Legioneod

64-65" was with water only when using 130 octane. With 150 octane using water at 65" was optional but it did give a bit more power than not using water. If we get 70" then we'll be using 150 fuel so 64" with water will be optional.

Last I heard we're getting a D-30 so the minimum setting we'll have is 64". If they choose to model it with 150 octane then we'll get 70" (should at least)

Not just the RIO pit it's the whole aircraft. Not sure if this is present in any other module but the F-14 slides and bounces on the carrier especially when the carrier turns. It makes setting navigation impossible and the only option is to take off from the ground.

A-6 F-14D F-105 T-2 Buckeye for a nice carrier trainer. Aside from these aircraft it's be nice to see some contemporary opponents for the F-14.

I'm glad they went with a weathered cockpit for the F-14, clean cockpits just don't look right to me, especially in the middle of a war zone. One of the reasons I'm glad they are updating the A-10 cockpit is because it was way too clean and didnt look correct compared to all the actual videos I've seen of it in combat.

He got the majority of his victories in the P-51.

How did you come up with that number? I'm not saying it's wrong but from the research I've done the speed loss was less at around 11 mph or less. Just curious, I'm trying to gain more knowledge about it.

Not sure what you mean. Never said we can't fly Normandy, I just said people shouldn't get caught up in what the settings the aircraft should get because none of these aircraft were present during the Normandy campaign. Basically they shouldn't use Normandy as a reference point to determine power settings.

64-65" would be most correct as this would be the most common setting at the time. What most people don't realize is that 64" is actually rather powerful and will allow us to produce a top speed of 443mph at 29,000 feet. I've never found any documentation of a P-47D top speed when using 70" excpt for early test which was with a P-47D-22. The D-22 in the test produced a top speed of 444 mph at 23,200ft, that's quite a bit lower than the D-30 we are getting. Also, people shouldn't get hung up on the "normandy" map as the planeset we are getting were never present at normandy.

"Officially" the P-47 never ran past 64-65" when using 130 fuel, it was only cleared for 70" with 150. That being said the P-47 was a very hot rodded aircraft, especially in the 56th FG, a few pilot accounts attest to this fact including Johnson and Gabreski, who state they used 70-72"

1st: F-105D Thunderchief 2nd: F-100 Super Sabre 3rd: Mig-23

What type of coding language should I learn to get into this type of thing? Is it multiple languages or just one? My main goal is to eventually gain the skills to become a 3rd party Dev if possible but I'm just not sure where to begin or what to learn 1st. Any tips on what I should pursue in order to become a dev? Edit: Also, any way to create maps? or is that strictly for the ED?

Wouldn't mind it, it's all fiction at the end of the day anyways. What we really need though is a ma tha is war torn and not pristine like Caucuses, Nevada, or Normandy. We need something like a Vietnam setting (or modern) with bomb craters, bombed out infrastructure, etc. That way you actually feel like your flying over a warzone and not taking an afternoon joyride.

It may not have been used but it did exist during the Vietnam War. Could just have a "what if" scenario to make it fit.

F/A-18 is from ED. Don't see why modules from Razbam would be delayed or held up until after F-18 release. Am I missing something?

What would it take to develop a map for DCS? I was developing a map for another game but I feel that a map for DCS would be much more complex. Anyone have any idea on what goes into it and what it would take? A Vietnam map would be a dream come true, with the F-4 and Mig-19 coming I'd say there is a chance of one in the future. Also, can't wait for the Mig-19, is it the next one to be released?

My brother in law mentions the same thing, he is/was a pilot and talked about the aircraft responding with a bit of lag and that it isn't an instant response like in sims.

People seem to forget that without American Industry the war could have been much longer, or it may have even gone a different way. Russia and America deserve much of the credit for bringing the war to and end imo, but so do all the other countries, the war was a joint effort so no one country deserves all the credit.

Give credit where it is due. Bong was a good pilot and a smart one at that, whether he was a bad shot or not, he got the kills. I'm not gonna debate much about whether he would have done as well in Europe, it's funny though that the highest scoring American ace in the European theater flew a P-47 against "superior aircraft". Point is, the aircraft isn't always the deciding factor, and just because the German aircraft were superior doesn't mean he would have done poorly.

Well, in the P-38s defense Americas highest ace scored all his kills in the P-38. I'm a P-47 nut all the way, but I wouldn't mind a P-38, especially with a Pacific setting and some Zeros to shoot down.

Does the B-17 have different liveries? If it doesn't, will it have them? The shiny metal finish is nice and all but I like variety, I'm hoping for some options like this, The two tone skin is my favorite.

Agreed. B-17s and B-24s were tough birds. They shouldn't be killed in one burst, they should be very tough and need to be taken on by killing the engines or crew mostly. I read that German pilots would come at the bombers from the front because of there being less guns in the front of the bomber, and because it was a good way to kill the pilot/crew with all that glass and no protection.

I'm also curious about this. I'd also like to know what they are going to add and improve. How will this dm be better and more realistic than the current one?

Depends on where it hits and at what angle. You'd also have to look at the structure of the specific aircraft. I've read of accounts of the Jug taking more than 20, 20mm shell hits and it still made it back home. The Spitfires wing structure was weaker than the P-47s, but like I said, it just depends. Keep in mind, I'm not saying the Jug should be invincible, I'm just saying it should be very tough as it was in real life. It should definitely be tougher than any ww2 aircraft we have in the sim right now.

Agreed. I really hope they get it right with this one. The P-47 was known as being one of, if not the toughest fighters in the war. It was also a very capable fighter and could hold its own in a fight. I'm gonna be very disappointing if they don't model it's durability, including it's engine durability. The P&W was known to be a very tough engine.