Ala13_ManOWar

Hahaha, bully you? you don't know what bullying is mate. I'm just telling you what you're obviously missing here. Yes, we all have wanted and wished that to be a reality and all, but remember back then (it's not only you who goes well back to the 80ish-90's since started flight simming ) the sim was quite a different thing. Original Flanker 2.0 and 2.5 (the real starting point of it all), Lock On, LOMAC, the FC 1 and 2 addons, were all quite a different thing, a really humble try to make something really good but still small and with few resources, trying to, compete? not sure they really competed at all, with FC4 . BS1 (2009) still as a standalone product, and later on A-10C (2010) standalone as well, only became "modules" inside a wider platform that they ended up calling DCSW (because at first that wasn't the name, if you recall) in 2011. Those DLCs were just a starting point for the actual DCSW, but that was only from 2011 onwards mate, your whishlist post is from the LOMAC times in the old forum!! What I'm telling you is you cannot asume your post, a whishlist as there has always been whishlists on these forums (and your actual post from 2010 is a proof itself for that ), cannot be taken as ED's starting point for their Dynamic Campaign work just because it's your post. It's only a proof that we all (remember, we all, not only you mate) have been longing for a DC since many time ago. But the product that ED had back then wasn't even close to the standards ED has set for the current DCSW, which back when it started to be DCSW (in 2011) was no more than a wish for what they (ED) wanted it to be one day. Now, and only since recent years, the huge and really ambitious idea they had in mind of a whole simulator, in times when simulators weren't that appealing as back in the 90's, let's face it, is starting to get closer to what they could have in mind. And now yes, DC campaign is a must for the platform they have now and what they have achieved in this time. But lucky you (and we all, yes) they know it's a must and it's something they've also wanted to have since many time ago, 4-5 years ago they started working in a DC and now it's really close, only lacking MT and Vulkan for it to be completed. One of those is now also running, not still used as only option though but working, the other isn't far away. I don't know when the DC will happen, but to me it looks like after many years something big is about to happen. The only difference between you and me is I recall where I come from and realize where we're now. Would you call having memory to bully someone?

On paper, we're about to get a bunch of Vietnam era modules and the map "is coming" along the way. I'm pretty sure it won't be in two weeks, but in the long run probably, anyway it's there and apparently we'll see it in due time which usually is very late for eager customers, anyway...

Wow, great post mate, coupled with a great explanation. Thanks mate!!

Haven't the faintest, never noticed. Probably some aerodynamic stuff. Maybe a fence for the aileron hinge right behind? at high speeds sometimes it's a problem when airflow comes in between control surfaces. But no idea. Hope some fellow member knows about it. Intriguing.

Sorry mate, as usual people tends to forget quickly. HB was a part of Leatherneck and they abandoned the team leaving them alone with few resources. It's not HB is better, it's M3 is what it is right now because since HB abandoned they have been unable to rise their head from the punch. But luckily F4U will be a success so they can finally hire more people and get better after so many years.

So, it seems you aren't very acquainted to scientific method and all that stuff. What it actually means is that wishlists and hype from users can be unfathomable. Development on the actual Dynamic Campaign only started a few years ago, with multi threading and Vulkan as conditions needed, IIRC. Hardly your post from 2010 when DCS still didn't even exist means the start of the development process but one of the endless people's wishes mate.

Looks stunning, Reflected. Looking forward to it .

So true, and so well said. In short, Reddit and all social media fueled by current generations has become pure post-modernism.

Let's hope it means it's really close, even though releases are usually spaced and right now we have had some, and more are coming. Dunno if they'd make so many releases in such a short space of time.

Sí, complicado. Te diría que nosotros tuvimos unos intentos de que la gente lo usase más y se hicieron cosas, pero ahora mismo creo que está bastante parado. La gente tiene los módulos y no los vuelan ni entran a los servers WWII. Sé que hay quien los vuela, aunque sea solos o quizá un par que se juntan, pero poco más. Espero también que el Corsair, el Hellcat, y dos portaaviones de la época, mapa, y assets también le den un buen empujón, porque es algo a lo que le tengo unas ganas tremendas, ya veremos si hay movimiento o lo pruebo yo solo . Me flipa que con la calidad de estos módulos, que son el sueño húmedo del simulador de molinetes perfecto de cualquiera en los 90, la gente le haga tan poco caso. Pero es lo que hay supongo.

Yep, good eye, it's not "cart", it should be "chart" (same root), and still in English that isn't necessarily used as a synonym of map. But it is in other languages.

Happy birthday Lazduc! Wise words of yours .

Yeah, but say it all, they also detail the next areas and speak of several other airports and more that will be included later on during early access, so it's an early access after all, and they also say that "with the current technology we can't go further in extension and details, but as soon as it's available (Vulkan I guess) we'll extend and detail the map even further". So an usual early access with limited detail but not all the detail it'll include in the end, and still they'll expand even more later on, which maybe be not far away since Vulkan should come some day, maybe this year.

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 .

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?