Ala13_ManOWar

"Almost a year", last messages on their FB page is from March .

Yes, there is, exactly one video featuring Dora 13 running. It sounds like an old truck .

Yeah, definitely harder than those antiquities . Can't remember last time I played CFS 1 and 2, maybe some good twenty some years ago. Many things have changed since then. DCS is a whole different story.

Still 240Km/H at touch down is way too much, I guess you aren't doing that, you probably should cross the threshold at about those 210Km/H mentioned and touch down 190/180 max.

Last time I flew it, the switches are spring loaded, they work as supposed to, and it's only up to you how long you push them either for open or close positions. It couldn't be just fully open, or fully close, since it takes almost 30 seconds for the flaps to move from one extreme to the other, so if they do get fully opened, or fully closed, you pushed the switch that long to get them there.

Como no me acuerdo de memoria de todos los menús, para poder decirte eso tuve que simular una compra, y sí, no llegué a pagar y acabarla pero todo funcionó sin problema. Es muy raro, sí. Trata de escribir un ticket de soporte (link), suelen responder rápido y atienden muy bien (en inglés). Es extraño desde luego eso que te pasa, quizá es una tontería pero como no me ha pasado ni idea, la verdad.

As actually one of my fighter pilots friend, ex-F-5A pilot among many other types, usually say to me it's amazing how he can fly exactly how he did by the book back in time when he was in active service, and this F-5E he wouldn't want to buy at first (he said to me, why so? I already have 3000 flight hours on the type… ) is amazingly close just on a PC Game, and even being a different model (A versus E). If you break wings on F-5s maybe you should learn how to crawl before trying to fly and combat jumping over walk, jog and run . P.S.: Still awaiting for even the slightest hint on what's "wildly inconsistent" about warbirds' FMs . You aren't even aware about how relentless I can be after being falsely accused of confirmation bias with exactly ZERO proof from you

I think in ten years from now, after F1M plus unannounced CR/CT/CZ/iraqi tanker/IAI overhaul never built project, and all the stuff had been released, they should focus on the Haunebu with special care in modelling the time travelling bell and it's FM (TM I guess) properly and only and strictly following the published charts as per usual.

I believe not 100% of the buildings feature a DM if I recall correctly. That was said by Ugramedia itself when it was first released. It should be easy to check on ME, just using destruction zones so you see live what is destructible and what isn't.

Cuando haces la compra, en ese paso, arriba del todo tienes una pestaña que dice "manage profile", tienes que entrar ahí y crearte un perfil con tus datos y cuando estén los datos ya sale todo automáticamente.

Thanks, didn't recall that diagram, the one I think of was one with a P-47 drawing on it and 1000 feet harmonization, thought that to be a later one, not the earlier. The 600m might look too much, but German fighters using it had mostly nose mounted, or close, guns, so no problem with convergence. Dora certainly doesn't have a problem with that distance having all guns mounted pretty close to aircraft's central axis.

Since you seem a history nerd I'm sure you're aware some Royal Navy Wildcats, Hellcats, and Corsairs did fly on D-day. Anyhow, that's just an anecdote, I totally get your point though those are quite different reasons (also valid, but different) than some other people were telling on this very topic. About those other reasons, I still would like to know since perhaps I'm loosing something, but they don't seem to partake in the chat now. That's not helpful mates, you complain but no reasons given so we could know, discuss, or whatever, and I'm pretty sure ED is "listening" as they always do to the community uneasiness but if you don't tell you aren't helping anyone .

I assumed you weren't paused since you're speaking of troubles, but red lights happens the same when the camera isn't tracking IIRC . The problem with that kind of issue is it might be really simple (or not) but speaking from a distance without actually being in front of your computer it's really hard to tell. If you can say any further detail that would probably help.

Yep, thread subject swerved a bit, sorry from my part. I still genuinely would like to know those details some people find so disturbing. Please, whether it be on a new topic, PM, or whatever, I really would like to know some of it at least.

PRMG doesn't usually track unless you come in an almost perfect (at least "perfect" for a high performance hand controlled cold war fighter) approach. The "slightest" (not true, you've to be off by a bunch of degrees, just tough for a MiG-21 to control in that finesse) slip to have from the perfect centre, or in height, and it isn't tracking at all. But, that depends on the map, on the airport, on the approach, on the approximation one managed to fly, etc. Now, what airport, what map, what approach (some runways works in one side, not in the other), it isn't working? Without further details there's no way to check if it's "broken" (it wasn't not long ago, just hard to track sometimes), or maybe it's a different thing.

