mmaruda

That is old news. The common opinion of those who tracked the project is that it's vapourware if not a scam all together. Fighter Ops has been around for years and not a single video of a playable build was ever shown. Instead there was promises of the greatest sim ever and the mysterious Area 51 to get money from naive enthusiasts.

Yeah right, like that's ever coming out. :doh:

I think Paul the Octopus died, but we already have an elephant and a monkey to do the job, and Ukraine hired a pig! :huh:

Wrong tournament, World Cup doesn't start until 2014. ;) Anyway, Denmark won against Holland - great match! Germany seems a bit week this time, and Russia completely owns. :cry:

What I meant was, that ED said the cobra is unrealistic in Flaming Cliffs since it's scripted or something - you can do it only at low altitude, at a given speed.

You know what would be awesome? Those old-style briefings from '90s sims! Just check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApcmFsaq2Io It may be 2d and low-res, but even the midi music is great. The immersion level goes through the roof with this. :D

Hi all, First of all, I'm sorry if this does not deserve a separate threat, but here goes... With DCS going mach 1 lately with all the sweet new things, people primarily focus on the planes, but one thing that I think should be discussed is... the coba manouver! FC2 had it dropped since it was not realistic. That is fair and all of us understand, but some people came to Lock On from Flanker and it has to be said that it is perhaps one of the most unique jest ever thanks to the incredible manoeuvrability. The cobra is a trademark manouver of the Su-27, so when FC3 gets here, can we please have it back?

How will taking control over tanks work? Will this be a more of a simulation (Arma II level), or more of a game (Battlefield 3 like)? Also, with drivable tanks, will we be able to go over trees, fences etc?

If we had the Spit IX, the 109 G2/G6 and a 190 D-9 a map and some AI-only models to populate it, I'd be more than happy.

It's easy to favour higher prices in dollars when you actually earn in dollars. But not all of us live in the States. The current exchange rate in my country is $1 to 3,5. So a $60 DCS sim is actually quite expensive with an average income per citizen around $600, when most people earn around $300 or less. And you still have to eat, keep warm in winter and pay the bills, not to mention DCS requires pretty expensive hardware to run. Raising prices will make it impossible for many simulation fans from poorer countries to keep buying ED's products. It's a simple calculation - 10 people can afford a $60 game. ED gets $600. If out of the 10 people, only 6 can afford an $80 game, ED gets only $480. It takes a certain amount of money to make software, but once it's done, the cost of selling copies is minimal with digital distribution, so your overall profit depends on how many people buy the game. So please, ED have some consideration. And the rich guys over here need to stop this kind of discussion, it's not beneficial in any way. If you feel ED deservers more money and you can afford it, buy several copies and maybe give them to your friends for Christmas or whatever - the developer gets paid and you contribute by helping expand the potential customer base.

Regarding marketing, I hope ED finds a way to improve this. I know that simulations do not fall in the same category as mainstream games, however, seeing how Call of Duty sells the same game each year with only advertising (seriously, it's the same game every year and people still buy it), some promotion might help. One mainstream gaming site published a DCS video with a headline "Sims are beautiful" and the interest was very high - lots of comments with people expressing how impressed they were. Obviously this does not mean they went to buy it straight away, but some maybe. More promotion might eventually increase product awareness and improve sales a bit over time. The majority of people associate simulation games with titles like Tropico or The Sims (which we all know to be blasphemy!). Just saying - some trailers or news to the press could help and the community would most definitely be willing to offer all the assistance they can. I would have never got into DCS if it wasn't for the people on mostly IL-2 oriented forums saying that DCS is the new hot thing. Also, ED needs to improve on it's approach towards the community. More interaction with the fans is beneficial both ways. Maybe some contest? Best P-51 skin gets in the official release and the author gets into the credits, or get a discount, or a teddy bear, or free candy? And some more frequent updates on the progress of things would also be nice.

There is no air to air version, Kamov says there is an option for it, but no Ka-50 was ever equipped with that and seeing how Russia quit ordering Ka-50s, there will not be a Shark with Iglas.

