a little puppy and spit out condescending comments forever?Do you really think not having rudder and aileron trim is a good idea?
S!
-
Really good looking :beer: :beer: :beer: .more of my quick and nasty un Spielberg like clips.A quick look at Caen
So Caen is the biggest city in the detailed map area?
S!
-
I know it's a matter of taste, but I would like indeed F-4C/D models (an "easier" to assimilate to naval F-4B/N) in some Vietnam configuration. The naval operations can't be out of the question. And make it only 70's to 80's models obliterating the largest and better known conflict in where Phantom operated is kind of a waste IMO. Still a matter of taste as I said.I would like to see F-4E from mid to late 70s or maybe even 80s.S!
-
Well, I guess that would depend on the kind of seashore you are in. English Channel is a quite particular area, like a funnel, and mostly not deep sea bottoms, definitely not a wide coast where big Ocean washes out. So I see wind-related waves quite adequate as waves only happen because of wind indeed. Anyway, beach kind waves where those are "stopped" by sea bottom so they break beautifully for your surfboard or camera shots are a different kettle of fish, but this is not supposed to be a beach simulator, is it? :DNot really, my Huey doesnt fly well going backwards in a 40 knot gale :lol: j/kPerhaps just a subtle tweek or so, to give a bit more texture to the glassy surface on less violent wind days?
I surfed for most of my life and you don't always require wind in an area to have a high sea state (white caps yes, but around 15knts) as big surf is generated thousands of km away in the open ocean from a severe weather system.
You can have a beautifully balmy day with crunching surf and not a breath of wind.
The model in DCS is localized condition, requiring the high wind setting.
Anyway was just a thought.
S!
-
Do you play online just alone? I mean, the kind of content you seem to ask for, is not up to ED alone. Maybe for lonely players, offline players, and so, a campaign would fit your needs, of course, some kind of persistent and dynamic campaign would be even better but a closed one still would fit your requirement and sure we will see them in no time after map release (well, not dynamic campaign, but some day…).Yes, Klem I can do that and probably will once I get the skills to make missions.I'm thinking more of online. What sort of missions will we have, or will it just be the typical furballs? I hope that enough guys will like good missions and not the same old type of online fighting.
Anyway, the other traditional source for that kind of content is community itself and has been usually created within the virtual squadrons for their own use. You ask for closed, coordinated, target and briefing missions, even maybe whole campaigns, as opposed to dogfight furball missions which can also be fine for a stroll but not as a whole and only experience. You're right but that's what squadrons did since they started to be, not ED, so should you like to see better and deeper multiplayer missions instead of only flying alone in a dogfight server, start searching for people who meet what you look for.
S!
-
Album is private, not working pic.It's ugly. Here's the edge of the detailed map.
Anyway, pitty it's uggly though I would like to see myself to decide how ugly it is, or not.
S!
-
That would be nice. I guess it could be done by using gradients in atmospheric temperature and pressure along the map.And zones for fog would be ingenious. Maybe even zones for cloud layers?S!
-
I think I read somewhere :huh: , although it's true never after that.No specific date was ever given. When its ready to be released ED will let us know.S!
-
It was said, a lot of time ago in a Newletter IIRC, release date is May the 17th. I haven't seen anything changing that since then.Not sure where to ask, so I'll ask here and hope for an official answer:Will we get a heads up on the exact release date at some time closer to the actual release date? Right now its "Late May" but maybe a few days before release will we get an actual date?
S!
-
Keep those screenshots coming!!!! Lucky you :lol: .
S!
-
That says 395€ 7700K, and 369€ 1700 if I'm not mistaken. Not as much as I expected, but still cheaper though prices change really quickly and from place to place. Here they are priced really close, 345 the 7700K and 356 the 1700. Well, I guess it's more a question of what the prices are at the moment you buy.
S!
-
Yeah, really good detail how he walks over the 88 ground clamps :clap_2::clap_2:.Love the soldier animation when turning the flak gun.S!
-
What warbirds do you fly, if I may ask? That's very interesting.its a good point, I am a warbird pilot in real life an I just get tired of 109's doing things I know they cannot and breaking the laws of physics in the process and kicking by butt every time haha!Love flying the P-51 just wish the AI flew more realistically... Will the new damage model help that?
