TAGERT

LOL

You are welcome to your opinion, but in my opinion the two main problems with DCS becoming a close up guns only combat simulator is the 1) spoting of bogies, 2) smooth network code. In that those two things are required, a sort of foundation requirement. Without that foundation, it wont mater if it does some things better or worse. I see that as icing on the cake, without the cake (read foundation) it wont mater how good the icing is if the cake inside does not taste good. Agreed, there is allot riding on the new EDGE graphics Agreed agreed, fix those two things I mention and DCS will be in a position to dominate the hard core combat flight (gun kill) sims for years to come. In that they already have the modern hard core combat (BVR kill) sim cornered IMHO.

dejavu? http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2334109&postcount=261 Nice to know someone is not only reading my posts, but, that they are rubbing off on them! ;) Up until the release of the Bf-109K4, I have bought everything and ever addon ED has ever made.. But I stopped at the Bf-109K4 Because IMHO two things have to happen for DCS to support a WWII flight sim 1) Improved graphic wrt spotting bogies 2) Improved network code I have my fingers crossed that the new EDGE graphics engine will address item 1 But, I fear item 2 will never get address.. I mean it has been 10+ years of warpy online flying with DCS, as far back as the original Lock On.. And no improvement in all that time. When DCS was a purly modern jet BVR kill sim, it was not so noticeable, but now that DCS is doing WWII and KOREA era, the up close gun kill is going to be the norm, and for that to happen, you have to have smooth network code.. Oh, and before someone tells me to get a better ISP, read again and note I said since the early days of LockOn.. Over that time period I have had 5 or 6 different PCs, lived in two different states of the union, we several different addresses in each, and a different ISP at each one.. And in all those cases the symptom was the same. In English, it is the DCS net code, not my PC, ISP, etc. If those two things get fixed, I honestly think DCS is in a position to dominate the hard core online flight combat simulation market for years to come.

P-40 (H81) ............... [Americas Hundred Thousand graph 81 and graph 29, note TYPICAL] P-38 ..................... [Americas Hundred Thousand graph 81, note NO BOOST] P-38L-1-LO ............... [Technical Archive Department P-38L-1-LO 10 JUNE 1944] Fw-190 ................... [NACA 868] Spitfire Clipped Wing .... [NACA 868] Spitfire ................. [NACA 868] P-63A-1-BE ............... [NACA 868] P-40F .................... [NACA 868] P-47C-1-RE ............... [NACA 868] P-51B-1-NA ............... [NACA 868] F4F-3 .................... [NACA 868] P-39D-1-BE ............... [NACA 868] F6F-3 .................... [NACA 868] XP-51 .................... [NACA 868] TYPHOON .................. [NACA 868] ZERO ..................... [NACA 868] A6M3 HAP Tyype 32 LFT .... [R.A.F. HEADQUARTERS Detail No. 119/A/30. 16TH OCTOBER 1943] A6M3 HAP Tyype 32 RGT .... [R.A.F. HEADQUARTERS Detail No. 119/A/30. 16TH OCTOBER 1943] TOMAHAWK ................. [R.A.F. HEADQUARTERS Detail No. 119/A/30. 16TH OCTOBER 1943] Spitfire Metal Ailerons .. [R.A.F. HEADQUARTERS Detail No. 119/A/30. 16TH OCTOBER 1943]

Same here.. Up until the release of the Bf-109K4, I have bought everything and ever addon ED has ever made.. But I stopped at the Bf-109K4 Because IMHO two things have to happen for DCS to support a WWII flight sim 1) Improved graphic wrt spotting bogies 2) Improved network code I have my fingers crossed that the new EDGE graphics engine will address item 1 But, I fear item 2 will never get address.. I mean it has been 10+ years of warpy online flying with DCS, as far back as the original Lock On.. And no improvement in all that time. When DCS was a purly modern jet BVR kill sim, it was not so noticeable, but now that DCS is doing WWII and KOREA era, the up close gun kill is going to be the norm, and for that to happen, you have to have smooth network code.. Oh, and before someone tells me to get a better ISP, read again and note I said since the early days of LockOn.. Over that time period I have had 5 or 6 different PCs, lived in two different states of the union, we several different addresses in each, and a different ISP at each one.. And in all those cases the symptom was the same. In English, it is the DCS net code, not my PC, ISP, etc. If those two things get fixed, I honestly think DCS is in a position to dominate the hard core online flight combat simulation market for years to come.

If it is the tests I am thinking of, pretty sure those were the old style wing racks, which did have a noticeable affect on the top speed.. So, the D with the newer wing racks wont have as big of a problem as the early B testing had wrt top speed. But who cares really! DCS has the option to remove them just like they had the option to remove them in real life! ;)

Actually I think we all agree! Even Crump admits the racks were optional, and is not opposed to ED adding a 150 oct P-51 WOOT!

Ok, just checked online Starting off clean, no wing racks are mounted on the plane! Only when you load ord (bombs or drop tanks) does it install the wring racks! So the option is already in the game! Should have known ED would know how easy it was for the ground crew to remove the wing racks and therefore made it an option in the game.. All we need now is for ED to finish WWII and than add a 150 oct P51 option! WOOT!

