DefaultFace

As rel4y already said the engine was rated to make these exact same revs and the exact same amount of power with C3 fuel without time limitations...

BUMP... anyway we could get an official answer, just yes or no would be enough.

The 12 minute INS align onboard ships will be a pain to get used to after flying the more modern aircraft I think. I could see myself skipping it and just doing eyeball navigation if it werent needed for the datalink.

F10, no ins needed, no problem. I just don't understand why they don't use it in real life :music_whistling:

Whether you feel it or not, most of the aircraft won't spin unless you deliberately put them into one, and once they are in they wont keep spinning unless you use control inputs to aggravate the spin. Even just centreing the controls is enough to recover usually.

Almost no aircraft in DCS really get into a developed spin where the aircraft wont rescue itself if you leave the controls alone.... Not sure what it is but in all the warbirds they seem to just go nose down and transition more into a vertical rolling at which point all you have to do is pull the nose up out of the dive. I'm no expert but sometimes it makes me wonder why people were/are so afraid of stalling aircraft irl because if it was this easy I think alot of people might still be alive today that aren't. Maybe its an engine limitation, maybe its just the state of modern simulation... IIRC the other game isnt much better. The 190 there spins over all axes seemingly randomly but other than that its no more dangerous than in DCS, provided you get used to flying with rubber bands instead of steel cables for your control linkages. Who knows... The flat spin in the F-14 preview looked decent... maybe there it will be different.

Mig and Su 27 aren't made by heatblur.... I don't know how it is in the Viggen but I guess it will be similarly implemented, if at all. Getting your hands on a Sidewinder isn't that hard tbh... There are plenty around if you keep your eyes open for a bit.

It would be nice but its really just a matter of clicking a button (and being disciplined enough not to skip missions if you fail the one beforehand I guess... but you can do that in SP too if you know how).

+1

They mentioned that the campaign will be playable in multiplayer, but it just won't automatically progress like it does in SP. So yes but you just have to select the next mission yourself after you finish the previous one.

be careful guys, theyll ban you if you say its taking too long now too... :music_whistling:

The A seems like it will be even more interesting to fly anyway, given the temperamental nature of the TF-30s. Apparently the difference in flying performance is quite noticable between the 2 variants as well.

During the interview with the Devs after the surprise Flyby at VUAF yesterday, one of the devs mentioned that the Tomcat was a plane that you could "fly by your ass":D, which got me to thinking... Will the F-14 have force feedback support? Obviously the flight control system is irreversible but I imagine one would still feel the buffeting or the rudder pedal shakers, which could be "simulated" via stick shake instead....

I didn't think you were :P . I don't know if its accurate or not either. Its hard to say when and how exactly an engine like this will fail, and is obviously very dependent on a large number of variables. Even with pilot reports or stories, you never know the entire story about what condition an engine was in or what the pilot or other pilots did to it beforehand. Engines (as well as anything else designed by Engineers) are designed based on assumed loads and usually with a certain safety margin. Basically the engines are designed to last x number of flying hours before being replaced/overhauled, but since we get a brand new factory fresh, perfectly manufactured and maintained engine for every flight we can abuse our engines alot more than the manual says we should and get away with it. MW also has a certain cooling effect on the engine obviously, which may help things here... Maybe we will see some improvements in this area with the new DM? I have always felt like you can get away with being quite lazy as far as taking care of your aircraft/engine in DCS, and ignore all sorts of IRL procedures or not ever bother checking temperature gauges. Even when flying manual prop pitch and overspeeding the engine a bit by accident doesnt have much effect as long as you dont do it too long. Ive flown the mustang with a broken governor for 10 minutes with 4500rpm as well..... Funnily enough back when I was very new to DCS I managed to break the engine in the 109 quite regularly, but as I got better at flying it seemed to happen less and less... Same thing with the Mustang for me. I don't think anything changed with the modelling though (except in the spitfire, which used to overheat much more easily).

This probably has to do with the “thermodynamic engine model”. You can usually vastly exceed the officially listed time limits in all the warbirds in dcs. It’s better than setting time limits till an engine explodes as the other sim does it, but obviously it discounts the fact that irl you would have to use the engine again and as such would significantly reduce the service life of such an engine by abusing it in that way.

:doh:

It doesn't matter if its a 109 or a Cessna or a B-52, flying uncoordinated means more drag, and unless you change your power setting, or your attitude that means less speed. It doesn't make sense that you can fly in formation with one person flying with the ball in the middle, and the other with the ball off to the side and they both are equally fast.

You can do it in the Mustang too if you do it right :P Also I think it was 1700 K-4s built in total actually. Almost twice as many as Spit XIV interestingly enough.... How many of them saw action though is maybe a different story.

The post has been made many times before, mostly by mustang pilots complaining that the Pony sucks at 61" and the 109 is OP or something similar. The answer is always maybe in 2 weeks. Officially ED has mentioned redoing the mustang to be more suitable for the ETO but if that just means an earlier block with different electronics or gunsights or whatever, or if it includes fuel grades no one knows. Either way as is usual for DCS, we know very little, and it probably wont be here soon.

No C3 in DCS. Whether it was used in real life has been debated to death on many forums, many times and usually never goes anywhere useful.

I will try to take a look at the track next time it happens, but for the most part tracks in MP are useless, as they do not tell the truth anyway. After 10 minutes or so the planes are either so desynced that its nothing like what really happened, or the player plane just gives up and suicides into the ground.

Yo-Yo no one has a problem with one wing 30% off. Or even with one wing 50% off. But one wing 100% off seems a bit extreme so you not agree? Phil already said his post above is a joke, made I assume in reference to the bug report in the spitfire section.

For Normandy no.

I don’t know where the idea that Bodenplatte is widely suspected comes from... I think most of us would agree that that would be a poor decision considering the direction some other sims are going in. A north or south Germany/Austria map would be much more interesting IMO, and missions can be made that aren’t just 8 hour escort missions. Either way I agree that the best would be to get options for both engine ratings.

Aren’t there enough bug reports that aren’t addressed that we don’t really need to be adding ones that aren’t meant to be serious in the first place? Also no one has any problems with spits or any aircraft flying with wingtips missing. Missing one wing entirely to the wingroot, or still flying with no wings at all however is a bug.