andremsmv

A bug exists where when you disallow external views for a multiplayer server, there is still a way to spectate people. Even though you cannot exit the cockpit view when occupying an aircraft slot, it is still possible to move to spectators and cycle through every unit on the server and see their name, their position, their airspeed, altitude, etc.

I noticed that although I don't allow external views in my multiplayer server, players are still able to jump into spectators and spectate any player and see who they are, where they are, their altitude, their airspeed, etc. I looked everywhere from the Mission Editor to server options and cannot find a solution. Does anyone have the answer to this?

Sorry if this is a dumb question, but how do I prevent players from jumping into spectators and spectating different players on a multiplayer server? I've turned off external views but it is still possible for a player to hop into spectators and spectate any player and see information about who they are, where they are, their airspeed and altitude, etc.

Hello, I have a simple question about the Mission Editor. Is it possible to remove pavement on a runway or flatten out terrain in a certain area? I'm trying to make a soft field to land WWII planes on but even the flattest land I can find is still a little bumpy, and it's absolutely impossible to land a Spitfire on anything other than perfectly flat ground (This may be a problem with the FM but that's a completely different subject). Is there any way to make a reliable soft field from scratch in the mission editor? Thanks -Andre

I finally had enough time to try this and let me say it worked like an absolute charm. My bush-flying mission is gonna be sick now. Thanks a million! -Andre

Someone explain to me why it was labeled "NO BUG" when everyone here is clearly saying it's a bug.

Hi, thank you so much for your response I was able to find me_route.lua file under the modules folder this time around, but when I open it up and try to edit text, I'm unable to save any changes I've made. Here is the error message I get: And here is the additional text I've written in the .lua file. No matter which change I make I'm not able to save. I tried to read up on OvGME to see if that could help me out, but every single link to the download is broken. -Andre

Hello, I have a quick question. Is this possible in the Yak-52? I tried this in a mission of my own with the Yak-52 but after scrolling through every page on the kneeboard I can't find the Ground Crew Page. Is there something I am doing wrong or is it just not possible in the Yak-52? Thanks

Hello. I know I'm 3 years late but I'm looking into this and I can't figure out how to add this to the "modules" file in the mission editor folder. I opened the "modules" file under the mission editor in notepad and used ctrl+F to find the actions commands but couldn't find anything. Am I doing something wrong?

If it were up to you, how would it be implemented in DCS? Surely it can't be sold because it isn't a real combat plane and cannot compete with anything in DCS.

All this talk about the Fw-190 vs the P-51. I'd gladly take you up for that challenge for fun. Personally I have never encountered a 190 pilot that has given me any trouble whatsoever, so I would love to change that. About the game though. I just wonder why D9's and K4's were chosen over G14's and A8's. I personally don't think K4's and D9's are nearly as OP as people say they are (except against spitfires), especially if you are very comfortable flying a p-51. That being said though, this is a simulator not a game. Historical accuracy is more important than balance, as long as the advantage isn't completely skewed to one side. My idea would be to have G14's and A8's cost about 75% as much as mustangs and spits so more people would generally fly axis planes than allied planes, roughly balancing out the individual airplane advantages. This would also be more historically accurate since Germans tended to fight in larger squadrons than the Americans.

I think it has already been said many times, but the Spitfire was probably the harder plane to land/take-off. The reason for all the reports of 109 pilots dying on landing is due to the lack of training. To take off in the Spitfire: 1. elevator down a few degrees 2. ailerons to the right a touch 3. slowly raise your throttle (but at the same time don't be afraid to give it some juice) 4. counter the torque with your rudders (you shouldn't really rudder to the left. if you counter too far to the right just let the torque take you back to the left) 5. once the tail gets off the ground, center the stick 6. pull up very very lightly

totally agree. A 99% accurate representation of a real airplane for as little as $25 (when on sale) is a steal to me. Nowhere else can you get that sort of deal for such a surreal experience.

Although it may not be high up on ED's list of priorities, I feel like it would greatly add to the game to simply be able to naturally get in and out of airplanes and do a pre/post flight inspection.

That might just be the problem with war birds in general. They tend to be a little more unstable than civilian or commercial planes. Every other war bird stalls when taking a turn too tight as well.

The TF-51 is just a P-51 with the weapons and rear tank removed, and an extra seat added for civilian use.

