Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I would too! With onboard radar and competent AI / multicrew operator though. Don’t know if I’d be interested in single seat NF.
  2. Online only or offline too? Never had a problem offline. But online… like you say. Put a few rounds from dead low six, close range in a Spitty on SoW (I hit it, for sure) and it just turns and engages you. As if the hits or the damage hadn’t registered. I suspect it was some sort of net sync problem. I unfortunately don‘t have the track anymore.
  3. On another note, are the 3d models for the Me 262 presented years ago still usable? Thinking about the possibility of shortening its development time by picking it up from where it stopped once work on resumes. But also considering what happened to the Mossie just last week, I assume you would be starting from scratch once development focus shifts to it? Update #34 external models https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/508681281/dcs-wwii-europe-1944/posts/808060 Update #23 cockpit https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/508681281/dcs-wwii-europe-1944/posts/694456
  4. And as we know, Nick loves the Hellcat Awesome! Would be great to also get the -5 to go along with the Corsair for later scenarios. Hoping it comes soon. But yes, I would love to get the Me-262 at some point. One of my favorite planes. And the last one from my rewards list from the KS (top tier backer).
  5. The Fw 190A-8 didn‘t get MW-50 as mentioned already, but had its engine altered mid 1944 to 1.58 / 1.65 ata manifold pressure. C3 fuel injection for fighters wasn‘t used together with it. For fighter-bombers it was C3 injection AND higher manifold pressure. Details can be seen here: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/Fw_190_A-8_15-3-44.pdf The higher manifold pressure is missing for anything after July 1944. We have an A-7 with an extra fuel tank right now.
  6. I didn‘t have the entry but now I‘ve forced it off. Thanks for the tip. Offline it was rendering fine in a quick test (better visibility I‘d say even). Gotta try it online.
  7. Yesterday when flying online I noticed for the first time that in VR the pixels / dots at medium distance only get rendered on one of the eyes. It makes seeing it extremely difficult. Far out the dot is very clear and up close the lod is there and visible. But in between they sort of vanish right now.
  8. I personally would love that. I remember „Target for Tonight“ being developed so long ago. Unfortunately it never got completed (wasn‘t a commercial sim, was being done voluntarily from scratch). But for me the question is, how many others would also buy this to make this commercially viable at DCS level. Not even considering everything ED‘s got their hands tied up with already. Imagine the type of gameplay needed to get a good experience out of these types. I think that is also not everyone‘s cup of tea. There will be no dogfighting, just following instructions and searching for your targets until you can acquire them yourself. Then you would follow your radar operators instructions until you find the target and destroy it (getting under it and blasting it away with your schräge Musik would be extremely cool though). Then go for the next target. And all this in the dark pretty much. Normal engagements with single engine types without onboard radar: I don‘t see why it would be more appealing than what we have now. You would need ground controllers (competent AI) and everyone flying pretty much alone with a radar operator (also competent AI). Multiplayer would also mean everyone flying alone with maybe a buddy as radar operator and hopefully a human ground controller. All this is already happening in SP and MP in DCS though, so technically not too far off. Maybe some third party could pick the subject and do the Lancaster (as AI maybe viable), a late Mosquito NF variant, Ju 88G-6 and Bf 110G-4 (as AI maybe viable) as a start. All difficult and expensive aircraft to do human controlled though. Even if for two of them there is a base made by ED already. Those could be made controllable as fighters. As much as I would love to see this, I don‘t see it happening. Too niche. Edit: let alone the map needed to do this properly. Maybe we get a Western Germany / Luxemburg / Netherlands / Belgium map that could be used for this and late war WW2 (pretty much what we have now).
  9. Any chance you have wake turbulence turned on in your realism settings? That kills fps if you get say behind the B-17 and it lasts for minutes for me after passing behind one. The DM stutters happen to me only in single player but it is a split second without any lasting effect. And like you say, it‘s not like you have a bad graphics card. The other thing I get is sometimes when a heavily damaged aircraft is about to crash into a forrest it stutters for some 2-3 seconds but then all is good.
  10. True, if there were only one model to be picked as a module the G-6 would make the most sense, as being most versatile and well useful for two out the three scenarios. But I still think the G-14 can be derived from it and launched like the P-47 (3 different sub variants) was, still offering a distinct enough option from the K-4 (unlike the G-10) and something not completely obsolete against the allied fighters (right now it is just the opposite with the K-4 flying in mid 1944, even without MW-50). More options for mission builders too. G-10 could wait as it would make sense only from an accuracy stand point, not gameplay, and tbh I don’t think the AS variants are even necessary in the near future. It would be great if ED would go down the path you laid out.
  11. Nice summary. Up for Krupi’s and DB 605 comments. For B) add the 109G-14 (G-6 with MW-50). For C) add the 109G-10 as it was more common as the K-4 and is very similar to it. So basically make a new module for three late war 109G models. -G-6 “late” -with added MW-50 to make it a G-14 -change the engine to the DB605D (and some more cosmetic details) to make an Mtt G-10 (Frankenstein 3D model from the G and K). Should cover pretty much everything from late 1943 onwards except for 6/14 AS variants (which could be derived pretty easily from the base G-6/14 variant). Alternatively, from a commercial perspective, make the G-10 a variant in the K-4 module so people would buy two modules instead of one. Or just sell three different new modules lol.
  12. Take a look at the table at the end of the kickstarter page (Rewards section). Nevermind the listing on the side. After the matrix tiers were added it got really complicated. $40 gets you all flyables in DCS WW II, Beta access and a backer medal. The DCS: World Mustang (what you can buy now) would be an extra, which you only get with $60 or more. So you will be able to fly the Mustang after DCS WW II is released (and in its beta). If you don't want to wait until then and want to fly the Mustang in the current modern setting of DCS World, you will need to by it. Edit: it is currently oin sale for $15. I bought it last week.
  13. Hey Yo-Yo, I know of two spitfire specialists who could perhaps help you with making some of the more specific details of the Spitfire more clear. I do not know how qualified they may be to help with performance and systems as what I read is mostly regarding static models, but they act as industry consultants for scale model manufactures and show a lot of knowledge over at Britmodeller and Hyperscale about the different variants, sub-variants, mods etc. of the Spitfire. One ist Edgar Brooks (as Edgar at the Britmodeller Forums and Edgar Brooks over at forum. largescaleplanes.com) and the other is Roy Sutherland over at Hyperscale. I do not know them, but you could register at those forums and maybe PM them if you find it suitable. Just my 2c.
  • Create New...