New features request

[kubanloewe]

i bought this plane in beta and was a bit disappointed about its unfinished things. now the Dora is in alpha status.... without a pilot figure shown in cockpit, without fixed bugs and without a damage model which is acceptable. without rockets, without reworked bomb blast for 500kg and many more things which perhaps are more important than these ! Is this plane really at the end of its development in DCS ? If yes i will be more carefull to buy next plane !

[Nooch]

Where did you see it's in alpha?

[loading]

They don't model the pilots in the cockpit because they can get in the way of buttons and switches, so I wouldn't expect to see that feature ever.

[Boomer20]

The pilot hasn't been modelled for a very long time in any of the planes. The A-10C never had one, the black shark has the option but since then it has been in place.

[Abburo]

I really hope you didn't buy it to display it somewhere as a scale model :).

 

Now talking seriously, some of your statements are valuable while others are nor relevant at all. For example, the pilot body and detailed damage model does not affect playability. Ranting up to stating this is unacceptable is far to be true. If you are looking for extreme graphic detailed then maybe you have too look somewhere else.

 

Meanwhile Dora is great model, is having a great flight behavior and is a real pleasure to walk her around.

 

What you might not know is that the damage model have been stated it is WIP for Dora as well as for Mustang. I don't know how much detailed could be visually, but from aerodynamic point of view is already fully functional.

[Silver_Dragon]

- Bomb blast physics has no exclusive of a module, has inherent of DCS: W engine (a feature) with the Damage model (other feature), and can be upgrade in the future. The subsequence points, Tje pilot figure (cosmetic), and the air to air rockets. (a new features no implemented into DCS: W), need wait to a future update.

[zaelu]

Pilot model has been added to Su-27 and Su-33. I expect slowly all planes will get pilot body as an option for people not stuck in "I don't see buttons paradigm" (6DoF and toggle pilot body are solutions for that minor problem) :D.

 

Dora Damage model and bomb destruction model are things that depend on DCS World parts that address those elements. They are worked on so when they will be available all planes will start receiving better DM. Same with the bombs...

 

Dora is great model... I wouldn't say is alpha... maybe on the EDGE of jumping from beta to RC. :D

[NeilWillis]

That ignores the extra demand that a pilot being drawn would put on the system resources. It's all well and good in a simple model like the FC3 aircraft, but I expect the Hog would just slow things down far too much to make the proposition viable.

 

As for the comment about the Dora now being in alpha, just do yourself a favour and think before you start saying stuff like that. It is offensive, unnecessary, and loses you all credibility. If you have an issue, state it, and leave the emotions for the playground!

[Boomer20]

That ignores the extra demand that a pilot being drawn would put on the system resources. It's all well and good in a simple model like the FC3 aircraft, but I expect the Hog would just slow things down far too much to make the proposition viable.

 

And every system resource is valuable given that frame performance (for many it seems) is so turbulent at the moment.

[zaelu]

pilot from Su-27, Su-33 and Ka-50 is a very low poly object. when rendered most of the time hides some lightened part of the cockpit that most probably eats more resources.

 

Do you base your assumptions on some actual tests?

 

Animating the body should not be more complicated than animate some parts of the cockpit that are already animated (examples: pedals, brake pedals, throttle and throttle rotators like Mig-21/p51/F86f, also dials and many knobs that move inside cockpit)

 

Saying that rotating a almost hidden knob for... lights... wait... 3 or 4 of them... is critical and resources should be spent on them but a pilot body that has very low poly count and only animates 5 things (2 feet, one arm on throttle one arm on x and y stick axes) is something to avoid ... just because you don't like it is very egoistic.

 

What I would like is to people that don't like the feature just to not use it (I have a friend that doesn't like it and doesn't use it and doesn't say me nice stories about precious resources) and let the ones that like it enjoy it. Why hide behind these kind of stories about months of development lost for animating a darn pilot body when you can simply say: "I don't like it I keep it OFF"?

 

Years ago i did import a model from AVP in Quake 3 Arena (I can show it to you) and it was a few hours job for a noob like me (research included). It is something like this: http://icculus.org/gtkradiant/documentation/Model_Manual/model_manual.htm

[kubanloewe]

haha, lots of fanboys here :D sry, but when i was buying the P51 which is a superb simulated plane (imo) i assumed the Dora would be get the same deep development... Or what did they change from beta to alpha status ?....near nothing ! there should be cockpitglass damage since a patch ...never see it happen yet. MW50 can be used muuch longer than 3x10min with 5min pause between...and so on. Anyway i dont fly her anymore

Edited November 15, 2014 by sobek
Rule 1.13

[falcon_120]

Do you know that Alpha Status is the "first" step in the development process?.

