Ala13_ManOWar
-
Posts
3514 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Ala13_ManOWar
-
-
Not creative at all, you can only cut the engine cutting fuel as you said, but usual method is cutting mixture so no fuel remaining in the engine and it's safe for mechanics touch the prop, and you can also cut magnetos but it's unsafe (in RL) because you left fuel in engine. Well, a creative one would be letting fuel finish or selecting an empty tank. Apart from that you can't stop the engine even cutting batteries because magnetos still works. That's a secure in real life. If you want creative ways of killing the engine that would be "Benny Hills how to crash a P-51" or something like that :).
S!
-
Had same problem yesterday. You've nothing to do, updater was quicker than you and download module is another version, you can't install different versions and hope auto updater to update it individually (why?).
The only thing you can do is uninstall completely and reinstall everything with same package version, then let auto updater to work, or wait if may be ED update packages to the DCS version you've now and download and install it.
In my case, may be today or tomorrow (or never, some small updates haven't downloadable packages) we have the new package version, but with UH purchased I couldn't wait to fly it and reinstalled everything to take a ride of the walkirie.
S!
-
It was removed for non prepared airfields, mud could easily fix to it preventing wheel to spin. As you know also middle piece was usually removed on ground attack versions operating from first line improvised aerodromes. But Dora wasn't the kind of Fw190 where you see that usually.
S!
-
Well I guess with a photograph it's very difficult to get the same angle and anyway we have parallax error. That's why it's better a blueprint. I know even the best blueprints from books can have mistakes and they are different each of them from another, but I can assure you if 3D model were done with one of those books blueprints the really slight differences with real thing weren't so apparent we all said at first sight :smilewink:.
S!
-
Well, if they have factory blueprints better. I hope IA Dora is just a first approximation to the thing :smilewink:.
When I saw Dora the first thing that came to my mind was they used as a reference that Dora made by Flugwerk with an allison engine. She lacks the same than A-8/N, with a different engine the cowling shape isn't same as original, although of course if somebody gift me one of those I wouldn't say I don't want her :lol:.
S!
-
Well, not exactly. Bad drawings may be, but good ones are consistent all of them with each other :)....although the drawings submitted here all vary in thickness themselvesI forgot completely I own these blueprints, they aren't for a Dora but an A-8 (and I'm sure appropriate book from this series have Dora ones). Anyway Dora have the very same wing than A-8 except for external canons, so blueprints are valid. Not a perfect scan (they are so big doesn't fit the scanner) but I think useful. You can see shape is same than another good blueprints...
Also this is interesting, not only it confirms wing shape, but have measures for aircraft. Again, wings, horizontal stabilizer, and gear wide and the very same than Dora, and the most interesting thing is this came from A-8 handbook...
For wings itself as absolute confirmation I don't find any photograph good enough for it, but this can help I think. These are for earlier Fw190 again, but wing shape in Fw190 didn't change from the very first model, only weapons, and here can be seen blueprint is accurate. Although not the perfect shot if you look at one of those farther from camera something can be seen about the question...
S!
P.D. Sources: more from here
blueprint from Kagero Fw190 vol. III
-
:surprise::clap_2: You lucky man, for me it's 5000Km far :smilewink:. Duxford and RAF Hendon museum haven't any Dora :(.
Hope you get good photographs from it, and you could see yourself how cowling is different :smilewink:.
S!
-
Both, blueprint and Dora photograph were scanned by myself in this case, but I can make a bad scan of course. This isn't a very big profile, it's big because the scan, but I think pretty accurate, just compare with photograph.
Also, talking about Doras, and only Doras not Ta152, they were all similar so even nowadays FHC D-13 is a good source for shapes. Furthermore I can't emphasize enough how Dora is just an A-8 with a Jumo engine and a ring added on tail, that's all, so even A-8 photograph are quite a good source for wings, fuselage without engine and so. I'll look for photographs more than drawings then.
S!
-
Well, here it is. It isn't easy to find good enough photographs or material for these aircraft, but here is a blueprint...
