Ala13_ManOWar
-
Posts
3501 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Ala13_ManOWar
-
-
I was thinking indeed why couldn't devs just make it big enough, including South England of course but not only, also deeper into Europe even though like Crimea lacking detail but allowing us for longer missions and flight times, even more with the new airports feature.I was at first thinking about the Normandy map, but only when you go further up the coast into Holland does the coast become so diagonal. But looking up the coast I could see that is the area of both Market-Garden and Wacht am Rhein, where a diagonally oriented map might have been of use.But if the lion's share of memory is used for textures and you can simply leave out high detail textures for areas you don't really need, like Crimea on the current Caucasus map, then it probably doesn't make really any difference, as long a the total linear size is irrelevant.
S!
-
:doh: You're pretty new to this, right? Luthier is a historical old Il-2 dev, since Pacific Fighters DLC IIRC, like 12 years back. Luthier was responsible (as project chief) for the CloD failure. Luthier came in and made a kickstarter then later just run away, if we have to trust him :music_whistling: after all kickstarter money was spent.Who? Never heard of him/her/them. Is this something to do with the WW2 Kickstarter that went belly-up?The matter of the late-war aircraft/maps seems pretty simple to me. Either:
A) This is ED's decision, in which case it should be open to debate. Or,
B) This isn't ED's decision, in which case they don't have to stick to it
A) No it wasn't ED decision but, should be open to debate… You kidding, right? :lol: When did ED nor any other third party ask you what they should work on?
B)No they can't, ED has to honour those people that put their money in the kickstarter, they can't just run away like Luthier did. And I have to say they are doing a terrific work with something that wasn't in their mind or schedule at first.
So well, probably schedule for WWII is pretty tight and a bit closed given the background ED inherited. I would like to see other scenarios (BoB for sure) but, if ED has any thoughts on this yet, I don't think those are very far from the period they are already working on. But mainly, that was given by Luthier choice.
IMHO it's the best thing happening to simulation ever. Yes, it's taking a long time (and I'm longing for the maps and new modules like the most eager of you), but once we have a whole theatre it's going to be gorgeous mate.Going WW2 in DCS is just an awfully bad decision IMHO. We don't even have support in the current game engine for various aspects of modern air combat (AG radar, ECM, etc.), we have only one and a half theaters, etc. To get the DCS to do props as well as CloD (for ex.) will take ages (in aspects like the DM and other).
Don't be. I've been in command of many SEOWs campaigns, I've flown even more. Thanks :smilewink:. You guys seem very far to understand how different sims are right now. Il-2 was a good thing in its time, but that will be no more, Il-2 was a very simple thing to develop compared to modern ones, they could release new aircraft like mushrooms grow because of their simplicity. That happens no more, that's it.Just to say that I am really sorry for all of you guys here who never played a SEOW campaign in IL2.Anyhow, provided we get the new version, new maps possibilities and so I expect new modules and maps release would be a constant and steady. Too much delays has accumulated since 3-4 years ago, Luthier, new engine required to honour Nevada map (another bluff). Now it appears we can see the light at the end of the tunnel, at least I hope so :lol:. So back OT :D, I would be glad to see a good simulator on BoB subject, from ED itself (I wish) or a third party.
S!
-
I'm also don't like unmanned worlds ))
Racoon and his clues all around the forums :lol:. Now we'll be hyped until any news pops up.PS Some great news are coming for you "two weeks" lovers. And this is the only one small step...S!
-
Yes, like the real World is, North-South, not only because compasses points out magnetic North but due to Earth rotating on its axis :huh:. Still you can make missions "pointing" the map wherever you want to so coast lines can represent whatever the place you want around the World.Back to Normandy - it is in "normal" orientation.S!
