no news on other WW2 addons?

Aces High II did indeed come close to <1946-era IL-2. AH2 portrayed quite a few things better than IL-2--in particular, AH2's stall physics, collision physics, and ground physics were vastly superior to IL-2's. I'm not gonna champion AH2 as a good hardcore flight sim, because it isn't; like IL-2, AH2 is a flying game with some simulator elements. IL-2 definitely did model avionics better than AH2, but that's about it. AH2 modelled most areas of physics much more accurately than the IL-2 series prior to CloD (or, at least, prior to 1946--although I doubt 1946 fixed much of the broken stuff from Forgotten Battles & Pacific Fighters). Engine management was roughly on par, although AH2 may've been slightly behind IL-2 in that area. (IIRC, AH2 had fuel tank selection and IL-2 had mixture control--albeit both modelled very wrong.)

All is great but the ballistics modelling, damage modelling, and general flight feel in AH2 are still inferior (you can fly this with a mouse FFS!). As for stall modelling in IL-2, much has changed since 1946, since that version was 4.07 and we're on 4.11.1 now and will probably see 4.12 soon.

What I cannot seem to understand is how everyone throws tomatoes at IL-2 and pours gold over the P-51D. It's like this kid mentality "I got my Legoes now, time to start hatin' on wooden blocks".

But the truth is, there is only one prop plane in DCS and it stands out. It also has a lot of bugs still. Ground physics has it's weird moments (nothing like going sideways for 200m in a 2 ton plane) and while the engine modelling may be realistic, so far I have seen only one kind of failure - the prop stops and that is it (it should at least spin in a dive), no indication of bad engine performance in the sound, no smoke from the radiator, just this. Now don't get me wrong, I like the Mustang, but it's not flawless and after some time spent in it, it gets boring.

There has been numerous hints at other WWII add-ons for DCS, but to be honest, I'm starting to think it's pointless to track the subject. We've seen more from Iris, Razbam, Belsimtek etc, and that was shown long after that first screen with the B-17s and Mustang. Just add to that the release date of any of those projects being around 2014 and we roughly have a time-line for DCS WWII stuff: 202x. And before anything is done, we need at least a new map and the is not coming before Nevada/Edge. Did anyone mention Duke Nukem Forever came out sooner than this? :music_whistling:

What I cannot seem to understand is how everyone throws tomatoes at IL-2 and pours gold over the P-51D.

Can't speak for any others, but as for myself: it's largely because of the attitude of the developers. Maddox Games was far more interested in making money than in making as realistic of a flight simulator as possible. While Eagle Dynamics is also a business and has to make a profit, they--by all evidence--actually love flying and flight sims. Maddox spent more resources on making people think their game was realistic than on actually making it so; E.D., on the other hand, spends all possible resources on making their sim as realistic as they can, and none on BS'ing people.

IL-2 was never as realistic of a flight sim as it could have been. Not even close. The developer's attitude always held the sim back enormously. They didn't seem like they really wanted it to be like flying a real WWII airplane, but rather only enough to convince their main potential customer base that it is.

DCS is damn near as realistic of a flight sim as you can get on a modern P.C. The developer's attitude has made it so, and I expect that they shall continue to improve it for as long as they are able.

These reasons, along with others, are why I so dislike IL-2 and why I so positively regard DCS. I'll concede one thing--as a flying game, IL-2 was good fun. More so than any other less-than-realistic flight sim-game I've played. But as a realistic flight simulator? Poppycock. And I have long, long outgrown any desire for a fun flying game that isn't very realistic. I only enjoyed it until I started to find out how far away it was from being reasonably accurate--from then on, it went downhill.

I only enjoyed it until I started to find out how far away it was from being reasonably accurate--from then on, it went downhill.

And I also :yes:

Can't speak for any others, but as for myself: it's largely because of the attitude of the developers. Maddox Games was far more interested in making money than in making as realistic of a flight simulator as possible. While Eagle Dynamics is also a business and has to make a profit, they--by all evidence--actually love flying and flight sims. Maddox spent more resources on making people think their game was realistic than on actually making it so; E.D., on the other hand, spends all possible resources on making their sim as realistic as they can, and none on BS'ing people.

 

IL-2 was never as realistic of a flight sim as it could have been. Not even close. The developer's attitude always held the sim back enormously. They didn't seem like they really wanted it to be like flying a real WWII airplane, but rather only enough to convince their main potential customer base that it is.

