Jump to content

Ala13_ManOWar

Members
  • Posts

    2737
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Ala13_ManOWar

  1. 1 hour ago, FlankerKiller said:

    I would be careful saying "accurate flight model" in reference to mod. My understanding is most of the work goes into the edge cases, and out of envelope caricaturists of an FM. That being said the F-104 wasn't called the widow maker for nothing. 

    On your point about getting to really know an aircraft in DCS, I can agree more. I'm actually a little nervous whenever I buy an iconic aircraft. There is always a bit of fear that I just won't like it, or it won't live up to the hype. So far I haven't really had that happen. But I'm a pretty big aviation geek. So I kinda know what I'm expecting going in. But yeah something really specialized is going to catch some people off guard. 

     

    "Accurate enough" so it gives you a quite vivid impression on what the airframe really is and what is not. Still a mod but FM wise (and following proper intercept profiles from mod publisher's vids, not just messing around with it) it's good enough to make you know you don't really want that aircraft for the kind of ops mostly done in the sim, either offline or online. Better?

    That only talks good of the FM coder for the mod, as well as DCS for allowing a mod to be so accurate, better than some competence "official" aircraft if I have to say…

    But yeah, wishlists everywhere aside, that's why MiG-23 makes all the sense and 25 for instance really doesn't, same as some others iconic aircraft but quite limited on their real capabilities once inside the sim no matter how hyped we can be about them.

    • Like 1
  2. Not really. After trying the F-104 mod with accurate FM I can understand why that's a really limited and useless aircraft unless on it's actual fast local interceptor role, in which it is extremely good, but how many times you have that scenery online, for instance? And how many times it would remain interesting after you intercept a bunch of bombers a couple times? Makes absolute sense ED or some other third party wouldn't be willing to spend development effort in a module like that which would be a let down to many people idealising it without really understanding what's the purpose of the aircraft and how it works. Either offline but specially online it would be a pretty boring and useless aircraft and probably after the initial hype push wouldn't be any sales success after people realize what the aircraft really is and what it's not (something only happening in DCS, anywhere else you come to know that close an airframe). Aside from oneself wishes and eagerness we have to agree some historic and iconic aircraft aren't what we see them from the outside, at all, and would disappoint most of us, if not everybody, once we had the chance to fly them properly. After all ED is also a business company and they have to care about those details despite our wet dreams on these forums.

    • Like 1
  3. I meant not only BTD hand, but probably some tweaks to internal sound engine happening not long ago.

    I haven't the faintest on how the relationship is internally among ED and third parties, but I don't think it should be that hard since they are business partners. Hope so at least.

  4. Yeah, you mean those cool details people don't care about except a bunch of geeks and not only they don't care, they even complain because it takes too long to start up the warbirds and even you have to wait too much before taking off with all those instruments in green hence they end up in the carefree just I or E start competence 😅.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm in the geeky side and up for any of those details, but I can understand it's too much of a hassle for devs while so many people don't even appreciate the work behind required. It's just a cool detail and after running up the engine everything is the same as now, you don't see those in-flight or anything. Lets see how it's released, but I would understand it doesn't happen aside from current start-up effects. If it comes great, of course.

    The sound itself I hope, almost give for granted, will be good since we have so many examples of the thing and latest DCS sound updates are just gorgeous so every module can take advantage of it.

  5. On 1/12/2022 at 2:54 PM, iFoxRomeo said:

    People show often antipathy to the Kickstarter project, but forget, that there would probably only be the Mustang and Dora in the shop without the failed KS. It kickstarted the whole DCS WWII project.

    Yep, I always say that despite the inconveniences at so many levels, for ED, for backers, and all, but we should thank RRG dropped the thing and ED took over the project to make it up to ED standards… Who knows what could have turned out in the end with such a bad project management as Luthier provided.

    • Like 1
  6. Well, every other module here has a more or less real sound, sometimes directly recorded from the real deal if not always. I wouldn't know why this would be any different. Indeed, while not an ED module, but still The Fighter Collection do own a FG-1D, so not that tough subject to find. Questions you guys rise from time to time are unbelievable 🤣.