From Beta you don't go to Alpha, it is the other way around. But maybe you were just been ironic, I don't know.

[Schnarre Aggro]

well nice .... one more ponie for me to shoot ;)

and btw ... the mustang was even worse at the beginning .... believe me ... i had her from the beginning ;)

[kubanloewe]

Do you know that Alpha Status is the "first" step in the development process?.

From Beta you don't go to Alpha, it is the other way around. But maybe you were just been ironic, I don't know.

 

no, strange ...haha

[NeilWillis]

pilot from Su-27, Su-33 and Ka-50 is a very low poly object. when rendered most of the time hides some lightened part of the cockpit that most probably eats more resources.

 

Do you base your assumptions on some actual tests?

 

Animating the body should not be more complicated than animate some parts of the cockpit that are already animated (examples: pedals, brake pedals, throttle and throttle rotators like Mig-21/p51/F86f, also dials and many knobs that move inside cockpit)

 

Saying that rotating a almost hidden knob for... lights... wait... 3 or 4 of them... is critical and resources should be spent on them but a pilot body that has very low poly count and only animates 5 things (2 feet, one arm on throttle one arm on x and y stick axes) is something to avoid ... just because you don't like it is very egoistic.

 

What I would like is to people that don't like the feature just to not use it (I have a friend that doesn't like it and doesn't use it and doesn't say me nice stories about precious resources) and let the ones that like it enjoy it. Why hide behind these kind of stories about months of development lost for animating a darn pilot body when you can simply say: "I don't like it I keep it OFF"?

 

Years ago i did import a model from AVP in Quake 3 Arena (I can show it to you) and it was a few hours job for a noob like me (research included). It is something like this: http://icculus.org/gtkradiant/documentation/Model_Manual/model_manual.htm

 

Don't try and twist what i said into something entirely different. I was not saying anything at all about liking or not liking the idea of a pilot model. If one was available, I'd use it. I just can't see it happening soon, or as a priority.

 

And how do you get to the conclusion that there would be no impact on the system requirements? You don't seriously believe that adding a pilot wouldn't impact on the amount of processing required do you? Because if you add a pilot, you wouldn't remove the need for the other animations. It would add more polygons, and more animations, so how do you reach your conclusions?

 

Your previous work is admirable, but it is ED that would be adding the pilot, and like it or not, they work to their own agenda. Pilot or no pilot, DCS World is still streets ahead of anything else on the market, wouldn't you agree?

[Cykyrios]

With regards to the damage model of the Dora, I must say that the wings come off a bit too easily when they hit the ground at low speeds, and then the debris just float in the air.

Also, this kind of behavior is a bit... unusual, to say the least: https://dl.dropbox.com/s/xuthvartstae86n/Dora_ground_collision_01.mp4?dl=0

Then again, the Mustang also suffers from this issue (at least for the wings), but it is nowhere as extreme as it is for the Dora.

 

Also, as always, damage from collisions with the ground (or other aircraft) create bullet holes on the wings and fuselage, and this probably should not happen (I believe it is a texture being applied there, so it should not appear for ground collisions).

[fastfreddie]

I have yet to see any information/pictures that confirmed that the Dora ever was used with the 21cm Air Mortars. Very few FW190A versions ever used the thing and the ones that did were mid war A frames or a few A-8s. Just because it was an available addon doesn't mean it happened or should be included. These things slowed the plane down so much and were so inaccurate it made them impractical for combat use.

[outlawal2]

And another example of someone that should not purchase BETA software..

Ever...

 

Clearly has no idea what BETA means (and the fact that BETA comes after ALPHA)

 

In the future wait for the completed product and save yourself and the rest of us a lot of grief..

:thumbup:

[NineLine]

I have yet to see any information/pictures that confirmed that the Dora ever was used with the 21cm Air Mortars. Very few FW190A versions ever used the thing and the ones that did were mid war A frames or a few A-8s. Just because it was an available addon doesn't mean it happened or should be included. These things slowed the plane down so much and were so inaccurate it made them impractical for combat use.

