Ala13_ManOWar

Yeah, except it wouldn't, I know most people don't pay attention to those details, but since internal systems are modelled and all, damage model affects them and their interconnections, and so you get a varied set of emergencies possible to manage your plane. Without those systems there (like other titles out there with no internal modelling at all) you wouldn't have to manage those things, either the management itself, complex engine management for instance (wait for the La-7 and it's like 6 levers for that if you thought P-47 management is tough ), or any other system, even the simplest ones, which you need to cope with during an emergency with combat damage, or no combat but the system just failed. Without that internal modelling you wouldn't have that, even though many people don't think about it being there until you have to limp back home so they don't know emergency procedures, but it's there and since it's there I want that to be manageable via button clicking, lever handling, and all. Why would I want not to be able to manage my aircraft if the systems are modelled? Since they're there, and DM wouldn't be the same (though less explored than it should) without them, I want to manage those systems. If some people don't want to they can leave those systems alone, but I want to use and manage those systems which happens to affect other systems and the whole aircraft in the end. It's part of the game and without it it wouldn't be the same.

Yes, you can do something absolutely realistic and learn how to land properly . Ok, jokes aside, I know you think you're landing absolutely smoothly and all (you and most people out there, don't blame yourself for that) and so you don't see where that's coming from. But no, most people don't land that smoothly at all, they never did, that's where landing "per manual" comes in handy. You need to touch down at the slowest possible vertical speed, you need to make a good enough (in your view probably meaning perfect or almost perfect) flare after a proper roll out and let the plane settle alone into the ground by itself at the lowest speed possible flaring from a really close height, a couple or three feet perhaps (how do you measure that in DCS or IRL? you have to look outside the cockpit seeing and pondering where the ground is, in any aircraft usually looking not straight forward in front of you but by the sides of the cockpit, in tail draggers blocking your front view with a huge nose even more of that) and from there you let the aircraft settle by itself, with little engine (no engine is harsher, leave that for later on when you manage it better, but some aircraft can't land with idling engine, bear that in mind, low revs yes, idle/cut off no) and you'll get perfectly smooth three pointers every time. I know, easier said than done, but that's the way to go. Somebody said around here the problem with the new gear physics is that people already landing with a proper technique have no issues with the new model, people who didn't land properly before and pushed the limit of landing with no proper technique now has an even bigger problem. But as said, don't blame yourself, we fly in front of a screen after all and getting the clues out of that is always tricky, very tricky. Can be done anyway, a little practice will get you there for sure. And we're here for the challenge of flying highly powered tail draggers after all, aren't we? Let us know if you need further or more detailed tips, glad to help .

Yes, it does, but we cope with it because we have no alternative for those aircraft .

For that you already have the competence we don't mention (and you mention), not to mention the other Chinese competence we don't mention. Why on Earth would anyone want to kill the sheer beauty and greatness of DCS WWII, which can brag about being the only sim around to model so beautifully and realistically those warbirds?? Do you know if you want to star-up the engine with a single key stroke you can via the cheat key? provided it's made available at your online server of choice, though if it isn't available there you have your "many people also want that...", you know. BTW, yeah, ED took back their word about not again a FC module, I don't blame them since MAC (which is product I couldn't care less about, TBH) is apparently on hold or getting delayed so here we have some "new" FC4 modules for those interested in a shallower learning curve, which is fine. But don't blame the rest of the community for wanting realism and gorgeously detailed modules, including WWII stuff never, ever seen before on a PC. If you can't learn how to star-up a warbird, which can't be simpler, maybe you're looking for a different kind of game than DCS is.

Me too, I love those modules, I-16 is beautifully modelled, I don't expect La-7 to be less than that. In Korea I believe they used La-9 and La-11, not sure La-7 made it to Korea. Anyway, good enough for me in that environment either.

Yep, I said also time ago when Hellcat was just a faint pic and ED's WWII carrier a wet dream, it might all happen at once or maybe in a quick succession, but since ED is also making their own PTO it only and absolutely makes sense they try to make them all happen about the same time so people can't complain the usual, "I got a Corsair/Hellcat and I have no map to fly in and no foes to combat against". Don't know about their internal policy about that (I believe they usually try not to release many things at once so people can afford/don't lose interest on some module) but it only makes sense to get it all about together, a whole pretty much fleshed out theatre at once, map, two carriers (maybe ED's one in Supercarrier's fashion?), two modules and assets for the theatre. They'd absolutely crush it that way, if you ask me.

