Ala13_ManOWar
-
Posts
3504 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Ala13_ManOWar
-
-
-
Japanese assets are being made by M3 together with the Corsair. FYI.
-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, Phoenix FR said:
You mean that we'll have to buy again the same map for a BoB scenario. Sorry but one time, we'll stop to buy the same thing. And what about the plane for the Bob, even if i love to have the BoB.
So, unless ED does a full modul including map and airplanes, I don't think people will check out again and again.
And they have to complete the asset pack too.
No, that's not said anywhere. The planes from BoB, if they come when they come, will be new modules so of course you'd have to buy them. The map, we don't know if it's adapted to match BoB 1940 layout how or when it'll happen, but another update alike N2 in time might happen, why not, and specially if they make it bigger and all (specially towards the East of Europe). These maps and handmade, I believe the job needs to be compensated somehow.
-
2
-
-
1 hour ago, Sandman24 said:
Such a curious argument. So, since these airfields already exist in the Channel map, they cannot be modeled again in the Normandy map.
I did some research and discovered that actually all of Kent is present in both the Channel and Normandy maps. So is part of Northern France. I believe this observation disproves the presumed theory that objects can only ever exist in one DCS map at a time.
So why do people keep saying that we have to wait for some sci-fi technology that would one day allow us to merge the maps, if Ugra can simply model these airfields again? Can someone please explain why this is not an option?
Not that hard, mate. It's not "people's" argument, it's ED's reason not to model them and already explained all over the forums and beyond. Now I'll add, if they manage somehow (and down the road, I don't expect it to happen, if it happens, any time soon) to join maps and all in their upcoming (nobody knows when) World map, or whatever the way they get to, what's the point in having modelled twice the same area? Channel map already have that area modelled, the other map, even though now has grown so much, is still Normandy map at least in the basic idea. What one of them models doesn't come in the other one, just that, and all that area despite much more detailed than it's said is supposed to be "low detail area". Don't fall for it looking so good, it's low detail area no matter what.
To your other subject. ED's graphical engine is proprietary, they make it all on their own, that engine has limitations despite their efforts for so many years and their constant upgrading, which apparently you don't know since your message number is from a brand new user. Ok,you don't know, but still I don't go to a house unknown to me questioning everything without having tried to know, maybe not all, but at least some of the facts in how that house works. After all we're just guests here and it's their house. They know and decide how they upkeep their house, not you nor me
. The graphical engine doesn't allow too large maps to be modelled, there's been recent upgrades allowing more area, detail, object count numbers, and all that stuff to be even greater than ever before, those are the new maps we're enjoying now. Those were impossible to make not long ago, not just because of the detail and all, but because your computer wouldn't be able to handle all that detail, hence updates to the graphical engine happen to allow for more. We'll talk about disk space other time. That's why maps have limitations and it seems they'll keep having them until some new tech comes, not because sci-fi, but because since it's a living platform you want it to keep running and all while it's being upgraded almost every patch. They can't afford stopping it all for a time (probably a long time it'd be) and being back when they change it all to a completely different platform, which would have it's limitations again and would need another update some time later. DCS is like you living on a house where new rooms appear every time and it's bigger and nicer every day but you didn't even notice there were workers doing all that work aside for a few misplaced belongings sometimes, but you don't want to arrive home sometime and find it completely shut and locked while they work. That's why they cannot "simply" do nothing here, the platform have to be kept running while they work on the enhances/upgrades/new stuff and all but you keep living in the house and want the minimum disturbance. Then again, the greatest disturbance comes from guests in the house complaining why this or that room isn't even bigger, even nicer, and why don't we have this or that room at all .
-
3 hours ago, MADLOU1 said:
Wrong sim. I was referring to that other WW2 only sim. It features a 109 g6 and you can shoot it all day long!
True, it has. Deepest regret of a purchase I've ever got. What a piece of …
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Minhal said:
I set the QNH to 29.92 in the mission editor. Not sure what you mean with "for that aerodrome", you might confuse QFE (altimeter shows zero when on the treshold) with QNH (altimeter shows treshold elevation above MSL when on the treshold)?
Yeah, I was thinking out loud about different pressures along the map, not gonna happen in this sim for now…
Interesting test, and good data gathering. Never spotted that difference, I guess I didn't pay attention to that. Nice finding
.
-
1
-
-
I wouldn't know about WWII, even if they existed at all, but modern charts usually state only mean sea level of the field (or was it highest/lowest spot? wouldn't recall), but airfields usually aren't flat at all so using that information unless you are parked at the right spot in the apron where that info is taken you'll never get that exact reading in your altimeter. That as IRL, does Funtington airfield still exist now? Does it state 125ft MSL? If it does exist today, it'd be quite usual modern place has "grown" from WWII one, they're simply on top of whatever there were before.
Anyhow, if 29.92 is set for the whole map, where is it set? If it's not exactly set for that aerodrome that means probably it's set anywhere else and that's where your difference is. -
I don't recall any stall horn in the Pony, maybe you're confusing it with the lowered flaps/idle engine with no gear down horn? That's still there of course.
-
1
-
-
You can take a look here also, there're plenty of them on YT,
-
1
-
1
-
-
I believe, yes, you always have to select a fuse for your bomb according to your desired target and drop method. No auto-nothing, this is WWII stuff.
