Is DCS WWII stalled? DCS dont want customers?

but all sims, and dcs is not an exception here, balance realism with playability. and in all sims, the FMs are not perfect, and not 100% like their real life counterparts. claiming that dcs is true to real life is just naive and wishful thinking. the FMs are good, but still plenty of room to improve.

Who says there is not? There's always room for improvement, but DCS FMs in general, and specially with regards to props, are easily the best we have seen ever in a home PC, and ages ahead of anything else as any real pilot should easily notice :P . The competence just features a so obvious arcade approach, which is legit for them to do so but far from real life, and not only they do like that but they have no intention to go any further with regards to realism as is obvious for anyone flying their sim products since ever and thinking otherwise is either really naive or wishful thinking :music_whistling:. DCS is not only good, it gets even better everyday with regards to realism and being like that is their goal which I really appreciate and thank them for.

 

Just a tip, flying DCS is still just a simulator in front of your PC screen, but it helps with real life training because it mimics real life like hell and I do know the actual case, you learn the real thing and it's helpful giving you actual basic flying skills. On the other hand, it's better to stay away from the competence in order to not learn bad habits and fake stuff you'll have to shave off in you real life flying lessons. Cope with that.

 

S!

Even now without the damage model and limited SP content and a number of other problems, I find it very difficult to fly any other WW2 combat than DCS these days.

 

Yes a better damage model would be nice and I can't wait, but the flight models themselves are just so much better than the competition that after flying them for a while I just can't really go back!

 

The spitfire for example is a god damned masterpiece. The competition just does not come close to how authentic that AC feels in VR combined with a jetseat and a good HOTAS. Already blows the competition out of the water in my opinion, but I think at this stage it depends what you're looking for and where your priorities lay.

 

I want the DM as much as the next guy, but it's not something I really lose sleep over. It also helps that I am not exactly a veteran and so I don't get bored with and am still challenged fighting the AI, and making my own missions.

 

Another factor in my favor is that I dont really care too much about which plane is in which map/terrain or if it's the correct variant for the correct time period etc. I just make missions and role play that it is WW2. For me it's just a BF109! I think people get too hung up on that stuff, to the point were they wont even make/share missions for the DCS 109 just because there is not a historically accurate context for it. For me this is insanity tbh, as it's only a simulation anyway! Almost all DCS modules require a bit of imagination to make them work. It's not like the Huey has a vietnam terrain to fly in either!

 

+1

Who says there is not? There's always room for improvement, but DCS FMs in general, and specially with regards to props, are easily the best we have seen ever in a home PC, and ages ahead of anything else as any real pilot should easily notice :P . The competence just features a so obvious arcade approach, which is legit for them to do so but far from real life, and not only they do like that but they have no intention to go any further with regards to realism as is obvious for anyone flying their sim products since ever and thinking otherwise is either really naive or wishful thinking :music_whistling:. DCS is not only good, it gets even better everyday with regards to realism and being like that is their goal which I really appreciate and thank them for.

 

Just a tip, flying DCS is still just a simulator in front of your PC screen, but it helps with real life training because it mimics real life like hell and I do know the actual case, you learn the real thing and it's helpful giving you actual basic flying skills. On the other hand, it's better to stay away from the competence in order to not learn bad habits and fake stuff you'll have to shave off in you real life flying lessons. Cope with that.

 

S!

 

 

When was FM more accurate? Back then 2017 when the Spitfire launched or now?

When was FM more accurate? Back then 2017 when the Spitfire launched or now?

When launched, and every previous WWII module was the same, basic FM was there but Spit lacked some features that you would have noticed just reading the forums, though performance charts were matched since day one and still she does.

 

The competence doesn't even match any performance chart, no matter release or now, and they balance performance according to users whines so there's your realism… :doh:

 

 

S!

When launched, and every previous WWII module was the same, basic FM was there but Spit lacked some features that you would have noticed just reading the forums, though performance charts were matched since day one and still she does.

 

The competence doesn't even match any performance chart, no matter release or now, and they balance performance according to users whines so there's your realism… :doh:

 

 

S!

 

 

 

The Spit is complete different as by launch auf the Modul, but I agree for dive speeds it's hard to find any Performance charts.

And I am don't know what you men with Competence and what is wrong with it?

I wouldn't say "completely different", just a few details were still WIP by the time, but those only relatively affected behaviour though of course incomplete. 109 was the same, P-51 was the same, Dora was the same. I don't see the problem when a module is marked "early access", you know what you're getting.

 

 

Still lacking those features FM was way better than anything we had previously known in PC simulation.

 

S!

I wouldn't say "completely different", just a few details were still WIP by the time, but those only relatively affected behaviour though of course incomplete. 109 was the same, P-51 was the same, Dora was the same. I don't see the problem when a module is marked "early access", you know what you're getting.

 

 

Still lacking those features FM was way better than anything we had previously known in PC simulation.

 

S!

