nervousenergy

I'm wondering if they might be having issues with DCS v1 integration. Every screenshot and vid we've seen for quite a while (AFAIK) has been done in EDGE. Given the announced timings just a few months ago it would have been reasonable to assume the mig 15 would have landed after EDGE, so no v1 integration would have been required. Or if they're really confident internally of the v2 march release date they may hold the mig back for that reason. Pure speculation of course.

If any plane will sell Warthog extensions, it'll be the Spit. I'm already thinking about replacing my 8cm extension with a 12. Or just get a 1:1 column replica from Spitsim... but then my wife would kill me before the 109's could. A Hispano armed Spit will definitely push back the turn and firepower advantage the K-4 brings today, but it'll be a right handful to fly. Should be very interesting.

I'd buy a Vietnam map in a heartbeat (or really any map they make), but I'd hope to get Korea prioritized higher. We'll have most principle aircraft in the very near future once the Mig-15 gets finished along with the Saber and the Mustang, with other Korean era machines in the pipeline. Too many map wishes, not enough resources.

Well, you need to define the terms. To me (and I dare say most of us in the WWII re-creation / simulation community) PvP 'balance' indicates planes from the same period. What we have now is pretty well balanced, especially once the Spit and P-47 arrive on the scene. Where we have problems is contemplating the role of otherwise wonderful aircraft like the P-40 that don't have an F-4 or G2 to fly against. That's the main rub, here... DCS has given us a WONDERFUL, absolutely captivating matchup between the P-51 and Dora, and then are throwing the Kurfurst and soon to be Spit and P-47 into the mix. We're really starting to get what looks like the premiere late '44 / early '45 combat flight sim here. This just makes us want more. :smilewink: I see this quoted a lot, but it was hardly true all the time, and in many instances it was the exact opposite. From Bud Anderson's "To Fly and Fight":

That actually sounds much more complex than building a flyable plane just like all the others, but with no other stations other than the bombardier. Come on, folks... hop in a Mig-21 and start learning its systems, then tell me a B-17 is harder. Even the Huey looks like it would have been a lot more work to produce. Yes, doing all the modeling and texture work for all the gun stations / turrets would be a BIG effort, but that's hardly necessary for a successful project that people would buy and fly. Mannable stations are a nifty gimmick that would hardly ever get used.

When flying in a real prop plane the rudder is very organic. You can feel slip, and it's not particularly subtle, even for a new/learning pilot. I want to say it's like driving with the front wheels badly out of alignment, but it's actually worse than that... power steering does a lot to mask bad alignment. Coordinated turns and no-slip flight seem hard in the sim because the only feedback is this little ball, but the sim does accurately model it... if you're not keeping things centered you're giving up speed, gun accuracy, and bleeding tons of extra energy. Try doing some practice flights while paying way more attention to the ball than you're used to, and keep it centered. You'll soon start to automatically put some rudder into turns due to muscle memory. It sucks, but it's the only way since we get no other feedback, and you can't keep staring at the ball in combat. It wouldn't be very realistic in a closed-canopy warbird, but it would be neat if ED could implement some wind sound variation for varying degrees of slip.

I know providing Warthog-aware LUA files for every aircraft would be a pain and not something most devs would be willing to spend the effort on, but would it be practical for ED to simply create an assignable action for a button being OFF? Then it wouldn't be hardware specific, and any device that had an ON/OFF switch could natively support two actions. That would solve the issue without having to learn LUA programming or use TARGET for the Hog, and it would work for many other peripherals as well.

I definitely agree with going manual and upping the RPM when on final, as otherwise it can be a real bear to get her to shed any speed if you're coming in a bit hot. Same problem the 190 has, but it doesn't have an override. Hard to see the point in takeoff. The torque isn't THAT bad. Just give it a bit of rudder. You don't have to deal with any of the snap-drop instability the 190 has on takeoff.

