zcrazyx

Seems as if there is some interest, trouble is would there be enough to reasonably make a profit on for developers

With the announcment of the c-130 becoming an official product, I wonder what the interest would be in larger ww2 aircraft such as medium and heavy bombers. With them seemingly doing well in civilian flight sims i'd be curious to know how much interest there would be in being to actually use them in a historical scenario, dropping bombs among other things. that and multicrew would make them rather more interesting. Ideas would include, Lancaster, B17.B24, B25, A-26. As well as a Bomber version of the Mosquito, Ju-88 and HE-111. These bombers would introduce dedicated bomber aircraft using things such as the nordern bomb sight. As well as allowing those of us with an interest in old school planning and navigation to be able to make use of the aircrafts range and performance.

I think part of the challenge is getting people to play online with the modules, issue is the barrier to entry is rather high cost wise, especially if you consider hotas, rudder, vr/track ir, then module cost. think its around $100 alone to get onto most online ww2 servers. I do think variety is something that counts, likely why other ww2 sims have a good player count. more toys to play with. Think that different versions of aircraft for the most part should be limited in favour of new aircraft types unless they do something new that isnt in yet. in the mossies case it would be a pure bomber aircraft. Differing types would help and with the introduction of the corsair and la-7 there shall be some more variety. Issue is i find is that in airquake style servers where close in knife fights are a thing is that performance is king. which i suspect is generally why the K4 is so prefevelent on the axis side. where as on the allied side we have mid 1943 aircraft to early to mid 1944 aircraft that dont get the option of running fuel grades that allow the max performance potential. Another thing is that I'm wondering how much profit there would be for ED in revisiting the mustang, 109 and 190 and updating the visual models as the mustang is looking rather dated externally especially compared to the ones in other sims.

Man I would love a B MK IX mosquito, big cookie bomb, more multi crew functionality and it would be the first dedicated bomber in dcs. Not to mention that it could be used in conjuction with FB mosquitos for attacks. the only concern i would have is with the way dcs models damage to ground targets as direct hits are more often then not needed to actually destroy a target, and of course accuracy of bombing at 25,000 ft shall not be too precise meaning buildings are probably the likely target. Would be amazing though to be able to fully utilise the performance of a mosquito at higher altitudes as from what i can gather the bomber versions were a good deal faster at altitude then the fighter bomber versions which were more suited for low altitude performance. would also be a laugh wizzing by the 109 k4s at such altitude and watching them struggle to chase. Of course the I believe that the bomber versions could bomb much lower too. though I think the introduction of a bomber sight would be most interesting from a mission planning and skill set perspective. as longer range raids could be planned accordingly. For example I fly 640nm on the 4ya aero online server and it took me two and a half hours however I only used D/F and didn't account for proper planning. I would happily pay full price for a bomber mosquito in dcs, as I understand that while being the same type of plane the actually differences are much more pronounced when researched, such as different wing, engines, fuel system, bomb capacity, windshield design etc. not to mention the systems inside of the aircraft.

Interesting, i know there's charts on the manual for it, i'll have to give it a look as i'm rather interested in seeing how long it would take to fly around the caucauses map using econ cruise. I shall endevour to share my findings when i get the time.

Curious to see what everyones concesnus is on flying for max range, thought i'd try give it a go by flying around the map on the 4YA areo online server. Loaded 100% fuel, 100gal drop tanks and climed to 27,000ft using full power (i know probably shouldn't do that). Then i made it about 625nm total and had 25% internal fuel remaining. My question is what actually is the fuel consumption per hour at such altitudes and what are the best altitudes generally at for distance and speed. And what is the absolute max range?

check the breakers and check for a fuel boost pump, cant remember if the dora has one but i remember in the 109 if it was off it would lose power and run rough

I for one am rather eagerly awaiting the EF, my only concern is with how much dedication it will take to get the plane into combat when learning from scratch as i predominantly fly ww2 and early coldwar aircraft with the most modern thing I used to fly regularly being the mirage.

Ai fm are notoriously all over the place, i can attest though that in the mp environment the sabre and the mig are closely matched with perhaps the sabre coming out on top due to being out to out pace the mig and be able to accelerate with it. not to mention having more opporunities and accuracy to reach out at range.

I for one would like a two seater or a ground attack oriented one. Modern mig 21 upgrades somewhat address this with laser guided munitions and targeting pods as well as expanded air to air load outs including on some models some of the missiles a mig 29 can carry.

