iFoxRomeo

Interesting. Where did you get this info from? Me262 would be my choice No.1. Ar234 would be nice. Do335 would be nice. My bet: We won't see any German aircraft anytime soon from ED. Nick doesn't like them. Fox

It's the same effect. The jittery comes from the super small (partially unconscious) head movements in VR, that's why it is more visible in VR than in 2D. Fox

@BIGNEWY Well, the ailerons now work at speeds above Mach 0,9. But the strange wingflutter that plagued the Sabre since release is still there. I initially thought both effects, stuck ailerons and flutter, were connected. But it seems these things are not directly connected. I made a video to show it. Please ask the team to look at this. In no manual of the F-86 such wingflutter is mentioned. When this flutter occurs the aileron effectiveness gets changed. In 2013 this effect was ..."interesting"... but in 2021 its not adequate anymore Have a look. The Handbook tells of a twisting moment on the wings that casues the wing heaviness. But it doesn't speak of a fluttering wing. As I understand it, it is a constant moment that changes with airspeed and/or aileron displacement. But no flutter. Excerpt from the Flightmanual F-86F April 1971 Section VI Flight Characteristics Level Flight Characteristics Maneuvering Flight Below 5kft and above 570kts -> aileron control becomes sluggish, but again not fluttering wings. Track from the video attached. Fox p.s. also the gap in the right wingtip is an old "feature" Sabre_wing flutter.trk

Lol, really? Okay, next try. A little bit zoomed in this time. It is not so obvious when recorded and watched in 2D, but when in VR it is extremely visible. I have a Ryzen 5900x and a RTX3080 and the clouds still play dancing queen... Fox

Full screen. The clouds at the horizon. Fox

Now that looks interesting!! Waiting for the update to go live... DCS 2.7.0.5118 Open Beta https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/news/changelog/openbeta/2.7.0.5118/ ... DCS: F-86F Sabre by Belsimtek Aileron Control at Mach .9+ Needs looked at - Fixed I hope they didn't just only look at it but actually fix it .50cals are next ED Fox

Wie sind deine Einstellungen bei Steam VR? General und spielspezifische Auflösung hat welche Werte? Du kannst bei Steam VR die Auslastung anzeigen lassen. fpsVR macht das noch besser, kostet aber Geld. Zeig mal bitte einen Screenshot von deinen DCS Einstellungen, System und VR. Fox

Whenever I read generalization, my bullshit warning gets triggered. Generally I hate generalizations A part task trainer won't give you physical feedback, yet it's still called simulator. A full flight simulator will give you physical feedback, though it can be a "not type-correct" feedback, but similar to that. And sometimes it gives very wrong feedback. In a FFS you don't have a helicopter simulation like in the current Gazelle. You have to trim, you have to compensate, you have to fly it like a helicopter with all its glory. Stick centered? Only during start up, taxi and shutdown. Once lifting into the air, the centerposition of the cyclic is only a "transient" position, otherwise you would kiss the ground sooner than you like to. And that is what you get in a FFS. Your muscle memory argument is not correct. Just because you have some kind of automatisation, doesn't mean it is irrelevant how an aircraft behaves. Especially in an aircraft you have to always compensate for the weather/environment. You won't manipulate the controls in the mountains with up and down drafts in the same way you would in 5000ft high pressure zero wind situation. Fly (inadvertent) IMC and you can throw away your muscle memory. To give a "car" example: On road and off road, the same car behaves differently. Fox

Actually ALL switches below covers are not mouse klickable with 2.7 in the Sabre. Fox

Scenario: Jet aircraft set to CAP/Fightersweep inbound to a B-17 Bomber. CTD as soon as the AI Jet "sees" one of those Bombers. And it seems to CTD only with B-17G, A-20G, Ju88 A-4 as bomber. Any other aircraft/bomber I checked(not all) didn't cause a CTD Same scenario, but with Jet set to e.g. Nothing/CAS -> no CTD Just edit the mission, Jet CAP to CAS When the Jet is well outside visible range, EWR will trigger the CAP command and cause a CTD. Just open the second mission. EWR will be activated 1 minute into the game. Once the EWR finds the Bomber and activates the CAP Jet, the game crashes. Interestingly Prop aircraft set to CAP don't cause CTD. A modern jet with radar "sees" the bomber earlier and would cause the CTD sooner than the visual-only jets. I tested only F-86, MiG-15, MiG-21, F-16, F-18 Fox AI_crash.miz AI_crash_ewr.miz

