Azazel

I want DCS to become the base that all sim developers go to. I love DCS A-10C and P-51D and if the huge moding community that is out there can start striking deals with ED (like the Mig-21) then this sim stands a chance of becoming the standard for all combat aviation simulations (kind of like Il-2 was for years but better). With any luck, the DCS world is just now scratching the surface of its future capabilities/potential. Honestly, I'm kind of surprised that the DCS World and the 3rd party modeling aspect hasn't created a larger splash on SimHQ. Then again it is just a beta :thumbup:

That's awesome, didn't know that. :thumbup:

Just saw this on sim HQ. Looks like the virtual blue angels are working on a Bearcat mod for DCS. https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.10150890293598708.481064.100717473707&type=1

Not gonna lie, this particular issue is pretty low on my list of cares. All the same, I like the new effects in the sim. It would be cool if vehicles didn't always explode and instead just burned or if there were a series of additional explosions after a vehicle was attacked (rounds cooking off). In general I agree with the black smoke though. Oil burns black, and it burns for awhile before it goes out. If anything it should burn for a longer period of time, but to be honest, I'm happy with the sim's damage/explosions/burning as is.

Thanks Erich, everything that I've tested so far seems to fit with the charts I have at hand. This sim is amazing, and it's only going to get better :)

Probably, but then again we had them around for about 5 months in Iraq and almost 6 in A-stan. They were dropping plenty of iron and the advantage of having a them was great because the back seater could handle all the radio traffic from us (on the ground) and operate the TGP while the pilot just focused on flying. Same goes for the F-15Es we were supported by. By contrast, working with a single seat F-16 was much harder to get him to get his TGP on target. I remember one instance that by the time we got him on target (about 30min) he had to go hit the tanker. Is it a risk for ED to try and make this work: sure. Should they give it shot: yes. My two cents fellas.

Also there are countries that fly the F-16 in a two seat variant for combat (F-16I Sufa: Isreal). Again, the F-18D could be done. One of my platoon leaders got to go on a F-15E ride with an Airforce pilot out of Elmendorf AFB, AK. He just sat with his hands in his lap the whole time and took pictures (that aircraft could be flown as a fighter with just one guy in the cockpit if need be but having a guy in the back is probably necessary to get bombs on target: not sure about that part though).

Yeah, the SP vs MP aspect is a concern. Personally, I only fly with others (relying on AI is not much fun), unless I'm testing something.

I've been supported by Marine F-18Ds in Iraq and Afghanistan (I was in the Airborne Infantry 3-509th PIR for 6 years). I agree with you on the thrid party issue there, I'd rather see ED tackle the challenge with vigor.

One of our family friends used fly in the back of F-100Fs in Vietnam. He was a flight surgeon (not even flight qualified) and the only reason he went on missions was to be an extra set of eyes in the aircraft (to help spot SAMs, ground fire). I agree that the workload is challenging but obviously if ED did an F-16D, F-15D, F-18D or F, then all the tasks can be handled by the front-seater if need be. I agree to a certain extent. Its hard (if not impossible) to fly an A-6 on a preplanned bombing route on the deck without the guy in the right seat. My arguement is really not to worry about creating an AI guy in the back (why bother) most people who want to fly a two seater want to do so in the multiplayer environment.

I'm all for it, and have been for years now. I've never understood the argument for worrying about an AI back-seater. Pretty sure the majority of dual seat fighter aircraft can be flown by a single pilot if need be. The whole point of having a two seat fighter aircraft is increased survivability.

Yeah, I'm well aware of that. I was asking for tables on what airspeeds should be expected from the Mustang at various altitudes and various engine settings.

That's awesome. I was reading that not having them should improve your airspeed (just a little), any chance that will be implemented too?

Right on, didn't know that. But with more and more IL-2 fans buying the pony from here it probably doesn't hurt to be repetitive. :)

An interesting page from a WWII P-51D manual (found online). If your having trouble getting off the ground try using less power. The manual from 1944 recommends 40in MP and 3000 RPMs. The current FM won't give you 3000 RPMs at 40in MP (closer to 2800) so just use 45in MP to help reduce the P-factor.

Close so far on the fm. Level flight @ 16500 ft throttle at 45in and RPMs at 2750 gave me 300 mph IAS which converted to TAS converts to 396 mph. Based on the charts I've been using (source posted above) a P-51D using the same engine did about the same in 1945: Normal Rated power (2700 RPM and 46") 16200' = 387 MPH I used 45in of manifold pressure and 2750 RPMs at 16500 because thats where I got the aircraft trimmed and I have my RPMs on a hat switch so getting the RPMs perfectly at 2700 is difficult. Good job ED. Passes the sniff test so far for me.

I've been interested in testing the various IAS speeds at various altitudes for the Mustang but I'm having trouble finding any data out there. I've found this website so far but all the air speeds are in TAS: http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/mustangtest.html For now I guess I'll just convert the airspeeds and see if they match up with the beta. My interest in this is to eventually find the fastest cruise settings (manifold and RPMs) at various altitudes without burning out the engine (which is bound to happen as ED updates the aircraft). Any info on what speeds WWII mustang drivers tried to achieve in normal operation and level flight (at various altitudes) would be appreciated: the manual really doesn't get into it.

Short answer to your 1st question is that the AI plane set used is really up to the person designing the mission. People make missions with everything from F-16s, Mig-29s, Su-27s, Su-25s etc. Eagle Dynamics hasn't even stated yet on if they are going to build a German WWII fighter: its way too soon (the P-51 is still a beta right now after all). On the other hand, third party developers for DCS are already looking into developing more WWII planes (not sure if they'll be flyable though). The next DCS fighter is supposed to be a modern U.S. fixed wing fighter (no word on which yet).

Never got in to A2A, although their products do look nice. The whole reason I really enjoy combat aircraft simulators is that they are just that. For me, getting to blow things up in the sim is just as important as an accurate flight model, realistic physics, real weather, etc. I respect the guys who just like to takeoff and fly around but for me having a warbird simulation without the war part is pointless. That's just my opinion. To each his own. For me DCS P-51 is hitting the mark so far on eye candy, flight model, physics, and action (we just need more flyable WWII birds now).

I was thinking I'd start with a WWII jeep but after seeing this program I'm thinking I might want to start with something more simple... like a brick. :doh:

Thanks for this. I really just would like to learn the program and hopefully contribute some WWII objects eventually. I'm thinking trucks, AA guns etc. I'll leave the more complex stuff like airplanes to those would have a stronger background in 3d modeling :-)

Blender won't work?

I've got some spare time this summer and I'd like to learn how start creating 3d objects for DCS. I'm guessing there isn't a simple answer to this one but is there a guide anywhere? Where do I start? What 3d programs are recommended? What are other people using? I cannot afford a six thousand dollar copy of 3d Max so what are my options? Is there a step by step procedure to getting objects in the sim? I realize this is a long learning process, I just need someone to give me a shove in the right direction :helpsmilie: Thx.

Welcome!

No doubt. The big problem I have currently is not being able to find anyone without labels on (hate flying with them on).