Ala13_ManOWar

I'm not sure it would be such a good idea. I mean, if you want good physics and FM but don't care about clickable cockpits and all it's understandable, but for something alike that there're already other options (without the good physics and FM, Ok but they're there, well settled, and their player base apparently don't care about those elements). But if you take clickable cockpits and systems modelled out of the equation, I'm not sure it makes so much sense in WWII stuff, they wouldn't be different from those other options, they wouldn't stand out for what DCS is good for. And I'm not even sure many realistic elements going on under the hood would even make sense without those systems modelled, which in turn also affects DM. They're already working in MAC as their systems low fi game, FC4 alike, if they launch MAC some day and it works for the people perhaps the same could be applied to WWII stuff inside that game, but within DCSW itself I don't see it working once you strip out what makes DCS unique.

The "systems" modelled shown in the videos weren't those of a close to be released module for sure, but usual hype did the rest I guess. Makes sense it's still quite WIP while F1 is fine tuning systems already there, mostly.

Could well be a typical trackIr thing for sure .

It's a 2014 module coming at first from a LOMAC mod, devs probably did the best they could back then. That doesn't mean it shouldn't start wing rocking at 16º AoA if that's the critical AoA for the matter, and we don't know internally what is modelled or not, if it loses lift because of that, or not. Subjective impressions are usually off.

Sí, es lo malo de los mods, muchas veces están ahí desde hace mucho y ya ni siquiera son compatibles si el autor no los ha actualizado. Por eso es mejor al añadir los mods ir de uno en uno, así se identifica si hay algún problema y con qué mod aparece .

Con todos los mods quitados, haz un repair. De hecho dale varias veces, aunque parezca que no hace nada a veces en segundas o terceras pasadas encuentra cosas que la primera vez no.

No entiendo muy bien el problema, pero me da que sí. Los mods hay que probarlos de uno en uno precisamente para evitar incompatibilidades y problemas que ahora cuestan mucho más de encontrar. Deberías hacer el proceso inverso, quitar todo e ir poniendo de uno en uno a ver cual te da el problema.

Major problem with Dora is it had "bad press" for quite a time due to a really hard to find bug with the engine. That bug was squeezed finally a few patches ago, but even being corrected now the module has aged a bit badly since it wasn't the best 3D out there quite from the beginning (I personally and several other people around here fought and managed to change a few things with it, but not enough, comparison with Anton is quite obvious quality wise). I love Dora, it's a nice aircraft, she flies quite well and it's a perfect match against P-51 (which is why it was chosen in the first place by ED), but since RRG infamous kickstarter happened and it overlooked what was already there with regards to planeset and all (P-51 and Dora only) the rest of the planeset and map choices weren't really fitting for the Dora, everything related to the RRG thing was quite off to start with, clearly seen now in retrospective. Normandy map, Spit IX, Me109K4, P-47 (without model clarification), all of that is nice and very welcome WWII stuff, but quite a bad choice from Luthier (kickstarter handler) from the beginning. It shows poor choices related to pass simulators and ways to manage the sim not suited for DCS at all, he clearly didn't understand what DCS was about and it's goals as a simulation. Anyhow, we are now set with what we have, and the thing is Dora is a hard match in this environment. Yes, it's a nice aircraft, of course historical which is not the problem. Problem is we don't even have a map where Dora really operated in the dates it did operate (September '44 onwards, Germany mostly, after all it was mostly a defensive fighter). It makes no sense over Normandy (P-51D probably neither, but the differences between B and D are less notorious, compare on the contrary Anton with Dora… K4 is off either, but mission makers can make it work with/without MW50 and things like that). Now, the engine bug is squeezed but I guess it takes time for people to gain confidence again with flying the Dora (online specially). And about campaigns, the problem is probably not that much it should be a kind of what-if ones, in the end most of the campaigns we have are, but campaign creators had no time since engine bug was found and fixed to start thinking on using the Dora again as any other aircraft available. If we're lucky in due time campaign creators might release something for Dora, hope so. As you can see a lot has happened with Dora and WWII stuff in DCS (and it's only a hint here ) and maybe it's only now it starts to settle, at least a bit, so the best you can do now is use it, enjoy it, and await for campaign creators to start making things for it at some point.

We've only seen a few videos of the Corsair's external 3D model rework, not even the whole module external 3D already finished, which may then need a full textures rework either. Probably not far away, but seems still pretty much WIP for them. Let them work.

