birdstrike

i have written a pretty long post, which i just lost because of having to log in again...anyway...long story short... stood up with the wrong foot today? the most likely plane to encounter as an allied pilot would be another allied aircraft in normandy 1944....not much action in the air in this point of time. if you insist on staying at this map in this time period, while we already know that another european ww2 map is in progress, then yes, a late g whatever version makes more sense...and if you want it historical, then better only sell like 20modules of it, and watch the ww2 part of dcs die.

the f version contrary to the k4 was actually in service in normandy. and as i think even u personally pointed out in another thread that the current normandy map isnt historical accurate for a specific time frame it has its place on dcs imo....besides...limiting this map to only a few months period in time is a huge mistake imo....as we all know this area saw action a couple of years during the most part of the war. also....one more reason to create an earlier version is the similarity between the k4 and late g models...an f version i would buy instantly....a g14 i dont know imo...its to similar for my taste to warrant a purchase... last but not least, as dcs started with a very late planeset, it would make sense to travel back in time and produce earlier variants imo

+1000 ED give us a 109F4

i would be interested if there is staff dedicated to ww2 and working exclusively on the warbirds and maps...and how many are they? as a guy who is almost only interested in the ww2 content in dcs, it was sobering to read that they stopped working on the damage model because of the yak52. there was an interview with yo-yo where he mentioned it would take them about 5months to develop a warbird....but the sad truth we are facing is that the actual pace is 4times longer...

des is a soizbuaga, owa damit ma ned ollaweu oftopik san.... some screenshots from its externals would be nice. always prefered the "normal" 190 looks over the long nosed D version.

the ai 109 isnt better than a player flown 109. its just the combination of the strengths of the 109 and the dcs ai logic. the dcs ai tends to climb if it notices to get outturned. it also climbs when it overshoots...and this fits best to the 109 out of the available ww2 fighters we have as long as it flies against a human...ai vs ai, the spit profits even more from this ai logic. thats why there are repeatable results when u set up missions with ai vs ai at same skill levels....there u will notice the fw190 loses against all other fighters while the spit wins against all others...the 109 loses against spit but wins against the other two and the p51 wins against the 190 but loses vs spit and 109...its because they dont fly to their aircraft strengths but follow the general rule described above...

i think the 9jg27 guys are the ones u want to get in touch with in this case

most important improvement to the labels system would be to have the view on them obstructed by the parts of your aircraft. they should vanish behind any surface which is not canopy glass imo.

yes, thats another problem with blackouts which also affects offline flying.... the pilot will keep increasing/decreasing the prop pitch while completely blacked out, given that u pushed the rocker switch the moment u blacked out. the same is true for flaps and i also believe for the trimming wheel...if u start to lower your flaps the moment u black out, u will notice that your flaps are completely down in landing configuration once you are back conscious. prop pitch, flaps and trim controls are stuck and "pressed" in the state they were in at the time of the blackout. so flaps go fully up or down in the blackout period. but u are unable to stop turning the wheel, or turn it in the opposite direction... that problem is there ever since the 109 was released....its a shame that this bug is still present so many years after release and still being ignored.

i never said im using any soundmods...in fact, im using vanilla dcs all the way. no mods at all. im just saying, that the soundfiles themselves sound better than they do in game. and yeah, i have been next to both, a Merlin and a lawnmower, not at the same time though :lol:

i hope they not only update the p51, but also the 109 and 190. compared to the spit, they really lack details, polygons etc. anyway, judging from the new screenshots, so far im not really impressed. the cockpit just looks way more weathered and old? the actual gauges still look the same,...i.e. the slipball is still just a 2d texture and the lacks any depth. same for the other dials and needles. but its still WIP, and from only two screenshots u cant really get a good impression of what its going to be in game. so i wait and see how the final result looks in game. sure it will be an improvement.

nobody??

and yet, when u open the original soundfiles from the dcs recordings, they actual do sound very good...but in game, they sound for some reason very different, and imo, not so good anymore. it seems the dcs sound engine is distorting the files unfortunately, and i think thats also why some people compare the sounds with lawnmowers and what not. thats not Merlin specific, but applies to the german engines as well, and i assume to all sounds in dcs.

today i tried to play a little with the trim tabs in the special section for the 109. and while the trim tab for the rudder makes a noticeable difference, the tabs for the ailerons dont seem to have any effect at all, not even when trying the most extreme settings of -100 or +100.

