Ala13_ManOWar

Worth remembering either that once released teams don't remain the same so I believe there's no problem with several developments at once, and remember that people is usually really impatient so telling them "we're going to finish everything and not release a thing until done" maybe even worst bearing in mind most daily posts on this forums are kind of wishlist like . Let me point out something anyhow, assets pack is early access and will continue to be since they add new stuff every now and then, and personally I want those extras to keep coming, so for me no problem with an EA label meaning more or less nothing here. The long awaited, several times said to be one of the next things, so indeed in ED's scope, and very well suited for the maps and dates we manage right now Bf-109G-6 in whatever version, or maybe more than one, would be very welcome and compatible with that same as Fw190A-8 was . Dreaming is free . Once we get the Marianas WWII map, Corsair and carrier I'm fully in for Hellcat though since it'd be no longer a dream but a necessity.

There well might not be an ED's WWII aircraft release this year, but I believe it's worth recalling how we knew nothing about Fw190A-8 when it was first release, which was obviously well advanced development wise the very first time we knew a thing about it. So actually, who knows…

There, exactly and precisely there, you lost it . Do you realize this is a thread talking about a new (another one, I can't remember how many I've known in DCS) game engine and multithreading the game, right? It's happening, they are working on it since several years, hence they are well aware of it (since several years ago, if not more) mate. Fear not .

Please, I know you explained you aren't expert on the subject and everything, but Mk.I, II, V, XIV, etc… my eyes bleed with those "numbers" . Nice wishlist, a lot to comment on it, but too much to comment right now, sorry . BTW Nick Grey already said BoB stuff is happening, no dates, but you know, "it's not if, it's when". Hence, Mk.I, E-3/4 (7 is a too late model, don't fall for stupid marketing decisions in other titles ), Hurricane I, will eventually come to DCS. At least I hope so.

No creo que se pueda deshabilitar lo que hace uno u otro programa desde el otro. Todos cogen el control del teclado en mayor o menor medida y eso no se puede cambiar en windows que yo sepa porque es la programación que tienen. Lo que sí puedes es cambiar la tecla que usas para eso en el perfil de TrackIr. Personalmente, por ejemplo, las F7 y F8 del TrackIr no las he usado nunca para nada, así que están desactivadas y solo necesito la pausa y el centrado (que va a parte), así que me pongo esas funciones en otros lugares. Por ilustrar, la pausa del TrackIr la suelo poner en el botón de Pausa del teclado, y eso también es un problema con los módulos de DCS que la usan offline, hay que cambiar esa tecla en DCS si la usas por otra (le suelo meter Alt-P por ejemplo, o la que haya libre). Pero hay mil combinaciones posibles, con Ctrl, Shift, Alt, mezclas de varias, más la tecla que veas que menos te molesta. Otro ejemplo, usé mucho tiempo el 0 del teclado numérico como centrado, pero desde que salió me hace falta para el Hornet , pues mirando un poco las flechas del teclado en realidad no me hacen falta para nada, no vuelo los aviones con las teclas, pues ahí tienes cuatro teclas para lo que quieras que hay que desasignar de los módulos por supuesto, pero las tienes libres para el TrackIr y lo que quieras. Con esa clase de cambios, y aunque no lo parezca sobran teclas y combinaciones por todos lados, tienes todas las F libres.

Bearing in mind we've known about the whole World map they are trying it'll be plenty of water, about 70% water precisely . I think it doesn't make a lot of sense such an effort for "only" water, but remember it's not just water, ocean's floor is modelled for submarine warfare but for flying it's quite pointless using it without ships. And anyway, remember in the current system it wouldn't be infinite water, there would be surrounding no detailed hard edges. I used to think it would be nice to have such a map, but I'm not sure now if I really would want that kind of map.

