Yak-52B?

Me reading the weekend news......:

 

...

My reaction...

Crikey, some people are narrow minded.

Why is someones negative reaction considered narrow minded? Just being truthful towards the news. It's simple feedback. It can't always be sunshine and roses especially when there are expectations for other things.

I Will Buy it Just because bit has a radial engine

Guys, I fly the Yak52 irl and it's a lovely aircraft, the sound of a nine cylinder radial and 360HP is just bliss. Aero's in this is positive and it snaps great. Looking forward to having this in my virtual hangar.

I realise this is not everyone's cup of tea but neither is the HAWK :)

I am personally looking forward to this bird, it'll be a great addition to the hangar. A retractable tricycle radial? Yes please.

Outside of training, these "oddball" planes could lead to some interesting scenarios... Multiplayer escort mission. Two players in the Yak spotting/avoiding bandits while friendlies escort. A VIP mission of sorts. Seen similar missions done escorting unarmed ground vehicles manned by players.

Personally wouldn't have picked the Yak for this but the point is I'm sure people will make it work.

Price... well, usually depends on the level of simulation and included features in DCS. If light attack version or some kind of weapons system is included, and it's full fidelity, full price... if it's just the trainer...eh.. that's where it gets tricky.

I'll place my bet when we know a little more.

This is so weird.... a module we never heard before, at all. Doesn't fit anywhere. I have never seen that before from ED. As someone said, it must be a work of passion that ED decided to integrate into their offer because the quality of built and sim was really amazing (PFM)? Pure speculation here. Well as long as it doesn't divert resources for Caucasus 2.5, why not.

This is so weird.... a module we never heard before, at all. Doesn't fit anywhere. I have never seen that before from ED. As someone said, it must be a work of passion that ED decided to integrate into their offer because the quality of built and sim was really amazing (PFM)? Pure speculation here. Well as long as it doesn't divert resources for Caucasus 2.5, why not.

It was noted in other threads and earlier posts, this was driven by an outside commercial endeavor. Hence, why it wasn't being splashed around. We'll be able to reap the benefits from it. As always, our wallet's have the final say.

Too bad I just bought the harrier, otherwise I'd have some thinking to do. I like it, its a different approach and DCS needs something different like this. Sure it won't be as popular as say the f-18, but I don't for a second doubt its ability to bring joy to simmers.

It would be great if it is at the level of A2A aircraft for FSX

Won't do comparisons since it's been ages since I've last flown any MSFS aircraft, but I think the Yak has got to be as true-to-life as possible regardless. This was an outside contract job and I'm certain the client, whoever they are, knows their stuff and thus wouldn't have accepted anything substandard.

So yah, I'm gonna get this bird, rockets or not, because it'll most likely be of high quality. And one can never have too many prop AC in one's hangar anyway 8)

one can never have too many prop AC in one's hangar anyway 8)

THIS! :thumbup:;)

I realise this is not everyone's cup of tea but neither is the HAWK :)

Hawk didn't cost ED any development time. This one did. Think about it next time when you hear about delays to Hornet, P47, MIG29 PFM, Carriers, or whatever other airplane for DCS that you want ED to make.

OF course it probably made sense financially for Ed to do this project, but from our perspective, it also postponed other stuff we're waiting for.

From what I've heard ED does lots of projects for private customers all the time and all that may take development resources from DCS. Are you suggesting they should stop doing so and lose a sizable chunk of revenue?

So long as the price is right I think this will be a nice bit of variety for DCS. Sometimes it's nice just to fly around in VR without all that blowing stuff up and shooting guns

this will be a nice bit of variety for DCS

Indeed. And good old basic stick-and-rudder flying is always in vogue anyways, is it not ;) And who needs all this modern FMC etcetera garbage anyway, I ask?

Hawk didn't cost ED any development time. This one did. Think about it next time when you hear about delays to Hornet, P47, MIG29 PFM, Carriers, or whatever other airplane for DCS that you want ED to make.

 

OF course it probably made sense financially for Ed to do this project, but from our perspective, it also postponed other stuff we're waiting for.

Yesyou are right before you have to finish the beta modules like the spitfire mustang and other scary things from ED. Now is the fashion to release unfinished beta products ... the important thing is to earn ... shame and finish the work being done ... I paid for a finished product not stays in beta until infinity ... how disgusting

From what I've heard ED does lots of projects for private customers all the time and all that may take development resources from DCS. Are you suggesting they should stop doing so and lose a sizable chunk of revenue?

To answer that either way the profit would have to be quantified. DCS has lost revenue to a fragmented infrastructure of the core game however. The delay for 2.5 and the incompatibility of a lot of modules with the steam version. There is no dedicated game server from ED, so the large sandbox experience is provided by the players. ED does not control the MP experience for its own product, and that could be viewed as a hindrance to its accessibility as it is certainly rare. If ED are contracted for other projects and that is paying the bills, then that can be understood. Programmers need to eat. However, the long term effect to the core of DCS is affected.

If ED are contracted for other projects and that is paying the bills, then that can be understood.

My point exactly. However, there's no way we can quantify the impacts of these projects as a whole, so I suggest we just let the matter rest ;)

My point exactly. However, there's no way we can quantify the impacts of these projects as a whole, so I suggest we just let the matter rest ;)

That's interesting. It seemed that you had information that others didn't or at the least was not common knowledge. You offered that information into the discussion to say its best to let the matter rest. I don't follow what was the point of that. Does speaking about ED's business choices make you uncomfortable?

A day one buy! No point bickering about the Yak-52 and it's place. There has always been a few modules in DCS that are different and stands out from the rest. And there will be players who will fly it more than the Hornet or Tomcat. I think it is great that we get another russian bird into the sim. While combat is the focus, sometimes is just nice to hop into an unarmed aircraft and do a freeflight. I welcome more options, not less. Many and diverse modules is a good way to draw new players and flight enthusiasts to DCS as a whole

Anyways back to the Yak-52. I found some really good info on it and of the 52s handling characteristics: https://www.yakuk.com/yak-52-buyers-guide/

I like that project. Maybe it's a kind of testbed for radial engine planes? A2A is doing like that ...

The next step is obviously a WWI era radial engine aircraft. :)

Please!!!!

Does speaking about ED's business choices make you uncomfortable?

What? I never offered this to the discussion specifically because the knowledge _is_ public. And that's that, let's now do what Bignewy says and drop this BS plz ;)

The next step is obviously a WWI era radial engine aircraft. :)

 

Please!!!!

Fokker Dr1!!! RED BARON!!!