Ala13_ManOWar

Well, it was a thing at low altitude, but mostly it didn't after all. That's why they had to rely on MW50 mix to get some performance up high, and it wasn't enough at all. In my book that means it wasn't so well designed despite the effort made in the variable intake, it wasn't what they needed so we can be thankful to that "bad engineering" and lack of foresight. Making things overly complex doesn't mean it's good engineering, in fact a good engineering would be to make it the simplest possible while still able to do it's job. To the OP question, you can hear by yourself,

They aimed to 2022 end, couldn't make it. I hardly doubt they aren't willing to release mate. I don't get why every harsh comment out there, be it on this topic or any other related to any other to be released module/map, assumes and gives for granted whoever it is the publisher is unwilling to release their work like they only say they are working on something just to tease us all but intend not to release ever . You all with the impatient attitude are the same. Usually next day or so anyone of you say anywhere "this module's dead", "they've dropped down but they aren't telling us", whatever the new BS you come up with, there are news, release dates, whatever, but you all forget to tell "I was an absolute idiot spreading this or that BS all over the internet just because" . Whenever it happens the next time don't forget to come here with the same quickness and tell everybody you were plain wrong and behaving like…

Looking really tight mate .

Once the Corsair is released they said MiG-21 v2.0 would be immediate next thing to do, and that's probably one thing in which it would be different.

You must be relatively new around here. "Normally" means nothing on ED Forums, even less with regard to release dates. Patience, it's coming for sure, and since it's on the list of modules to be released, provided nothing happens, this year (which is rare for ED to make that kind of statement) you can be sure it's sooner than later within a 2023 frame.

They have said time ago current maps are actually flat though mathematically "corrected" to simulate roundness. They said also a fix for that were coming though no words on what that meant. Now, when the whole world map was announced that can be understood as they specifically said as a whole world model it would be truly rounded for the first time and not just adjusted to appear rounded in the coordinates and everything. They mentioned it would be "spherical" though no word on how spherical that would be, since Earth is no sphere but a geoid, would that be taken into account? Hope so since even now in the corrected flat surface of the maps it is mostly taken into account, and we already have effects like precession and all so it would be no point in not taking that into account when you finally have a truly rounded model I guess.

By the looks of it (Heatblut announcement for further details) it will be a full module and mostly feature complete for the early model they announced. It was the same with Tomcat, and I don't think it'll have any huge discount if it's full module. Schedule itself, just await patiently like everybody else . I don't think it'll take a lot now from the "unveil" said by HB to release.

Usually yes, but that's up to the publisher. Not all of them offer the same level of discount. Being ED it's usually 30% of in pre-order, 20% early access, but I don't recall what HB did when Tomcat happened, I don't think they offered massive discounts, they don't even now.

Funnily enough, I find DCS to be one of the better depicting speed down low out there , it was so obvious previous older and not so older softwares did a rather poor job on the matter that DCS really made a difference for me with regards to first person field of view, sense of speed and everything. Sense of speed, yes, but what about sense of height above the ground? Some old software were even "faked" in that depicting 1/2 scale maps hence fake speeds and all. It was weird, until DCS made it spot on.

Nice rivets . Heavy chipping on German aircraft did happen, it's just one not always finds a pic where it can be clearly seen as most pictures are taken at a person's height level,

Even if you don't get a single match right in that list, the list itself on what's to come is impressive . I'm guessing Chinook would be quite up high in that list, and probably A-7 and MiG-17 aren't farther away in time than many of the lower part of the list.

1st question, yes, quite true though 10+ years late for Belsimtek's Sabre/MiG-15 to ask for. They talked back then about a Korean map indeed (a map means assets included FYI), apparently for the recent words we've read in Newsletter the map technology weren't suitable for such a complex map (same goes for Vietnam apparently). On the other hand, the decision of I-16 was only up to OctopusG which was one single guy at the time, too much he achieved by himself mate, what else could you ask him for? There you're mixing up two different things, third parties aren't equal to ED, ED isn't a third party, you use ED's platform with third party modules, it's not that easy to ask ED to flesh out every module/map/whatever a third party makes for free, nor you can ask third parties to flesh out ED's platform for free. I don't know about the inners of the thing but I'm sure it's a delicate balance and only recently Heatblur and M3, a bit Razbam (yet we don't know the details of the agreements/contracts) have made assets and extras for ED's platform and we enjoy them for free, but the work it took wasn't free, I'm positive about that. So let's bear in mind the whole picture and not just the tiny part we want to focus on. 2nd question, yes… and no… here it's you complaining and asking for assets for those modules. "You believe assets are more important than maps", read carefully, you. Have you ever wondered, if it were the other way around (assets and no map), how many people would complain they don't have where to use those assets?? And have you ever wondered how the map for those assets would take a lot more work to come to DCS than the assets themselves? If you wonder I'll tell you, many, many, many more people than you individually will tell what they want those assets for without a place to use them. Every single person have its own opinion about the subject and here it's only you sharing yours. Don't assume everyone has your same view, they don't, the problem with this kind of things is ED nor any third party can make happy everybody and everybody is a different and distinct voice and opinion. It's not I don't think we need assets, we do need them of course, but I believe it makes sense they come together with a place to use them so a map (which is a huge amount of work) should be there first, then assets for a certain era which is a niche inside the niche. Remember maps may have a date, or not, but still you can use them the time you want, while dedicated assets don't necessarily fit everywhere. And that's my opinion obviously, not yours nor anyone else, but the same as what you say is your opinion and nothing more. I'm just trying to be realistic here about what we can and we can't expect from ED and third parties which work together but aren't a single thing.