Check out some Reno Air Racing - lots of flames there, but they do run on modified engines, so it might be different.

Make sure you turn off any power saving for the card (windows settings and drivers). The weak point here is the CPU - from my experience AMD doesn't handle DCS half as good as intel.

Just like to comment on this one point. While you wouldn't pick it up, lots of people would just because it's a bargain. That is how Steam sales on weekends and holidays work. People buy games they have no interest in playing because they are cheap and maybe one day they will find an interest. I'm not saying this applies to all people, but some yes. Perhaps RoF would be better example - they have those sales and the effect is 90% of people who play the game (that I know of) have several planes they don't even fly - but they bought them, because the price was low. I don't think that $5 for a DCS plane will ever happen, but lowering prices from time to time might boost sales and attract more people to DCS - they may buy it because it's cheap, grow fond of it and buy the next plane at full price. This works in almost every business and is something worth considering. A huge problem is a lack of theatre for the P-51. Not everyone has to like this one particular plane and without a serious campaign the fun factor drops. I'd buy on the first day if it was the Focke-Wulf. Expanding the product line could help improve sales. That is the way with RoF again - people buy the plane they like and after some time start buying the planes they have no interest in, especially when they are at half-price. This is the part where a collectioner's approach kicks in.

I haven't played DCS Mustang yet, but comparing it to Cliffs of Dover is pointless. I just recently got Cliffs and after finally coming to terms with it, setting everything up and accepting how ugly it looks (na AA, awfull colors, dated looking houses and trees, crappy feel of the cities etc.), I see the same old game. Not everything in the pit is clickable, and you'll want to set it to the HOTAS anyway, there is a diagram that shows the throttle, mixture and pitch setting, so the whole ability to click anything feels more like a gimmick, than an essential part of the sim. One thing about the whole DCS Mustang is great and IL-2 feels bad. In DCS there is no machines to compare to the P-51. Right now everyone loves it, but if DCS FW-190 ever comes out (and when it does, I'm all shut up an take my money!), people might find that the Pony is crap against it. IL-2 has always had debatable FMs, but the legendary Allied planes like Mustang or Spitfire feel inferior to German machines in the game. Whenever discussions arise on the matter, there is always someone with hard historical data, that confirms that IL-2 has it right in most parts. That is why I'd really love to see more WWII planes in DCS and see how the legendary aircraft of the time compare in a sim with a different approach and more attention to detail. Maybe the Lavochkins would finally be seen for what they were, when you have to use 5 levers to control you engine, and you have no radio to call for help. :D

If you are still interested, there was a movie on YT comparing the M4 to the HK416 in terms of firing right after submerged in water. The M4 brakes, but the HK fires ok, so I guess it is possible.

I just turn the stick position display on (ctrl+enter), hold down the parking brake (the manual hold is stronger than the engage/disengage thing), move the stick and rudder pedal so that the display shows centred and trim.

Yes, at high speeds, I was mentioning low speeds ;)

Many people would disagree. Speed and climb rate=win. Theoretically if a dogfight between a P-51 and a Spit Mk I would happen, the Mustang pilot would have to be a complete moron to get into a turn fight and even then he would have more energy than the Spit. We tend to use stereotypical arguments served by popular history TV shows, bet here are thing to consider: 1. Turn fights are for noobs, experienced pilots, especially those who knew their plane was faster would avoid them. The official Liftwaffe handbook actually forbid engagement of enemy fighter unless with an altitude and speed advantage and advise zoom and boom tactics. 2. The late war Spitfire models were actually energy fighter more than turn fighters, and depended on speed rather than manoeuvrability, there were some clipped wing versions made to reduce air drag at the cost of manoeuvrability at slow speeds. 3. The common myth about the 109 vs Spit was that the Spit was more manoeuvrable and faster. To some extent it's true. However in terms of vertical manoeuvrability, the 109 was better and it was also better in a dive. The Spit Mk I was also crap in negative G situations as the engine would start to fart and lose power due to lack of direct duel injection. 4. In a dogfight speed is life, so with the same piloting sill level, the faster plane is the winner. Last but not least, one must remember that the success of the Mustang comes from long range and mass production. It appeared late in the war where the Luftwaffe did not have enough good planes (like the D-9) to fight them effectively. If I were to name the best plane of WWII in term of performance, it would be the Ta-152H or the D-9 and the P-51 would be somewhere after the P-47 (radial engine and durability=better chances of getting home alive). Obviously, the subject is highly debatable, but it's impossible to even begin to judge without providing performance charts, pilot experience ratings, engagement conditions and small details like air temperatures and fuel quality used by both sides. Cheers!

