fapador

I am a pilot...

And yes, I Did check and all my numbers are valid... http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190d9test.html

Also some Aerodynamical P-51 vs Fw-190 comparison it can be easily seen that FW wins everywhere... he statistics don't explain why the P-51, which not only fares worse at the factors below (with the exception of the thickness), but was also heavier (Fw-190 Max. Weight: 4,839 kg versus P-51D Max. Weight: 5,489 kg) and had less power (Fw-190 2,240 HP versus P-51D 1,790 HP) , able to fly at roughly the same max speed (Fw-190 Max. Speed: 704 km/h. versus P-51D Max.Speed: 703 km/h), and rate of climb (Fw-190 Max. Climb: 1110 m/min versus P-51D Max. Climb: 1011 m/min)? Airfoil Thickness Ratio - Higher is better. Fw-190: Root= 15.3% Tip= 9% . P-51D: Root= 14.8 or 15% Tip= 12%. Wing Aspect Ratio - Higher is better. Fw-190: 6.02. P-51D: 5.81 . Lift-loading - Lower is better. Fw-190: 154.33 kg/sq.m. (31.5 lbs/sq.ft.) P-51D: 181.73 kg/sq.m. (37.18 lbs/sq.ft.) Power-loading - Lower is better. Fw-190: 1.91 kg/hp. (4.22 lbs/hp.) P-51D: 2.81 kg/hp. (6.2 lbs/hp.)

Completely false statements.... Also the P-51's wing has a CL-max of 1.28 *Freeflow*, at idle that is probably 1.47, while the Fw-190's is probably around 1.80. There's no doubt what so ever that the Fw-190D-9 will outturn the P-51D, although not by a whole lot, but the Dora-9 does turn tighter nonetheless. The reason being that the Dora-9 has both a lower lift-loading and power-loading, as-well as lighter elevator stick forces at high speeds. Oscar Boesch from Sturmstaffel 1, also stated that in a very tight and high speed turn the Fw-190 only required one hand on the stick. This allowed the pilot to get a much better feel for what the aircraft was doing, allowing him to fly at the edge of the envelope at all speeds. As a matter of fact, the FW-190 experienced an almost dangerous reduction of stick forces at high speeds. No loss of control, just an increased chance to stress the airframe. I am LMAO. Cause its like saying air speed doesnt increase lift....

You cannot see the forest for the trees. A FW prop is always much more efficient than P-51's 4 bladed prop meaning more lift over the wings on the top speed range...., lift,...... meaning it was deliberately designed with smaller wings (area) .....to reduce drag as also it probably didn't even need bigger ones. All things considered, I would expect a D-9 to have similar turning performance with a mustang if not a little better...( Especially if we also consider the powerful rear horizontal stabiliser and the fact that the engines are of comparable shp power). Not in any case what we see in DCS.... PS: Don't even think of starting to argue about not considering the larger P51 prop diameter without weighing the fact that FW Props have much larger prop airfoil chord...

I agree completely....

Noticed exactly the same things.

Interesting, might be possibly true. I posted the pictures in an effort to show the color fluctuation and not the vibrance of the colors so much. I am also aware that computer monitors also play a significant role on the color result seen and even then, there are various other photography parameters at the time the picture was shot like for example exposure, white point, etc... that come at play, So pictures might be aswell not a realistic reference if no such photo data is available to the map designer .

Thanks! Indeed the green shade seems more realistic and more Normandy like... Normandy 1.0 is far too light (washed out) color shade in too large areas. This is also why, I always lower gamma (move to larger values) when I play Normandy map because it slightly improves it... Although I believe more random placed spots of brighter shades of green could have possibly made the scenery even more realistic as the color uniformity will not be so even then and perhaps appeal more to the eye. some real photos to compare:

Can someone post two screenshots to see and compare the color difference with normandy 1.0? Unfortuanetely, due to work and limited time I am currently unable.

You are the only troll around here mate following my every posts... You need help.... Who is comparing now???