-
C'mon guys, it's really necessary every now and then tell the story again? It was Luthier choice, nothing to do with ED even though the P-51 was the first module. No, nobody knows why that planeset choice but Luthier, let's only point out how ED is having problems getting the P-47 info they need.Not quite sure why there is this focus on the last year of the war, and the early not-quite-ready-for-the-war jets, when there are *years*-worth of WW2 aircraft to model prior to D-Day.
Yeah, Luthier built up his bluff using the P-51 and Dora already in development or released by ED without link to him, that's right :lol:.P51D was developed, before idea of DCS ww2 was conceptualized. it makes more sense to have late ww2 scenario, with additional late ww2 aircraft, to the ones already inS!
-
Not far from that with P-51, but Dora is the fastest low level fighter and unlike P-51 she could easily catch a careless 109.Just out of curiosity. wonder how dora would fare in a dogfight with 109k4. Right now K4 is god like in game.S!
-
Mates, I'm not sure like anybody is how it will be, but there are no more possible options. We already have a 2.0 install supporting NTTR map, current 1.5 doesn't support multiple maps, and 2.5 is not coming until 2017 but luckily Normandy will be available still in 2016. Obviously 2.0 install will support Normandy together with NTTR until 2.5 is released provided known schedule happens. It would be a nonsense creating a fourth installation (current, Alpha, Beta and, Alphabet? :D) just for Normandy.
As some already say, even though I don't use it quite that much, we already have the second installation so, who cares where does Normandy pop up as long as it does? If Normandy appears in 2.0 installation I would use it a lot more until 2.5 :lol: :thumbup:.
S!
-
In a different planet than Earth sure, or you can wait for the next magnetic poles interchange :D. Anyway you can look at the map oriented anywhere you want, just Sun will always rise from East and set to the West.
S!
-
Sure, I would love to see it, IMO the poor previous attempt was a so huge failure that hardly something can go wrong with a BoB scenario in DCS (hence my previous comment). The early 109 and Spitfire, not to mention a properly modelled DCS level Hurricane, cannot be anything but gorgeous :beer:. Nonetheless, yes, I don't think than could happen anytime soon :(.Guys, lets not discuss other sims, the question was about a Battle of Britain scenario in DCS, I for one would love to see it, but it would be a ways down the road I am sure...
Pitty.Not initially.S!
-
Please mate, read again my post, I think you didn't get exactly what I meant. I was talking about old Il-2 (and its consequences in modern ones).
Easy, it's a game :smilewink: and I never pretend to have a simulator there.and No i dont know how you can consider WT tanks good....S!
-
Not at all, they intended from start to use the Hispano Suiza engine :smilewink:. Airframes also were delivered without tail fins as they must redesign them from scratch, original ones would had been worthless. HS engine just didn't achieve the intended results so finally, almost ten years later, they had an opportunity to get some Merlin engines (initially intended only for Spanish built Heinkel) and so used them.(as no DB engines could be obtained)S!
-
No it haven't. Here a user of the old Il-2 since very first release to the last day. Sorry mate, but after all that time flying Il-2, fighting fanboys in the forums, asking Oleg to further develop Il-2 (what he never intended since start), and a pilot license, I have to say Il-2 is THE wannabe simulator and the cause of all our problems with modern simulation (that includes WT, which I don't even consider a simulator though tanks are nice, but also CloD, RoF and BoS). Old Il-2 (and so later ones) is a base made to quickly develop 3D models with not much more information than some drawings of the aircraft and the kind of info my Grandpa books in the 70's had (maximum speed, RoC, Turn rate in the best case, and not much more), all of that to achieve a "plausible" thing (plausible at least to the people who don't know the real deal), and leading of course to a game in where changes occur every patch to "balance" the thing in behalf of "playability", even during years. If they used "real info" how can they change FMs during 15 years, wasn't right the first time? Do you recognise something in that story?that is false. Il2 series has a pretty good reputation. Il2 isnt War thunder...No mate, it is not a matter of switches, you can model no switches at all but make a honest simulating environment (FC, old LOMAC), or you can model a wannabe game. When computers weren't powerful enough may be it wasn't so apparent as the differences weren't quite wide, but right now no other choice out of DCS has such an approach. I can blame DCS for a thousand things, it's such a big and ambitious project I'm not sure I'll live long enough to see it finished, but mate A simulator? Right now I can only call that with all the consequences to DCS and every patch in the competence only makes me more sure about that.