Mit 2.7 wurde der Renderbereich geändert und sieht so ähnlich aus. Ich hatte diesen Mod nie installiert und jetzt sieht man, dass etwas aus dem Bereich herausgeschnitten wurde. Ja, man sieht es auch auf dem Monitor und in der Reverb G1 ist es auch zu sehen.

I don't need to be in the DEV team. ED showed that they have a understanding of helicopter specific aerodynamics. That's why I am sure that the Apache will fly like a helicopter and not like a LM. But will it by true to the Apache? I hope it comes close.

Well, at least the Apache will fly like a helicopter and not like a LM. The Kiowa will show PC's dedication to a FM. I'm honestly curious about it. They deserve a second chance. Fox

https://www.facebook.com/flyingheritage/videos/672188696929984/ After opening this link, immediately klick on the video, then you don't need to log into facebook @NineLine I think the Warbird Community is well connected, so Nick probably knows the guys behind this project and Steve Hinton. Just in case ED picks up the 262 one day again. They certainly can give feedback to Jumo behaviour, Flight manuals etc. And it should by a nice trip for you to this museum over a weekend, some day in the future. Fox

As Mogster said, there are a few replicas, rebuilt by original plans. And there is one project with original Jumos, but I think it didn't fly yet. Engine test-runs were made. The Messerschmitt-Museum in Germany in Manching operates 109s and a 262 Replika. So your point is not really valid. Other than that, there is no K4 or D9 in flying condition, yet ED managed to create both. ED doesn't necessarily need a flying example. They need data as much as possible. That cries for Me262 vs. Meteor... Well I think we both agree here that we want both, the 262 and Pacific. I just like to have the sequence of incarnation in DCS, we thought it would have until just recently... Are you in contact with the Messerschmitt-Museum in Manching? So much to my intention to remain silent here... Fox

To quote xvii-Dietrich Yeah, I voiced my concerns a few times already. This shall be the last time on the causa Schwalbe/Sturmvogel. I hope I can withstand the tempation, when someone posts something I consider as nonsense. This an IMHO with many "I"s, to whom it may concern: I supported ED for many years now. I enjoyed the modules. But not without some anger from time to time. (In 2015 I had a server running, but stopped it after a year, as there were quirks and problems I didn't want to deal with anymore) It's not a complete list but some examples: Be it that modules are close to being abandonned (in my subjective perception: F-86, more on that is "planned" from my side for it's subsection). Modules not completed for a long long time (Yak-52). Stuff promised for many years but not delivered (guess what module I'm looking at now). Long long lasting bugs... DCS improved considerably during that time and it would be dishonest to not mention this. Looking at 1.5(and earlier) and forward to 2.7, sh**, that's a huge difference. (And as DCS improved I want to try again hosting a server, there are not enough servers yet) I supported ED because I like the Sandbox idea, the thorough simulation of aircraft and I thought it was a good move from ED to take over the Kickstarter campaign from Luthier. I think we would have only the P-51 and Fw190-D9 today if Luthier hadn't kickstarted the WWII endeavour in DCS. It's many many small bits and pieces that make me not want to buy modules anymore. (Well, a bit too late for me to skip the Hind presale, ED caught me in a moment of weakness) It severely depends on what is announced after the Mossie. Of course that won't hurt ED, if I don't buy modules. But for me personally, I have to draw a line somewhere. And perhaps there are others who think similarily about this. I don't "buy" the won't sell well argument regarding the 262. In 2014 the 262 was deemed profitable when the takeover happened. Now in 2021 with a significantly increased DCS playerbase it is not considered profitable anymore? Really? Come on! Nick did make it clear what he likes, and what is not so interesting for him. "...and then we had to go on to a bit of German stuff and whatnot" were his words in the Grimreapers interview @15:10 Better listen from 14:20 - 16:35 to hear his admiration and you will understand my objection. Nineline has to do his job as Community-Manager and I wouldn't want to change places with him. He has to bring the community and ED/Nick together. No easy job. November 2015: Now in 2021 he has to somehow sell his bosses opinion. I'm not angry with him. With the pace that ED puts out WWII warbirds, it will take ages till we get a decent set of aircraft, playable and AI, ships and ground assets for the PTO. The Western Europe 1944-1945 scenery showed that. Now we do have 3rd parties supporting that, but it doesn't seem to really accelerate it. I'm glad M3 brings the Corsair, but its announcement was 5 years ago, and we still don't have it available. The P-38? Veeeery far away I'm afraid the ETO will suffer significantly from this decision. It is still not finished. E.g. Where's the Fw-190F-8? Ju88 as a torpedo-only bomber??? C-47? Paratroopers? V1? And it offers room for additional aircraft like the Tempest Mk.V or (god forbid this heresy, lol) a Gloster Meteor(F.3 please). I don't want DCS to become a Duxford Collection Simulator. I enjoyed Duxford when I visited the airshow, but that's not what I want to "play" on PC. I won't buy any ED-made modules for the PTO before the Me262 is released. I don't support Nick's decision on this case. Yes...ED is now shaking in fear...muahaha Fox p.s. @HiromachiSure, I like sarcasm.