About bombing, I know It's not 190, but reticle is the same so reference is also the same obviously. The thing is IRL you have tables with speed, dive angles and so, there are no quick solutions for all situations, I'm afraid. But as a quick reference in sims in an "average" dive, I find lower part of the reticle cross is a good reference for bombing, or even awaiting until target disappears under the reflector glass as you can see here, it only depends on your dive angle and speed,-
1
-
-
5 hours ago, Sprool said:
Would be nice if they finished off the K-4 with wing cannon and rocket options
Since that's unhistorical it's not gonna happen. A G6 on the other hand…
-
5 hours ago, jackd said:
Sorry 'bout that .. quite unintentionally. I am still a DCS noob, and confused about a lot ....
f.i. Just made a new touristic mission experiment yesterday, played it, all about sightseeing London in a CE2, but now i can't find where the darn saved miz file went. And 2 years ago i bought some helicopter stuff and oh lucky me i just found the backup of all my saved plane profiles.
No problem mate, just asked you to try to pinpoint the problem you were having with the info you provide. I don't mind how you enjoy the sim
.
-
-
19 hours ago, SebastianR said:
When you start trial version of normandy 2.0, you get 15 days of normandy 1.5. not the full resolution normandy 2.0
Mate, I'm not in that position since I already own N2 hence never even saw updated N1.5 on my PC, but I think it's easy. What would you want a free trial for if you get the same result as just updating your regular N1 map? So, if you see low res things you aren't in N2 and you aren't trialling anything since you aren't watching the full map to decide if you'd like to update or not. Just that. Low res, N1.5, High res, N2. If you already bought N2 and are seeing low res you probably had some of the Steam problems with the update, perhaps? If you didn't buy it you're 1.5 and not enjoying the trial since in low res you aren't trialling a thing. So, something's going on there.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, jackd said:
For DCS i still have to get used to the general cockpit only view where you can access important things like elevator trim etc.
Might be a thing for simmers imitating real world affairs, but for game work and map tourism it puts me off that you are forced to watch an expensive computer screen in game action, half filled with a cockpit only.
Mate, I asked you in another thread if you were flying in external view because of your words, you didn't answer. Now here you confess…
Yes, offline or whatever you can fly however you like, but this is a flight sim and since you sit inside the cockpit on a plane, of course you're limited to cockpit view, in particular in online server forcing that option, which today I believe will be most of them even though sometimes it happened also what you mention, at least time ago. Haven't checked that kind of servers lately, TBH, but there were also that kind time ago if that's what you like, and of course offline flying you can use anything you set.
-
2
-
-
10 minutes ago, SebastianR said:
No, cause the thread is about trial version
If you see low resolution you don't have N2, either trial or already bought, it's the updated Normandy "1.5".
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, SebastianR said:
Yes, but London and Paris in low resolution
That means you didn't buy N2.
-
1
-
-
I'm sorry mate but if you see no difference in the colours of N2 map it's more probably than not your screen settings fault. It's definitely way better not just in the details and all, but also on that, colours and variety of them, so I'd rather thoroughly check all my graphical settings, either Windows, Graphics card and drivers app, and then in-game settings and in particular gamma. It is different, not just marketing or whatever. If you see a gorgeous map in YT vids and then you don't in yours, it's your fault, I see exactly what pre-view videos showed mate.
-
1
-
-
21 hours ago, grafspee said:
you can't move them in DCS and i don't see any point in doing that if those are set right.
I believe Mosquito ones were movable? The point is lighting whatever you want to light mate, just that as IRL. Not sure either, perhaps I'm mistaking the recent movable mirrors or lights, but I thought there was something new lately about that. Not all modules of course.
21 hours ago, 13sq*Axe said:Thx for the replies folks. Yep no need to move them just curious. As a newbie to DCS I'm pretty amazed at the detail in the cockpits.
Yep, there are nice things there even though whenever one's flying all that fancy stuff remains in a second stage. But it's cool the attention to detail they paid.
-
Single Thread, or Multi Thread, it's one of the latest big things added to the sim and MT can cause some problems sometimes.
I know GPU driver is installed, I mean which version? Latest? Old one? Have you recently updated the drivers? Haven't you? Whenever it's about graphical glitches that's one of the firsts things to think about, Nvidia drivers sometimes mess up whatever it is, either because they're new or because they're "old". -
Yep, in this case they put the map in free trial since the first day.
-
1
-
1
-
-
ST or MT? Did you delete FXO and Metashaders2 folders? Checked for graphics card drivers?
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, grafspee said:
Those are ultraviolet lamps which energize luminescent material on gauges so they become visible at night
That's for 109, but is P-51 also UV? I'm not sure they're. Anyhow, I believe neither are movable, perhaps in 109 and 190 they are, but not sure about that. P-51 lamps weren't movable last time I tried.
-
2 hours ago, Gunfreak said:
But two guns gave higher rate of fire than 1, about 1100RPM for the E vs around 600- 700RPM for the G.
There were complaints when the F model showed up that it was undergunned. And at 300-400mph rate of fire is important.
That complaint came about the 15mm cannon they used in the first place, later on changed with a 20mm one and it was better.
Anyhow, those wing mounted cannon pods in the Bf109G-6 came also at the expense of not being very much able to dogfight any more. Those were bomber interceptors. I don't get why people are so willing to have two extra guns at the expense of not having a fighter any more.
MK9 Tail
in Wish List
Posted
The thing is here in DCS that wouldn't ever be "just aesthetic", it's a bigger rudder with certain aerodynamic properties and it'd come with it (alike clipped or full wings).