Mogster

You could get some rapid fix table mounts like the clamp type from Monstertech and others? I can switch between flight sim table mounts/driving wheel stand/M & KB in a minute.

I wonder if the La-7 will just appear as the I-16 did pretty much It’ll be a beast online no doubt, Luftwaffe flyers are not going to be happy...

The lack of grip from the tyres makes takeoff a bit easier as you tend to slide rather than tip over, so it’s been suggested anyway. When the Spitfire was released it used to tip quite easily on the narrow undercarriage, there was endless bitching about it, the tyre grip was reduced and the complaints went away. I think it feels OK from the cockpit but looks a bit weird from the outside.

Yes, it was referenced in the most recent change log. Good that it’s fixed.

I take it the guy on the right looking down and depressed is the pilot? Starting his long march to the gulag

I’ve said it before but MAC should be about aircraft ED could never include as full fidelity modules. Stuff that’s way too classified but you can have a fair idea how they work/perform. F22, F35, EF Block 5, SU35, SU57, J15, J20. It’d be a hoot.

Flying the Yak has always reminded me of the SBD in CFS2.

I’ve supported ED since the Flanker days and enjoyed their products immensely but from experience I really wouldn’t base any assumptions on the teams previous actions … That was then and now is now

The B17G looks great in RAF Camo. Used by the RAF for 1940s style ECM I think. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_Cigar

https://shortfinals.org/2013/07/02/raf-p-47d-thunderbolt-big-and-burly-just-right-for-burma/ SEAC made good use of the P47. It’s interesting as in general the P47 doesn’t seem to have won many friends in the PTO, but then the RAF hardly used the P47 in the ETO for whatever reason.

Market Garden is interesting but other than the initial drop there wasn’t really much air war action. Bad weather prevented reinforcement drops and limited air support possibilities, although comms issues played a part in the air support failure also.

Agreed. I think you’ve missed my point, I’d rather fly in DCS. I’m just not suggesting the current DCS developers make these aircraft but some of the better developers that make stuff for other sims.

I’m not sure why just the suggestion of civvy modules gets some people frothing at the mouth… No one’s suggesting that ED make a Cessna 172 or Robinson R44 instead of an F4 or Mig 29. There are very competent developers that make this stuff for other sims already though.

I do think that part of the problem could be convincing Cessna to allow their civvy product to appear in what’s essentially a combat sim.

Well it seems there’s certainly nothing physical to look at. I’d imagine the fact that any references will be in Japanese adds another level of complexity also.

I’d buy a basic helicopter also, how about a Robinson R44 or R66 turbine? Back to Cessna, there is the Caravan and Combat Caravan.

I’d buy a 172. I enjoy the Yak52 it’s great for exploring new maps and sometimes I just want to fly. I have MSFS and enjoy it for what it is but I’d just much rather fly in DCS physics. I can imagine Cessna would be jumpy about including the aircraft in what’s so far a combat sim though, possibly no damage model?

Aye, I think the B1Bs deployed to the Middle East tended to operate from Qatar. Could be wrong though.

F6F saw some ETO action also, RN and USN.

The 1930s Japanese aircraft are all extinct, would references not be an issue? The SCW has been rejected by other dev’s as being interesting but un-marketable?

From other dev’s comments over the years a multi crew heavy bomber is a huge amount of work. Each crew station is in effect a mini cockpit, this is DCS so the punters would expect every switch to be operable and perform it’s function… Some crew stations are in the open inside of the B17, nothing could be hidden you’d have to model the complete interior, no shortcuts here… That volume of work in a single project is harder to monetise than for multiple single engine fighters. The DCS WW2 singles are $50 each, if a four engine heavy is 4X the work then it’d have to be $200, how many would pay that much? I don’t see this as ED being money grabbing or lazy, they are just running a business and people have to be paid for the work they do and that money comes from people buying the product. I’m not saying ED will or wont make a heavy bomber, it’d be great if they did, but it’s much more of a risk that the current singles. I do see 4 engine heavies as suitable for a mod project as the monetisation issues are absent and people will accept lower fidelity as a starting point.

Post 9/11 the B1s have done a lot of CAS and we do have the Afgan scenery incoming.

Isn’t the B-1B being withdrawn soon? You’d imagine that would make a DCS flyable more possible. The number of remaining BLUEFOR airframes of the 80s-90s is getting smaller.

Yes, the brakes are aggressive, not sure why it doesn’t build pressure gradually like the Spitfire. Lifting the tail and slamming it down breaks the tail wheel also.

Not really. It’s only 300mi from London to Paris. It’s better but still a small map.