I'm not sure if it would be worth ED's time, but it seems like a minor thing. If the TF-51 is a civilian plane, shouldn't a civilian pilot be flying it? It looks a tad bit awkward seeing someone in a full blown military suit fly it. Maybe some blue jeans, tennis shoes, a light jacket, and a headset sitting on a pillow (instead of a parachute) would be more fitting for a TF-51 pilot. Again, if it would take too much of ED's time, then I would much prefer they work on other parts of DCS, but if it isn't too much trouble I don't see why not.

I was hoping not to get dragged into a debate about "women vs men," but whether you like it not, women are different than men. Obviously, there are some women who are stronger than some men, so don't get me wrong when i say "men are generally stronger than women." There are differences between the two genders. It would be quite cool if there were women voices coming from AWACS, since women are generally better at multitasking and could fit that role better than several men, but in a dogfight, women don't quite have the strength that men do.

I'm not trying to offend anyone in the least bit, but as somebody previously mentioned, women haven't taken real combat roles (i.e. dogfights to the death on a regular basis), with the exception being Russia in WWI and WWII, just because they were amazingly desperate for soldiers (no offense obviously). Notice I never said "women never flew combat planes," instead "women never flew in combat." As mainly a Mustang and Spitfire pilot, it would sound quite ridiculous if a women called out "Jerry on my tail!" Again, I'm not trying to offend anyone, and I'm very aware that there are women who fly combat missions, but women simply don't have the stamina or strength to pull 10 G's on multiple occasions after a 3 hour flight behind enemy lines. These fighter pilots had to be in top shape or they were no match for the enemy. Some more modern planes (such as the A-10 or F-15) could have women playing the role of a ground assault pilot, but like I said above, in a dogfight it would be somewhat unrealistic. If ED were to implement female voices and maintain realism, they would have to change G tolerance, vitality, and stamina as well.

I really like the idea of a pacific theater and new planes, but I'm not sure how this would all work out. The European theater still needs tons of work (new version of the mustang is soon to be released, older versions of the 109 and 190 need to be released to make the spitfire and upcoming planes more relevant, and possibly an expansion of the Normandy map (because it is quite tiny)). Along with that, it would be difficult to pair up late war American planes and late war Japanese planes. The Japanese planes near the end of the war were simply no match for planes such as the corsair hellcat or mustang (pretty much their only advantage is turn radius). I can't see many people spending money on Japanese planes only to get shafted by a bunch of Americans. That being said, I really like the idea of a cheap map that is mainly just ocean, but a map like that would be more fitting for early war scenarios, since later in the war America started attacking Japan's homeland. For a map consisting of just water (and maybe Midway islands), a match up like the F4F-4 or F4U-1 vs A6M2 would make more sense.

The P-51 easily out rolls the 109, so you can make a 109 overshoot you by doing rolling maneuvers. My go-to maneuver for making my opponent overshoot is to split S, cut throttle, and do a barrel roll (you can try variations of this maneuver, it works 90% of the time). Also, while in a dogfight, you should always have your RPM's maxed out. Your engine should be able to go at least 5 minutes full throttle and full RPM's without blowing (which is 10x as long as the average dogfight). Make sure to regulate your throttle though! Keep in mind that the faster you fly, the more maneuverable your plane is, but the slower you fly, the tighter your turn radius is. Use your intuition to decide when it's important to fly fast or slow.

A Hurricane in Normandy 1944? no A Tempest? yes

This wouldn't be accurate. Women have never fought in aerial combat before. Historical accuracy comes before political correctness in a simulator like this.

Why would I want a Texan when I already have two WWII planes and will likely get the rest before the year ends (which would be well before ED would even think about developing a Texan). I thought I explained pretty reasonably why this could work out in ED's best interest It seems that you haven't even read the post.

To answer your question, yes that is pretty much what I am saying. Assuming ED does develop a Texan, they may make some more money initially by selling it for a small price, but in the long run it wouldn't be as profitable as if they replaced it with the TF-51D. People who already have WWII modules would almost certainly not buy it since it would not really be effective in combat, and people who don't have WWII modules would rather buy a real war bird instead. Like I said above, the Texan will serve as a plane that will dip pilot's toes into the flying WWII machines, the way the Su25T does with jets. Also, a Texan makes much more sense than a Cessna because it's a combat simulator. And no, I don't just want the Texan for free. If this were to happen I would fly it a few times and say "yeah the Mustang is way cooler." I honestly think that replacing the TF-51D with a Texan would serve in ED's best interest by encouraging people to buy their modules for purposes other than just combat.