 

 

 

I don't agree with you by the Time Yoyo posted pretty accurate Sources by where he get for example the overheating with spitfire and the flying performances in a Cuban 8.

That's not only slightly FM Tweaks, thing like these get completely ROFL Stump by know with no future Discussion on these changes.

But I will stop discussion by now it always goes nowhere...

DCS is not a game, it's a simulation.

That's what sets it apart from most/all others.

 

 

It's still a simulation, not real life, so therefore a computational approximation of reality.

 

 

One thing I am pretty sure about, is that DCS aircraft are not artificially enhanced or worsened because of "balancing" especially concerning multiplayer. Balancing doesn't exist in real life either, and it should not and does not exist in DCS.

 

 

 

Balancing in DCS is done by managing your fuel tanks. ;)

DCS is not a game, it's a simulation.

That's what sets it apart from most/all others.

 

 

It's still a simulation, not real life, so therefore a computational approximation of reality.

 

 

One thing I am pretty sure about, is that DCS aircraft are not artificially enhanced or worsened because of "balancing" especially concerning multiplayer. Balancing doesn't exist in real life either, and it should not and does not exist in DCS.

 

 

 

Balancing in DCS is done by managing your fuel tanks. ;)

 

If it's not a game, why does ED label it as a game then?

 

Source: DCS Website.

Who says characterizations such as "game" or "sim" are mutually exclusive?

DCS is not a game, it's a simulation.

That's what sets it apart from most/all others.

 

 

It's still a simulation, not real life, so therefore a computational approximation of reality.

 

 

One thing I am pretty sure about, is that DCS aircraft are not artificially enhanced or worsened because of "balancing" especially concerning multiplayer. Balancing doesn't exist in real life either, and it should not and does not exist in DCS.

 

 

 

Balancing in DCS is done by managing your fuel tanks. ;)

spitfire overheating is one example where they did exactly that

Did what? Balanced the sim for playability? Where's the evidence?

 

Look, I can claim whatever I want too, e.g. forum member Birdstrike has three heads, of which at least 2 are green. Just don't ask me to prove it and everything's hunky dory, right?

Wasn't this a thread about progress and delay regarding WW2 based modules? How does the flight modeling debate contribute? I'm confused...

 

The way I read things, for example, the delay to the P-47, the whole process of research and implementation just takes far longer than the less scientific attitude of other platforms. We have, after all, only seen work in progress modules thus far, but the work being done in those transfers across to future projects. We're seeing that in the release of the MiG-19P and in future that may well translate into much more rapid releases of WW2 modules too.

 

The fundamental difference is like comparing Rome to the cartoon of Asterix the Gaul. One is an entire city built over millennia, the other is just a facsimile. The question might be moot if you're after just another approximation game, but the end results can and do shine through as being on a whole different level.

 

So contrary to the OP, I don't for a moment believe WW2 has stalled, but yes, inevitably, progress will always be slower than we'd like - at least in the short term where all the background engineering is perfected, and the research teams gather vital information.

 

That's my take on the situation anyway. I suspect it has a lot to do with commercial aims, but those aims aren't necessarily to make a fast buck but to produce a world-beating product. Again, Rome v Asterix the Gaul. It is a question of philosophy, and that can never be second-guessed by we armchair experts.

For those who do nothing but moan that "my aircraft is not right, their aircraft is OP", and insinuate the competition is better in their FM - then why are you still here?

 

If the competition is so much more to your liking then why do you insist on griping constantly on your grievances here instead of playing that game and interacting with the community over there?

 

One assumes you remain here because there is at least something you admire/like/find satisfying about the DCS WW2 experience.

 

Maybe, just to change the goddamn record, you could tell us what you find enjoyable about DCS?

 

Just for some bloody variety at least.

spitfire overheating is one example where they did exactly that

 

 

Did the spitfire M IX really overheat after a few minutes of full throttle? Is it now no longer possible to blow the engines no matter how long you stay at full throttle?

For those who do nothing but moan that "my aircraft is not right, their aircraft is OP", and insinuate the competition is better in their FM - then why are you still here?

 

If the competition is so much more to your liking then why do you insist on griping constantly on your grievances here instead of playing that game and interacting with the community over there?

 

One assumes you remain here because there is at least something you admire/like/find satisfying about the DCS WW2 experience.

 

Maybe, just to change the goddamn record, you could tell us what you find enjoyable about DCS?

 

Just for some bloody variety at least.

 

 

 

Because I buy these on the shop sale Site:

 

 

Unmatched flight physics that allow you to truly feel what it's like to fly this legend

 

 

That was here 2 years ago..

 

 

But I still waiting on my Dive Video with the Spit, I am wrong and the Reasons are?

 

 

And I can not see why is forbidden to discuss these, after we have more threads then I can count how op the K4 is there was more Response.

The way I read things, for example, the delay to the P-47, the whole process of research and implementation just takes far longer than the less scientific attitude of other platforms. We have, after all, only seen work in progress modules thus far, but the work being done in those transfers across to future projects. We're seeing that in the release of the MiG-19P and in future that may well translate into much more rapid releases of WW2 modules too.