G2 or F4 would be a pre-order purchase. Can't wait for the planned Emil.

Fortunately you don't need to know anything about prop pitch, RPM, or mixtures. The 109 used an automated governor, revolutionary for its time, to manage all that. You can turn it off to get an advantage in certain circumstances where it doesn't make optimal decisions, but I'd put that way down on your training list as it's pretty marginal. Others may have different sticky points in training, but mine was getting the plane straight down the runway while landing and avoiding dragging a wingtip. The landing gear carriage is very narrow, so you have little margin for error if you're a bit sideways when touching down. Takeoff is cake... it flies itself right off the ground. Don't forget to turn on the governor (can't remember the German name for it... kommandogerat?) if you cold start.

This was me. I bought the A-10 back when it came out 4 years ago, loaded it up a few times, marveled at the complexity and faithfulness of the simulation, then promptly shelved it and went back to fighting in the war-torn skies of IL2 1946. Systems management didn't interest me that much, ground targets aren't played by real people, and stick -n- rudder flying wasn't nearly as important as working the weapons systems. I didn't even really think about DCS again until the Pony came out, but I didn't buy it. The P-51 wasn't my favorite allied fighter to begin with, and there wasn't anything to do with it in Crimea circa 2010. Then the Dora was released, and for the first time in over 3 years I bought a DCS module, and was amazed. It's still Crimea, and the multiplayer performance is terrible compared to any other current WWII sim (1946, BoS, CLoD), but I couldn't get enough of that incredible flight model and fighting with/against others using that same model. I bought and learned the P-51, then a sale came along and I got the F-86, the Huey, and FC3. Pre-ordered the Kurfurst, as the 109 was one of my favorite aircraft. Picked up the Mig-21 on sale last week, and I'll get the Mig-15 next month. But it all started with that perfect pair of opponents: the Dora and the Pony. Even with the sale pricing, DCS is into me for well into triple figures, with no end in sight (thank god.) 1946 has been dying for a long time (just too old), CloD is OK but limited and still has some bugs (there's only so much the TF guys can do without source), and BoS has been a disappointment. There are a LOT of WWII simulation enthusiasts looking with hopeful eyes at DCS. Someone needs to announce a Frank or George and a Hellcat, and watch those wallets open. You've got to start off with a well-matched fighting pair, though. That and some islands to fight over.

Amen +++ I'm slowly adapting most everything I need to the HOTAS equipment and DX1, but there are times when you just need to reach for the mouse, and it can be a trick to keep the view centered well enough. Even with years of TIR use, the control touchpoints are just to small.

I agree about the market, but I still do think a B-17 would sell well enough to be worth it as long as the devs didn't blow an enormous amount of money/time on the non-flying stations. The vast majority of the time the plane would be flown by one player, switching between the pilots seat and the bomb sight. I don't think a B-17 pit would be any more difficult to model than the Huey pit, and I'd also be very surprised if the B-17 didn't sell more than the Huey. Yes, it would be super-nifty to be able to get 10 guys/gals together and simulate a complete 8th AF daylight bombing raid over Germany just to try and get more of a sense of what the real vets went through to deliver their ordinance, but I don't see doing it more than a couple of times. ;) It'd be nice to have a turret or two you could jump in, but I'd buy it with just piloting and a bomb sight. I miss the old says in AEP/PF/1946 when you'd see a bunch of the [HVY] squad guys join the server, as you'd know you were about to see some serious high-alt bomber runs to try and roll the map. It was about the only time everyone on the server would know you could get some hi alt fighting in, either defending or attacking.

May depend on DCS 2.0 / EDGE. Have we been given any indication of whether or not the module will work in 1.2? Every screenshot and vid I've seen have all been in the pre-alpha EDGE environment. I'm sure anything can be made backwards compatible, but I'd also imagine it would take some extra work to do so if Belsimtek has been working under the assumption that the '15 would only be released for EDGE. It's close enough now that the module may not get released until EDGE, even if it's ready to go first.

