irisono

I completely agree with all three of your answers. I'm always amazed why there are people who try to gloss over obvious flaws, such as the FM behavior of some AI aircraft. It's also quite surprising that three and half years after the announcement, DCS still hasn't introduced GFM (see link below). https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/news/newsletters/a134f231fe8269e1c78dd6d0dd8c3c9d/

I admire your expertise and dedication to bringing the Zero mod to a realistic level. If you're successful, do you plan to make your work available to us all in the form of a remastered Zero mod, perhaps via user-file downloads? That would be fantastic and a great contribution to the WWII community in DCS.

Aside from your statement: "The F1M is not going to change the world or anybody's life", I think your other statements are wrong. In order to generate historically inspired scenarios, you have to make small compromises with the time era of the maps available in DCS. Only in the rarest of cases (e.g. WWII) will you come close. And no, the F-104C mod isn't just nice. It's really good. Excellent exterior graphics and cockpit textures, clickable cockpit, believable flight model. All of this comes close to a FF module. What has Aerges shown us so far? A very nicely designed cockpit video presented with pompous music. And the crucial thing in the whole sim business, and you seem to have forgotten this, is some degree of commercial and publicity success. With every day that the F-104 module doesn't appear, the risk of failure increases.

I completely agree. It's a waste of time and a missed opportunity to capitalize on the momentum of the CW Germany map. There's a huge risk that the excellent F-104 mods currently available will undermine this project's success and revenue. DCS only offers a limited number of operational scenarios for the F1M anyway.

With a clean configuration and closed coolers, I've tried all possible combinations (auto lean, auto rich, supercharger high, low, neutral, various RMP settings). I barely get above 250 kts at 5000 ft. Not at all the 295-300 kts as claimed by another user. I haven't been able to get water injection to work. I suspect this latter feature hasn't been implemented yet. Technical literature shows higher performance figures for the F4U-1D. I hope these shortcomings will be corrected in the next update.

There's no way around the Hawker Hunter if DCS is serious about creating a Cold War scenario. This wonderful aircraft served in many European air forces (UK, Belgium, Denmark, Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland). It would be an indispensable contemporary of the Mig-15, Mig-19P, F-86 and the upcoming modules Mig-17, F-100, F-104, G.91R in our new CW Germany and Kola maps. The Hunter had a long, successful career from 1953 until well into the 1990s - more than 40 years! It has earned a place of honor in DCS.

Thanks to the effort and hard work invested by many historically knowledgeable and respected forum members to gather the necessary evidence for the existence and use of the WM 50 emergency power in the Fw 190A8, ED has decided to revise this module accordingly. It's not a question of whether it should be done or not, but of when. See also:

All of these points about the state of the Luftwaffe and its pilots are true for this period. But this has nothing to do with the performance of the Fw 190A-7/8, but rather with the >10:1 numerical superiority of the Allied air forces, the high level of training of their pilots, and the tactical lessons learned by these Allied pilots. We're here talking about the Fw 190A's performance and the fact that this module is being intentionally left underpowered in DCS.

Despite overwhelming evidence that the last Fw190A models were equipped with MW 50 and that they were frequently used in combat missions, and despite ED's acknowledgment of this fact and NineLine's commitment on March 6, 2023, that ED would implement this correction on the Fw190A, two years after ED's statement, nothing has happened. Or am I mistaken? It's time for ED to address this issue and the fact that this module is being intentionally left underpowered.

Do you have any sources for this, in my opinion, very questionable claim?

Without this VTH function, cannon hits in air-to-air combat are erratic and very inaccurate. The gunsight of the M2000 is really poorly modeled compared to other DCS modules (F-16C, F/A-18, F-14 etc.). I can't imagine that the gunsight worked so unpredictably IRL. On the other hand, the air-to-ground gunsight function is excellently simulated.

In a simple mission I get massive stuttering after 4-5 minutes. As far as I'm concerned, the sim is unplayable with the F-5E Remastered. The latest update doesn't seem to have fixed anything.