 

DCS is damn near as realistic of a flight sim as you can get on a modern P.C. The developer's attitude has made it so, and I expect that they shall continue to improve it for as long as they are able.

 

These reasons, along with others, are why I so dislike IL-2 and why I so positively regard DCS. I'll concede one thing--as a flying game, IL-2 was good fun. More so than any other less-than-realistic flight sim-game I've played. But as a realistic flight simulator? Poppycock. And I have long, long outgrown any desire for a fun flying game that isn't very realistic. I only enjoyed it until I started to find out how far away it was from being reasonably accurate--from then on, it went downhill.

If Maddox care more about money, they can sell each single aircraft and make money on every time the platform upgrade. I already told that you need wait more tan 300 years to get all flyable aircrafts in IL-2 be done in DCS. Some Devs like A2A sell a P-51D and make money 3 times with it. All of this can be regarded as good attitude.

DCS starts its high accu level of sims from Ka50. But still have some "mid level" sim known as LOFC3 in it, which I payed the 4th time money in these 6 aircrafts. Will you say ED cares to much about money with it?

You are not correct. When the engine seizes it means that something like piston rods breaks jamming the crankshaft. Boom - and the prop is dead. How can it be cranked? Even in diving.

The death is too suddenly.

A broken rod can be regard as a very heave internal load to the engine. When the jam happened, other 11 cylinders are still working and have power output. To stop the rotation need some time, maybe short, but can't be zero. Zero time = Infinity Force, and will destory the crankshaft or gear box, make the prop free from the engine...

And if the cylinder stop at the top point, the boken rod will not pull it down and the crankshaft can still rotate.

You are not correct. When the engine seizes it means that something like piston rods breaks jamming the crankshaft. Boom - and the prop is dead. How can it be cranked? Even in diving.

 

If you overheat an engine you can hear that something goes wrong, the engine performance deteriorates and finally you have so much friction in it that it stops. But gradually.

 

You can have prop governor, MP regulator, magneto(s) down, radiators can get closed when they must be open because of damaged sensors, etc, etc. In most cases you must handle these failures properly to bring the plane home or just to belly land where you are. You must remember that the pressure in hydro-accumulator drops as your prop does not rotate, so the decision to lower flaps or not just after the failure is up to you... Do you think it's boring? Land she without a wingtip - is it boring? Really?

The idea of having fun is subjective, you know. :) I may not be correct about the engine failures, but the one described is the only one I have encountered, though trying very hard sometimes - maybe just my luck. Anyay going back to my initial point - the P-51 is a dogfighter, what can I dogfight? Other P-51s. How does that feel to me? Boring. Sorry, but I just don't see one of the greatest fighters in history to be flown without wing-tips or with purposely damaged engine, for me this is not entertaining not to mention not realistic - real pilots fly safe.

I do understand that a lot of people find pleasure in the details, I do as well, but this is a comabt simulator, and the Mustang does not have many combat options in the current setting.

Sorry, but I just don't see one of the greatest fighters in history to be flown without wing-tips or with purposely damaged engine, for me this is not entertaining not to mention not realistic - real pilots fly safe.

Uhm ... real pilots very much do fly and land real aircraft with missing wingtips and damaged engines. P-51, as any other combat aircraft ... it happened. There is no possible way that recreating that situation in a simulator could be "not realistic," by any definition thereof.

: /

 

And if the cylinder stop at the top point, the boken rod will not pull it down and the crankshaft can still rotate.

The weakest links in that whole assembly are the bearing cap bolts and the piston skirt. I've never seen the rod shaft itself split in two - bent, yes. What follows is one or both bolts get torn in half, dropping the connecting rod bearings cap in the pan while the crankshaft hammers the hell out of the rod sticking out of the bottom of cylinder wall, and death is almost instant. If the oil pan has a baffle then the cap gets thrown around and grind to pieces. I've seen oil pan with piston rod sticking out of it and this is from a 1500 cc ricer. These things put out enough power to punch hole in the cylinder block so I can't imagine what a merlin does when she's neglected.

If Maddox care more about money

Well, Maddox Games _did_ succeed in convincing the punters that their flying game is something more than an arcadey rendition of WWII aerial warfare with some half-realistic tidbits thrown in, so I guess they earned their money on that count at least?