  7. You know it does have it for the screenshot, workable or not and to what extent who knows, but it would be a nice detail. If you could actually plot over the map there that would be awesome, but I highly doubt they go on with such a frivolity.

  8. I highly doubt it, at least right now. The competence aircraft are really simple and easy to make, a kind of "empty" 3D model vault with a few things scripted. DCS is well beyond that since many, many time ago. And we all want to keep it like that since the highly detailed modules we enjoy require that other professional approach and would be impossible to make them like that otherwise.

    • Like 1
  9. I wouldn't know since I run it quite smoothly, but lowering pre-charge ratio usually helps with those eternal loading times so perhaps that and your 16Gb Ram has something to do with it. I hope of course you're running from SSD, it's a huge difference. Also your specs only say it's an i7 but those can be quite a lot since long time ago and not always the older i7s can run it that easily. Bottleneck happens with high end software like DCS.

    • Thanks 1
  10. MiG-21 devs used so much stuff they came out with instead of ED stuff, not just glide slope. On their benefit we have to remember it was the very first third party module and probably SDK tools weren't available the same as now they are for sure. Also, since it was modelled out of a "third party air force" (Croatian IIRC) either, not Russian air force, probably some procedures and information from them wasn't very Russian standard or even real stuff either (no matter the model is aged, it's or was their front line fighter, why disclose every detail) so maybe they actually did or do use that kind of glide slope in their AF for the MiG-21 or they just told so to the devs even if it's not real. We now know so many things still undisclosed not so many years ago.

    • Like 1
  11. For the record, wooden tail is a long time overruled myth due to a misunderstanding. Fuel tank is beneath the pilot, you seat on top of it, as always was in all 109 variants, it's not K4 special feature. So, your "facts" for this claim seem a bit off at the very least.

    On the other hand, I've tested landings with low fuel, the usual at the end of a mission, and CoG isn't that off at all, it's just if you go landing with a still too much filled fuel tank CoG hadn't time to change yet. Warbirds on the contrary usually fly with minimum fuel, those aren't representative of anything at all unless under the very same conditions.

  12. 15 hours ago, LowRider88 said:

    If there is one thing about which I am not a fan of DCS, it would be that they always seem to pick the latest variant which may pack just a bit more extra kit, but which have nearly no historical relevance.  They definitely cater to the online multiplayer arcade gamer more than the serious historical simmer 😞

    That's quite true, but certainly ED pic those latest versions because that's what people ask for and if they pic any "older" version than that there's always going to chime in people furiously demanding asking politely why this or that feature wasn't included because once somebody used it on its plane and obviously it's absolutely necessary since it's the reason they miserably die in ever sortie why historical aces they match with won every battle in that aircraft… 🤦‍♂️

    Not only with this MiG-19S thing, but with many other aircraft and scenarios in DCS I would like to have historical features and limits for a certain date, be it 60's, 70's, 80's or whatever, but apparently most people isn't happy with that and always want the latest and more than the latest if they were allowed to in order to have the slightest advantage.

    • Like 2
    • Thanks 2
  13. I don't know if they changed their minds, but it was coming together with PF as a whole pack back when it started. Same for AV-8B and B+ coming together as a whole pack. Something alike the Tomcat with several versions on one module.

    AFAIK I got the MiG-19 pretty cheap using the some of the last ED bonus, I wouldn't mind paying for an S model with all the bells and whistles please if I have to pay again for it of course, but their word was it was a pack coming with two versions.

    S!

    • Like 2
    • Thanks 4
  14. That's correct if you come in 4º glide slope as per PRMG. Any other situation, and I know what happens with the average virtual aviator 🙄, you shouldn't lower full flaps that far away (meaning 10 or 10+ Km away) as the OP said. 4-5 is nice, and pretty close to the runway as I said, it's perfect indeed, but only if you came all the way also in almost perfect approach, but in the virtual World that's not always the case 😅, hence I can't recommend anything else than what I said, despite the manual, to the bulk of the pilots trying to learn the beast. Real numbers are only for super geeky virtual pilots matching every of those numbers, the rest needs a compromise 😁.

    S!

×
×
  • Create New...