Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Gentoo87

  1. No idea who said anything about rent... purchase your modules... i'm saying contributing otherwise as a subscriber to invest... not renting or borrowing modules... Value is in the expedient production of modules by having extra funds to get things done quicker.
  2. Wow this turned into quite the conversation. My idea was to open a portal to contribution from fans/consumers to provide additional spending money to ED's bottom line; not having anything to do with manipulating there time line. The newsletter mention was a half spirited joke to send me a piece of paper on where the extra money is going not by the contributors design, more like a fluff piece on thanks for your contribution here is what where doing with it. Seems like some have received the idea of it's purpose in accelerating content production and distribution by giving them more money to spend from people who really love and appreciate this project be it by those who have purchased everything or those who just choose to. What none of my intentions have to do with is becoming a decision maker in any way shape or form. Either way regardless of money ED would never let it happen; they have their plan. Nor trying to obtain free stuff; why call it a contribution when by this definition it merely becomes another form of trade? From what I gather in this string of posts, not many wish to contribute to ED's bottom line outside of purchasing modules, and donating/contributing to their bottom line as a fan/investor seems to be quite out of line. Wish this made sense in my head somewhere but it doesn't. Thank you for all of your thoughts and points of view.
  3. I recently opened a thread on this. My idea falls along the lines of "make the subscription a choice" For me my subscription option wouldn't be to connect to servers or get free planes. I would like to contribute to ED's bottom line as an investor. Don't take away a buyers decision to purchase a module and go about there day. 847 people replied to this post. 147 +25 said yes Extra 20k in free money per year @ 10/month for development in this small pool of people. 739 just wish to purchase modules.
  4. I see what your saying here, I guess I did a poor job in explaining my position. I'm not really asking for much in said subscription. I'm not asking for free planes, maybe free test drives. The purpose of the subscription would be for people who want to contribute to ED's bottom line with the intent of doing just that. Some of us have purchased every module ED has to offer. Some one had mentioned buying modules for people... I seldom like to do that type of thing for anyone unless I have a solid understanding that my time invested to make the money to buy said module would be well spent. If I buy some one a module for x amount of dollars and they use it once or twice it's not money well spent. Money contributed to developers/workshops budget, might be the difference between hiring one more person to tackle the large amount of work hours to complete a module. You know what I could say would be a good exchange for the monthly contribution. Send us a spending report on the crowd funded money, throw up polls on what you had most interest in your dollars going to next. Lets say we contributed an extra 10k they could spend. They could allocate that money towards bugs, or 8 towards bug fixes, and 2k towards fixing something else blah blah blah
  5. As mentioned above the subscription wouldn't be mandatory for anyone. Customers can go about there day just buying modules. From a personal standpoint I look at is as becoming an investor in DCS's future. I know at some point my contribution to the vision would help things get done, where budget and interest becomes less of a problem. Concerns about whether or not a module will turn a profit will be less of an issue. Especially as we are a very niche group. They can paint a complete picture of a timeline or battlespace, instead of hodge podging random generations of military aircraft pit against each other. If you wish, don't call it a subscription; it was just a convenient word we all understand in it's implied use. What about opening an avenue for investors to contribute. Explain your point of view?
  6. Yes it seems a place like a forum where people come to discuss idea's It's quite strange when people come to them and do that very thing. Strange... I find it most intriguing people who jump into such conversations and bring a whole lot of nothing to the discussion the most egregious of mouth breathers. But eh mouth breathers are everywhere, and we all need to deal with them. Congrats on adding yourself to the lowest common denominator.
  7. What say you about a monthly subscription option? Throw us some coupons here and there, a newsletter, and maybe some free fly's or something. We can contribute to your payroll and keep development moving along or even create opportunity for other potentially less popular airframes to get developed. It doesn't have to be nuts either; create a 5 dollar option, 10 dollar option and so on. Don't make it mandatory no pay to win. People want to just purchase airframes and that be it; great. I can't buy much more; not much more I care to own as of the moment. It would be a way for us to continue to help with development and secure the future of DCS. I'd like to see more WWII development, which seemingly is a small aspect, and carries less interest. fell like this idea would help hire more people, and get more ideas rolled out.
  8. I'm sorry Graff I thought some one else posted that. You have spun my head around about how to read this stuff. I found at sea level shes fine, keeping on the hush hush at 1.5 she's over performing by about 10 kts lol I got 596kmh at 1.5 level flight.
  9. That is not TAS, that is indicated air speed on the dash from the pitot tube... as much as I wanted to believe this plane was faster. If you go to the F2 view, and cycle the speed metrics to TAS(which is what speed charts are measured by). This plane slightly under performs on the deck maybe by 5 kts, but hits at least during my test 596KMH at 1.5 km.
  10. Looked at the TAS report as shown in sim speeds. Nothing is really that off... I have been silenced.
  11. Bringing up TAS was a game changer..... We have been arguing about nothing for months. Or miss information/lack of understanding. Tas should be a limited differential at sea level. I'm still feeling it's quite slow down there at 520kph. Mind you the supercharger is out of range down there. Looking at the chart. at 1.5 km TAS does look correct per your statement. Yes when I do take the bird up for expected A/A I do remove the bomb rack. By no means am I expecting an A-8 to be as quick or hang with a 51 at sea level in pure level flight. The only way I've been able to stay with a 51 on the deck is by forcing the pilot to turn with gun fire. He's not hard to hit when he's flying strait. With this new mindset you have laid out. Spitfire on the deck should be capable of 347 ish mph at 18 lbs of boost at 3k RPM. Which would indicate the Anton cannot run from a MK IX. I'm not sure if our Spit has the 61 or 66.