Well, it's their "first module" only under that name, they're mostly Aviodev and C101 was a great learning module for them, I believe. Probably that experience is what makes them being cautious which I can't blame them for.

Yep, even if it were ready for release, which I don't know but apparently it's not yet, ED's usual policy is to leave releases out of sales periods as well as not overlapping releases by too short intervals. A bit of eager awaiting is not that bad if they better like to have a more confident release rather than a slopy one to be fixed later. Any of the third parties, or ED for the matter, seem to have a clearly conformed communication policy, but anyhow you can ask a hundred forum users for what they would like on the matter and you would get a hundred different opinions, so I can't blame any of them for trying their own way. Apparently, no matter how you handle that some people are going to complain anyway, ones for one thing the others for quite the opposite, so…

Would be quite an interesting feature, specially for RSBN tables so cumbersome to find in the kneeboard. Since cockpit 3D is set to be redone in the future they well might take a look on such a feature.

It's funny how every time I see a new post notification here, a thread called Progress pictures on the Eurofighter Typhoon, I expect to see some new screenshots but apparently it never happens .

That kind of annoyance is a bit less IRL since you look with two eyes in 3 dimensions. Anyhow, that radio mast in front of the cockpit is a distinctive mark for early Corsair. The link above explains every change in that during Corsair's life.

In combat usually not rpm, only manifold in vertical manoeuvres or maybe very low speed ones so you don't kill the engine. In aerobatics that's different, you set your rpm (not necessarily 3K, 27 is fine, or whatever you like) and play with your energy to fulfil your desired manoeuvres.

Hype building topics about thin air, a classic .

You aren't missing too much yet, the thing about updating the MiG they said long ago is stated now to be scheduled for after F-8 release and they're already retrieving data for it in the form of a 3D scanned cockpit.

The aerial with the radio wire isn't retractable, the stick behind the canopy might be since it's not something you see regularly in Corsairs IIRC.

I'm just PPL but the C152 I learnt in had a twin in the club they bought it from, it was always stated the flew quite different and the one I flew was the best behaving by far. Go tell this people they handle different when they're trying to match a Bf109E with a Me109K4… They even think a Centurion flies the same as good old 152 if it serves their purposes (stated a couple posts ago), how can you counter that… I'm a teacher by trait and I would never give up on any student genuinely trying to learn, when they have doubts about the matter, or anything (I'm guessing the same as you as an instructor, specially given their lives depend on it), but with this kind of people I cannot stand any more. I did in the past, I tried to explain things to my best and everything, but here you see them again, years later, talking the same BS and proving they didn't understood a thing (they're the same forum users, yes). So…

Did you see me running away several posts ago? Now you get it . This kind of discussion, any of them but specially on this matter in particular, is an imposible task against people thinking they know it all and not reading or trying to understand facts and whatever hard evidence is presented to them. They think they're NASA engineers at the least, but they didn't understood a thing at all, even the minimal basics you must start with when confronting them. It's like trying to explain science to flat-earthers and hoping to make them understand scientific facts they don't even care about. Sadly, it's not going to happen they understand, or even try to, so what's the point in taking their lies misleading statements one by one and explaining/debunking them if they don't even read…

Totalmente Beltza, si te lo cuento por lo que comentabas de hilos cerrados y demás donde al final no se llega a nada después de páginas y páginas. Eso es bastante habitual, mucho más de lo que sería deseable desde luego. Estoy seguro de que a ese modelo de vuelo aún le faltan elementos y afinarlo, pero seguro vamos, lo que pasa es que en las batallas campales en que se convierten esos hilos kilométricos no se va a solucionar eso, sencillamente, en el momento en el que la gente comienza a entrar como elefante en cacharrería es el fin del hilo, del "debate" (suponiendo que lo hubo de inicio, que a veces ni eso), y desde luego es el fin de la utilidad de usar la versión openbeta si se podía echar alguna mano demostrando cosas concretas con información que se haya podido recopilar aquí y allí porque ya no hay discusión, ni datos, ni nada. Esos hilos la verdad es que en su momento yo también entraba (especialmente los relacionados con los warbirds) pero ya hace tiempo que intento dejarlos pasar porque es una pérdida de tiempo infinita. En cuanto al helicóptero, mira esta noche y/o mañana hacen una misión en el Ala donde hay Apache creo que en Siria y volando piloto y artillero en todos los aparatos que se pueda, así que usarlo lo están usando . Aunque no es específico del Apache, lo mejor que te puedo decir es lo que te expliqué arriba, intenta buscar una configuración de mandos que a ti te sea cómoda, porque incluso si yo con mis mandos y demás volase el Apache sería inútil darte mi configuración para que la uses en tu ordenador si no tienes una configuración similar. No tengas miedo a usar las curvas y lo que te haga falta para que te sea cómodo volar. Hay quien ve esas configuraciones como si fuesen una especie de cheto legal, pero en realidad solo estás intentando acomodar tus mandos, salvando las distancias, a los del aparato real. Si una aeronave fuese tan complicada de volar en la vida real seguramente no se fabricaría con esas condiciones en primer lugar, no tendría sentido que se maten la mitad de los pilotos intentando volarla. P.D.: y puedes criticar a ED o a quien sea lo que quieras, ni que fuese yo el dueño, ni me va la vida en ello , no iba por ahí, no

