Callsign112

Thanks for the response. When you say older vehicles, you mean like a T-55? I will definitely try your examples tonight.

There are a number of commands listed in the CA controls options menu that I cannot get to work, or find which vehicle they are for. I have not tried them on all vehicles, but I have tried them on all types of vehicles. Something like "Engine Start/Stop" I think are just not modeled yet. But does anyone know what vehicle "IFF Test", "Select Feed Slot 1", "Select Feed Slot 2", "Azimuth Correct Right, Left, Slow", "Elevation Correct Right, Left, Slow" are for? Thanks.

I get how a lot of people are fed up with the frustration of waiting for their desired fix to come, I really do. But in all fairness, We have seen some pretty big changes since I joined in 2019, and that includes the assets pack, CA, and the ME. I know I'm not feeling the same level of frustration having only been here for a couple of years, and make no claims to know the whats and whys of everything that happens, but the one thing I am pretty certain of is that coding something like DCS World is pretty high maintenance. On the up side, the WWII assets pack is still in early release so there is still room for improvement. I am looking forward to see what happens over the next 12 to 18 months

While being able to jump in the vehicle and drive it around is a really big deal for me and others I am sure, that feature and the tech pack that provides it is completely separate from the assets themselves. Being able to see the full featured environment without having to pay for it would likely have a negative impact on sales of the assets and their development. It would be sort of like allowing you to fly around in the Persian Gulf map without owning it. As a DCS World user, I realize I have received a lot of free assets, 2 free planes, and soon to be 3 maps for free. I also realize that there is a give and take that has to happen to make the whole thing work, and I think ED is doing their part. The suggestion above from @Qiou87 is probably one of the best approaches I have heard yet that might just work if the idea included all types of interaction. In other words, to be able to see the asset and destroy it with your plane, you would have to unlock those features with the assets pack. This would allow everyone to join, while maintaining the incentive for ED and its third parties to continue developing them. I think there is some logic in the argument that you should be able to take off and land on a block floating in the ocean if you want to join your friends, but if you want to enjoy the experience of the Super Carrier, you should have to support its development like everyone else. Everyone wins in this scenario. I view plane/jet/helicopter modules quite different from the way I view the maps, and assets/tech packs. For me the planes/jets/helicopters are optional in the sense that I decide which modules I want to buy based on my interests. The maps and assets/tech packs are only optional in the sense that I will get them when I can afford them. I need all of the assets and maps if I want to maximize my options for creating authentic missions, or to join others that have done the same whether it be by downloading their creation as a single player mission, or joining them on a multi-player server. If I have all the assets and maps, I can go anywhere in my Mustang, and you can try following me in your Messerschmitt, or visa versa. To me, the maps and assets/tech packs should be considered an integral part of the DCS world sandbox I use to fly my favorite plane/jet/helicopter in.

I just want to say, that was very well said... Thank you!

Love the DCS warbirds. +1 on the Corsair... can't wait. On the one hand, there so much I can't wait for on that front, but on the other hand they seem to have switch oceans and still no Stuka! Makes me wonder, can't they just hire more people!?

Bumping this thread because I really think it would benefit DCS WWII.

Turn.

And do you see anything in the video that would suggest the model is reversed or doesn't represent this well? His speed and altitude seem to logically follow his AoA. In terms of the FM itself, it seems to be pretty close based on a closer look at the approximate distance. I had no idea my original guess would spark such an interesting discussion.

@Rolds, didn't mean to ruffle your feathers. Just trying to be helpful. The feature does appear to work with some armored vehicles. I know for sure that it works with the Bradley for example. You can reload TOW missiles from internal storage with Lt CTRL + R keys. Fire one TOW missile, and then hit Lt CTRL + R and your launcher will go back to 2, while the internal storage drops by 1. I just assumed that it worked the same for all armored vehicles. It would be nice if they got around to adding this so that it does.