I know it can be annoying, but think 109K is a really stunning beast, the last model built in considerable quantities, and probably the best performer of all at least considering pure power and performances (you may dislike some quirks of the aeroplane itself though, but whenever it's all muscle you know that happens…). AI or not, a good human pilot can tear you apart repeatedly with a good discipline and all the advantage those performances give him. AI is just a bit different, but when you realise they are dumb and they make always the same mistakes you'll win easily (ace setting aside :lol:).
S!
-
I don't know either, and I like that change. But anyway it's not only how many FPS more or less there are, also how much more does 7700k cost compared to Ryzen. Now it's even better, but even before it was good enough for the price IMO.I dont get it. Previous reviews all showed the 1700/1800x all getting beaten out by the 7700k. This shows otherwise. Why?Im dying for someone to do a direct DCS comparison.
AMD CPU is to be considered, definitely, for my next rig :D . I also wait for a DCS test.
S!
-
It was you probably the only one who didn't know who Kermit Weeks is, "Fantasy of flight" museum owner, and know his famous Kermie cam. Yes, great video we know since years ago :smilewink: , sorry for that :lol: :thumbup:.26 views and no comments again. Have you all seen this one too?Don't get me started posting jokes again.
S!
-
I guess 88 will be :D .Would like to see, if the Flak 37 is useful against a Sherman :music_whistling:S!
-
AFAIK, no other way than those standard AI levels, though you can use some tricks in the editor, like fueling 109 to 100% while keeping your own plane a bit unloaded, like 40% fuel maybe but bearing in mind that means for the Spitfire a really short flight time until she gets fixed in fuel consumption. P-51 would be fine even with a 25% of fuel. It's not magic nor a huge difference but that can help to some extent.
S!
-
Yeah, totally. They should have modelled Himalaya even though Normandy battle happened in Normandy. That would be far more immersive and interesting. Screw you flat France.Am I the only one who don't appreciate this map at all? I: it is completely FLAT, it has no VARIATIONS at all, you can see only trees (with horrible aspect , looks like fake platic trees and are not realistic at all), and repetion of green/yellow fields, appart from that t he map has exactly the same aspect at every angle, no mountains, no hills, just a few rivers....it's pretty annoying map, once you see it once you get enough of it...and I even bought it.Even tough Caucasus is an old map, it is in my opion far superior in terms of immersion.
S!
P.S.: [sarcastic mode: OFF], just in case :lol:.
-
Well, turns out it IS, since you can't choose what models data can be found, or not :smilewink: .I've explained this approximately a hundred times, now: you (pl) keep saying that balance isn't as important as simulation accuracy & realism, as though it were a "this or that" choice. But, as I've said over and over again, it isn't a "this or that" choice.No mate, of course no intention to be disagreeing just because it's you. To be honest didn't realise at first it was you, with whom it's true I had some discussion regarding the subject in the past (just once from my part, don't make a fuss out of it).
So, back on topic. My point is, it's not I wouldn't like to see many other models of 109 (now you say, isn't this whole thread a dejavu? :huh: :megalol:), of course G6, early and late models, G14, G10, and so. No mate, I would like to see them all in-game, and many more, even I dare to say we all including ED staff would like so. But the day it happens, it will be (like in any other module we have seen into DCS so far, as well as expected ones, you can check the list) a matter of what data I can find rather than what model would better fit for a balanced gameplay. No, you cannot choose what model you'll find data for, the kind of data a simulator like DCS needs of course, and closing one's eyes to that reality won't make it change.
S!
-
That last Wags video riding a Su-27 looks stunning. Really good looking new water, those wave white plumes so realistic. Terrain bumps and hills looks so natural :beer: .
At the video end, I wonder why Le Havre is lacking an aerodrome. Wasn't still there by 1944?
S!
I'm Afraid To Buy The FW 190 Dora
in DCS: Fw 190 D-9 Dora
Posted · Edited by Ala13_ManOWar
Wow, I saw the topic starting and it was all greetings and happiness about DCS, then I'm back a days later and it turned out to be a harsh discussion :huh: .