Yep, it is, but no, it was never used in Spain so I guess no info available for that. That airframe is a German F-104G due to the Spanish ones being handed back after their use (they ended up in Turkey and Greece), so there's no real Spanish flown example left in Spain. The German one was lent for the air museum in which that picture is taken. The aircraft wasn't "allowed" for many years to be repainted or modified into Spanish version, so it was painted in half Spanish (the side you see in the pic) and half German. Only in recent years it was allowed to be repainted in whole, and the recce pod not present in Spanish ones was removed. The current repaint is awful, by the way , there are too many pictures of those aircraft in Spanish service for the sloppy and clumsy paint job they did, wrong colours (very well known ones), and wrong typography in the bort numbers .

Hornet's perfect though, one can tell how it was designed from start as a true multi-role aircraft, and it's great on A/G aside from holding itself good enough in A/A. No surprise many people uses it like it was meant to be .

OP is probably just confusing real airframe capabilities and performances with it's internet line, or the player in front of him, flaws, high pings and whatever. No, a 109K4 can't climb from 200ft near stall to 4K ft just like that, and so you can't do it either when flying the module. Didn't you notice that? You just saw an UFO, a consequence of high pings and lag in the lines, which we've suffered gaming online since ever. Apparently he hasn't known the old times and constant UFOs around you .

Yeah, Ju-88A-4 had 4 bomb racks beneath. We don't have an A-4 though, we have an A-17 with torpedoes, 2xtorpedoes .

Doesn't look like any time soon .

Same all, not bad but not flying as much as I'd like, didn't even plug the controls since I can't remember now. Glad to hear from you mate .

Buenas, bienvenido, Has probado ya a hacer un repair? Te actualizó a la última versión antes de intentar iniciarlo la última vez?

Totally this . P.S.: hi Rock, how're you doing? being a long time. Nice to read you around here

Yep, totally seems so about the power curve. In simulation it's always harder to assess that compared to RL since we're just in front of a screen with no feelings at all.

Or maybe yes mate. Usually a huge problem in sims is exactly that, people tends to flatten the approach too much (Microlight like, by the way) and since you're coming in on first stage engine power, hence hanging from a high power setting engine, in the end that comes to troubles in touch down, not to mention you don't see the runway whatsoever. The other way, coming in from a "much steeper" (or maybe not that much steeper, it just looks like it's too steep in front of a screen) but second stage engine power setting (hence not "hanging" from the engine, but actually gliding) and since the higher power setting just isn't there and there's not much trouble with rolling off and flare from a lower power engine setting (so less torque to counter), and it's quite more paused and manageable. Maybe you're just performing a correct approach after all. For a better landing at latest stages I believe Mosquito is not a "cutter", you shouldn't completely cut power from the engines while flaring, lower it but not cut since that's a huge kick you don't wanna have at low altitude and speed. P.S.: first and second stage states means from engine power settings, drag, AoA and so, first stage is the one place (in the curve, it's a power diagram) where you need more power to fly slower, the second stage is where you need actually less power to fly faster, all of that due to available power, drag and AoA, it's not magic

Some of those look like some polygon count lowering for performance purposes, but it'd nice to have them "fixed" if possible, at least the most glaring ones.

On the ground whenever you came in single-engined obviously it's impossible to taxi properly and they didn't even tried. But I guess you mean with a whole airframe.

Beatiful skins mate, great job .

So sorry to hear that mate. I'm Spanish myself, and while not even close to be bilingual, I handle myself with English and even I notice those "mistranslations". The side note being here, since I'm Spanish myself and enjoy speaking a bit of English, many times I can tell what the original text, in Spanish, was saying and what they wanted to translate but in the end didn't manage to. But I guess that's a luxury you, as many fellow members here, can't enjoy. So, this, yes, that's exactly the problem. I'm not sure a simple check would work here, since profesional manual translation is a hairy subject. But, I believe it comes even deeper since the Mirage is a French airframe and original manuals were probably written in French, so Spanish translation of the manual is already a translation, and you're actually trying to read the English translation of the translation. So many things happens when that's the case, so many nuances and deeper original meanings are lost in translation here, never better said. Sadly I have no fixes or solutions for that. It is what it is with regards to language barrier. P.S.: anyway, wouldn't this thread be best placed at Aerges forums? Don't know to what extent they're aware of this, but they should be. It's not that easy whenever you handle yourself just good enough in the foreign language but not so much in deeper technical manuals jargon and complex English expressions. Since you don't see that shortcoming you can't ever be aware of it in the first place. But placing the thread in there should be a first step towards that direction