Oh come on! Discussions like that are part of the flight simming community folklore! Where would we be without psychotic attention to detail? Anyway, if you want to see some really crazy stuff, go over to the "yellow forum" (1C) and check out all the "porked FM" threads, especially the ones about the Corsair and 190 after the latest patch. You'll find that this thread is actually very light. :thumbup:

If you hit 90C temps at that voltage something is wrong, and you seem to be on the right path to fry the CPU. I run the same speed with higher voltage and get lower temps. Keep in mind that 92C is the top temp for the Sandy Bridge. The cooler is fine and should suffice for the OC, so something else is the culprit here. 1. The ambient temp is quite high, but I get the same on hot days and still keep burn tests under 70C. 2. Did you install the cooler correctly and apply the right amount of thermal paste on the CPU? Should be a 5x5mm spot in the center, too little is bad, too much is also bad. 3. How does the airflow work in your case? The best idea is to have front fans suck air in, and other fans suck air out, meaning the fan on the cooler should be aimed rearwards in the case. Anyway, hate to be scaring you, but 90C in stress tests is too high, even with that high ambient.

Mind you, we're not talking about the CloD turd. The last version of IL-2 really has some great features that make far better than the original one. IL-2 still firmly holds the title. It's got great new AI, FMs are in line with what you might expect from books on the subject, the new engine overheat and management rocks and with the amount of maps, planes, dymanic campaigns and multiplayer there is still tons of things to enjoy. Yeah it does still feel a bit generic and souless, but as a survey sim, it's the best there is. The only problem with the current version (4.11.1) that is observed by the experts in the matter (not me) is the lack of punch of some weapons - mainly the late war German 190s don't shred bombers as they're supposed to. Yeah, it's old, has some issues, not really up to today's standards set by DCS and other study sim addons for FSX. However, noone has made anything better in terms of WWII combat sims, so IL-2 still is king. I'm sure the DCS: Mustang is great, but it has no WWII theatre. Hopefully, ED and modders will fill the gap soon.

Here is the full pack integrated into the menu by PeterP: http://files.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/173790/ All we actually need is to make it compatible with DCS: World. It would also be cool if ED would just add this to the offiical package, if the authors agree of course.

I think that is the main problem with ED. They don't have the best communication with the community. I am a bit disappointed as well as I have the upgrade version, but than again, I can wait, no big deal. Some people though got quite angry in other threads, since it can be interpreted as ED not caring enough about their long term fans. Viper has mentioned something about a deal with Starforce or something. Anyway, I think an official statement in the matter would calm everyone down. The customer-developer relation can be a bit tricky to handle properly as there always will be dissatisfied customers. Also, people around here play other games, mainstream games as well, and with the current mainstream publishers' policies, it's mostly about getting the most profit not always in fair ways (day-one DLC's, overpriced products, customer-hurting DRM, you name it). As much as I am far from putting ED with the same bag as EA or Activision, without explanations conspiracy theories will grow, since thanks to the aforementioned companies (an many others) the common opinion about game devs and publishers is that of greedy corporate bastards. Again, I don't feel ED is anything like that, after all they do make quality niche products without compromise and keep improving them years after release, when they could have just been doing another Call of Duty or whatever. But, a bit more communication with the fans wouldn't hurt and it would definitely quiet all the rants. After all, we're here because we love high fidelity combat simulations and ED makes the best, so... guess who our favourite dev team is? ;)