For you to "see" an indicated air speed (IAS) at the actual gauge you must set all the atmospheric conditions to the correct "standard" ones, and those are called ISA conditions (International Standard Atmosphere). ISA conditions are 15ºC and 1013mb. Try that at sea level, then you can say if Dora reaches it's maximum published top speed at sea level, or not. Any other conditions means inaccurate results, not comparable to the charts you showed here. Anyhow, remember German charts are kind of a mystery, they weren't standardised the same way as we're talking here, they weren't homogeneous, they don't say what conditions were taken or they meant (I have the suspicion that engineers used those kind of "faked" charts to show good results even when they didn't get good results), and that's a huge problem either. But in any case, if you don't test under ISA conditions everything talked here is irrelevant to start with.

Just for your knowledge, that individual is a (sadly for me) well known troll here with a new account, but still spilling idiocy everywhere over his bigotry about the subject (an "it's impossible that the almighty 109 flies like I don't like" kind). His blindness makes him say one thing and the opposite a second later about the subject talked here, but he finds no issue with that. Don't feed the trolls or use their lack of arguments making you a troll either . Moreover, Mr Volker, as you can see in that video, had no idea what they were asking for (you see the amazingly good English from him, the one talking off camera at the end), nor they understood at all what he was answering. He meant the aircraft is nice, stable and pleasant to fly by being gentle at the controls (and not using more than 1.3 Ata, ahem), then they immediately get the conclusion that the aircraft should stay stable even when they mistreat throttle and controls, and that's not going to happen. Anyhow, don't be fooled by these people, they don't really care about realism in the 109 or DCS at all, they only care about they getting the allegedly invincible 109 they wet dream of, and that's not going to happen either .

Actually, the DCS Dora reaches the sort of mythical 610Km/H at sea level it should. It does, I've tested it myself. But, you have to set the correct atmospheric conditions since indicated air speed (IAS) is a thing, and true air speed (TAS) which usually charts refers to is a completely different one, so you won't ever see those 610Km/H at the dial unless atmospheric conditions are the right ones. Otherwise, the speed is there (TAS) you just don't see 610 indicated (IAS) but any other thing (lower than 610, but algo higher on certain conditions). If you correct your 560Km/H IAS with the atmospheric values you had when you tested it you will get the real TAS (610 probably, or close). TAS calculator Play with that tool if you like, but be advised you'll have to use correct values, measuring units, and everything, otherwise calculated results can be quite messy and weird.