@Ramsay, thanks for your comments and for making the discussion a little more interesting. Couple of things though. The approximate distance was based on the video authors recollection of the amount of time he was in the glide. So we can't really confirm the approximate distance, and your last statement would be better written as "might have been 50% further, since we seem to be on a path of splitting hairs here. This was a casual conversation, and the point of interest for me was more that the author successfully lands his Vplane without power. His speed also changes constantly, which makes it even more difficult to guess the distance. Then there is the issue of wind, and how the author had the simulator set up. BTW how does air temperature play into things? The gliding example you provided, which I am assuming is referenced information for the Yak because I haven't looked it up myself, doesn't mention air temperature. At times we see that he is well above 160. What happens to drag as speed increases? But I think the biggest difference here is that you are using a referenced glide distance, while my guess was based on the amount of time aloft. Not really an apple to apples comparison here. I see now that my original guess was likely way over exaggerated. So to make a second attempt at guessing the glide distance, I had a closer look at the video and think I can improve my guess considerably. At about 17 seconds in the timeline, you see the edge of a river come into view on the left hand side of the plane. He is still in powered flight at this point. At about 38 seconds in the timeline, which is after the author makes an edit to the video, he loses power. Based on the same river section that we see multiple times in the video, and his approximate heading, I am guessing that he is somewhere over Tsutshvati about 17 NM out from his touchdown when he loses power. I think some pilots might have even considered landing without the gear down in the same circumstances, but watching his AoA, speed, and the effects when he makes the error of momentarily lowering his flaps looks very real IMO. So while there are no doubt still outstanding issues with the Yak 52 FM, ED has acknowledged this with a promise to fix. But I think in terms of what we are discussing here, we are grasping at straws if we want to insinuate that ED is incapable of accurately modeling resistance in their FM. I am also convinced that my original guess was way out, and that the real distance is pretty much spot on to what we would expect. I am looking forward to making the Yak my next prop.

I am not sure what you mean by ready rack, but try "Lt CTRL" + "R" keys will refill from internal storage, and "Lt Alt" + "\" keys to rearm from an airfield/truck.

I love the Normandy map, and am thankful that Ugra made the effort to come back to the Normandy map with an update after Syria, but there are still a lot of unaddressed problems that have been pointed to by the user base. Follow the river system from Le Havre for example. Vehicles fall through just about every bridge, several of which have been reported in the Bugs and Problems sub-forum.

+1 on the Eastern front idea. Nothing stopping you from using the WWII assets on the Caucasus map though. The map we have is a little too far east, but what we need more than anything are WWII Russian assets. In terms of maps though, what would be a better fit as the next Europe expansion would be West of Berlin. But an East Germany/poland/Belorussia map would be great if we could get the assets to go with it.

+1. We are currently really limited with what we can do in terms of covered positions in the ME.

That is really good to know @bbrz. Did you watch the video linked to the comment you are quoting? If you do, you will see he spends a lot of time above 160, and he glides for about 40km. Not bad for an old girl with long legs. Are you suggesting that aerodynamic drag is not modeled in the DCS Yak 52, and can you tell how accurate the FM is by watching what happens to his altitude as he changes his AoA? Because I can't, but it sure looks real.

All really good suggestions. Thanks.

Would be nice to see some appropriate assets for this as well.

You would think!

Just to let you know, I think you are quite right in terms of what you saw with the Yak FM like numerous other people have reported. But have you seen this? Interesting video showing how good the Yak is at gliding.

+1 on the P-38!

+1, I couldn't agree more. While the mission editor is a really important tool that helps us get the most out of the simulation, which is a truth I have been constantly learning day by day, they really need to look at ways to improve the AI so that it can multi-task better.

While i have really been getting my money's worth from Combined Arms/WWII Assets pack lately, we are also really disparately in need of the simple things needed to build fortifications/bases, troop/gun emplacements... and what is taking so long for the Anti-Tank guns? Thanks ED, I get the amount of work your working under

So what is the joke?

You heard they put guns on the Yak but not, GUNS? Is that suppose to mean something?