S!
-
:lol: :thumbup:. Thought about it, but people were talking about using guns, you know. Anyway rockets weren't a very accurate weapon, isn't it?Just going to leave these here.... :smilewink:S!
-
:lol: :lol: :lol: Quite true :thumbup:. And this isn't even the P-47 thread, but Spitfire… A Spitfire killing Tigers, yeah… :music_whistling:Jesus Christ.Lord Almighty.
I've just read two last pages and cringed.
Gentlemen, please don't wake up gruesome demons of the past - I still remember a clusterfeck-mammoth-of-a-thread on Ubi forums back in the days of original Il-2 about "killing Tiger tanks by ricochetting bullets into their bellies". Some of us who came to DCS from Il-2 and are old enough to remmember it as well, still consider it to be a traumatic experience :).
A thread started by quoting an honest account of a WWII pilot who said he did that... but given the fact that for both US and Brit pilots over Normandy everything with tracks was a "Tiger", plus the question of angled armour parameterers as shown above, plus confirmed blatant overclaiming about number of tanks in Normandy destroyed by airplanes, all these factors made the ricochetting theory highely improbable, at least in relation to main battle tanks. Let's leave it at that before creating another "Ubizoo-style" thread here as well :D (SitH would close it immediately anyway).
S!
-
Yes, but so so. Still first Bf109K4 were released in November IIRC, so it's a post-D-Day map but that doesn't mean it cannot go forward into 1945. Of course I'm not sure every unit will be included, but more probably than not they won't at least at map release. Devs cannot model everything I guess.I would be a bit surprised if they included the M-26 Pershing as its been said that the Normandy map is supposed to be just after the invasion.S!
-
Same here. The day we have many different sized aircraft may be that's useful, but facing always the same couple of enemies it doesn't worth the while IMO.I always keep my K14 at 1000ft to just have the reference and know when I gave a plane in my convergence.S!
-
AFAIK both G-10 and G-4 are re-engined Ha1112, but I don't know their serials, who knows. Still they weren't "converted", Spain bought 25 G-2 fuselages as initial tooling examples, they came without engines and without tails and rudders, but not because spares shortage as sometimes is said but because they had the intention from start to build them using Hispano Suiza engines spinning left instead of right, so they didn't need engines nor tails as it had to be redesigned from scratch to counter the new torque. Later on up to ~200 Ha1112 were built, many Buchon owners claim their's to be one of those 25 original German build fuselages, but remaining airworthy or even grounded in museums examples are mostly if not all of them got from the BoB film recovered ones. Those were recovered from the last 50 remaining to be scrapped, yes in the scrapyard, up to 28 were saved and only 18 airworthy ones, sincerely it's not impossible but I hardly doubt among those remaining airframes one of them were any original German G-2 since those were the oldest ones and probably the firsts to be dismissed from service and scrapped, if ever all 25 got to be Merlin converted from Hispano Suiza original engine.Was also converted Messerschmitt Fuselages, not pretty sure but was Messerschmitt Foundation G-10 or Red 7 was build out of Messerschmitt Fuselage build in War Time later converted to the Hispano Buchon.Was in Duxford this Year TFC hold 2 Buchons there, but found them still ....:no_sad:
But beauty is for every one different, think there more important Planes for good WW2 Setup then Hispano Buchon.
This one, last Hispano Suiza 109, has higher odds to be one of the 25 original German airframes, still I doubt her to be,
Nonetheless we agree as a war planeset it would be better to have a different model, but VEAO original idea was an "airshow pack".
S!