True in general and I mostly agree with you. But here that sentence in particular shows the matter, not that easy to fix when you're working a whole new engine model for warbirds. Should they stop everything and work around a bug which probably won't be a bug after the new engine model happens, or just use that time and effort to get the engine model finished and running ASAP despite it been a huge endeavour? Hard to say for me, I guess for ED too. That's the issue many people apparently don't understand about the "living platform" in constant change we have here which obviously affects so many things already done and working when they were first released. Because we aren't talking about long standing bugs since "ever" in the module's life and never solved, we are talking about bugs appearing after game core, features updates, or whatever it is because whenever you touch a thing in the house of cards, and it's a bigger and bigger house of cards since 2011, many things are affected, but we also want the updates in the house of cards so they can't stop the constant changes, upgrades, updates, new features, new everything. I guess when the whole core and game engine would be "finished" with regards to features and so that kind of bugs just wouldn't happen any more, but while the game is changing in a sort of daily basis they are going to happen every patch. And even when the game core is up to ED's goals, we will be wanting a new thing for sure, so probably it'll never stop. It's a precarious balance we ask ED to have, new things, new modules, new core features, but please don't mess with what we already have, and that while we play… OpenBeta… I mean, knowing all of that which I'm not privileged to know or something, it's just public info out here and out there, I don't feel like asking ED much more than we have and they do, and I know they do their best because we wouldn't be here talking about things didn't even exist a few years ago, but some people just keep demanding more and more, but please no bugs or anything. IMO it's just not fair to them, and I'm pretty much aware of the money we put on the modules and everything, don't think I'm not.

The textures and some minor 3D update is what we already got in 2019 BTW, and a bit of that either with the previous cockpit and P-51D-25 upgrade, can't remember what date. A new iteration of the P-51 would need some new things besides new up to date 3D model, textures (again) and everything but I wouldn't know what could ED give us besides including a B version, K version, or the like to make the investment appealing either for people who bought it more or less recently so they would be pissed to pay again, as for people using the module since 2012 or the like but having had those updates for free. I believe it's probably trickier for the company than just the bar chat we're having here throwing ideas with no consecuences.

IA isn't rock bottom of fixing priorities for ED, they are just working a whole new IA (already released some WWII related things) and it would make no sense working twice in the same. I'd rather prefer the whole new IA as soon as possible rather than punctual minor "fixes" to a really unimportant question like what IA does with feathering props, to be honest .

It's been discussed here they are a small non-Engllish talking team, so no wonder they don't come here to speak often. But bug reports are passed to them for sure. Details of their contracts are unknown AFAIK.

Maybe you can join it to the I can't remember how many times and places a wide open sea map has been wishlisted. The closer we got is Marianas, actually .

Nice recap of yours which I mostly agree with, and I would definitely either buy a P-51B either. Let me just tell something here. No, it wasn't "developed by" TFC, The Fiighter Collection (which I guess you know) is a private warbirds collection owned by guess who that was/is also founder/owner of Eagle Dynamics, so they have been taking from there all kind of data, information, details, actual piloting experience-betatest from warbird pilots, etc, since day one for warbirds in DCS. Therefore I don't know what you mean to be "abandoned" in any way by TFC or anything. They have just being collaborators to the module, not developers since they don't do software of any kind, only own and keep a warbirds collection while restoring to airworthy condition and selling other warbirds. Anyhow, every wwii module to the day boasts the TFC logo, so I really don't know what you mean at all about being sort of dropped out by them . Hence, to the question OP asked, and your reply, no, it isn't any ugly stepchild of anyone. On the contrary, from some interviews where they explained how WWII stuff started in DCS and why and how P-51 was developed as a proof of concept and demonstrator module for realistic prop flight models, just that at first, apparently it's one of Nick Grey's most cherished modules, a personal favourite of him from his words, and I highly doubt they drop it at any time while DCS exists. Your explanation of why newcomers might feel like they bought an old module makes sense (I wouldn't know, I pre-purchased it in 2012), but if something they might make an A-10C II move with it (as with many other modules from the time and slightly afterwards) in order to increase it's "face value" (literally here, most needed things are cosmetic BTW), but it's not going to be abandoned in any way as is just obvious.