I don't see them "reluctant", more like there's no (WWII) Eastern Front at all despite de modern day Caucasus map and it makes not much sense right now. La-7 is nice, I personally don't think it's a bad addition despite so many people looking for "complete theatres" and planesets and all, but we have to agree it's a single unit not the whole thing after all. Will be very welcome and sure used in servers, but it's just one single unit while that small team of OctupusG is full with La-7 and Su-17/22 now. But if some day we got any proper theatre for La-7 or any module already known to be coming I'm sure they will come with proper ground assets at some point, and they've already told (for the first time I believe) with the new map technology we have now, and they keep developing, a Vietnam or Korea map is expected in the future, which wasn't the case previously. Those if they come will do with proper ground assets, they wouldn't make sense otherwise, not to mention with the new campaign generator also mentioned it would be just perfect to use them wherever needed in those maps or any other of course. But in due time, right now it would be a waste of time and effort while they're focused in so many other things (read carefully last newsletter for further details) and honestly I'd rather prefer they keep working and releasing what they have between their hands right now better than disperse among so many things.

It's not I don't agree more redfor assets would be nice to have, but I'm not sure a small third party with one single member (I think a couple, maybe three people more recently or the like) is the one to ask for ground assets. Too much they do and achieve for such a small team, to be honest.

Hope so, but…

Did any variant of the Hellcat exist with 4x20mm cannons?

I wish, but not that easily mate. Rebuilt examples aren't the thing, as already said. They're nice to have, still not the real thing not that gives you any data for Flight Modelling. They've already explained that a zillion times when P-47 data wasn't available, yet P-47 is a way more common and known subject. I don't envy them if they assume the task to properly model an a6m.

You know an airworthy aeroplane isn't the thing they need, right? It might help to some extent in ironing out details, specially piloting details, but still that doesn't tell the whole story and still you would have manage to somehow get permission to install some data recording devices, which not every owner out there is willing to, and even more talking about rare unique planes. Some wartime info might be out there, just go figure among all the paperwork gathered after the war, written in Japanese… sitting who knows where in an obscure archive. Maybe not impossible, probably not, or yes, I don't know, but quite a tougher task than you think. In other platforms it's easy, you build a nice 3D model, use a couple numbers from wikipedia, and you're good to go. Not in DCS which is similar in that regard to any professional simulator out there no matter most people know what that means and imply or not. P-47 already was a PITA with regards to that, and it's a very well known subject, just the paper were destroyed by Fairchild because old papers. An a6m would probably be quite a huge undertaking compared to that. Hope some day we see it, sadly I won't hold my breath until it happens.

And we already have a subforum here for hype building. Perhaps it means it's coming sooner than it looked?

Definitely if you think you're gonna ever "feel" those things in front of a screen I believe you're deluding yourself. It's a PC game, it's screen, even with all the bell and whistles, VR headset, FFB joysticks and all other devices which even for just the joystick I don't know any but let's say you could get them, FFB rudder pedals and throttle, and some kind of haptic set either just a seat cushion like or corporal, and let's play big, a home self moving platform with the best movement you could possibly get. Even with all of that, you won't """feel""" like in a cockpit, it's just trickery, it's just to cheat your mind and if you don't play along with the trickery you won't think you're there at all, EVER. Then again, @GOZR you talk like you think just the software itself and a screen have to trick your mind and all, but you don't want to play along the game to help your mind be tricked which is the most we can strive for in a PC being just a game. For my taste, DCS is the most "deceiving" simulation software out there, it's were I find it the easiest to get "tricked" and "feel" what's going on like IRL because all those effects you claim not to be there are in fact there, maybe not perfect which is always the case with just software, but it is there more than any other simulation software I've ever known while apparently you don't let it do the trick for you while you praise other titles I know as a matter of fact aren't that good, not even close, in deceiving you mind about being up there or simulating those effects. So easy to see why as myself and others already said I don't think you're being realistic at all about your expectations with all of that. If you want to actually "feel" things for the time being (let's not discuss what the distant future could be and what it might be invented but let's just face what we have right now and it'll keep being like that for a long time before some hardware/software breakthrough) go fly IRL. But your claims about this or that are wrong in DCS while praising other titles I know don't even bother in modelling those same effects means something's wrong with your feelings, not with DCS. If you don't even let the software trick your mind to think you're there (but let other lesser softwares to do it) you are being just highly subjective not paying attention to things that are actually there but you dismiss for some reason so not letting those effects to trick your mind. Why it's like that for you, I believe we can't answer that here, it's a thing of you mate.