  12. I'll take the plane up again tomorrow and look at TAS.
  13. Gotta give you this one after doing some further research...
  14. The chart is measured from the reference aircraft indicated airspeed... not TAS. No aircraft datasheet measures in speed across the ground. So I did nothing wrong. Nice try though ;)
  15. I agree, this Anton is not feature complete. The ATA is not right, the speeds are not correct for associated altitudes and manifold pressures. This plane is not right and needs corrected. It's not hard to do some simple research to figure this out. Further more don't get it twisted. At 1.42 ata it should be capable of hitting 550kmh at sea level, 580kmh at 1.5km. The higher 1.58, and 1.65 ata made it even faster at these altitudes for 10 minutes at a time.
  16. Can some one provided evidence of such claims. Your claiming Americans or any other nation did not do the same in kind? What a shallow answer, I expect more of child.... All I asked for was the document used to develop the the module to show what we might not understand. I have have found many charts that depict this plane being much faster than described here by about 50kmh without special fuels or injection of any kind. We are also looking to be ATA restricted. Further research shows of the A-8 being capable of 1.58 on the first supercharger, and 1.68 on the second stage. I'm hoping some one from ED/developer could step in and share some of the docs used to build the Anton's representation?
  17. Says performs as expected, can ED/Developer provide the charts used to decide the Anton's speed parameters. Every chart I found on the A-8 says she is 40-50kmh slower than depicted. All the charts I found measured at 1.42 ata @ 1.4-1.6 km of altitude says the Anton should be able to produce 575ish Kmh of speed. With the weapons pylon off I'm peaking at 525kmh at at 1.5 km Also I see some confusion about the ground attack "A-8" The F line of the 190 series was the ground attack version. FW 190 F-8 was for ground attack specifically.
  18. I totally get that, I don't like using the switch either, there just just be a few degress of freedom of movement from the pilots camera position. So the plane can move and displace freely in the air without the feeling of my head being bolted to the seat.
  19. False... just false... Your still not understanding what I'm asking. I'm not asking for a bobble head. Our heads naturally stabilize themselves. I'm asking for the plane to move. If you watch the driving footage. His head is stable to where he is looking. The car is bumping and yawing around while his focal point stays steady. In DCS our heads are locked to the axis of the plane.
  20. I'm not asking for shake, I'm asking for some sway. Plane shakes enough when you pull the trigger. Planes don't fly perfectly strait, and true. They require constant adjustment to the wind. It's not real or sim to fly strait and true in a spit or any plane under 300 kts. Pilots don't anticipate, we have a natural need to keep our heads upright and oriented with level ground. I have the G effects turned of as well. It looks like I am not clearly getting my point across, maybe I'm using the wrong vocabulary. I'd like to feel(which we can't) the plane actually fly. If the plane had some subtle bounce and yaw. Im not talking about making the cockpit look like your driving over a jeep trail. It would actually like like the aero would be doing it's job of keeping you in the sky. Right now as I fly. The planes don't require much adjustment accept for subtle changes in yaw to due power settings of the aircraft. Mind you this is for warbirds only as you have manual control of the surfaces. At no point should you be able to fly hands off on these old warbirds including the 51, and 47. Even well trimmed requires subtle adjustment to the wind. I can currently set my yaw trim in a spit and my power setting and take my hand off the stick and she will fly strait. Real planes don't do that. For late model jets with FCS. Not much input should be needed to fly strait and true due to its FCS. BUT!!! the plane should be shown to make constant adjustments on its own, very subtle but working FCS is moving surfaces to keep the Jet on the flight path marker. FCS making adjustments example: Warbird example of natural head movement. His head stays looking forward and true, but the plane yaws left right and subtle goes up and down as he manipulates the control surfaces to "fly" the plane.
  21. To each there own. I think this is a sim. I would like it simulated. give me the choice with a checkbox or a slider. Why play a simulator if the effects of an airplane aren't "simulated" are you really here for just the deltas and a pretty look? Real planes don't fly like this there a little shaky, there a little loose. Even jets with an FCS are constantly adjusting to change for the pilot.
  22. I get no feed back from the runway on take off in vertical forces(bumpiness), just lateral as you describe the sliding around. You might be right, as the Mig 15 gives a great sensation of flight the whole time. Tomcat just shakes everywhere, I've seen them bounce on a taxiway. Other modules just feel like they're on rails. The sliding I get, we as sim pilots have no sensation of yaw. In a real plane you can feel slip your rudder footwork becomes an extension of that. The game you need to wait until your visually of axis to correct by then it's to late and you need to over correct. One more idea in reference to what you describe in VR, I'm pretty sure IL 2 players do it in VR. I don't see why their minds and perception would be any different than those that fly here Example:
  23. My mention was to keep the ticker for g effects on head movement or add a slider for this very explanation As this a sim, I just wished it felt more real. I've never flown a real jet, I have been limited to cessna's and piper's. There still a bit bumpy. Runways are not perfect surfaces. I feel the airframe shake from the visuals, I feel the runways have just been paved by a master contractor who's crew makes no mistakes. The ground being perfection as the material never settles. Everything feels to perfect.
  • Create New...