Those days are long gone, and I believe won't ever come back, sorry . Anyhow, if you like the WWII stuff any of them is a blast compared to any previous or even current simulation out there. If you haven't flown any of them (use the test license, of course), I would pick P-51 as a sort of "trainer" (you can always try TF, though it's so lightweight there's definitely a difference), Stang is definitely a great learning aeroplane with regards to tail draggers operation with a shallower learning curve, but I believe any will please you. Both P-47 and 51 are absolutely great modules, it's just an almost 10 years difference in between them with regards to graphical quality despite the 2019 P-51 renewal. But, Flight model, damage model (new on both), systems and everything aren't different quality wise, they just depict real life counterpart. You might pick the P-47 being newer, makes sense, but don't let just the looks of it determine your decision if you like the Pony. And anyway you won't miss the shot with any of them .

Yep, it can be seen even on model kits, but anyhow if the doors open and close obviously is going to be a difference y sizes while intake is a fix size .

Yeah, I thought of that, but if entrance is bigger than exit the airflow would slow down, hence refrigeration can't be the same and wind velocity wouldn't matter. Something to test, I know it's been said by devs sometimes all those airflows are modelled but to what extent and detail I wouldn't know.

Head on wind should help only if radiator is fully opened, if it's closed I guess it could actually slow and/or interfere with the airflow .

Let us know the result, those details are modelled in DCS by the way. I don't know if that's going to change when the new engine model is released, or how it could change, but in this step watch out. Even at "only" 20º if you warm up the engine too much (green lines, apparently good but already "warm") while on ground it might even blow up just about getting airborne, radiator flaps are automated but they move slowly so when you're already warm up and take off ~max power the system has no time to open radiators once airborne and engine can be destroyed. It only depends on weather conditions even when it's apparently not that hot, and how much wind and the direction it has might as well play a role there. You can only let them fully opened and wait until you're airborne to switch radiators to auto to prevent that.

Weird things happens when you put 1800Hp on a tiny airframe .

I believe it wasn't used in Vietnam, but IIRC I've seen some pictures of the latter models (-5 -7) still in use and they were pretty late, like even firsts sixties maybe, though in very minor jobs obviously, ANG and such. Anyhow, even if that was the case, which I'm still not sure, why would we want the -1D to be used in such a context even before having used it in it's rightful Pacific context is beyond my comprehension . picture circa 1956

Hehe, no, they aren't. Spanish air force pilots always had to choose a path, French aircraft or American aircraft and you couldn't change from that once selected because of the French "idiosyncrasies", so different and messy they were. Pilots always said if you had to push one single button for something on any regular aircraft, you had to push two o three to do the same on a French one just for the sake of it . Not so intuitive, no. But I hope to learn it easier being a simulator.

So messy those French instruments compared to other quite straightforward western instruments, but I guess that's part of the charm.

Of course they listen, but not now, they had always do, even old stuck bugs complained about for many time while people say they'll always be there, even some people quit the sim due to the "intolerable" of the situation. Then it gets fixed but they might not even see it since they quitted out of sheer impatience. I know sometimes some bugs can be really annoying, but if you don't get fixated in those the sim is still pretty useable even when those complain about it being impossible to use. Even old bugs get squashed in the end, look how despite it being so slippery that not even people complaining could post proper data to identify the bug, in the end the Dora engine thing was found and fixed. Now you say, the problem you mention, well indeed there are a team of dedicated betatesters, always there were but actually not that long ago they announced how the team was embiggened with even more people. Don't you read newsletters? But let's not digress here, now you mention "the other sim", you realize it's not even close to DCS in complexity, right? "Modules" which aren't modules at all don't feature systems modelling, at all, nor those inexistent features imply updating core engine every time you need any new thing, be it a new radar, a new missiles feature, a new naval asset, a new previously unseen weapon with any sort of guidance, a new FLIR like thing, a new whatever, and when that happens bugs to already working modules using those now enhanced features can happen, of course can happen, but also of course we all want the sim to be renewed constantly, right? That problem simply doesn't exist there, it's impossible to compare any other thing to DCS because there are no other comparable thing out there. The only thing comparable at a distance could be the 98 modern sim still lurking out there, and modders, not dev, modders ended up cleaning the bugs it had , which is easier anyway when you have a dead platform, so no way mate, no way to compare.