Yes, and no. I believe someone probably mentioned yet, but the real inner and huge problem is expectations. The second anybody says anything is under development, or they're trying to, the second some people (we can't blame everybody for that) is eagerly awaiting for whatever it is, and some of them get really insistent about the subject, with crazy arguments like "I'm awaiting since ever", "this is never gonna happen", "they don't deliver as -promised-", and so, and so, and so on. But those people don't realize those and false arguments, telling people somebody is developing anything doesn't mean they will reach their goal, at all (we've seen that with many third parties, many, no longer existing, do you recall some third party was gonna develop a Super Hornet even before the legacy Hornet we have now? no? that's it), they plan to, they'd like to, but sometimes it just isn't feasible for whatever reason, their resources, their team, their budget, or just insurmountable problems they face at some point. AND those expectations are really bad, they become "promises" nobody made in the first place, they become even almost paranoid ideas about teams no longer developing whatever it is, "they've ditched it but they wouldn't tell", and even worse. Do I have to recall some third parties have even disappeared due to those crazy ideas spread? third parties and their teams are humans after all, they aren't impervious to wild, constant criticism, not just here, in here mods and some of us try to chill the thing (because we've seen so much in here, don't get me wrong, we aren't in ED's payroll, but sincerely it's exhausting), but go to Reddit were ED's mods can't do a thing about it, or whatever the external source it is. Those people, while saying they only care and worry about DCS and it's benefit, are really harmful in the end to third party teams and to ED themselves. I haven't paid a thing yet, I've only seen a few screenshots and small videos I like and are nice, I want the module badly of course, but I don't feel myself entitled to demand anyone, third party or not, to finish a damn tough job like making a module is because I'd like to see it in-game right now, or yesterday better. Third parties are humans like me, they bleed when punctured, they suffer with harsh criticism, why would I want them to feel bad about the hard work they embarked in? They're already aware about the timings and the time they've already spent developing a module to the nut, and I haven't bought a thing to the day. Why the wild criticism? is it gonna finish sooner with it? I bet no, perhaps the opposite… Heatblur case is a different kettle of fish, they've already taken people's money (mine for sure) for a module they promised, or kind of, for a date they couldn't fulfil in the end. Ok, fine for me, I won't change my mind and I want Phantom badly, if it takes a few more weeks to finish and polish it the way they mean it to be great, why would I critique them for trying to do their best and deliver what they feel people who paid are ought to? It's great from their part, of course it is, but they had a commitment due to the pre-sale being already there, they had to. On the other hand, M3 haven't charge a penny from anyone yet, not mine for sure, they don't have to deliver and fulfil any promise already made because there is no promise, yet they're still a rather small team (I believe it still is) and if they were here speaking and all, on top of creating even more hype and expectations, while they write here they wouldn't be working on the module, which not only is a module but a huge assets pack and all together with it. I have no problem in letting them work on their goal, releasing a great module, and I'm sure in the end they'll gonna make it sooner than later and crush expectations. But releasing a great module takes time… and this one is huge… Since I haven't bought anything yet and I'm only waiting patiently I feel no urge to demand them a thing. Why some people do? I wouldn't know. Just let them work… Patience mates… patience… P.S.: the 8 years wait said by some people is just false, there might be mentions to it, intentions, but that's not 8 years of development time whatsoever, so why some people want to feel like they're waiting since 8 years ago, I wouldn't know. to recall something, Hornet was gonna be "the next module" after A-10C in 2010, but it happened only a few years ago due to the need for many things, a formal contract with the builder, lots of information, and a platform that allows you to have all the features they wanted the module to have. That's a wait mate, knowing they were trying to get a Hornet module but couldn't deliver yet due to the lacks in the platform we call now DCSW. Yet it's here in it's full glory now despite they had to change game and graphics engine twice or thrice in the meantime, and we're heading towards a fourth engine core change which will allow even greater things. Great things take time. Patience mates, patience…

If there were any more automated functions anywhere it wouldn't be the very first modern low wing monoplane with retractable gear and closed cockpit (Type 5) fighter in History .

Haha, not very close, it's the very same with small variation. Look for The Fighter Collection (a warbird collection owned by Nick Grey, also owner of ED) and why they use the Lafayette emblem. No secret or hidden meanings there. Everybody knows that in the aviation community.

No? Lafayette squadron nobody? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lafayette_Escadrille

For you not being a photographer those are a hell of a good walkaround mate. I'll save those for my personal scale modelling references database.Thanks a lot for posting!!