12 captured Zeros and none representative? I would think they had managed to re-build one or two Zeros in good condition out of the parts that 12 aircraft provide. But I have no thorough knowledge about the PTO. Just what I found on wwiiacperf. Thanks nonetheless. Page 2 General Data: "A maximum speed of only 340mph has been obtained in flight tests" So it's a bit more than just a data card. As you said collection of all available data, including testflights. I'm sure you understood the criticism. Fox

I refered to the TAIC report No.17. The test states, that another Zeke52 would be used for Army trials. http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/ptr-1111.pdf The Zeke 52 in the Army test TAIC 38 didn't have full power during 3/4 of the test http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/zeke52-taic38.pdf Where can we see these documents? Here is another report: Zeke 52 @ 6000m 350mph but at WEP. http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/Zeke-52-TAIC-102D.pdf A Mustang would snuff this Zero for lunch at 6.000m with 420mph@67''HG. And that's Blackbird's point. There are people claiming that it is "uncool" that the axis Me262 is so much faster than allied aircraft... but when it is the other way around, it is okay. I'm with you on this. PTO will be interesting. But the PTO wasn't part of the Kickstarter. ED didn't exclude the Me262 when they took over. I see a difference here... But I sound like a broken record on this... reminder to myself ***stop it Fox, stop it*** Fox

Thanks for pointing into this direction. I was completely unaware of this. Fox

At least the UH-1H, Mi8, F-86F, MiG-15, Fw190D9, Bf109K4 are similarily "old"... The lighting got updated, 3D not.

JHAT, here are also some nice ones https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/508681281/dcs-wwii-europe-1944/posts/723040 Fox

Thanks Norm Fox

Well said Fri13. Fox

Norm, sorry, but you misunderstood me. Do you think I'm a ED/DCS fan or hater? I'm not an native english speaker, so it's possible I didn't make myself clear. To be clear: I want ED to prosper! For that I buy modules I don't even use. I have these modules, but 2/3 of the time I spend in DCS I'm either flying the F-86F or Bf-109K4. Both released to beta in 2014. And I still continue to support ED. So is it now clear how I stand to ED? Please, If you read what I write or wrote, imagine it with a calm voice and no shouting. Discussion helps making better decisions for everyone. Assumptions not. Do you know the saying: If you assume...? But I'm not a blind disciple. I'm criticising ED for them to get a better product - from my pov as a DCS user. I don't want them to feel bad about their product. If you think that I did that, then I'm sorry. That wasn't my intention. I'm long enough here to remember how the KS went and the financial stuff about it. I took part in it and my name is in the manuals of those aircraft. ED has to produce modules that create income. No question about that, absolutely not. We currently have 6(+1 soon) ED DCS WWII aircraft, 3 of those and all the assets and the normandy map are from the KS-Campaign. If these modules wouldn't sell good enough, why would ED make them and make more? And the last one of this list, the Me262 is the one that wouldn't sell well?? I think it would sell -at least- acceptable, but that's just my opinion. I think that there are more books about the Me 262 than about e.g. the Mosquito. But that is also a subjective impression, I didn't make a thorough study about that. Just a quick google search: "Me 262 books" presents you 49 books. "dh mosquito books" leads to 2 books about the aircraft, and some more about the insect. "de havilland mosquito books" presents you 25 books about the mossie. 49 to 25... Does it tell the whole story? No of course not. But I think it gives at least a indication of a general interest in this aircraft. If there wasn't interest about 'stuff' there wouldn't be books about 'stuff' because no publisher would sell it. ED and you gave the impression that ED is working on the 262. One example: November 20: source: "https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/128613-dcs-me-262-discussion/?do=findComment&comment=4485013" But Kate said that ED is not working on it. I'm sure I'm not the only person who was stunned by this. We have this back and forth with the 262 and that is fuelling this discussion. There wouldn't be any discussion about that if ED made it clear what is happening next or in particular with the 262. "Me262, yeah but Hellcat..." comments don't help. Or do you see these type of discussions about the F4 or AH-1? Or anytime before for another modules? So my point is that I ask ED to stop giving the impression that a 262 will see the light anytime soon* by moving this thread to the wishlist and remove the option on the ED-Shop bakers page and adjust the Backers FAQ. * "planned" doesn't tell anything, it's a hollow word that doesn't tell anything because every aircraft as an upcoming module is planned eventually in the future. I do agree that ED should take care of the PTO. But I disagree on the timeline. ETO '44-'45 isn't finished imho and ED is now opening a new construction site in parallel with an already small WWII-Team. I fail to see how that makes things better. Split the team and the progress slows down significantly for both areas. Shift the focus and the other xTO comes to a stop. I hope I was better understandable now. Fox

I just want to emphasize why this case, not the aircraft, is somehow different to other cases. I said enough why I think the 262 would be a good addition. I would always favour the 262 over the Hellcat. But that doesn't say I don't want a Hellcat in the long run with a nice map and proper assets. I think it is childish behaviour that some users say that they want this or that module INSTEAD of the Me262. "Please make <insert favourite module here> after you finished the previous one", that would be mature and not so egocentric. I am sure the number of available DCS WWII modules would be far less if the Kickstarter campaign and the subsequent ED take-over wouldn't have happened. ED did give Luthier this option, because they did not have the manpower for this and had they had other plans. When ED took over the project it appeared that all the KS modules would be made by ED. Separate topics -like this one- were opened for all modules of the KS-campaign and on the backers page all modules were presented to choose - in 2014/2015. I chose the first modules that were released and it was clear to me that I would buy every other module of this project, because I wanted to support ED. Actually I bought other modules, which I don't really use, just to support ED. E.g. I have less than 10h in the Spitfire or L-39, perhaps 10 landings on the super carrier... since EA/release. The 262 was on the list from the beginning. People are waiting for it. Pic from here: "https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/128613-dcs-me-262-discussion/?do=findComment&comment=4377688" And this 262 thing is a special case, if you look at the other "promises". The Phantom or Cobra for example. Both announced, but after some time put on hold. But there is not a F4 or AH-1 to choose from a list, there is no sub-section for these as well. It's sad that they're on hold, but okay, as everyone knows, that they should not hold their breath for these modules and it will take many more years to see them in DCS if at all. So don't dangle the carrot in front of our nose. Announce that the 262 won't see the light anytime soon(<2years). Move this sub section to the wish list. Remove it from the bakers page. That would be honest. There is no half-pregnancy. Either do it or do not. You were searching for data for 7 years, and now it's on hold ufn? I believe you didn't even start to programm the module. Let me put this straight. I can live without the 262. The world continues to rotate without a DCS: ME262 Module. I have fun with other stuff. But I am truly disappointed by ED, not because its the 262, but how ED handles this situation. Fox