No lo tengo Beltza, algún día tengo que probarlo cuando lo añadan a los trial, pero en el Ala lo compró bastante gente y estaban volando con él mucho aunque no sé ahora mismo cómo andan con el Apache, la verdad. El caso es que de inicio ciertamente se quejaban de cierta dificultad de manejo, y es verdad que en las primerísimas versiones de todos los módulos siempre faltan cosas, faltan ajustes, o incluso partes del modelo de vuelo, ciertos efectos aún no contemplados y cosas así, pero curiosamente luego ya no había queja por el manejo y lo que ya no sé es si se acostumbraron al aparato, si configuraron los controles mejor (lucha constante en DCS con cualquier módulo) con algunas pautas que comentamos algunos de nosotros, o qué pasó. Quizá lo tienen ahí sin usar como dices por la dificultad, no sé pero ya voy a preguntarles a ver. Lo que sí te digo es que como en cualquier otro módulo de inicio, hay que pillar el punto, a posteriori siempre suelen "pulir" detalles (lo que para mi gusto cuando lo he experimentado en otros módulos significa "simplificar" el modelo de vuelo para hacerlo más manejable, pero en fin), y añadir partes del modelo de vuelo que aún faltan que eso suele pasar casi siempre, por lo menos con ED, los third party creo que lo manejan de manera diferente. Pero aún así, incluso en esas primeras iteraciones del módulo personalmente no he solido tener problemas de control en absoluto, lo que falta es configurar las cosas adecuadamente (para mi gusto, insisto). El tema, con este o casi cualquier otro módulo, suele ser que como DCS modela respuestas tal cual salen en los datos pues sí, es superrealista, pero en casa no tenemos los mandos que hay en un aparato real así que algo superrealista con un Joystick corto encima de la mesa… como que no se suele manejar del todo bien. Lo de meter curvas en un mundo (pero imprescindible), y por supuesto el propio mando si se puede apañar lo que haga falta. Yo desde que puse la extensión al Warthog no he vusto atrás, al revés, metí un muelle más gordo (no menos) y acabe haciendo una extensión aún un poco más larga (20cm iniciales, 25 ahora), y te aseguro que lo que sea vuela perfecto con un setting así porque aunque no sea exacto a los mandos reales, al menos es mucho más parecido de cara a manejar esa respuesta realista sacada directamente de las charts. Pero claro, entiendo que no todo el mundo puede hacerse con algo así, ni es una solución rápida, o sencilla, pero gana tantísimo la experiencia en DCS con unos mandos adecuados que no puedo más que recomendar a todo el mundo que intente hacerse con unos mandos buenos. Y ojo, eso no te libra que afinar la configuración luego, se siguen usando curvas en la respuesta de los ejes, pero el control es mucho más parecido a la vida real en general (sin haber volado un reactor, o un helicóptero de altas prestaciones, claro ). Lo de las críticas o no críticas a ED y demás, bueno, la gente, y sobretodo cierta gente que además aunque sean pocos tiran mucho de la comunidad por alguna extraña razón, a veces cogen la perra con algo y no paran de trollear en los foros para intentar conseguir lo que quieren, que a veces pueden tener razón en ciertas peticiones, pero la mayoría de las ocaciones no la tienen y aún así no paran ni nadie de esos que de inicio no entraban a la discusión pero luego ya la hacen suya se paran a pensar ni medio minuto en si lo que se dice es como se dice o las posibles razones reales para que esto o aquello pase en cierto módulo cuando se intenta modelar la contrapartida real. Para los admins del foro y la propia ED, que en general trata de mantener una actitus positiva ante esas críticas, fundadas o no (que la mayoría de las veces es que no, pero te suena el "thanks for your passion and support"? Pues eso, sustituye "passion" por fanboyism o bigotry y ya queda más claro…) pues al final son humanos y creo que cualquiera puede entender que acaben hasta los eggs de ciertas personas y actitudes, así que terminan por cortar por lo sano y listo en vez de enzarzarse en discusiones interminables con quien a veces ni siquiera intenta leer o comprender por mucho que les digas. Ahí, cuando ocurre, sinceramente pienso que perdemos todos porque entre todo el maremagnum de críticas, a veces insultos poco o nada velados, sí que puede haber argumentos válidos para ciertas cosas, detalles, lo que sea, pero cuando hay que cerrar un hilo que se desmanda todo eso ya queda en el olvido y esos posibles argumentos válidos también. Lo que comentas de "si no hay críticas no se puede cambiar", sí, tienes toda la razón, pero piensa que la mayoría de la gente suele no usar argumentos válidos para empezar, solo critican "porque no me gusta así". Bueno, es que una aeronave real quizá tampoco "te gusta" como vuela si vas con unas presunciones y prejuicios por delante de ese tipo. Yo no he volado un Apache real y no me creo con ninguna razón válida para poder criticar esto o aquello de ese aparato, pero los que lo hacen, cuando lo hacen, critican sin más y no es que no hayan volado un Apache, es que en muchas ocasiones ni un avión de papel, así que que lo habitual es "es que en este o aquel otro juego no es así y no me gusta porque me gusta aquel que es más fácil"… En fin, eso creo que no hay ni que pararse a comentarlo. ¿Significa eso que no se pueda o deba intentar mejorar la experiencia del usuario? Dentro de unos límites claro que sí, pero también es verdad que si pedimos a ED un simulador realista luego que la queja sea "esto es demasiado realismo y no me gusta" es un poco cogida con hilos, me parece, así que me parece de lo más normal que los admins acaben sacando el hacha cuando algo se desmanda de la manera en que se llega a ver en algunos hilos, porque esas actitudes de algunos desde luego tampoco ayudan a mejorar el sim o esa especiencia de usuario, más bien al revés, creo.