A Dora side photograph, you can see although not perfect blueprint is accurate enough. Aircraft identified as Fw190A-8 W.Nr. 170003 modified with a Jumo 213A engine (or Dora prototype). Not a good scan sorry, book scans are very bad or my scaner is very bad :D, but enough to see real cowling shape with no doubt about later possibly altered models (but later D models aren't changed, just to say, change is in Ta152 model, another aircraft in Kurt Tank words)...
And a DCS pic as is right now in released version. It's difficult get a good pic from side without faking shape, but I think can be clearly seen cowling is far from correct with a wrong curve and parallel cowl flaps, I dare to say too wide also, but just compare...
Also for later argument, just with a quick look at it I see clearly wing roots are faked. This happens when modelling a 3D thing with just a side view, but it should be corrected. Not found yet good enough Dora photographs from nose but will post when find them or a good view at least. Also I think wings to tip are thinner than should be, but with a pic will say...
Not my intention at all criticise EDs work but just point out things I see just if it's helpful :thumbup:. You said modeller doesn't live with or breath Fw190 all the time, but may be a bunch of us do :pilotfly: :lol: :smilewink:.
S!
Source: Book Osprey - Production line to frontline: Fw190
-
Well the issue is how can we be sure they are? I believe that ED is using factory blueprints to create this model, that said nothing is perfect, and something I feel confident in assuming is that the model isnt complete as we dont have a template yet.
I think in order to best address model concerns is to supply actual pictures/drawings of a D-9 with the issues you feel needs addressed. ED is very responsive to issues with their products. If you show some compelling examples I will also be more than happy to submit them to the devs. Just do it in a respectful manor :)
By respectful I mean, starting out comments with I expected more, or I am dissappointed in EDs effort or something like that. Its not needed. Secondly anything but a D-9, unless you can provide proof that a change to the part wasnt made between versions, probably wont get you as far. The person who modeled this doesnt necessarily eat, sleep, drink 190, so there is always a possibility something didnt translate right from the drawings.
Well, of course I didn't mean to be rude or something like that :huh:, just pointed an evidence (to me of course). In fact I supposed modellers would be aware of that. But you're right, saying things with no evidence is nothing. I'll try to look for something if it's helpful to 190 module :smilewink:.
S!
-
Nicely spotted. Prop, engine intake(?) and exhaust look a bit off to me as well:...
:music_whistling: I said first... :lol::lol:
http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1736097&postcount=260
That pics are from a D-13, somebody can say, but really D-9 should be similar. Fw190 is a WIP, I don't complain about anything yet, but I hope for an accurate final version.
S!
-
Hmmm... I was quite positive it wasn't visible, i.e. the thickness stays the same all the time. Will check again.
Non the less, the side view is superior in CloD.
What you dont see is quick pitch changes because in P-51 as it should be you don't control pitch but rpm so you have to wait governor to change pitch to see it :smilewink:. Ahhh, but CloD or Il-2 don't know what that is...
Anyway, CloD prop disc is not better IMHO, lateral view is nice, but that change to a 2D prop disc when view from nose-aft is very crappy and similar to old Il-2 disc.
Otherwise, nice pics and review :smilewink:. I still had no time to test it :(.
S!
-
Well you're right but misunderstanding something, successful because we hadn't anything more during 10 years doesn't means well done or realistic like it was sold to us for many time, and I fly Il-2 from v1.0 and still do. During this time I had my pilot licence and now I can see how far Il-2 is from realism while Oleg always said it was "the most realistic thing you can do in a PC", but that's bullshit, he knew it was bullshit, and still said that. DCS is the probe something much more realistic can be done, and not now, it could be done many years ago but Oleg never had intention of it. Now with my experience, and my RL experience "I can see" what happens and that's why although still flying it because we have no substitute yet but a single P-51 I'm very disappointed with Il-2, Oleg, and all the lies said during many years. DCS way is the future and no more.As far as I know, Oleg and his team made the most successful ww2 flightsim to date (someone please correct me if I'm wrong).I think it's fair to say most people who are getting started with flight simming start out with relatively low realism settings all around, otherwise the learning curve is just too steep.