All this could be an upgrade for people that have already paid, and save the fuss with the campaigns. If developers are so desperate to grab 16euros more from people that have already paid, then this is very sad... and disapointing, as the title of my removed topic said. I think me and everyone else would always prefer that 16euros to go on another aircraft add-on than this update. With the energy crisis growing and the uncertainty the war is causing, I don't agree with the timing of this policy and marketing they have come up. Regards, fapador PS: My analogy holds very well water, infact so much it seems it pisses some people off....

I have paid for Normandy product. Normandy 2.0 is like a new DCS coming out like DCS3.0 and forcing you to buy all your aircraft add-ons all over again. But I guess people like you, would be fine with that.

and just to clarify I am not asking for free access to Paris area. I am just asking for people that have the Normandy area get the same map updated quality

I am not. I am just trying to show the contrast.

Since they closed my topic and moved it here... I doubt it will be heard by many people as I am not the only one, you know.. I have many friends on servers who are not fond of the Normandy 2.0 idea resell either.... Your reply, is incoherent with the meaning of my post, and can be considered an attempt to veer it of course. @SkewgearWhen I say I am interested in the events of the region, I mean the Normandy region particular and only. I didn't say events or any air fights did not occur on Paris area as you try to make me seem to imply.... I am only interested on the area where the landing took place as I have ancestors killed on D-Day... but you seem to rush judging and criticizing or perhaps your narrow scope of mind considered that I should be aware of every operation and axis force deployment of the wider area... To sum up , I repeat, because people like SkewGear may have not understand the true meaning of my post or try to change the subject in an effort to discredit me, I consider it at least unfair for buyers of Normandy 1.0 to be left out of a remake of the region and be forced to either upgrade or stay on an outdated version of the map. An other discredit attempt... I really didnt want to pull out that card but have you seen or are you aware on how many World updates have come up for free on the other Title? Not only that but the coverage of the updates is also much more lavish over there.

As the title says,... I have bought Normandy and the assets pack as I am really interested on the air events and history of the region. Now I saw that Normandy 2.0 is announced and I will have to pay again (in the form of discount for existing owneres)... when in my "economic situation" I'd choose a hundred times to give that amount of money to an aircraft add-on... (I know for others that amount would be insignificant but for me it's not like that.) I am really disappointed cause to be fair, what the new map includes could have been made as an update to existing region and not attempt to resell an extended/ redone version of the map again. I really don't care about the Paris area added... as not much notable fights and events occured there... Is it possible somehow we can get the updates for free on the existing Normandy map aswell? I acknowledge the work required for the map development but for example major terrain rework is done for free in the form of updates on the competion... and you all know what I mean by that. I really don't want to compare, or say one is better/worse. I just would like to submit a petition to reconsider... Regards, fapador

Wow!

...

Well somehow these issues Joe mentions got past them. Its not Day 1 Apache released, its has been released at least 6months ago, by now... I might also add that I consider a bad tactic for ED to release Apache so soon in development, because for example things like this wouldn't have happened if they didn't urge it so fast.

Dont know about you mate, but there is a whole thread with a salty title on reddit including a response from Bignewy over there

The UH-1H tail rotor is also rigged in that way so when going at speeds greater than ~70IAS you need to remove tail rotor thrust by stepping on the right pedal in order to fly straight. This behavior doesn't happen in DCS. Just saying.. Apologies for possibly veering of topic but a similar issue is also plaguing the UH-1H module since release.

Not only I read the review, but also the comments, I urge you to go look for yourself. Also, I am not the only one interpeting his review that way For example look the top comment from FilkCH you might even relate yourself's to it and I quote here: "Hey Joe, first of all thanks for your write up I really enjoyed your insights and I wasn’t aware that the DCS Apache is so far off the real thing still. Me as a naive gamer would’ve thought the DCS apache is really close to the real thing "

Funny how they didn't notice all the quirks, Joe Hudson did... Like wrongly implemented Boresight Unit not working realistically with even wrong ring colors... AAaa ..........Yes? and my personal opinion is that he seems a little displeased (but try's to keep the review inline). based on his words..., and I quote here: "Is this a super realistic Apache flight simulator? No, no it isn't"