Cool, so we all agree there were missions that did not require wing racks.. Lets hope ED takes this into account when the look into the addition of a 150 oct P51 and give the user the option to install them. Mater of fact, pretty sure that option is already in the game? If you have the ground crew unload all ord, I don't recall seeing the wing racks? Need to check

Well I guess your crystal ball is better than mine ;) So until I get a new crystal ball.. I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.. But in closing I should point out the differences in the bases of our conclusions.. My conclusion was based on things he actually said. Your conclusion was based on things you think he meant, but didn't actually say. Hope that helps!

So your saying I may have read too much into it? I think you may want to re-read what he wrote, ie. Note he said.. all had wing racks installed As for you saying he said I submit that you are reading too much into it! Based on the FACT no where in this thread did he use words like 'required for the vast majority of missions'.. Nothing about required Nothing about majority Nothing about mission types All he did say is all had wing racks installed Which I think most would agree implies ALL P51s had them.. Which sheds light on his FALSE conclusion that the only thing a P51 with 150 oct will notice is a better ROC.. Which would NOT be true of the P-51s that removed them. Hope that helps!

Cool, so we can all agree Narushima was mistaken when he said.. As if to imply they could not be removed Not to mention the latter version of ord racks used late in the war did not affect the top speed as much as some of the earlier versions did.

That is great news! The fact that ED is considering it means ED realize it was a real thing! Which means the ED team is savvy enough to not fall for all the loud squeakie wheel 150 oct nay-sayers noise.

Bingo!

As I was you in my reply That is your opinion and your welcome to it, but I don't agree with it being moot The P51 with 150 oct is not a 'what if' so not sure where your getting the want to play 'what ifs' from, are you sure your replying to the correct person? Well, hopfully ED can get some of the documentation that other flight sim makers have obtained in light of the fact that they have enough to make other versions of the 109 Assuming that is true, which I doubt, Ill take better ROC, in that it is plenty fast enough for me

Agreed.. I have been using FFB sticks since the first CH force feedback stick.. Which was, jezzz? 15 years ago? It wasnt even USB, it was the old game port with a serial port for comuncations.. After that I got the Microsoft stuff, but the 1st MSFFB and the MSFFB2.. Used the MSFFB2 for years! Currently I am using the Logitech G940.. Enh! The early versions had biggie throttles, which is why I dont use the Logitech throttle or rudders that came with it, only the stick. I even tried the Saitek X65F Pro Flight Controller, not a Force Feedback Stick but a Force Sensing Stick.. Didn't like it and went back to my G940.. But I kept the X65F throttle and have the Saitek Combat something or other rudders.. I still have a MSFFBII stick new in the box that I am keeping in reserve, in light of the fact that most companies that make FFB sticks end up canceling them! Just not enough customers for them! I only hope flight sims never stop supporting them! ;)

Agreed 100%, it is the P51s worst case scenario vs the 109s best case scenario.. Hopefully the devs will come out with the 150 oct version as some have said they hinted at doing.

Well, that would explain it! Thanks Sith! Cool! Thanks for the info!

Enh, I doubt it was based current aval planes and fuels.. You don't need a physical plane to simulate it. Just the data, and they have plenty of 150 oct P51 data to simulate it. Agreed, pitting the best of the best from one nation, aginst the not the best of the best of another, just seems odd to me. Which is why I wish I could find a link to the devs reasoning behind the choice making the K4 but not the 150 oct P51 Bingo!

Granted, the even more rare version of the K4 would be the C3 fueled one, but, the standard K4 could still be considered best of best the 109 had to offer.. Both were so near the end of the war and few in numbers that the chances of an allied pilot encountering either one was very slim, where as the chances of a 190 or 109 encountering a 150 oct P-51 were very good. That alone IMHO is reason enough to offer the 150 oct P-51s, assuming the best of the best 190 and 109 reason is not good enough. But, I would still like to find a link as to what the devs reasoning was.

That is good news! Thanks!

Agreed 100% Has ED/DCS ever addresses this decision? I mean they are doing the best of the best 190s and 109s performance wise, why not the best of the best P-51 performance wise? Just seems odd, would be interesting to know what the reasoning was behind those decisions. Which should not be confused with me asking members of this fourm what they 'think' or 'feel' the reasoning was, not looking for a debate. Only reasoning I care to hear from is that of the ED/DCS devs. With that said, have the devs ever commented on this?

Another interesting difference between powerful WWII props and modern low powered civilian aircraft! It's good to know your guys are on top of those differences! S!

Enh, most pilots don't get paid enough, maybe someday, but right now I could not afford the pay cut

Agreed my last and previous post points out that most so called FM errors are not FM errors at all but simply an error in the users understanding and/or testing of the in-game plane. Agreed, I gave an example of how alot of sim pilots blame the FM for their inability to look in the mirror and admit there are better sim pilots out there. But as I pointed out, that is only one of the reason the FM gets blamed for having errors. So, your saying this thread has nothing to do aircraft performance and is only about aircraft flying qualities? Assuming that is the case, I don't see how that changes anything I said, in that as I have read here, some seem to think the Bf109 is incapable of spinning, which is pretty silly IMHO, and therefore more of a FM issue than a qualities issue. Nor I with you, but at the same time posting an exchange of ideas and clarification of what was said and meant should not be equated to arguing. Yes, that is the case in most cases That is your opinion and your welcome to it, but, as I noted I make this stamtent based on 10+ years of reviewing peoples log file test of flight simuations. Really? I don't see how you could be offended? Unless my Johnny analogy shoe fits you? Please expand/explain what it was I said that offended you! Getting there