We aren't talking about possible bugs or whatever, I really want to know what the "wild inconsistencies" in DCS warbirds are . I know it could be better, it can always be better, still that's not "wildly inconsistent", it's only a pc game we're in front of and only that makes it impossible to be absolutely real for the time being no matter how much we would want that. Funnily enough, the owner of DCS, owner of a warbird collection, and having countless hours of experience made that FM exactly to match what he know about the aircraft. I cannot tell that for sure, but I do know other pilots with no gaming and/or simulation experience aim for wrong things when they are in front of a screen, so pretty usual they don't like what they don't know and all they can say is "it's all wrong". It isn't, what's wrong is them not having gaming experience and knowing what can and cannot be done in a pc game. It's so funny when they say torque, or whatever behaviour is wrong, they crash on take off, and hey, it must be wrong because I'm a pretty accomplished pilot. Well, no sir, it isn't wrong, it is you're seeking a feeling you won't find in front of the screen… Real pilots not always cut it in assessing a simulation value, usually they haven't the faintest, indeed.

Thanks for telling me what's in my mind, I couldn't tell by myself. Still, just saying "it's wildly inconsistent" without any further detail tells me nothing. And, by the way, what a privileged person you are, 5000 flight hours time only in warbirds is probably something not even Nick Grey owning his own warbirds collection can tell!! Bearing in mind warbirds flight hours are in the thousands of dollars you're also a rich person. How amazing having all that experience and money to come to a "game" forum to tell it's all wrong . Jokes aside, yes, I meant to try to understand and know what that "wild inconsistency" is about. But of course only if I'm worthy of those explanations facing such an important and privileged person I can only dream myself, but I would like to be and get to know those if I may. Thanks. I'll now retire slowly walking backwards while I bow before you (again, jokes aside I would like to now).

You made clear you don't get how or why engine management and flight model are like that (damage model could be debatable, I guess). I tell you the secret, it works like that in real life. I can't see that "wild" inconsistency. I you don't mind please explain your point further since just saying "it's all bad" doesn't tell me absolutely anything and I would like to understand what's your point here.

I totally agree with that, I was talking about realism in the simulation, aircraft management, flight models, physics, all the fancy stuff making this an absolutely unseen simulation ever before, while FS also aims for button clicking and so you "feel" the lack of systems behind and everything. I know that kind of "realism" is not for everyone and all. Fine, and understandable, but I personally do enjoy it very much. But no, absolute historical realism even when we don't have all the planeset and even "groundset" necessary? I don't look for that, or maybe sometime is fine, not necessarily all the time though. I'm with you on that regard. Furthermore, I can't understand if we haven't had those absolutely fleshed out planesets and everything ever before (even the most populated simulators in the past, fleshed out with mods and everything, still lacked maps and aeroplanes…) why we have to pursue now absolute historical realism in missions and everything. We'd flown everything with substitutes since ever, aircraft, maps, all of it could be substituted and we were happy, and we made substitutions not in the pursue of absolutely realism, impossible since you're using substitutes to start with, but a historic event or whatever was just the excuse to make this or that mission, nothing more. So why new users can't stand the lack of whatever the tiniest absolutely unimportant thing to enjoy the sim is beyond my understanding, and that wasn't my point exactly or what I meant in the previous post .

And I'd say a flight simulator, "just" a pc game after all, which is able to make you feel and understand such a thing in either aircraft type, even rotors, is just terrific and quite enjoyable for the flight simulation fan .

So, what makes it great, absolutely realistic, the best simulation we've ever seen, makes it unenjoyable? I guess not everybody have to enjoy the same things, that's obvious, but if you're into flight simulation I don't know why anybody would say that the realism we asked for during so many years way back in time is unenjoyable once we got it.

Not that much mate, a bit more with P-47 perhaps, but managed one managed all of them. Constant speed props makes your life way easier. It's quite more an effort to keep an eye on every system, sensor, whatever you have in a modern day playstation cool screens many buttons thing. Warbirds demand your attention, but in an absolutely different and less stressful way than modern stuff IMO.

No, it wasn't. The problem is we deal with many so different units here, - 600 metres Luftwaffe, - 1000 feet (about 300 metres) in USAAF, - 250 yards (about 240 meters I believe) in RAF mid to end war ones, 400 yards in early war examples IIRC. It's such a mess handling all those different units and they usually get mixed up quite easily, at least they do in my rather poor brain.

Not true, they've repeatedly said since ever how guns are harmonized as per manual, and they've posted those diagrams, easily found on the internet though. It's no secret at all, and we know how and why it's done. About the predictive sight, since the real deal has a throttle twist available for the purpose (as the P-51 has either), but we certainly don't use to have that, I rather prefer to set it up at 600m since it's the harmonization distance and make my own calculations on the fly for closer ranges/wingspans. Against fighters, which is most of the time, you don't need much more than that IMO and it works fair enough even in closer distances than being fiddling with secondary axes, distances, and all while in combat.

Sadly it highly depends on your rig, I fly all of them smoothly after my last PC update several months ago, but to be honest even with my old rig it wasn't that bad (no Marianas back then though). The PC in your signature seems quite nice, I don't think you should have any problem in Syria, not now and probably neither from quite a time ago.