Ala13_ManOWar

Por no hablar de que hay que poner la fuente de donde sale esa información, que luego siempre hay quien se queja de que eso no se ha dicho o no se sabe dónde. Las informaciones sobre Eagle Dynamics y demás siempre tienen que ir comentadas con fuentes bibliográficas cual tesis doctoral, y aun así te las ponen en duda como terraplanistas de tres al cuarto… S!

It's an unsupported product since you can have DCS for free nowadays. FC3 is still available for purchase featuring a way better MiG-29 than that you're using now but still with the same simplified avionics, and really cheap on sales (every now and again). There's no point in supporting such an old piece of software. S!

So, you described a 50's-60's aircraft basically, what's the problem with that? MiG-21 wouldn't cut it either, or mostly any other aircraft from the era. Phantom should be in DCS because it's an historical aircraft used in many battlefields, not because it should wipe out everything effortlessly. DCS simulations is about experiencing what we most can't or couldn't, so if that's the experience with Phantom as it should be so be it!! S!

I don't speak Russian or am specially acquainted to it, but the few words I could know show me that Indoeuropean roots, structures and everything makes it closer to other European languages than one could think at first making it rarer that it actually is only due to the Cyrillic alphabet we all see. Latin root words, coming from French influence I guess, are more common in Russian than it seems, so not that weird they use those Bis and Ter names. Anyway, perhaps some Russian fella here at the forums could enlighten us, are they occidental names to Russian models or they also use those terms and names? In wikipedia in Russian I see the Bis term used in several of those aircraft mentioned here, MiG-21Bis is one of them, not the Ter name as far as I could find, but maybe it is or was used. Anyway one has to be careful with sources since many, many, soooo many aviation related books only re-write once and again the same mistakes from decades ago and names is one of those things one has to be really careful about. But apparently in MiG-21 it was used for sure. S!

I always wonder with this kind of threads… what now?? You all bashing, Ugra here but any other third party or ED themselves on any other forum section any day, what now? Don't you have anything to say now? I mean, it wasn't to be finished ever, they are unable to deliver, it's probably cancelled and they say nothing… now it's there, it's almost finished, it's frigging awesome, Cyprus (not though at first) is there as a bonus you all don't even deserve, we've had already a patch to Normandy and I hope more to come, what now?? It only took time… now what… anybody changed their minds? don't you say a thing now? "Thanks, sorry I was behaving like 5yo with this" perhaps? Nothing?? S!

I-15bis aircraft was the second variant of the model (also called I-152), and I-15ter was the third one (also called I-153). Not an expert on Russian names, but I guess they preferred that to other notating systems, like plain A, B, C, etc (also used anyway). In MiG-21 apparently that somewhat "last" variant was changed enough to be considered a somewhat "new" aircraft so they called it accordingly. In the MiG-15 that was literally, a second model of the aircraft, a new one with all the newly developed refinements. In MiG-21 I don't really know what was changed so much to use that name. S!

Good for you. If I wouldn't purchase any module with an autostart function available (why?? I want to start myself all of them) I wouldn't fly or buy any module . S!

Re-scaled resolutions usually feature that kind of problems not working good enough when it comes to telling shapes one from another. It's not you, I don't use VR but I see people complaining about VR spotting at a distance and not telling the difference between models. That's what you pay for using VR I guess since the technology is still in it's infancy. S!

You mean in VR? Low resolution in VR is definitely not a DCS problem but hardware related. In a screen I can tell models from a distance without much trouble, I guess you have to get used to it. Anyway telling models and resulting friendly fire is a problem also in real life, so even that is realistic I guess . S!

En el tema del radar, mira a ver si este reciente vídeo de Wags te saca de algunas dudas si te apañas con los subtítulos. Es un tema mucho más complejo que simplemente poner más barras y azimuth, Un saludo

You people confuse plain linear Kilometres with actual size and object count. Siria map is huge for DCS standards, and still populated and detailed areas are mostly in the centre of the map. Same as Gulf, thousand of kilometres long, but still detailed areas are in the middle of it, the rest is low detailed or no detailed at all. Current maps in DCS work like that always, a very detailed central area, but relatively small in size (the ~600x600Km you mention), then a low detail area, still usable, sometimes even featuring active detail like some aerodromes (Normandy for instance, Cyprus and Turkey in Siria, etc), but low detailed nonetheless, then a large non detailed at all area around with some textures matching the centre, of course it's an actual ground and you could "drive" over there in CA to say something, you see it from the air and it's no weird surprise, but no detail at all and only acting as a courtesy buffer so central detail isn't surrounded by non textured emptiness. With current technology we're still very limited in size despite ED's efforts, and I'm sure they're working in a way to overcome that and enhance their maps, but we aren't there yet. S!