In fact, with the current state of DCS, it is not advisable to engage in a dogfight with your F-4E, Mirage F-1 or even F/A-18C against UFO aircraft. The AI flight models of some DCS modules are unsophisticated and completely unrealistic. Measured by their real technical parameters (power- and wing loading, G limits, etc.), these DCS modules can rise into the sky like rockets, and they hardly lose any energy during high G-maneuvers. They can fly abrupt turns without being damaged. In reality they would lose their wings. The UFO behavior of modules such as the Mig-21Bis, Mig-19, Mig-15, F-86F must be corrected as soon as possible. The best solution to address this problem is the introduction the long-promised General Flight Model Program (GFM) announced by DCS in Dez. 2021. https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/news/newsletters/a134f231fe8269e1c78dd6d0dd8c3c9d/ Before the introduction of the F-4E module, I warned about exactly the problems you describe here. Apart from a lot of support in the relevant forums, not much has happened in the 3+ years since the DCS announcement. Perhaps small FM corrections have been made to some WWII AI aircraft. The whole AI dilemma is not just limited to AI opponents. Your own AI wingmen perform strange maneuvers and mostly behave completely unrealistically. I wonder how the announced dynamic campaign is supposed to work with such an AI. Unfortunately, the "2025 and beyond" video did not give us any answers to this serious and urgent problem.

Kermit, your statements don't seem to resonate in this thread. Maybe it's because of your sources or problems interpreting them correctly. I understand that this annoys you. But have you asked yourself whether you are annoying us with your way of communicating?

My positive impressions of this "2025 and Beyond" video: - The insights into the dynamic campaign - Great fire and explosion effect probably generated with Vulcan features - Scenes from the Fulda Gap map - ED seems to be making progress in the WWII Pacific. - Highlights: Saab 35 Draken and F-100 I am disappointed by: - Too little Cold War content. - E.g. no early Mig-21 types or Mig-23/27, Su-17/22, An-12 info - Where are the Mirage III/5, Hawker Hunter, Skyraider - No mention of the EARGES project F-104 - F-35 is unnecessary because FF will not be possible and Blue-Red-Force remains unbalanced

That was a very nice surprise. It gave me the feeling that this module is not being wasted away by the given circumstances. There is someone there who is devotedly looking after this aircraft. The M-2000 is one of the best modules that DCS can offer. For me, it even ranks ahead of the so-called DCS stars F-16 and F/A-18. I regularly fly all three and also the F-14.

The same here. Massive performance drops with the F-5 remastered on my DCS setup. Has anyone already submitted a ticket to Technical Support?

The same here. Massive performance drops with the F-5 remaster on my DCS setup. Unplayable!

Great, I see a white knight for DCS. Well, show me which post you used to make this request to DCS and tell me whether you expected 8500 development hours. Development time that could have been used much more sensibly for more important things.

The first cockpit pictures of the F-104 and the announced new features of the F1 are great to say the least. It is a real pleasure to see how Aerges is moving up to the Champions League of 3rd party developers with their high quality modules.

For me, the only bright spot in this Newsletter is to see the dedication and professionalism with which Aerges pushes his projects forward. The F1 is awesome but the F-104 looks to be even better. ‘New fog effects’ a nice-to-have feature for 8500 man hours. Who asked for it? Many core aspects of DCS are in a bad state and are lagging far behind. To name just the most important: - notorious performance instability in MT - serious AI problems. Special FM of AI aircraft. Keyword: General Flight Model Program - basic mission editor functions are broken and are ignored by ED - some game assets are so old and outdated (e.g. 3D models of ED and FC3 planes) that they completely destroy game immersion. - dynamic campaign, GFM, ATC and Vulkan are promises that are still far from being implemented I speak for myself, but I think that you (ED) should finally address the essential issues and the aging problems in this flight simulation. Please start finishing the things you have started and make the sim more stable overall.

I can also see this PCM indication box. It was not displayed before. It seems to be a new error. Has anyone already submitted a ticket to tech support?

I think this is a very good suggestion. On the one hand, an early version of the Thyphoon fits much better into today's DCS environment with protagonists such as Su-25, Su-27, Mig-12Bis, Mig-29A, F-14B, F-16C etc. On the other hand, it would be a true European representative of the early post-Cold War era. Which, in my opinion, represents a very interesting period of military aviation.

I consider the communication policy in the case of Eurofighter to be very poor. Actually quite unusual for HB, which I have seen as exemplary in terms of interaction with its customers. More than 3 years after the Typhoon announcement, it is now really time to inform the DCS community about the status of module development.

Even after the latest update, the error occurs with the board/tail numbers of customer liveries. It's really annoying.