All true, but also keep in mind that the plane is far more automated and ergonomic than the P-51. The mechanical flight computer that controls various engine parameters (most notably the prop pitch / RPM) was revolutionary for the day and works very well, taking a fair amount of workload off of the pilot. It's very much a 'stick n rudder' plane, without a lot of fiddling about with rads, RPM/pitch, mixture, etc. Flying the FW-190 against the top AI P-51 is currently one of the best AI fights you can get in the game (IMHO). You'll still win all the time, but you usually at least have to work a fair amount for it.

I'll take that bet. Now we just need someone to make us a Frank, and the Pacific US plane of your choice. Even if I lose I'll win, as I'll obviously be buying both. :music_whistling: Oh, and a map of Okinawa or the Leyte Gulf, please. And while you're at it throw in an aircraft carrier or two. :smilewink:

If you haven't done something like that before, you'll be shocked at how much personal effort even something as simple sounding as a distributorship takes. Thumbs up to the OP. I'd pay a premium to be able to buy some of the custom stick/throttle work I've seen displayed by Russian / Eastern European hobby manufacturers through the efficient and English language ED website. I own Slaw Device pedals, but Slaw was easy to communicate with. The Black Mamba stuff (and other similar examples) are typically only available through Russian language boards, with difficult payment and export abilities.

Yeah, you're not going to get a nice, long, paved jet runway when we get the 44 maps.

I'm not sufficiently qualified about engine sounds to even hazard a guess, but after Kurfurst's post I must break out my FAVORITE WWII picture:

The more I fly it, the more those bits of dirt irritate me. If it was dynamic or random as suggested it would make more sense, but in a game that's all about spotting the little dot it's really distracting. I keep trying to clean my monitor. ;)

Indeed... ED isn't a non-profit organization, and they likely would never have gotten anywhere if they were! AFAIK, ED doesn't release any kind of sales figures or financial performance, but I would imagine that they saw enough interest here that it was obviously not only a good PR move to back the original WWII concept, but also profitable. I have nothing but PIDOMA estimates, here, but it's always seemed to me that the WWII sim market had a much larger potential than modern sims. The conflict is well understood by most everyone, the planes are approachable without dozens of hours of systems study, and for the MP fans the fights are visceral and all about stick and rudder skill. I just wish they'd put more prioritization on period maps and assets. I know it's coming, but if people could buy WWII planes with a well-modeled mid-40's Europe to fly them over and build missions on, it would be easier to sell the planes in the first place.

These long, long jet runways in the Crimea are spoiling a lot of people, myself included. I predict many over-flares and wrecked planes at the end of the runway once we get 1944 airfields. ;)

This has always been the biggest issue for me, in pretty much every flight sim I've played going way back to the DOS days. The guns sound like they're firing from a mile away. Several of the more detailed accounts of pilots from WWII indicate just how loud and jarring the guns are. From Bud Anderson's 'To Fly and Fight': And that was 4 50's out in the wing roots, not *cannons* firing from just a few feet directly in front of you. Those suckers should be LOUD.

The AI damage modeling is a limitation of the engine itself, unfortunately, and a design decision to simplify the computing load of your machine simulating multiple opponents. I'd also love for this to be improved, perhaps by threading AI off so multi-core machines can simulate much higher FM fidelity for multiple AI planes, but that's likely a ways off. Looking at the exit wounds on B-17s that survived a 108 hit and landed to tell the tale, I'd think a single hit anywhere on a fighter would cause heavy damage, with a hit anywhere on the fuselage or wing roots to be a 'one hit kill'. Of course, the general consensus for most in DCS is that planes of all types are simply too tough.

Aargh... Why open beta? We're flying several beta modules in the standard client right now. Managing two installations is a pain, and I'm assuming the beta DCS world isn't compatible with servers running the standard game? Likely means no dogs of war for a while.