Well, that's exactly Eagle Dynamics honouring a pledge by RRG/Luthier from whom apparently they never saw a penny, so they are honouring promises from others ditching their projects with their money and development effort. I don't know yours, but In my book that only speaks good about ED despite those others making promises they could never deliver. S!

Yep, I believe already commented that, LODs can be hideous at times. Agreed. But even though it definitely affects spotting, that's not exactly a "spotting" problem. S!

Yeah, but the difference is LW aircraft are a way more hairy subject whenever you search for info. Not that easy, and even P-47 was a pain in the ass for wind tunnel data. People usually say it's just copy/paste, but I believe it's quite more complicated than that if you try to keep it out of speculation. S!

Yep, but remember Fw190F-8 is the factory name, the field modification was Fw190A-8/U3 same as all F models, so still "A-8" but it was actually an F-8 and so many times those models are mixed because that German stubbornness with picky names for the same thing, when not new plates for a rebuilt aircraft. The well known Fw190F-8 in Smithsonian (was it Smithsonian?) started life as A-4, then rebuilt A-5, then rebuilt A-8, then rebuilt F-8 and nobody can say (specially the caption author in that pic) what the actual model it was without looking at the plates. So, just looking at the pic a non outer canons is a field, or factory, modified F-8 ground attack aircraft, not a proper A-8 fighter. S!

You'll have that option in the form of Fw190F-8, and G-8 which removes also cowl guns, when they come. Performance wise, I'm not sure that'll be what you think, but maybe. For the A-8 variant, like an "option" to remove outer wing cannons, yeaaahhh, nope… this isn't a Thunder of a War mates. Pilots IRL didn't have an "option" to add/remove weaponry from flight to flight in a daily basis. "If you remove things the aeroplane flies better", of course they do, look at the TF-51 compared to regular P-51, but you don't want a TF-51 without all the armour and weaponless in combat, right? The basic model is what it is, and Fw190A-8 was what it was for the purpose it was. I believe removing things for the sake of "playability" wasn't a real life option for the pilots. S!

To be honest… Which one we aren't? Those you post for sure, but also… I stop before I completely clog the thread, but all those are either WIP or expected modules, I keep whishlist out of the scope . S!

Nope here. Sometimes I look at my old DVDs and wonder why not install again old LOMAC to fly around Crimea a bit, but then I remember I already have Flaming Cliffs 3 which are mostly the same birds, but better, and that current Caucasus map is waaaayy better than the old one and all of a sudden the urge passes . S!

Yeah, as always ED teams running like firefighters from one extreme to another trying to keep fires under control. That perhaps could make people think how small ED teams are and how they manage nonetheless to deliver and finish things in the end despite not being a huge brand with unlimited workers and resources available, hence one could appreciate the magnificent work they make in such a niche market as flight sims are with their hard work. Or not… S!

Ok, I can see now the processing video. Were you mounting a drop tank by any chance? If not, why do you use fuel pump for external tank? That fills with air the circuit and can lead to engine fuel starvation. Just wondering. S!

Well, yes those are the limits, still 100º oil temp and the same in radiator water, even before taking off. I bet that was a hot day and/or he run the engine for a long time on the ground before taking off even if that alone shouldn't break the engine. S! Yeah, sorry the second vid wasn't working when I wrote, and now it is but low res and I can barely see the instruments. S!

MW50 in a coolant indeed, it's mostly the only thing it does actually, cooling down the engine so you can use higher manifold pressures longer. Does it work the same without MW50? S!

Can't tell 100% what's going on there, but you keep 3000 at take off for too long at a too low speed but oil temps are already too high before you took off (100º+), don't know why or how you managed to do that, so it keeps going higher and higher until the shut down happens. Even if you lower to 2700 after a heated run like that it's usual refrigerating systems can't keep up with the heat, specially on hot days. It can happen the same with P-51 if you don't manage to rise your IAS and open manually all rads on hot days, sometimes right at the take off since weather and atmosphere conditions are underestimated so many times in DCS. Still don't know if that's the only thing happening there, but those are the obvious clues seen. S!

If you mean the allegedly bug of engine breaking because people use old missions not fully compatible, yes, that's quite an annoying bug, right? Granted you have to be active in the forums, you have to read a lot (bad thing for those awaiting the movie in order not to read a single letter), and everything in order to keep up to date and know all the stuff said here and there, but if I recall correctly Dora is meant to be revisited at some point so that template and all the skins made would be useless. S!

Yep, you're quite right. If you follow what some people say in the threads, but also out there on the internet, reddit, some youtubers, etc, one can end in the the quite wrong impression that WWII stuff in DCS is utterly neglected, almost derelict. Luckily, nobody would say or believe that knowing what's going on, what we got in the last year and the year before, and what's planned to be in the near future, plus what we don't even know but is surely going on under the hood, right? right? S!