Ala13_ManOWar
-
Posts
3501 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Ala13_ManOWar
-
-
Almost 50% update for me :beer: . Then map download will be another wait :cry: .
S!
-
Updater link?
X://wherever/Eagle Dynamics/DCS World 2 OpenAlpha/bin/DCS_Updater.exe
S!
-
Keep using updater link. I'm already 1/3+ done.Same in SpainS!
-
Spain here and it's downloading since a while now.No... France here and don't have the update...It started better, like 10MB/s, but now it fell to 3-4Mb/s. It's going to be a long evening :lol: .
S!
-
Well, you're right, just a way to say, "that button" :D.I think Ala13 means update link in the windows menu, as there is no update "button" per se.Anyway, updater detected something and started the download only after a couple of attempts, so keep trying and it will eventually catch.
S!
-
I had to execute several times updater, sometimes it lasts a bit in catching it.
S!
-
Which update button?
Windows Start, Eagle Dynamics/DCS open alpha/update
S!
-
Nope, just keep checking with update button, not starting the game.Nothing here either. We dont have to reinstall DCS World 2 do we...?Should you don't find it, it's DCS_OpenAlpha\bin\DCS_updater.exe .
S!
-
WHat do I need to do? Only start the game`? Nothing here yet...?
Use the update button, starting the game only checks for updates once a day. Anyway, use it several times, sometimes it doesn't get the update at first glance.Hmm not showing for me, you guys using DCS Open Alpha updater right?S!
-
C'mon mates, only 36 torrent peers yet. I'm uploading faster than downloading. Thanks I have optic fiber... :lol:
S!
-
Downloading :D .
S!
-
The Changelog has been posted in the Updates section, but no update yet (this is normal practice for updates, sometimes the update comes first, sometimes the changelog comes first)
You have to left only the code number for the video to work properly.
Anyway, video is not working.
S!
-
I say, patience chaps!
About 5 hours to go yet.
I guess we have still to wait, but last update I was awaiting like this one (was it Spitfire release?) I was downloading before any forum clue :D :thumbup: .
S!
-
Today is one of those days in which my update DCS button gets worn out
.S!
-
1
-
-
Did you watch Sithspawn's video on visual range? It's more than a little better IMO, although I want to see by myself.Honestly, the aircraft textures from the F2 view aren't nearly as important as being to able to see a fighter from 1nm. I've watched a few videos and so far it looks a little better in 2.1. It is still WIP, of course, but in my opinion this is where most of the effort should be for visual effects in 2.1.S!
-
Tell me about it :lol: :lol: :lol: :thumbup: .... you don't have to blow $200/hr for flight instruction and maintenance... plus no fear of death ...S!
-
Wow, I saw the topic starting and it was all greetings and happiness about DCS, then I'm back a days later and it turned out to be a harsh discussion :huh: .
I don't know (perused the whole thread a bit, but it's too long now) how or why it turned out to this discussion, and some things has been answered now, I think. But if you let me squeeze in,
Well, I don't know if you know the "old days" in where a flight simulator were the ultimate piece of software (way back now, yes), but most important, they used to be mostly "study sims", that means a whole simulator were dedicated to a single aircraft to the last consequences. That is, Falcon for instance, but not necessarily Falcon 4.0, the last one, Falcon 3.0, or 2.0, or 1.0, or the great great grandfather of DCS, SSI Su-27 Flanker, then Flanker 2.0, then 2.5. What were one buying there? a single aircraft, as a whole simulator with environment, usually a single map, luckily a Campaign or some single missions. One paid happily 50$ (and that was 25 years ago…) for those simulators, just because those were really good study simulator, and nobody complained about having one single aircraft, people understood the effort to make that single aircraft as real as it gets (with the available computers) was enough, though it's true it came with all the stuff surrounding it, the map, the environment, the possible campaign and missions, all right.My complaint is what's charged for DCS with a flight model no better than the others.Then another developer invented a different platform, in where you could have a lot of stuff, not so accurate as a study sim, not even close in fact, but hey, we had lots of stuff with more or less "believable" FM though not so accurate, and the developer was happy to release aircraft not as single ones but lots of them quite easily with that "believable" FM though very general indeed and lacking specific detail to specific aircraft. That was a product of their time, but looking at it critically nowadays, we have to agree it was kinda arcadish style even though we were happy to have hundreds of aircraft in a single platform.
Now what are we having? DCS study simulator, just ED had the idea after 20 years to create a common platform called DCSW in where every single study simulator of an aircraft could be installed and used together with other aircraft, but all of them study simulators and you shouldn't mistake the fact of all the modules installed all at once in a single environment with that meaning this is an easy to develop generalist arcadish style simulator. No sir, this is still a study simulator not to be confused with others generalist simulators trying to sell how realistic they are when they are not. That said, is it cheap or expensive? Well bearing in mind time of development, complexity, and the fact that you are buying a study simulator "as real as it gets" with our current computers, which is really close to RL, not a generalist one releasing "believable" (only more or less I would say) though not detailed at all aircraft in a short period of time, well it's still not cheap though DCS simulation quality can be tell from a distance and 50$ is the same price we paid some 25 years ago for any study sim :shocking:. Is DCS FM better… hell it is by far, but maybe the question for you is, is it worth it should you not going to appreciate why is it better? That's what one have to ponder, and it's fine, though I still don't understand what happened since your first post for you to change your mind like that :lol:.