With that in mind, I think it would be a very good idea for ED or partners to release some lock on-style collection of medium fidelity ww2 birds. For the beginners it would provide an easy and compelling way in, and for the rest of us it would serve to populate our WW2 missions with time appropriate AI planes.
Don't know about others, what I know is I fly sims from 25 years ago in my childhood and always started flying a new sim with full realism set. But believe me, after my licence I can tell you don't want a "light sim" until learn and then a hardcore, the best thing you can do is learn directly what you'll fly, and if it's "the real thing" like P-51 is better. Of course like in RL, an easier trainer aircraft would be even better, you know start flying a small biplane Tiger Moth like or at least a T-6 one, and then others. But light sim what means "light reality" is not a good idea.
S!
-
Awesome stuff mates... You did it, and I'm very happy about "official" announcement for WWII development path on DCSW :thumbup::thumbup:.
Just to complain about anything, so somebody named WWII sims fans :lol:...
i do not think so (maybe with cockpits)they already have the perfect, animated external 3D model in max , so they "only" need to save/export as EDM extension
of course they must know each arg number meaning
I've a bit of work for them. Pics are beautiful and I guess you know yet but that engine cowling shape is not correct. Who I want to fool, I buy it anyway :lol:, but hope final DCS module would be completely accurate like P-51 is also in that details (except double aerial for WWII aircraft) :thumbup:.
S!
-
Si encuentras un manual del CloD que explique absolutamente nada te regalo yo el gochu :lol::lol:. Lo que sí puede valer es el manual del Spit que vino con la timodición especial, de esa misma edición el manual del Mustang Mk.III de la RAF lo puedes usar punto por punto. Pero vamos como dice Víbora, para cuatro cosas preguntad por aquí que el P-51 es relativamente sencillo.leete el manual del CODS!
-
Buenísimas noticias, no ya por el 190 que estoy seguro de que será una pasada, sino porque confirmen que siguen dando caña con más WWII... Por fin hombre, que ya parece que les de vergüenza tener un simulador "tan bueno"... XD
S!
-
Hombre, si vas a usar los tres monitores creo que necesitas cuanto más rendimiento mejor, y si además es a mejor precio... blanco y en botella.
Además, supongo que Nvidia a estas alturas ya incorpora la tecnología para la señal por tres monitores con una sola gráfica, pero ATI es pionera en eso, lo viene teniendo de serie desde las HD5xxx y sabes que no tendrás problemas para sacar tres o más monitores (hasta el número de conexiones que tengas) con una sola gráfica.
S!
-
1
-
-
Wish I could find the link now, but there's a vid floating around of a guy who did a whole flight, from being lined up to completing the landing roll using only sim experience. The instructor with him didn't say a word from 'You have control' when lined up until 'I have control' at the completion of the landing roll. These are the days of the GoPro - somebody will have done it, and filmed it for posterity.
You've my own vid in previous post, just I didn't sold it as AMAZING VID WHERE ONLY SIMULATOR EXPERIENCE GUY FLY AND LANDS ALONE, but it's that... :thumbup:
I've seen the vid you mean, and he's a pretty bad pilot if he have the sim experience he says, personally I did far better and sure Echo38 also did better.
S!
-
Why? We're both saying same thing, sims helps but also will kill you if you are overconfident and you think you know everything only with sims. You've to rely on your instructor and RL experience isn't substituted by nothing although training is greatly helped and accelerated with sims experience. I said also in another post, I was left solo fly in only 5 hours in an advanced C172RG aircraft, and some of it had to do for sure with P-51 experience operating manifold and rpm (not to say procedure from start to land is quite similar). So for me it was very fast (usually it takes 8 to 10 hours fly solo on that model) but those 5 hours weren't substituted by simulator. I think the point is clear enough.Time to get some pop corn. I smell loooong debate.S!