 

Rockets are supposed to be coming, that said, I am of the personal opinion the more the merrier... that is, even if the 190 was only tested with it, I would still love to see it modelled in DCS. Mission designers have full control over whether or not it should be allowed, so why not have the most weapons possible... anyways, thats just my wish, there might not be enough man hours to accomplish all my wishes...

 

As for the comments on the aircraft not being fun or flyable or whatever... well simple put... you are doing it wrong. It takes some effort. Its not what we flew in WWII games from 10 years ago... its the most realistic representation to date... and honestly, when I finally got good with even just basic flight manoeuvres, it was rewarding, and thats what I want from my hobby... not some easy game that makes me an instant ace...

[9.JG27 DavidRed]

i assume such threads will become very popular once the 109 is out. :megalol:

i love challenges as well, and the love to details and awesome flight models in dcs. although i never really like the p51 as a plane, and although i still hate the look of the d9(gosh its ugly), i love both representations of them within dcs.

i love the fact that the d9 feels different than the p51.

 

and heck i will love the 109 once its out with all its kinks and challenges of hopefully yet another unique flight model.

 

and as long as such threads dont influence the devs to make the challenging flight models easier for some complainers, i even love such theads,...they are entertaininig while hitting F5 waiting for the 109 release announcement.

 

love post out.:)

[thinkr]

The Dora is just set up to be overly complicated. And yeah yeah.....I'm going to gat attacked on this but hey.......you need only to look at it's lack of popularity, and the Dora threads on the forum to see that I'm certainly far from alone in my opinion.

I am a huge fan of the 109 but.........I'm waiting for several months before I entertain getting it. I want to see if it is on par with the Mustang first. To me....Dora is substandard.

 

If you don't like the Dora your probably not going to like the 109 would be good to do more reading if you really think the 190 is "complicated":music_whistling:

I personally Love the DORA its a marvel of German machinery, which is needed to fight against P-51 within the era making the whole sim more complete.

 

"lack of popularity" lol that could also mean more people love the plane the way it is. Less talk in the Forums could also could also mean more people spend more time flying than talking about it. You would have to ask ED for a real picture of how many flight hours people log in the sim under which modules I'm sure that data is avalible to them it would be nice to see a cool graph of it.

 

Its not complicated I think what you mean is it is more difficult to take off more so than the P-51 thats why there are pieces on the runways since most teenagers don't have the patients to learn something difficult...

 

Personally I appreciate added dimension of difficulty:joystick: when it comes to taking off with bombs under the wings. Many people fly single player you know not everyone wants to fly the same mission some people with real patients actually learn how to use the mission editor and make up their own senerios using whats called an imagination:pilotfly::thumbup: lol you asked for it "substandard dora" PFFFFT!

[fastfreddie]

If DCS is going to stick a rocket system on the Dora then lets put the right one on it. It should be getting the R4M which was in operational use with JG26 and I quote"The missile was intended to be used in conjunction with the EZ42 gyroscopic gunsight." The R4M came in both air or ground rockets although the Dora only saw the air version and the FW190-F8 or F9s got the ground attack version. Lucky enough it also saw action with the ME262 so it would be used there also. 13 rockets where placed on a rack under each wing (same rack as Me262) and was usually fired off in 4 salvo because the rockets would form a circular pattern after launch about the same size as a bomber.

 

http://youtu.be/mpvmygc8f44

 

Pictures: I have some others ones but this should do.

 

http://fw-190.forumgratuit.ch/t75-focke-wulf-fw-190-d-9-avec-r4m

Edited November 17, 2014 by fastfreddie

[thinkr]

Rockets are supposed to be coming, that said, I am of the personal opinion the more the merrier... that is, even if the 190 was only tested with it, I would still love to see it modeled in DCS. Mission designers have full control over whether or not it should be allowed, so why not have the most weapons possible... anyways, that’s just my wish, there might not be enough man hours to accomplish all my wishes...

Exactly I feel realism comes from immersion of a good flight model, aircraft model sound and the scenery.

Having added features which are *optional* does not prevent anyone from experiencing true realism and immersion.

 

If you want to shoot missiles from your 190 and its fun and adds difficulty then do it. It being *optional* does not take away.

 

Fun thread!

Edited November 17, 2014 by thinkr

[Flagrum]

You would have to ask ED for a real picture of how many flight hours people log in the sim under which modules I'm sure that data is avalible to them (...)

I wholeheartedly hope not!

[NineLine]

Yeah, I dont think they log anything like that, Steam keeps track of hours spent in DCS world, but thats a little different...