mmaruda

This may sound weird, but I recommend K-50 Black Shark. It's what I started with, and I still think, it's the easiest study-sim to get into. It's also got great campaigns out of the box and does not feel out of place in the current theatre. The only problem is, it's a heli, so if you don't like those, you might not like it, but then again, you just might.

Q: Will the damage model be improved for WWII aircraft?

Sadly this is normal. Numerous objects at the airfield tax the framerate significantly (planes mostly). Currently there is no cure to that. As for 2.0 it's hard to tell, however I have read a report on Mudspike, that with WWII aircraft, 20 planes in the air doing close combat still yields a solid framerate, so there is hope.

As die hard Gabriel Knight fan I loved this remake, though I got it from Steam. Still if someone is a purist, you might consider the original version which is also available there - that on actually has Tim Curry as the voice of Gabriel. Basically, get both! :)

Are you referring to the fact that once 2.0 is available it's only going to be in alpha stage or to the fact that most DCS planes released int he past 2 years are still in beta? :P

Rouge System is now available for purchase in early access. http://imagespaceinc.com/rogsys/p/buyeaccess/

For me Dora is the easiest. Take off might not be the smoothest every time, but I nail the landing always without effort. No idea why, maybe it just clicks with my style (by that I mean no style and horrible approach impatience).

Very nice looking site, I am surprised how good I felt when seeing it.

You should have kept on reading, some interesting stuff follows.

I guess we should consider taking further discussion to private messages. ;)

I'd rather they not. DCS handles the prop planes very well IMHO, while "the other game" suffers heavily from a horrible translation of the controller to the virtual stick resulting in a wobbly flight, unless you put your curves to like 65%... That's even with a Warthog. Then there is other problems like, the editor (or no editor), limited map size and the 'latest' design issues. No thank you. With DCS at least we get some innovation within the genre aka click-able pits, proper radio, advanced ground handling, which no other WWII combat sim has done to this degree. There is completely no point in making another IL-2 about the Spanish War, since it's already done as a mod for 1946... It's also free. Come to think of it, having gone back to the IL-2 series last week for a while, I am convinced that we should all just let it fade away. No use flogging a dead horse. Not saying that ED is the Jesus of flight sim devs, but once they deliver, they do deliver some really high quality stuff and do their own thing instead of using a "legendary flight sim brand" to gain traction. On a side not, I still stand by my Korea vote, but Pacific also sounds interesting - would love to see how carrier landings would handle.

I'll add my two cents to the mix. Today I managed to do my first clean take-off and landing. It seem the key not to fail miserably is to keep the tail stuck to the ground as long as possible. I had to figure this out the hard way--should have just read what Chappie wrote. With landing it's pretty much the same - you just need to let the plane drop on the runway, because as soon as you touch down, you need to pull that stick back or else you are gonna flip to the side, and you don't want any unnecessary lift when you do that. This seems very weird to me as I have read that the flipping on the found happened a lot, but due to inexperienced pilots wobbling the plane left and right when turning. I am no expert, but something seem off about how DCS handles in this regards. It seems the tail wheel likes to bounce around a lot, if you don't push it down. The manual does not give much insight as to that, nor anything I have read on how the 109 acts IRL. Now that I know how, all I need is some practice, but still, the ground handling in DCS leaves me scratching my head all the time.

Yes, this is what we need. There has not been a proper Korea-set sim since Mig Alley. I only wish ED got this whole 2.0 thing out the door and enabled 3rd parties to start making maps.