I like the sound of all options, honestly though i'd have the most interest in a modern upgrade package such as the Lancer R, Bison etc, or an older f13 to suit the f4 phantom though i suspect ME will just restrict the 21s loadout. A complete refresh of the current mig would be nice though it would have to meet the current standards, have far less issues and have an awesome flight model. As for prices, any varient should be full price and a refresh should be half price.

having used the FB in multiplayer against AI and players it is in a rather strange place. It has the speed of a spitfire but not the manauvering potential. Has a load similiar to a mustang though with smaller bombs unless you run 4 straight bombs, where as the mustang can take both. has less secondary ordanance then a p47 but with similar primary ordanance. So against 1943 opponents it has a chance but against anything newer it struggles, the AAA being rather accurate does not help either as the inlines are particularly prone to being critically hit. A bomber version or Tsetse version would be really nice as the heavier cannon could be used on ships or tanks perhaps and the bomber version was capable of carrying a 4000lb cookie bomb which is a rather nice FU to the ai . Even 150 octane or higher boost would be nice though i'm not sure what marks had such capabilty. if we did get a new varient much like how the 47 has an older one now, i would prefer to see the bomber one first, especially with the bulged bomb bay that has the bigger bomb load, it would add a nice change to mission role, being able to either chug down low with delayed fuse, or up at 20k ft with a bomb sight. (which would be amazing to model as i dont know any sim with a working bomb sight from ww2 that also lets you drop bombs) As far as changes to the current mossie we have i think the most sorely needed feature is the fuzing as that 500lb bomb packs a punch big enough to do a lot of damage even with a fair amount of height. it would also allow a lower mission profile to help avoid getting smited by AI defenses.

Honestly I wish that most planes were in mp servers. I miss the mosquito and its a shame its not on storm of war after so many months

To my knowledge the K4 was originally being developed by a third party dev, something then happened to the dev and ED took over the project. as for the spitfire I believe with the recent additions that they are going for a 1943 scenario at the moment. we have the mk9 spitfire, mosquito and fw190 A8. Though I would pay a lot of money for a Tempest, Typhoon or MK14 spifire. Now as for adding in aircraft like the 109 G6, I dont doubt that It wouldn't sell, though I think mission devs would be caught between a rock and a hard place. Add all aircraft and let everyone go at it, or make it historic. If there is a later varient I think people usually would go for it. rather then handicapping themselves. though that being said when i was on SOW, there was about the same amount of Doras to Antons with the K4 being prevalent.

Noticed in the manual that there is a 5 min limitation of 25lbs of boost, Is there even a way of getting that high of a boost? i cant seem to figure it out as there is no mention other then in the limitations table about it.

I've been using less ram but now its crashing out of nowhere after about 15mins so i'll have a fiddle and see what i get, runs a lot smoother though so i think it has somewhat helped. Turned the preload radius down which helps initially which is good. Only issue is that i've disabled as many programs on start up as i can and its still using 5gb ram so need to figure this one out.

https://lifehacker.com/understanding-the-windows-pagefile-and-why-you-shouldnt-5426041 Not sure what it does but it seems to be something to do with the way windows allocates memory for tasks in use

Disabling auto paging seemed to of helped, getting 76% ram usage now. will monitor to see how it performs, cheers!

Thought i'd make this thread to see if anyone else has noticed the same issues i've had. As of 3 months ago when running dcs my ram usage goes to 100%, weird considering i have 32gb, the strange part is that i used to be able to run DCS Normandy in a server with 40 players while in VR and streaming, however now I can barely load in and after about 10 minutes it starts to stutter badly. I've also noticed very high ram usage just in the desktop without other applications open, about 8gb of ram is being used, first i thought it was to do with my ssd almost being full but upon clearning 50gb the issue still persists. I've tried disabling notifications too so i'm really not too sure what the issue is now. Any help would be appreciated.

I can think of reasons for against using them. tiresome to hold the brakes some aircraft are sketchy to remove chocks with when running A lot of aircraft can hop the chocks at engine run up rpm Chocks may serve as a back up incase the brakes are not working for some reason, though normally breaks are checked before taxiing. As far as i remember brakes on british pneumatic brakes you had to hold the lever in to release the brakes, thats how i remember it. I even inverted the axis in game as it was tiring holding it all the time.

i think the main thing with the aircraft will be learning how to fly them as well as mantain them more then anything, also parts availabilty, iran still runs f14s to my knowledge but parts are so scares i believe they've modified them to keep them going. i had this thought with the humvees and mraps left behind, its all well and good running them but how would they get parts to repair them? its why pick up trucks are so common, cheaper and easier to obtain.

correct, with countra (counter rotating) props that are inwards, there is no critial engine. if the props are anti clockwise then the critical engine should be the right one.

the critical engine is the engine, that if fails, creates the largest yawing moment. therefor with a twin engine aircraft, with clockwise rotating propellors, it follows that the left hand engine is the critical one, as when it fails it then results in the least ability to oppose the yawing moment. edit for clarity: so in essence the right engine has a longer arm from the Centre Of Gravity to the downgoing blade and hence creates a greater moment, therefor making the left hand engine the critical one. if the right one had failed with left still operating, the yawing moment would be less as the thrustline is closer to the CofG

easiest way to think about p factor and torque is that torque causes roll in the opposite direction to the engine, while p factor occures perpendicular to the point where the pressure is applied on the prop plade. So a clockwise engine causes left roll a clockwise prop in a climb causes right yaw. edit: i literally just had a principles of flight exam for my atpl studies and propellors are big section of it, i really need to get a life lmao.

Welcome to the pain train! next stop a furball jokes aside ww2 is very fun to fly, especially in vr, nothing beats a true knifefight and the sound of merlins roaring through the sky