-
I've landed an airplane in the real world. My instructor remarked that I performed better than most students; upon my mentioning my extensive flight sim experience, he agreed that it was the cause. Now, I must stress that sims cannot replace real training, and overconfidence can be a real danger to experienced simmers who are beginning real flight training--sometimes, the sim and the reality differ, and sometimes that difference is dramatic. That said, a good sim does impart a great deal of good information to the student, and since I did land a real airplane almost unassisted (using my sim experience), I think I can say with some authority that those who dismiss sims as a training tool are full of crap. ; )
I also did, even there's a video...
A friend gifted to me (Tuckie) and that was the point where I decided I had to get my license. I flew all the time, from taxi to land, of course with a instructor at my side (a great one I have to say), and made some manoeuvres inflight, even stalls... that with four guys inside the aircraft and I was the only not pilot (at that moment) but simmer. When I started my PPL training it wasn't different, I flew and landed from the very first day. My friend can also say sims helps a lot, he was second prize on Spanish aerobatics championship elementary level with just his brand new PPL.
Anyway of course sims helped me greatly (and sadly I've to say Il-2 was the one for me, we hadn't still P-51 then). BUT, now I have two licences and know how to fly I've to say I realize I also had some mistakes and misunderstandings BECAUSE the sims. I really didn't understood what landing means, for example how to roll out and flaring properly. We can say, with simulators experience I was able to get the aircraft on ground more or less safely, but I really didn't knew how to land.
So, of course sims helps A LOT, but if you try in RL do it with a good instructor at your side, otherwise don't try at home :lol:.
S!
-
Regarding cross wind what I still found difficult is even knowing where wind comes from to get the nose to wind like in real life specially during take-off. I guess it's just the lack of feelings in front of a screen, but it's weird because in RL you have "to do nothing" and nose gets pointed to wind at the moment you get airborne, in DCS I find I have to do things and still don't get it properly. Well really you don't have to point the nose to wind, but it's good because you're told all the time from instructors you shouldn't fight with controls but let her fly and Ponny is a very mad lady to fight with her controls, isn't it? :lol:
That said I also still wonder how far P-51 went as simulation... I want more like that!! :thumbup:
S!
-
Last time I tried it worked with mouse :shocking:.HOWEVER: the lever in the cockpit is not really clickable!S!
-
Still looking for somebody? I've a squad mate that studied engineering in Germany (not aeronautical but still engineering), if still looking I can try to ask.It would be great if I could find guys with native German and engineering backround to work with German docs. The main goal is to search useful info amongst tons of pages. Sometimes, some key facts can be found in the places you never suspect to be fruity.
And about this, here in Spain much of those weapons were also used and well after WWII. I think tracers has to do with chemical in ammunition, isn't it? Well I know were to ask for chemical of that ammo with people that actually collects cartridges and have the ones you look for. Not sure to get an answer but I'll try.Gentlemen, there is a question... I have no idea what tracer color ammo for MG151/20 and MG 131 had. We need proven facts about it to avoid usual hot discussion about it post factum...S!
-
1
-
-
:megalol::megalol::megalol::megalol::megalol: :megalol:This is a Sim with potential, but they must take a few notes from Olegs IL2 wrt FMs on prop aircraft.. seriouslyMay be a bug, of course, but Il-2 has waaaaaay much things to learn from this sim than anything mate :smilewink:.
Just for the record, I read about UH-1H is yet proven to reduce tail rotor light helicopters training time, isn't it? Well I can say DCS P-51 is proven to reduce advanced aircraft training time as I personally was let fly solo in a C172RG (constant speed prop, retractable gear) in only 5 hours what usually takes 8 to 10 hours... Il-2 is veeeeeery far from saying anything like that.
S!
American, German, but where's the Brits?
in DCS Wishlist
Posted
A Spit would be awesome, if you think really would be similar in operation to P-51 (same engine, constant speed prop from Mk.II), but envelope would be quite different, and fun!! Against Dora a Mk.XIV is the thing (well griffon engine there different from P-51), but considering only a bunch of them were made and the most typical Spit for 1944-45 is Mk.IX that would be pretty well as a counterpart. But well, any Spit in P-51 level would be Ok for me :lol:.
S!