yeah, with the latest openbeta patches, they changed the values of the mainwheel's sidefriction back from 3.5 to 5.5....before the initial changes, the value was set to 7.0 iirc...so what we have now is an acceptable compromise. wings will drop again if you are not cautious...and terrible landings will have terrible endings. one thing i noticed with yesterday's patch though...while doing some grass landings with unlocked tailwheel to test the new behaviour, on two occasions, i had the tailwheel bouncing up. and instead of observing a decrease in its swing, it became more and more severe with every bounce, up until the tailwheel collapsed. would love the devs to have one more look at this... the rest seems plausible, at least from the so far little testing i have done. no more tokio drift at least, so its a step in the right direction.

i dont think it would even withstand that first bounce at that angle in real life. either the landing gear collapsed or the tire bursts before flipping over...thats what i would expect to happen...dont believe a real spit would get away in 1 piece with such a landing.

not only the 109 video...did u see the spit video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfCRM2fgcHg

i have to disagree with pretty much everything of the above. the things u suggest, is the typical approach of all the other "sims" i abandoned for this very reason and came to dcs. and i think there are many more people with real life flying experience than u might expect on this forum.

ok if losing 1 elevator really means that the aircraft becomes unstable around the pitch axis then it makes sense! considering the drastic increase of pitch authority when losing 1 elevator, im confused as to why the german engineers didnt create the aircraft unstable in the first place, considering the heavy stickforces and the problems that come with it...easy solution, just make smaller elevators? :)

im curious if it will be a full fidelity module like the already released ww2 birds, or if its going to be one of the upcoming lower fidelity modules announced earlier. i have the feeling, that except the p47 and me262 which they promised to be full fidelity modules, the new ww2 fighters will be modules part of the flying legends pack....which is planned to be at flaming cliffs level from what i understood.

when the community had the possibilty to ask Nick Grey some questions, mine was as follows: Q. And what makes me personally really sceptical that the stickforces are implemented correctly, is the fact, that once you lose 1 elevator, you all of a sudden can turn much tighter at higher speeds, which for me at least doesnt make any sense. – Birdstrike before this question i was asking whether they really think that the stickforces are implemented correctly....anyway, the part that still confuses me is the bold one i highlighted, and Nick Grey's answer: A. If you lose an elevator then less resistance, 50% to be exact means full deflection becomes possible. the link to the interview: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=207133 now, of course, its quite logical, that once u lose an elevator, u only have half of the force to overcome to keep the same deflection of the elevator....and therefore u can deflect it twice as much....but why should this result in turning tighter? u just lost 50% of the aerodynamic surface which makes turning at all possible to begin with....so if at all, it should be turning the same at best, at high and medium speeds, and at lower speeds definitely worse. now if i have an error in my thinking, please enlighten me.... and if for whatever reason, which i still cant comprehend, Nick Grey is really correct with his claim, then i wonder about the following: if smaller control surfaces which are deflected more than taller ones deflected less, really mean more aerodynamic effect, i wonder why the 109 rudder is that ineffective...and i also wonder, why the 109 pilot cannot deflect the relatively small rudder more, than lets say the P51 pilot, which has definitely a much bigger rudder..... Yo-Yo?

well...if u would like it realistic, then in most mission we would need a couple of hundred allied bombers and a couple of hundred fighters escorting them....we all know, that this isnt going to happen with the current performance issues. i would say, thats out of EDs power. but to choose a map fitting the current plane set is not. they can create a map historically accurate for the planes we have right now...so thats two different things imo, and creating "realistic" scenarios, would then be in the hands of the mission designers, given that they have a historical accurate map to begin with....apples and oranges i think. besides, creating a map not historical accurate for our planes is just as time intensive and work intensive as a map that is. so why not choose the latter one? anyway, i opened this thread to get confirmation by some ED member, if the weekend news are accurate, and that there is indeed more than 1 ww2 map currently in development.

at least 2 new WW2 maps? reading the newsletter from yesterday, am i right in assuming that at least 2 new WW2 maps are currently in development by ED? "All of these are various stages of development, and they will serve a vital role in fleshing out the DCS World II experience in concert with the new damage modelling, new World War II era maps, and dogfight AI."

if you bind the "signal starter crew" command to your hotas, you dont need to be on a friendly airstrip. then u dont need to be on an airstrip at all but can take off from anywhere. oh sniped by defaultface. :)