 

Mig-19P has make by a team of a 3rd party (RAZBAM), not by the WW2 ED team, and actually That team has working on 3 WW2 modules (Fw-190A-8, P-47 & Mosquito) and the Map team working on 2 WW2 maps.

Did the spitfire M IX really overheat after a few minutes of full throttle? Is it now no longer possible to blow the engines no matter how long you stay at full throttle?

 

Again, non-evidential data hyperbole-spiel from Spitfire-phobes.

 

Yo-yo has said more than once that the Thermodynamics modelling is still being tweaked. Sure the Spitfire is not quick to overheat at speed but the fact is that on release you couldn't fly at 2850RPM and 12lb boost for an hour - AS SLATED IN THE REAL LIFE PILOTS NOTES - without cooking the engine, and that was unequivocally inaccurate.

 

Ok, I'll grant you, maybe they overshot with the revised cooling calculations a bit, and perhaps it should get a bit warmer more quickly at the higher power settings. However, I have no data to back this supposition up and frankly, neither have any of the doubters. I have yet to see anything approaching hard evidence.

 

So given that:

 

(i)Yo-yo says it needs tweaking

(ii)Yo-yo is reworking currently

(iii) Yo-yo has access to far more data and a better understanding of the thermodynamics modelling in DCS

 

Maybe we should let him get on with it and trust it's a more refined deal when it lands.

 

I should remind the Spitfire-phobes that it is very much still possible to pop the engine in a steep climb at the combat power setting if airspeed is insufficient to provide requisite cooling.

 

But of course, the fact that even at this power setting the Spitfire is still not as fast as a K-4 or a D-9 is still not enough for some of our erstwhile Luft-heroes. :rolleyes:

But I still waiting on my Dive Video with the Spit, I am wrong and the Reasons are?

 

Could you post a link?

Good I was on release flying full Power 3000RPM 18lbs Boost power Setting all day long with the Spit, nothing happen we have different planes?

Only you couldn't fly slower then 180 Mph with 18lbs, and don't do Prob hang stuff but that was difficult to understand.

 

 

And big Wings doesn't bring only advantages, or how much Horsepower have G6 compare to the Spit LF MKX?

 

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/me109g6-tactical.html

 

 

Because I buy these on the shop sale Site:

 

 

Unmatched flight physics that allow you to truly feel what it's like to fly this legend

 

 

That was here 2 years ago..

 

 

But I still waiting on my Dive Video with the Spit, I am wrong and the Reasons are?

 

 

And I can not see why is forbidden to discuss these, after we have more threads then I can count how op the K4 is there was more Response.

 

What about those stick forces that are ridiculously modelled.. Does the 109 pilot have only one hand? Well, we don't know for sure.. these are the things that bother me. This.. hermetic style of ED explaining things, e.g. changes done to the 'game' with no explanation on the forum (on the changelog).

The 109 was very heavy to control at high speed (that is well documented and generally true for most aircraft of the era) and IIRC intended by some manufacturers in order to make sure that the structure was not over stressed by the more enthusiastic pilots.

Again we have more hyperbole, and not a smidgen of hard evidence from the same tired old names, who repeatedly beat their well worn - and by this time, chronically out of tune - drums.

 

No acknowledgement of the fact that on numerous occasions the reason for the methodologies implemented have been presented to you, recognition that at this level of simulation some compromises have to be made because of the fact that it is a simulator and the virtual hardware and ergonomics cannot be simply translated across to the limited travels and wide variety of physical hardware.

 

Yo-yo has chosen the way he wishes to implement these compromises. Don't like 'em? Shame. What you gonna do? Build your own sim? Ha! There's a reason your here, having purchased a product from a team of people who have together a huge amount of knowledge and skills you are unable to replicate.

 

You are therefore obliged to trust they have it mostly correct and will deal with the issues of translating the complexities of real-world aviation phenomena into a simulation in the way they see best fit.

 

It seems to me you either like them, or lump them, or go elsewhere.

 

I suspect it's high time some of you did the latter cos I for one am getting bloody irritated with the repeated flogging of some very long-dead horses.

 

MAD-MM - what fuel was the G-6 operating on in those tests? What ATA was used in the dives? How does the K-4 @1.4 ATA horsepower compare to the Spitfire at 2850RPM @ 12lb boost? Find that information and then test. Until then your clutching at the vaguest of straws and really don't have an argument.

I'll say it again:

 

Maybe, just to change the goddamn record, you could tell us what you find enjoyable about DCS?

 

Just for some bloody variety at least.

I'll say it again:

 

Maybe, just to change the goddamn record, you could tell us what you find enjoyable about DCS?

 

Just for some bloody variety at least.

 

+1

 

Especially considering I haven't been flying for a year or more thanks to a dead GPU and unwillingness to spend far more for a new one than I have before :mad: