airdoc

I have the i5-6600k with Z-170A and R9-390. It doesn't even cough at maxed settings in 1.5 highly recommended.

My thoughts as well. It is likely that out of the 2500 DCS WW2 backers (plus the non-backers who should be quite a number) most don't really hang out on ED's forums because they are waiting for Normandy. Also, the phrasing of the poll suggestion "more old era aircraft" was a bit ambivalent, since we already know that ED has the Spit, P47 and Me-262 in the works, VEAO have many planes in their roadmap and LN probably are developing a PTO warbird. So mu guess is many WW2 people chose "new maps" expressing their desire for Normandy. What would really be interesting though, is to see a poll with the community preferences : jets vs props.

I 'd go for development of a proper WW2 combat environment (not just fighter airplanes, but bombers, ground units and a WW2 map)

Thanks for pointing it out Stratos, I wasn't aware of this fact, despite my acquaintance with T6s (my father flew them and told me a lot of stories). Your suggestion is well received, but unfortunately I think that not many Greeks would like to recreate missions that remind them of the civil war, the echoes of which are still present in Greek society 70 years afterwards (long story). Anyway, with my comment I did not mean that I disliked these aircraft. I just would prefer it if developer's efforts were prioritised into creating a planeset with a period map first. A bundle that would allow people to fly in challenging scenarios. Besides, you always learn your plane better if you have a task to do and if you constantly change your aim, trying to exploit its advantages.

I wouldn't have any particular interest in these modules. What attracts me to prop airplanes is the ability to fly in a mission / historically based scenario. I love the high fidelity sim but it quickly gets boring if you just fly around without a purpose. Plus there is not really a lot of fun if you continue doing it online with friends. I think a large part of the dedicated WW2 community share this position (but feel free to correct me). I 'd prefer any module that brings on the ability to fly on a combat scenario.

Hey Pman If you could pull out the Lanc it would be like a dream come true for many people in the WW2 community. But I guess we 're looking into 2017-2018 for that. I don't know what the reason behind the lack of bombers in DCS WW2 is (well at least as it appears in the plans). Maybe it's just too early and we 'll see some in the future. Maybe the fact that they require a lot more work and (presumably will sell less than fighters, therefore financially not the best option. I 've read that most of the buyers play offline, so they wouldn't really be interested in recreating historical missions or scenarios online. This is what the major part of the WW2 community lives for. Online missions. But if you look at the most wanted WW2 aircraft poll thread, you 'll see the B17 up there. With multi-crew, the experience would be unparalleled. It would certainly attract some people from FSX who fly commercial heavies for offline playing. In the most wanted medium bombers poll, B25 stands out. Even the presence of a medium would make a drastic change in online playing. And surely, a B25 wouldn't be a lot more difficult to simulate than the Mossie, given that airworthy Mitchells are around, right? I 'm hoping that ED and 3rd parties finally find the way to show some support to their dedicated WW2 community: with a proper map (like Normandy), multiplayer issues fixed, multicrew and a decent bomber, the community numbers will explode. I know of so many people who have shelved DCS because of the lack of these features.

I don't think so. It's managed through the options panel.

Not really, because to the naked eye all you can see is sort of a fuzzy dot. Enlarged still means a really, really small contact. At these dimensions the eye can never estimate the distance with any kind of precision.

thanks Sith

Do we have a definite answer on the possibility of including both the CW and full wing versions?

Same here, the enlarged option only affects very distant targets. For usual dogfight distances 1-2 kms I can see only a small improvement that is probably related to the better graphics/contrast.

for some reason my download is 6731 MBs?? I installed the openbeta today.

Yep, these days should be for Sith close to bashing of the DCS WW2 project change. "it's not about how hard you can hit, it's about how hard you can get hit" right Sith? ;)

What does "new normal map" mean for the 109 and 190?

thanks Sith

Having a 3rd party work on Normandy is the best news I 've heard on the DCS WW2 front for quite some time. The optimist inside me would like to think that this could be the first step in a WW2 map development process, where a dedicated team would acquire expertise on this period and keep expanding on new theaters after Normandy is released. Judging by Chizh's post, someone is working on period units as well, would it be this team? DCS WW2 has tremendous potential if the proper period maps and aircraft sets appear. I would like to see DCS move to the idea of the original Kickstarter. DCS WW2 doesn't have to be a different install.I think that it would attract many more people if a part of DCS development was officially dedicated to it. Q : would this mean that SOH and Normandy are being worked independently, hence we won't have to wait for the former to be released before we see the latter? thanks

If you look closely at the HD video uploaded in youtube, at 00:30'-00:31' a small vapor trail makes its appearance, coming from the right wing tank (or is it something else?). His flaps are also lowered a bit from at least the peak of the loop. It seems as if the elevators are not deflected upwards at 00:31. Overall, it looks as if the pilot started the loop very low and kept diving for too long during the final part before he pulled up. The plane's elevators did respond but it was too late and the plane impacted with the belly on the road with a relatively small vertical speed, that's why he survived. He probably would have made it if he had another 100 feet of altitude.

I am between R9 390 and GTX 970, leaning towards the former. I see that in almost all benchmarks 390 beats 970 and it also has the colossal 8 GB VRAM. These 2 cards cost about the same now. It would be interesting to hear someone testing it at 4K. Anyone has something to comment on this comparison specifically for DCS? Any pros and cons? EDIT : may i ask what aircraft you are flying? If you fly WW2 did you notice any stutters with tracers or explosions?

The implementation of the new visibility feature confirms that ED are listening to their customers and that they know how to hierarchise issues. I have a feeling that Normandy will come out sooner than we may think. With Normandy + visibility fix + dual pilot functionality (VEAO where is my Mossie???) DCS WW2 community will literally explode.

Jack I used a slight modification of the P51 curve for the Dora and K4, but after a PC accident I had to completely reinstall and lost the data.

A question : When Matt says that there may be an option of getting the full wing Spit version but this may lead to loss of roll rate what does this mean? That we would either buy one version or the other? It would be very, very desirable by the WW2 community if an implementation of both versions for the Spits could be found. This may pertain to other upcoming Spit variants (VEAOs' Mk XIV), and other WW2 birds that have minimal differences between them.

Never seen it, but it sure looks pretty dangerous (mainly for the pilot).

As much as I love DCS, I have been really tired of waiting for a proper WW2 environment and eventually our whole squadron has switched and spends time mostly in another sim. There are many issues that need to be addressed before DCS WW2 becomes an attractive option for hardcore simmers. 1. Multiplayer needs to be fixed --at least 60 slots, no lag 2. Visibility really needs to be fixed. If it doesn't it is literally a no-go for most members of the (WW2) community where spotting is everything. Let me say that again : it shouldn't take a 40 inch 4K monitor or eagle eyes or whatever to be able to feel comfortable spotting an aircraft 1 mile from yours. People can argue about realism or other parameters as much as they want, but if the majority of players with their "average" monitor and PC feel that this seriously hinders their experience with the game, then it should be fixed (even if this means different visibility options in the settings) 3. Normandy with period units and definitely AI bombers have to come in. 4. New maps, new ground units and new theaters (or expansion of the existing ETO) should keep flowing. People keep coming if they have something new to expect. To release Normandy and then release the next WW2 map 3 years later (which would equal the time it took for Normandy to be delivered after its announcement in 2013--that is, assuming it will be 2016) is a recipe for a dead WW2 community. It would be as if BOS kept the Stalingrad map for 3 years--surely a deal breaker and certain abandonment by the community. I 'm hopeful that part of the gap will be filled by LN (fingers crossed about a PTO bird and map) and VEAO (Tobruk and warbirds). But all these seem very far away right now. Even if we get maps and we have no flyable bombers (they don't have to be heavies, they could be mediums) we will still be lacking an important feature of mission design. I think that one of the biggest drawbacks is that we don't currently have a dedicated WW2 part of DCS that will really push things forward for this period (as was the original kickstarter goal - but failed). WW2 makes a small part of the DCS community (maybe 30%) and our modules and maps have to be prioritized accordingly. Each time ED announce a photo of an upcoming jet, the facebook likes are double relative to the ones of warbird photos. Let's face it, jets sell more (currently). The only way that I see the WW2 envirnoment flourishing sooner rather than later is if more 3rd parties kicked in, dedicated to producing WW2 modules and especially maps. I 'm not aware of the economics behind module development, but I 'd think that it should be far less costly to develop a Warbird than a Jet. Also, why not give the map-making tools to the community? IL2 1946 and now COD are perfect examples of how much a dedicated and talented community can deliver. Even the announcement of such a thing will revive the interest and surely attract more people to DCS. TF hasn't produced a new map yet in CLOD, but it is about to, and yet all this time people have been patient enough and grateful that there is dedication to improve and introduce new features. I 'm sure that with the above features solved, a dozen warbirds -including bombers- and 2 good maps, the community would explode and each warbird would have its sales doubled. But this is wishful thinking for the time being.

thanks uboats, I 'm already aware of it.

The only allied fighter aircraft that were in the aleutians during the japanese invasion were the P39 and P40 (along with PBYs, B17s, B24s and B26s). Later there were some P-38s if I recall correctly. However, the air-battles with the Japanese were limited essentially to a very small early-war period during the Dutch Harbor attack (A6M2s, D3As and B5Ns). Late war air conflicts were rare. Also, the aleutians theater is vast. If they were to model a small map, it should be the area around Dutch harbor during the invasion, which included only 1 airbase some 80kms to the south-west and a sea-plane base at Dutch. Japanese carriers would be essential for this, as the japanese did not have any airports.