Talking about the real pilots stuff. That's not always completely reliable. I have several friends, real pilots, that tried my rig and simulator and they weren't very happy to see how hard it is to get used to a simulator lacking feeling. One of them having flying lots of agricultural and fire fighting high powered aircraft can't get used to take off in DCS propeller engines, he never used simulators before. Other one, is a vet with 3000 F-5A hours among others and also was a basic instructor using T-6 and several other tail dragger props. He's very happy with DCS when he discovered it some time ago, though still props in DCS isn't his best liking because he can't get completely used to the lack of feeling, and his controls set is not the best I have to say. On the other hand another friend, PPL pilot, aerobatic pilot that managed to be champion in lower categories, he got his license at the same time than me but we both were "simulator pilots" since early ages. He wasn't very sure about some details in the 109, but he's using a short stick, the time he got at home and flew with my long stick he discovered why he wasn't sure about those details and flew like a charm with the 109. Told me he should get a long stick :lol: . I myself, well, I haven't fly any warbird (well a Tiger Moth does count? :D) but being a simulator user since my childhood I'm absolutely happy to see the real deal I know perfectly depicted in DCS like it is not anywhere else. Does it count better my own experience or the experience of the more experienced than me real pilots that I have to advise about simulators? :smilewink: Think the first time your P-51 pilot friend tries to take off in your sim if he's not able to do so he may be ashamed of it in front of you and will probably say it's not real at all. Does that kind of bad experiences with a sim count?
S!
-
1
-
-
So won't ever fly the Spit again mate :lol:. It was explained, weeeell before Spitfire released in a mythical now post by Yo-yo, that the Spit would be exactly as designed so that means really sensitive in pitch. Think anyway the real Spitfire stick is really long, so that helps with the sensitivity, on the contrary we are at home helpless with only a short stick. A long stick or curves that plays the trick of a longer stick is what it needs. Pitty to give up on such a wonderful module like Spitfire is just because she's tough to tame as IRL.If he has no problem with other planes, it's probably the Spitfire, itself. I have the Spitfire, and I'm not flying it anymore until they work out those controls being waaay overly sensitive. Before you ask, I have tried everything I can think of to dampen them down.Long stick here, bit of curve in pitch axis, works flawlessly.
S!
-
IIRC I've seen both, in CFS I, some time ago :music_whistling: :D . A DCS model featuring those in good quality, though IA, would be awesome. Well, who am I trying to fool, anything to shoot at will be welcome.For 1944 other German bombers are more important.I've never seen a Ju 188 in a flight sim, and a Do 217 would be another good choice.
S!
-
I think you're missing the real point why that happens, that is, you are at home in front of a computer. Provided one has the required controls at home, mainly a long stick available, not to mention rudder pedals, that changes like night and day. You're trying to fight with her probably with a regular short joystick, and yes that can be painful, but in the real aircraft that's not even half a problem, the long stick and aircraft controls can be held easily without great effort out of high speed dives of course where stiffness becomes troubling. But that's not your problem here.I understand what the 109 was built for, but a plane in trim is easier to hold your sights on the target. That should be important to a 109 pilot.S!
-
It's very well known that while your biggest engine in the smallest airframe statement was exactly like that, gear was fitted in a way so the airframe could fit in train wagons. The reason why they needed it to fit is Germany had a poor infrastructure for maintenance and a limited industrial capacity, so they had to reuse every single destroyed airframe to the best they could, but those works were done really far away from the battlefront, so they needed a transport. Some people say that was a stunning feature, I say that was a drawback. Blame that for the quirks in the 109.While it may not be the way things actually worked here's a theory.It's 1935 or 36, there hasn't been much in the way of engine development over the years but you need a high performance fighter quick.
You take the biggest engine you have available and put it in the smallest airframe you can. You attach the landing gear to the fuselage so the wings can be lighter even though ground handling will suffer.
Then you only add those things that are absolutely necessary because every little thing you put in adds weight and that kills performance.
Since the plane you've designed hasn't the range for long flights anyway you don't add the luxury of rudder trim and you save 20 lbs.
S!
-
109 was a close range interceptor, P-51 was a long range escort plane. Obvious why one of them need to be more comfortable to fly for hours while the other doesn't.You going to follow me around like a little puppy and spit out condescending comments forever?Do you really think not having rudder and aileron trim is a good idea?
S!
-
Really good looking :beer: :beer: :beer: .more of my quick and nasty un Spielberg like clips.A quick look at Caen
So Caen is the biggest city in the detailed map area?
S!
-
I know it's a matter of taste, but I would like indeed F-4C/D models (an "easier" to assimilate to naval F-4B/N) in some Vietnam configuration. The naval operations can't be out of the question. And make it only 70's to 80's models obliterating the largest and better known conflict in where Phantom operated is kind of a waste IMO. Still a matter of taste as I said.I would like to see F-4E from mid to late 70s or maybe even 80s.S!
.
Post when download is available?
in DCS: Normandy 1944
Posted
:lol::lol::lol::lol:2/3 now, come onnnnnn :beer: .
S!