Ala13_ManOWar

I'm just leaving these here, but be advised you have to read/watch it ,

Yeah, those "cockpit limits" you mention are there to prevent you stick your head out of the glass in closed cockpit, every module has them and they change since not every cockpit have the same room and Spitifire is definitely a cramped cockpit, but I don't recall Spit to have any specially tight limits for trackIr. If you don't have more modules to compare (you always have the 14 days trials), check TF-51 to see the difference. In any case the FC3 cockpit on Su-25T would be the different one, not the other way around. I mean, your trackIr profile should be aimed to full modules before FC3 limited cockpits ones, and since Spitfire cockpit is already tight you shouldn't have that problem with Z axis in order to get closer to instrument panel or whatever. Those limits can't be changed to my knowledge, you can tweak your default head position, default zoom, and that kind of things by editing files (there are also in-game keys for editing and saving default seat positions), but I don't recall limits to be changeable (it's a common bug popping out sometimes, you can stick your head out of the cockpit after some OB patch), and if you manage to do it remember maybe that editing doesn't pass online integrity check.

Zoom is fine, we all use it, specially if you have buttons enough in your HOTAS. But you can tweak your TrackIr profile to any response you want, just enhance Z axis to your like and you'll be good to go. But it's the same profile for every airframe inside the game, so be careful with it, but it's easy just trial and error to find your personal sweet spot. I leave this here is case you wonder how to do it.

I forgot!!! Nobody mentions (or I've missed it) the Wag's like comment Suntsag made at the end of this latest WWII stuff video about the C-47, and ED comments about how they were aware of the people wanting a flyable-multicrew transport aircraft after de C-130J mod… Who knows…

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.