Looking real good. Awaiting eagerly to fly this beast in DCS environment .

Yeah, three point attitude take offs means let the plane fly off by itself whenever she wants but no pushing back on the stick at all because as it's obvious you'll stall the plane every time. The speed builds up slowly and gently and only then you're good to manoeuvre or whatever you like, but not until it's well settled airborne and with speed enough.

Yeah, no, here it's aluminium after all so the rainbow effect isn't that common. The Core of the reheat seems to be bare metal, probably the hottest spot of it all and it burned all the paint to the root, though not polished metal of course, with surroundings in a typical whitish stain, which is usually not that white but a creamy light brown though looking whitish because of the contrast with the very dark brown main stain use to be. That kind of colour range usually looks good and quite fitted for these subjects. But looking at other photos it doesn't seem to be very common. I don't know if it's just the low quality of those B&W pics or they really aren't very much alike that exact pic. Wouldn't know TBH, but it's just a nice looking effect. Your call there.

Your rivetcounting job looks great so far . TBH I believe we modellers tend to overdo the ejectors stain, which should be anywhere close to actual guns/cannons stains, there it's hot gases and actual spare gunpowder, in the ejectors should be either minimal stain in a long standing badly battered aircraft or almost nothing in most cases. Anyhow, I took a look at my files just in case. Here what I found either Fw190 related or other examples since it's always hard to find pics of that exact detail in the exact model one seeks. First one, I agree with your statement, your exhaust stains looks good, but perusing for the other ones I found this close one with that reheat effect in the first area of the stain itself and it's nice, just for your reference if you like. Second one, Smithsonian's Ta-152H, again I know it's not your exact subject but should be close, those are the nose mounted cannons case ejectors (both squared on top, don't look at the engine oil tains). Well, it's been almost 80 years, that aircraft has been retouched in paint at some moment, not the entire aircraft though but who knows what was touched up and what not, albeit it's said somewhere it was mostly the top cowling and markings on the fuselage and tail. Anyhow, not a lot of stains there. This is the best undersides pic I could find of any Fw190, but it's definitely repainted in RAF colours and probably never used the guns so hard for the ejectors to be stained at all, I guess, but then again… This is a G model, no outer wings cannons, but the inner ones look just stainless, not only ejectors themselves, even leading edge with the guns. Maybe not a very much used example in this pic, who knows. Yeah, I know, wrong subject and low cal machineguns there, but I believe it's one of the best examples I could find of ejector stains and it's definitely a heavy operational aircraft in the middle of BoB, yet stains are quite faint, even gun stains themselves so a very subtle thing could be done but not a lot anyhow, nothing comparable to oil, fuel, or even exhaust marks. Again wrong subject, but you can't find too many pics on the exact one we're looking for. Good example though of a wartime original colour pic and it shows guns stains, and ejectors stains which apparently adds up to the main gun stain since those are somewhat aligned. Yet, still it's a somewhat subtle effect. So, I know there are some examples of case ejectors stains out there, I've seen some somewhere but I couldn't find them right now, sorry. Still, those stains apparently aren't that much visible on many subjects but only a subtle hint, most of the times nothing at all even though I'm sure if we could examine those in close by ourselves something should be there, but hardly seen in pics even looking for some subjects you should see something because the number and position of guns, I even searched on Korean war pics, so much better and easy to find than WWII colour stuff, but even an F-86 with all the guns sitting right next to each other wouldn't stain at all for a reason. So not a lot shows up, even less the exact Dora Subject. I would go with just a small subtle hint to be sure not to overdo it and that's all unless somebody can find a better pic.

Reisen everybody, it's just we haven't seen a thing about it aside from an internal 3D model years ago not intended for DCS. It'd be a nice Christmas surprise if it ever happens.