Merlin-27

also "cook-offs" were a result of the hot barrels...

What I meant was, if the tracks become destructible objects on the map and the potential impacts it would cause for people who don't desire trains in their missions. It may be something to consider if more objects = more processing. I'm not criticising anyone's ideas or the current plan... just thinking out loud. We all know how FPS hits can hinder the experience.

I'm wondering if modifying the tracks could possibly introduce other unseen issues and could affect everyone even if there were no trains in the mission. A happy medium would be the ability to destroy the train or any bridges along the way. I'm thinking the job of destroying track was mostly left up to the bombers and ground forces anyways.

I think that the visual is still there and you can in fact destroy them. Thanks for the confirmation, Racoon. As it wasn't a core element of DCS in the past I did imagine it'd be a sizable "addition" to have the trains become a configurable mission item. Happy to hear you agree it would be a valuable improvement for WWII and hopefully it would not cause a huge performance hit. I'd imagine, without much real knowledge on the subject, that the trains could behave like a convoy of existing ground units do where they all can follow paths and can all be destroyed with minimal FPS hit. I'm sure it's a bit more complicated but from this perspective, not impossible.

To clarify, is this simply a re-skin of the existing trains or will the steam locomotives in Normandy/2.0 be objects a mission designer can manipulate? While you can "destroy trains" now, they have always been (for the most part) disconnected from mission parameters and objectives. Basically just scenery. With the eventual introduction of the Thunderbolt, this would make a big difference to the pilots interested in the Air-to-Ground experience. EDIT: It would be a great nod to include the full essence of the Jug's fearsome reputation, the namesake of the quintessential DCS product.

Haven't you... read my post? :huh: I had a front row seat to "how that all ended up" And, unlike you, I paid dearly for my optimism. Anywho, Same locale, same planes (for the most part) but now with a realistic timeline. The "New" P-51D is a nice bonus as I don't think it was part of that first plan.

While I respect what you are trying to say... Do you think most random clients care that much about "mission success"? I was speaking of an integral aspect that would regulate some of the many abuses that work against intended mission designs. Something that encourages the individual pilot while not penalizing the entire coalition. I'm also interested in making the job of the volunteer server host & mission creator less tedious. Do you kick a client that repeatedly respawns in your WWII campaign? What if he's a new player trying to learn the ropes but feels he doesn't have time to repair? The team pays for this? I would still like to see more, at least in an optional state, that controls such situations. Adjustable respawn timer? This discussion probably belongs in the Multiplayer section but my point was in reference to the damage model. EDIT: Saw the new posts and understand, Shahdoh. 1 life is a cool idea but the feedback I see suggests that most people wouldn't enjoy spending their time watching their teammates fly while they sit on the ground with a broken governor or bullet in their head from an AI that fired one shot from 3 miles away. (maybe there is no AI) If that is working out well, then I applaud you but it's hard to accept that as the only way to deal with respawn concerns. I'd like to have some more flexibility. From what I have seen, most people don't even want to wait for a repair.

Wait, are you saying that plan wasn't well thought out? Sorry, couldn't resist. I paid $1000 to say that joke. Actually, isn't it currently very much like the advertised RRG idea? The aircraft and the setting? The Normandy beachhead is most definitely included along with the 190,109,P-47,Spit and 262. So yes... it's the legacy that ED is thankfully shouldering despite it's flaws.

Can you share your source about the An/APS-13? I've been very curious about the topic. Since the English discovered that the GAF was exploiting the tail radar (MONICA - the precursor of the APS-13) and disallowed its use after July '44 I wonder why the US AAF would still use it? Also I've found it very hard to find any pilot accounts of it's use in Europe.

I prefer solid. #1 Would the transparency incur any performance hit? I'm thinking from a server perspective.

I was merely addressing the statement... They were constructed in farm fields. I'm sure there was tall grass.

Isn't it really a non-issue though if there is no gameplay outside of the cockpit? And furthermore, you can repair the most severe damage in just a few minutes while parked anywhere near an airfield. EDIT: On second thought, it may force you to land a plane that you would otherwise bail out of. It would be nice if there was some additional motivation to preserve a pilots life in-game... most just respawn.

Imagine the FPS drop the Paris skyline would cause. Oh the humanity.

My favorite part. The health of that engine helped them avoid getting salt water on their flight suit.

Are you trying to say that the essence of what makes us human secretly hates math? :D Good post. It makes sense that our instincts and innate abilities are tuned more for survival & propagation of the species rather than scientific scrutiny and human interpretations can/will vary. Everything with a gain of salt I suppose, and I'm sure everyone involved in this complex task is aware of the value of both. There is no doubt it took an incredible amount of hard work to produce the aircraft we have now...and surely with the ones on the horizon. The icing (as Yo-Yo put it) most definitely would be to have a pilot agree that the experience is in some way representative of the actual aircraft and an invaluable resource if some parameter seems off or artificial.

you forgot to include the :megalol:

Just chiming in to say I'm suffering with the new behavior also. A look straight up snaps to a mirror image. Very disorienting in a dogfight. I'm running the same setup I have for the past couple years. I will try adjusting my Tir settings but the previous iteration felt perfectly realistic. Sad to see it go.

Funny you should say that... B-2 Bazenville.

And there is a definite distinction between actual test pilots and pilots in general in regards to how they evaluate flight characteristics of a particular aircraft. Hopefully we can enjoy the results of the entire equation because it is especially rewarding to live a moment you previously only read about in your favorite WWII aviation book. It seems incredibly ambitious to virtualize every aspect, but please don't stop trying:) I've read you can torque roll (pilot account) a P-51D by slamming the throttle while cruising straight and level but I have never been able to do it in DCS.

Excellent. Will wings bend before they break off? Will it be possible for fires to extinguish? These would be great to finally see corrected. I'm not sure every taxi accident resulted in a fiery explosion in RL.

Good catch with the tail mod. I was focused on a Normandy D but I imagine we'd get something later...despite the contrast with the setting. Uncle Dog

Late war Pacific looks a lot like the current DCS P-51. Post invasion Europe P-51...

Wasn't YE-ZB used for carrier ops? Did any AAF aircraft carry the ZB receiver?

Yo-Yo has thrown down the gauntlet. :thumbup: It's good to know that tenacity is still there. It sounds to me like the 3rd parties are doing their very best to rise to the occasion.

I believe that mast was for the VHF radio also. The HF wire that attached to it was removed apparently.