I intended to avoid taking part in the dispute, but some things must be said. The blurry look of the textures is actually accurate. When you are at 12 000 feet, you cannot see details on the ground both due to distance and air density. It really does look kinda blurry. Also, this is a desert, it's hot there, there is bound to be some hot air distorting the view. Anyway, whatever. It looks good enough for me, lets just hope it finally comes out and the frames will be descent. That is really all I want from 2.0/EDGE/DCS Other Than Georgia. :)

So as most people I have been struggling with the take offs in the K4, I am getting there, but so far most results are like this. Anyway, what blew me away was that I managed to get the guy back on his feet and slowly walk away as the plane exploded. He always walks in this slow manner that has a sort of gravitas to it. And that tough guy face! Like something taken from an action flick made in USA. Not sure, if this is intentional but good job ED. :thumbup:

So I recently got a TM Warthog and all the good things aside I hate the TARGET software. To my surprise the .lua scripts for control configuration seem a better way to program all the cool toggle switches. The default A-10C config utilizes some cool functions like the boat switch for example. Since all this can be achieved through .lua programming in a text editor, I am thinking these wonderful abilities should be available out of the box in the options menu. Would it be possible for ED to upgrade the control assignment menu, so that we could program a function for the button pressed and another function when it's released from there?

Sign me up too! :pilotfly:

Never had a problem landing the Dora, it's actually a lot easier than the Mustang.

Got the EVGA Superclocked 980. Wow!!! This thing is idling around like 28C, and that's with fans off! The card is semi-passive. They kick in only around 50-60C. To say the least, Maxwell chips are beast. Got DCS maxed out with mirrors, 1024 displays, TSAA (no idea what it does) and it's rocking a solid 60. Now, where is that EDGE thing? :)

I know this isn't the best place to discus this, but anyone wanting invest in BOS might want to hold their horses. The FMs, Graphics and ground handling is awesome, but at the same time the devs seem to be rushing things and are acting like they want to get this out the door and that is it. These at least are some concerns that're floating around - but hey, what else do you expect when you post that the campaign is almost ready and you have spent the whole week working on it? Anyway, again I am not trying to start a discussion about this or that sim or discourage anyone from anything, but just be warned, that BOS might come out stillborn - meaning not much development after release. Considering the price, you might want to wait and see how the situation develops. Whatever is said, at least go around their forum and spend some time reading the dev updates and user's comments to make up your own mind before purchase.

CloD with TF has FPS problem online, at least for me and a couple of other people. As for IL-2 1946, for someone coming from Air Warrior and such, this should be the best option - FMs are ok, not up to today's standards, but better than Aces High 2. Same goes for gunnery and CEM. People still play this online, so there should be no problem finding folks to fly with.

You what, mate?! Explain to me how is flightsimming not a cult religion? Ever seen any other games that require you to read the scripture, know it by heart and listen to sermons by Youtube preachers, who teach you the true ways and only then you are worthy to sit in the shrine the virtual cockpit is? :geek: :harhar::harhar::harhar:

I guess there are people who would like to fly tanker, but I think this being a combat simulator, we need stuff to do combat in... And combat that actually makes sense...

Air-to-Air Refueler? Really? What's next? DCS: Hot Air Baloon? DCS: Flying Broom? DCS Barking Legends: The German Shepard? I have an idea: why don't we focus on actually encouraging the devs to finish the current products in beta, deliver EDGE, or what's it's called now, the Nevada map that has been promised like ages ago and actually make DCS stand for Digital COMBAT simulator? Because currently it's more like Digital Confusion Simulator: - last aircraft fully released that actually makes sense in the current environment is the A-10C - modules stay in beta and remain unfinished, while new beta's roll out the door every month - the community is fine with that lol - sales on new modules appear a month after the release while the products are still in BETA! - new useless planes are announced almost daily making this a poor man's FSX (because in FSX you can actually fly somewhere else than Georgia), while the community applauds - since you are so happy about the newly announced DCS M-18B Dromader, don't be surprise that the Hornet doesn't come out until 2025 - multiplayer is atrocious: no favourite server option, no server search by name, no built in voice chat, no access to options once online, terrible sync issues (people flying through mountains, inability to land on ships if you are not the host etc, inconsistent damage modeling throughout clients, I could go on) - is FLAK ever coming to DCS?

For me it's the opposite - take off and landing are terrible now. I could land perfectly, now I break things, take off is even worse lol.