Ercoupe

Ah, I see. Yes, and I would also recommend to anyone to run this sim on an ssd. The difference in the way DCS ran after I put it onto an external ssd was dramatic.

"Yes, but onboard graphics is much older and will not do for DCS. You need a discrete videocard, a gtx-1060 is about the minimum, ...." Well, I don't think that's the minimum, really. I'm running this sim, beautifully, on a 7 year old AZUS laptop with a 2 gb GTX 860 video card. I do have 20 GB's of ramm, though. And I'm not flying it on crappy looking low settings, either. But, this guy dooes seem to have a really low end system for the game. And yeah, you need a dedicated graphics card for this sim. My laptop has two cards. One on board and also the Nvidea. I, of course, use the Nvidea card for all the gaming.

Almost is relative in DCS. But, if I listen closely, I think that I can hear the sound of a 2000 Horse Pratt and Whitney not too far away. Oh wait....that's my nieghbor's Harley.

Let me second Robert Clark's post. ?????Really?

Yes, of course it has. After 5 years how can anyone think that it hasn't been tested yet? We've even seen screenshots and videos of it bing used in game.

Just watched the video. Good to see someone with real life experience in the Mustang, do this in depth camparison. While I've never flown a Mustang, I am a RL pilot and IL-2 planes just don't feel like real airplanes, in general. That's why I don't like to get into arguments with guys who argue how real a particular airplane feels. I haven't flown one of them. But, after over 500 hours of flying time, I just don't get the feeling, in IL-2, of actually flying an airplane. They just don't feel all that different than the planes in War Thunder, to be honest.

IL-2 does not scratch the itch the way that DCS does, for me. Il-2 is more like a game. I'm really hesitant to call it a flight sim. One poster said that DCS is like taking a restored warbird up for a spin, but IL-2 is more immersive Exactly the opposite for me. I spend most of my time in here and jump into IL-2 every now and then. I was recently enjoying flying in IL-2 with that cloud mod. But just for some short hops. I came back in here when I wanted get serious. When I fly DCS I feel as though I am in a airplane, not a game. X-Plane 11 does that for me, too. IL-2 is not bad. It's not. But I really do prefer DCS for flying military airplanes. WW2 is far from dead. I'm looking forward to that Channel map. P-47 is coming and then the Mosquito. And that Corsair! With the Marianna Islands. And an Essex class aircraft carrier. And a Zero! Seems to be breathing to me.

Toten, I was trying to find my crystal ball, but couldn't locate it. So, I wasn't able to understand what you "meant." I was only able to understand what you wrote. And you wrote that, "DCS is useless for air combat." So, I was responding to that rediculous claim. I stand by my post and I humbly bow out of this silly conversation, which I should never have joined in, to begin with.

I'm tired of beautiful Jug footage. It's been 5 years. Release this damn airplane!

Completely stupid argument that doesn't hold water. You've never taken part in any combat in DCS? What the hell have you been doing in here? I've flown missions in my F-86 against MiG-15's, I've fought Luftwaffe fighters in my Spitfire Mk9 and P-51. I've flown hairy missions in my A-10C, going after targets and dodging triple a and sams. I've had high altitude dogfights in my F-15 against MiG-29's and SU-33's. Most recently I've been terrorizin the maps in my newest aquisition, the AV8 Harrier. Seems like combat to me.

All of you guys who keep bitchin about the right plane for this and the right plane for that, STILL don't get that this isn't what DCS does. They don't make "battle" scenarios. That's what the Great Battle series is about. Go there. DCS doesn't do that. They make highly detailed study level models of airplanes. The world they inhabit is a sandbox. You do with it what you want.

"I knew about the Spitfire but not about the Mustang." Again, the Mustang photo was taken during the making of a Hollywood film where they used some Air Guard P-51's as Messerschmidt 109's. It wasn't taken during the war.

I enjoyed the free month very much. Nice gift to the community. Tried some modules I'm going to want to buy. However, now, every time that I start the sim, It shows me the modules I tried and tells me that I don't own these. I have to, one by one, click on these to show that I don't want to buy them right now. Then it says that these modules will now be uninstalled. And then, finally, the game starts. I, assume, that this is going to stop eventually. Right?