I don't know (perused the whole thread a bit, but it's too long now) how or why it turned out to this discussion, and some things has been answered now, I think. But if you let me squeeze in,
Well, I don't know if you know the "old days" in where a flight simulator were the ultimate piece of software (way back now, yes), but most important, they used to be mostly "study sims", that means a whole simulator were dedicated to a single aircraft to the last consequences. That is, Falcon for instance, but not necessarily Falcon 4.0, the last one, Falcon 3.0, or 2.0, or 1.0, or the great great grandfather of DCS, SSI Su-27 Flanker, then Flanker 2.0, then 2.5. What were one buying there? a single aircraft, as a whole simulator with environment, usually a single map, luckily a Campaign or some single missions. One paid happily 50$ (and that was 25 years ago…) for those simulators, just because those were really good study simulator, and nobody complained about having one single aircraft, people understood the effort to make that single aircraft as real as it gets (with the available computers) was enough, though it's true it came with all the stuff surrounding it, the map, the environment, the possible campaign and missions, all right.Then another developer invented a different platform, in where you could have a lot of stuff, not so accurate as a study sim, not even close in fact, but hey, we had lots of stuff with more or less "believable" FM though not so accurate, and the developer was happy to release aircraft not as single ones but lots of them quite easily with that "believable" FM though very general indeed and lacking specific detail to specific aircraft. That was a product of their time, but looking at it critically nowadays, we have to agree it was kinda arcadish style even though we were happy to have hundreds of aircraft in a single platform.
Now what are we having? DCS study simulator, just ED had the idea after 20 years to create a common platform called DCSW in where every single study simulator of an aircraft could be installed and used together with other aircraft, but all of them study simulators and you shouldn't mistake the fact of all the modules installed all at once in a single environment with that meaning this is an easy to develop generalist arcadish style simulator. No sir, this is still a study simulator not to be confused with others generalist simulators trying to sell how realistic they are when they are not. That said, is it cheap or expensive? Well bearing in mind time of development, complexity, and the fact that you are buying a study simulator "as real as it gets" with our current computers, which is really close to RL, not a generalist one releasing "believable" (only more or less I would say) though not detailed at all aircraft in a short period of time, well it's still not cheap though DCS simulation quality can be tell from a distance and 50$ is the same price we paid some 25 years ago for any study sim :shocking:. Is DCS FM better… hell it is by far, but maybe the question for you is, is it worth it should you not going to appreciate why is it better? That's what one have to ponder, and it's fine, though I still don't understand what happened since your first post for you to change your mind like that :lol:.
Talking about the real pilots stuff. That's not always completely reliable. I have several friends, real pilots, that tried my rig and simulator and they weren't very happy to see how hard it is to get used to a simulator lacking feeling. One of them having flying lots of agricultural and fire fighting high powered aircraft can't get used to take off in DCS propeller engines, he never used simulators before. Other one, is a vet with 3000 F-5A hours among others and also was a basic instructor using T-6 and several other tail dragger props. He's very happy with DCS when he discovered it some time ago, though still props in DCS isn't his best liking because he can't get completely used to the lack of feeling, and his controls set is not the best I have to say. On the other hand another friend, PPL pilot, aerobatic pilot that managed to be champion in lower categories, he got his license at the same time than me but we both were "simulator pilots" since early ages. He wasn't very sure about some details in the 109, but he's using a short stick, the time he got at home and flew with my long stick he discovered why he wasn't sure about those details and flew like a charm with the 109. Told me he should get a long stick :lol: . I myself, well, I haven't fly any warbird (well a Tiger Moth does count? :D) but being a simulator user since my childhood I'm absolutely happy to see the real deal I know perfectly depicted in DCS like it is not anywhere else. Does it count better my own experience or the experience of the more experienced than me real pilots that I have to advise about simulators? :smilewink: Think the first time your P-51 pilot friend tries to take off in your sim if he's not able to do so he may be ashamed of it in front of you and will probably say it's not real at all. Does that kind of bad experiences with a sim count?
S!