P.S.: I've seen them flying thrice, you were unlucky.
-
Hey, come on, no need to be rude here :lol:. FYI, they weren't "remaining 109 fuselages", they were made on purpose since start with a different engine (just first one wasn't RR but Hispano Suiza). And she wasn't that much ugly, it's just you know her in weird dresses,Hopefully VEAO don't put much energy in the Hispano Buchon, Spain converted the remaining fuselage of the 109 with a Merlin Engine after the War intermit solution to the Jet Area.As personal Opinion that's possible the ugliest 109 that's ever build, there also not much interest so far.
AFAIK VEAO thinks about using TFC ones as a reference, they have them pretty close, so I hope she comes sooner or later.
S!
-
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Best joke ever :thumbup:.its boring because you have to read :lol:S!
-
Have checked for doubled axis?
S!
-
I tried kindly, no need for more discussion. Good luck before thread gets locked, because of you or once some old friends make a visit around here :smilewink:.OK i agre with the 1.15 Limit, its explainet in sheet 9 and 10, they enlarged the trim tab by 100% as well.But the DCS Trim wheel locks not limited at 1.15 and the bird is still pitching nose up with a full nose heavy trim at 500kph.
The Chart Shows a neutral stick Position at 500kph, thats why im guess something is wrong.
All in All... since the last patch the Bird is flying much better :)
S!
P.S.: still you reading weirdly charts, take a closer look.
-
Not at all :lol:. As a result of dive tests 1.15º limit was established, in the first test the pilot almost kill himself using a higher trim setting, that's why he recommends that limit after a second test. Really, have you read the whole paper?Ok 2.0 was never reached, much better. So they reached a TAS of 906km/h with a Trim Setting below 2.0
Yes, I know perfectly, trim tabs and set on ground that's why they don't talk at all about them. Pilot needs to use trim because he lacks strength enough to keep controls by himself, you know what I mean? :lol: :thumbup: Even though that, the same pilot recommends 1.15º limit to prevent controls reversing at higher speeds. Really mate, have you read it?"muste während des sturzes um 0,5 kopflastig getrimmt werden"means... "it was necessary during the dive to trim more nose heavy by 0,5"
So the Pilot Trimed during the dive with the Trim wheel, nothing about trim Tabs!
You know what im mean?
No mate, are you kidding us? :smilewink:LOL are you kiding me? Stop Trolling!S!
-
Several times, did you? :huh:Did you even read the Dive test Document?
:doh: Rotte 7 is a Spanish built Ha1112, circa ~1956, later on re-engined with DB605. I don't have to drive, I'm sitting right now at nº88 street, she was built in the nº90 :music_whistling:. Even though Merlin powered Spanish manual of the aeroplane also stated you cannot trim beyond a certain speed. Clues are in the air :lol:.You cant compare a 70 years old klaus plasa bird from the Museum with a new BF109 from 1944 under war conditions.S!
P.D.: 900Km/H TAS, you know what is True Air Speed versus Indicated Air Speed, do you? :noexpression:
-
And if that's not enough, here is a small thread of 41 pages that you can digest:
https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=135453
There are others.
The error is you are late and missed the previous hundred threads about the subject. You can try translating again what you want it to be. Charts say what they say, in that same reading and others, you translate it like that or not, still the chart is there.Can you guys see the error?Let me point out just one thing, for your known, and may be you understand better the whole paper after that,
DCS don't have a 2.0º trim setting, look closer and you'll see number 2 isn't reached. DCS feature a 1.15º trim like the paper says. And an extra detail, 500Km/H in the paper is always TAS, not your IAS reading.The DCS bf109 is pitching up at a Speed of 500kph with a 2.0 nose heavy trim, to do a high Speed dive you have to push the stick Forward.Please, read the previous threads before jumping again on the same.
S!
:lol:
are you kiding me? Stop Trolling!
Planned Aircraft
in Western Europe 1944-1945
Posted
S!