Of course I'm not saying they shouldn't keep it alive and updated, and yes for me it was a blast back then compared to anything I knew in simulation, I love the module to the day and I believe it's still great. Of course new people can and still do buy the module and they deserve the same attention, but my point is still many, and I mean a hell of a lot many of us bought it many years ago and won't buy it again no matter how much they update it since we already own it. Those (many) who bought the module about 10 years ago and after for barely 15$ (14.95 BTW) enjoy those updates the same as newcomers, but I'm not sure the numbers are that high now most of us already own the module. The last 3D update with new textures and everything, although it wasn't like a brand new module, really enhanced it, I cannot complain it was a bad update yet still people say it isn't enough for a reason and that it haven't received attention in so many time , but that update came not long ago, I just don't know what people mean with the "no updates ever", the it's being neglected, it's left unsupported, whatever thing. Not to mention many complains about bugs and everything comes from actual updates to the core, apparently so many people aren't aware what's going with DCS, they don't realize it's a living platform, you ask for updates, they come with them, not few, some really deep ones, core sim is updated every time but that breaks compatibility with older modules. It's a hell of a lot of work to keep this going on (and I just guess it, I haven't the faintest since I'm not a dev), you have to update things, keep older things working, but all that while the platform is being used!! It's like a doctor had to perform a heart surgery while the patient is still alive and with the heart beating because you can't stop it nor the person can stop being alive. Think the time, not long ago, we got the new props for instance they came almost all together in one single update in, how many modules? at the same time and trying not to stop the game from being usable, maybe bugs happens but still usable. They got the props, I won't seek for the thread but there were a thread like this one back in time complaining about P-51 propeller being awful and the module being neglected with no support and everything… ring a bell? I mean what the constant complain mates? I believe people are just being bigots here like nobody ever released a bug anywhere . But no, people want it all, new modules (because you want new modules, don't say you don't, I want new modules either), new stuff, new maps, new things to do, new weather, new assets, new damage model, new ATC (WWII related, of course, but also modern ones), new dynamic campaign (WWII usable), new multicore with new VR support with a new game engine (I don't recall how many engine changes I've known since DCSW happened in 2010), you want new everything!! but you don't want what comes with that, bugs, incompatibilities, development problems, delays, and what not. If something I always thought ED's target to be too bold since they obviously aim for a full high fidelity simulation platform with everything, air, ground and sea, the ultimate simulation experience but that while the platform is in use and with a small team (they still are a small team for what they do despite they hired a bunch of new people not that long ago either). I mean, what do you expect from a small team in a niche subject like hardcore simulation is, but with the highest of the targets… it takes time, a hell of a lot of time, and problems, a hell of a lot of problems… and here I'm just pointing out the obvious so many people apparently can't see , before someone chimes in telling I'm being as bigot as them or something . But still I like ED's minds, what they aim for, and I want it no matter the time and tears it takes. Those complaining and saying it's unbearable, Ok, good for you, better go play Tetris ultimate, that's probably more bug free than DCS is, or maybe not .

Problem is, I don't know when did you two get this module, but for instance I got it in 2012 on pre-sale because I wanted the aircraft bad no matter the environment it had or not, but in sales periods (back then happening even more times a year than now) you could get this and other modules 70% off, so P-51 costed 15$ (buying from Europe at that time barely 12€ ) plus you got bonus points , and that wasn't just for a short period time, that happened for many years and many more modules and warbirds later on could be bought at that same price, A-10C (original one, not A-10C II), BS 2, UH-1, whole FC 3, Fw190D, Bf109, and so on. Apparently you don't realize you're asking a module bought by many at that price tag 10 years ago to be kept, updated and even enhanced meaning basically redoing the whole module from scratch on today standards, for everyone but those only paid 10+ bucks and since so many of us already own the module we don't buy it again, I haven't paid anything since then for the P-51. Still, I got several updates, new textures, new model P-51D-25, new sounds (twice at least do I recall?), new 3D enhancements (props anyone?), new engine model, I don't even mention core engine updates since that's not specifically related to P-51 though all modules take advantage of those and P-51 also does, and, better or worst, but basically it's still running and kept alive, supported, and even updated from time to time. Please enlighten me about what game did you buy 10+ years ago and is still running, supported, updated and kept alive for free?

I don't think so. Weren't there somewhere a company talk about not long ago with another professional flight sim platform similar to ED's professional branch The Battle Simulator and in the end it wasn't a public "game"?