"While doing some background reading on the P-47, I came across numerous photographs and images of P-47s with Luftwaffe markings." I don't know why this comes as a surprise. I have plenty of photos of German and Japanese airplanes in Allied markings, too. All countries captured and evaluated the enemies equipment. It was common, when doing so, to paint their own marking on the machines.

Just for the record, here, that photo showing Mustangs with Luftwaffe markings is NOT a ww2 picture. The Germans did not use P-51's. That picture was taken in 1948 during the making of the film, "Fighter Squadron,". It starred Edmond O'Brian and Robert Stack and is a favorite of mine. They used P-51's as "M-E's" as they referred to them in the film. I personally, see no purpose in DCS having Allied airplanes painted in German markings.

You need to take a closer look at the photo. That isn't an "E" model. It appears to be an earlier "D".

"I seem to remember that the Japanese did get some German equipment during WWII.." If you mean that they used them in combat, no. Single airplanes were sent to Japan for study purposes, only. I know of no German airplanes that saw combat being flown by the Japanese.

Except for the fact that they are both radial engined designs, I see no similarities in the two airplanes.

When the 56th got their first bubble top, Zemke, the group C.O. grabbed the first one. The next three went to the squadron C.O.'s, including Gabreski. That has to tell you something. Look, you may like the razorback because of the way it looks, but the D-25's were preferred by the men who knew. And they had longer range, besides.

"A real P47 is a razorback. The others are plastic toys." Said no real P-47 pilot, ever. Only gamers. The 56th fighter group liked the new models enough that they referred to them as "Superbolts." No vis toward the back and limited visbility forward due to all of the framing and the jury rigged bullet proof glass panel mounted inside the cockpit, in front of the pilot. Plastic toys because they had new, better visibility canopies? Silly comment, really. Not even sure if you're serious.

"At low altitude the P47 does not experience any compressability problems." Page 25 of the P-47 manual states that 12000 feet is needed to recover from a dive in a P-47! So of course, you wouldn't be diving at low altitude. The manual also says that above 25000 feet, pilots are not to exceed 400 MPH, unless it is an emergency. This is an airplane that demands careful flying. It's a thinking man's airplane. You can't go yanking it around like a Spitfire or you're not going to get the results that you were hoping for. The plane wasn't for everybody. Not every pilot loved it. The Eagle Squadron became the 4TH Fighter Group when the U.S. entered he war. They had to give up their Spitfires for Jugs. They were not happy with that airplane. They were happy to see them go when they got their Mustangs. The 354TH had to give up their P-51's for a few months late in '44 to early '45. Morale in that unit plummeted! They gladly pushed the Jugs off to the side when they got their P-51's back. Even in the Pacific, one squadron of the 49TH Fighter Group had to give up their beloved P-38's for a short time. They got Jugs. They HATED it! After a mission in the P-47 a P-38 flew over the airfield. One of the men looked up enviously and said, "Now there goes a REAL airplane." But, of course, some thought it was the finest fighter they ever flew. Guys like Bob Johnson of the 56TH. It's not going to be an easy airplane to master. It's gonna take some work and practice. And if you just can't do anything with it air to air, hang a couple of thousand pounders under the wings!

Just out of curiosity, why would you use a modifier with your gun trigger?

"Try to unplug it, and replug it again. That way the driver centers the stick. I had the same issue and it worked. Also, put a small dead zone." I have to do this with my Logitech Extreme 3d Pro. Fixes the issue every time.

Swept winged jets do not require much rudder. Some pilots say none at all. I read, somewhere, that F-16 pilots push them out of the way. Seems that you don't want to be accidently kicking the rudder during high G maneuvers. I also have been told that the only time most F-16 pilots use the rudders is to compensate for the yaw caused by the gun firing.

Yeah, I'm going to have to look at it that way, too. Just having it to fly should be pretty exciting. As a real life pilot, if someone said, "Joe, would you like to fly my P-47?" I most likely wouldn't say, "Oh, no, not really! I fly it in IL-2 and I'm really bad in it. But, hey, thanks though. Really!"