Yah, I also thought IL-2 was fun for awhile, but then vastly better sims such as DCS (and RoF up to a point) started to come out. And that was that :P

DCS series = a simulator. IL-2 = pr3$s I t0 $tart tEH pL4ne and w1N t3h war :lol: Oh, and while you're at it, don't forget tEh pwnZ0r settings either, i.e. throttle at 100% all the time including takeoffs. Because in IL-2 you CAN!

I can also just tap Rwin+Home to start a F-15C, and have a full AB flight from start to finish with it in LOMAC, LOFC, LOFC2 adn LOFC3.

DCS series = a simulator. IL-2 = pr3$s I t0 $tart tEH pL4ne

I can also just tap Rwin+Home to start a F-15C, and have a full AB flight from start to finish with it in LOMAC, LOFC, LOFC2 adn LOFC3.

IL-2 is not CloD as well. It's the one from the age of Flanker here. They all have limit including DCS, so don't laugh at them. Do unto others, do not impose on others.

IL-2 is not CloD as well. It's the one from the age of Flanker here.

They all have limit including DCS, so don't laugh at them. Do unto others, do not impose on others.

Me too.

Oleg prefer just press I and go fly, and did't want to develope a clickable cockpit before starting the BOB:SOW. But the devs changed mind.

I also wish every CloD and future aircraft is as detailed as DCS or Accusim level. But I think it's more difficult than make every LOMAC aircraft as detailed as DCS level in a year or two.

so don't laugh at them.

CloD may eventually develop into a proper sim someday and hopefully will, but that remains to be seen. Not holding my breath waiting for it, however.

It's funny how people laugh at the sim technology from 12 years ago because of something so unimportant as start-up procedure, while they fail to realise that before the original IL-2 noone has even done complex engine management in a WWII sim. The reason we still mention this game is because noone has made anything better since - not Jane's, not Gaijin, not Microsoft.

And sure DCS is more complex, a very impressive and detailed simulation, but this is just one plane - no WWII units, no WWII maps and with everything awesome about, you won't be able to play bomber escort and tango with a bunch of D-9s.

It's not the sim's complexity that is the issue, it's the gameplay potential and compared to IL-2, the DCS Mustang falls short. And in case anyone did not notice, this is a 23-page thread about expanding the WWII potential of DCS. Why are we having this discussion? Simple, because no matter how cool the DCS Mustang is, most of us here would like to have a full theatre to go with it.

Now just assume you were in 1950s and war was just over. USAAF pilots still need fly their mustang but no FW-190 to fight with.

We'd still need Lavochkins, Mig-9s, Mig-15s, Sabre's etc. It's an interesting concept for sure, but still far away. Anyway, whatever get the Mustang a descent campaign (none of that flying through gates stuff) has my support.

Now just assume you were in 1950s and war was just over. USAAF pilots still need fly their mustang but no FW-190 to fight with.

I'm nor a WWII only fanatic, you can bet I'll pay NOW for a DCA level Korea scenery where we could use the 51, be sure :smilewink:. But sadly it won't probably happen soon.

S!

and compared to IL-2, the DCS Mustang falls short.

The weakest links in that whole assembly are the bearing cap bolts and the piston skirt. I've never seen the rod shaft itself split in two - bent, yes. What follows is one or both bolts get torn in half, dropping the connecting rod bearings cap in the pan while the crankshaft hammers the hell out of the rod sticking out of the bottom of cylinder wall, and death is almost instant. If the oil pan has a baffle then the cap gets thrown around and grind to pieces. I've seen oil pan with piston rod sticking out of it and this is from a 1500 cc ricer. These things put out enough power to punch hole in the cylinder block so I can't imagine what a merlin does when she's neglected.

I'll try to find some docs to learn more about engine failure.

http://www.kartbay.com.au/UserFiles/1369-Files/File/Piston%20Failures%20Explained.pdf

http://www.britishonly.com/pdf/PistonandRing/Pistonsiezures.pdf

Contextwise? Oh yeah, definitely. But one has to start somewhere - and the Mustang isn't too shabby a start for a possible WW2 and/or Korea spinoff IMHO

We can all agree with this one, question is, how realistic is this thing happening?

How realistic? Well how long is a piece of string? The thing is mmaruda that my guess is as good as yours of course ;)