Jump to content

Is this plane the ugly stepchild of DCS?


Rebel28

Recommended Posts

This plane has been out since 2012 and the only visual item worked on for improvement was the cockpit years ago. Yet in the new information about warbirds what is listed,  We are currently working on visual improvements to the external models and cockpits of the Thunderbolt, Anton and Mosquito.”

This is just great meanwhile the P51 still to this day has NOT had the skins updated to your own new texture format. It is just great that the skin for “Big Beautiful Doll” looks like someone poured milk all over it. We also don’t want to talk about the missing LOD’s that have been missing forever do we.

 Go to your own site and search the reported bugs for this plane and then are listed by you as Reported and compare that with what has been fixed. We had to live with a popping engine sound for 3 months until it was fixed.

So don’t wonder why I ask the question in the heading….

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Problem is, I don't know when did you two get this module, but for instance I got it in 2012 on pre-sale because I wanted the aircraft bad no matter the environment it had or not, but in sales periods (back then happening even more times a year than now) you could get this and other modules 70% off, so P-51 costed 15$ (buying from Europe at that time barely 12€ 🙄) plus you got bonus points 🤦‍♂️, and that wasn't just for a short period time, that happened for many years and many more modules and warbirds later on could be bought at that same price, A-10C (original one, not A-10C II), BS 2, UH-1, whole FC 3, Fw190D, Bf109, and so on. Apparently you don't realize you're asking a module bought by many at that price tag 10 years ago to be kept, updated and even enhanced meaning basically redoing the whole module from scratch on today standards, for everyone but those only paid 10+ bucks and since so many of us already own the module we don't buy it again, I haven't paid anything since then for the P-51.

Still, I got several updates, new textures, new model P-51D-25, new sounds (twice at least do I recall?), new 3D enhancements (props anyone?), new engine model, I don't even mention core engine updates since that's not specifically related to P-51 though all modules take advantage of those and P-51 also does, and, better or worst, but basically it's still running and kept alive, supported, and even updated from time to time.

 

Please enlighten me about what game did you buy 10+ years ago and is still running, supported, updated and kept alive for free?

  • Like 8

"I went into the British Army believing that if you want peace you must prepare for war. I believe now that if you prepare for war, you get war."

-- Major-General Frederick B. Maurice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ugly? definitely not. Neglected?... maybe just a little.

The three planes listed as being worked on were the last three planes released, could it have anything to do with that? I am not offering an excuse, but it sounds like they are working on problems identified with the new modules. I would like to better understand the context the bold text above was written in, can you point me to where you found that text?

In terms of money matters, DCS WWII is being worked on continuously and is constantly growing. While I agree the pace seems way to slow, I would like to think ED realizes the benefit in fixing/updating all of the modules and not just a select few.

But I agree, having been released in 2012, bug issues with the Mustang module shouldn't be an issue, and it is probably long overdue for a texture buff.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Ala13_ManOWar said:

Problem is, I don't know when did you two get this module, but for instance I got it in 2012 on pre-sale because I wanted the aircraft bad no matter the environment it had or not, but in sales periods (back then happening even more times a year than now) you could get this and other modules 70% off, so P-51 costed 15$ (buying from Europe at that time barely 12€ 🙄) plus you got bonus points 🤦‍♂️, and that wasn't just for a short period time, that happened for many years and many more modules and warbirds later on could be bought at that same price, A-10C (original one, not A-10C II), BS 2, UH-1, whole FC 3, Fw190D, Bf109, and so on. Apparently you don't realize you're asking a module bought by many at that price tag 10 years ago to be kept, updated and even enhanced meaning basically redoing the whole module from scratch on today standards, for everyone but those only paid 10+ bucks and since so many of us already own the module we don't buy it again, I haven't paid anything since then for the P-51.

Still, I got several updates, new textures, new model P-51D-25, new sounds (twice at least do I recall?), new 3D enhancements (props anyone?), new engine model, I don't even mention core engine updates since that's not specifically related to P-51 though all modules take advantage of those and P-51 also does, and, better or worst, but basically it's still running and kept alive, supported, and even updated from time to time.

 

Please enlighten me about what game did you buy 10+ years ago and is still running, supported, updated and kept alive for free?

All really good points and well said, but there is still a very strong case for ED to update the older modules and fix whatever ails them because just like the most recently released modules, the Mustang continues to attract new players to DCS WWII. The Mustang sells currently for the exact same price as the Jug for example, and it is worth every penny!

The Mustang was my first flying module in DCS, and it remains my favorite. But that's more of a childhood dream thing and is not meant to say that I don't like, or appreciate the other WWII modules.

I think once you get into something like DCS, chances are your likely to get more than one module if not all of them. One of DCS W's biggest strengths is that it attempts to capture the individual characteristics of each RL plane, and the differences between them are more than obvious when flying them. More than anything I think this forms the strongest reason for ED to keep them all up to date. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

vor 23 Stunden schrieb Rebel28:

This plane has been out since 2012 and the only visual item worked on for improvement was the cockpit years ago. Yet in the new information about warbirds what is listed,  We are currently working on visual improvements to the external models and cockpits of the Thunderbolt, Anton and Mosquito.”

This is just great meanwhile the P51 still to this day has NOT had the skins updated to your own new texture format. It is just great that the skin for “Big Beautiful Doll” looks like someone poured milk all over it. We also don’t want to talk about the missing LOD’s that have been missing forever do we.

 

 Go to your own site and search the reported bugs for this plane and then are listed by you as Reported and compare that with what has been fixed. We had to live with a popping engine sound for 3 months until it was fixed.

So don’t wonder why I ask the question in the heading….

I kind of agree with you, ED would better finish all the already released modules and eliminate their bugs, and so on. But instead of that they prefer to relese new modules without completing the released ones and then trying to handle all the bugs and issues that come with the new modules.

I think they are aiming a little bit too high..  They have released a lot of modules already right? Then why not finishing them first and then add more? Instead of adding 2-3 modules every year and then trying to solve all their bugs thereby forgetting about the old modules, they could release 1 new module a year and concentrate more on fixing the old ones bugs.

And it would not be "too few modules" as many would say because firstly there are third-party developers who also release planes, helicopters and maps. Secondly we can say: "Less is more" because if you think about it, it is better to get one module a year but this module will (almost) be bug free and many systems (engines, flight model, internal systems, damage model and so on) will be completed, than to have a half working modules with a lot of bugs, problems and incompleteness that everyone complains about.

I'm not trying to offend or judge anyone, I'm just saying my opinion. Why some modules that many people love remain without attention in favor of new modules that everyone is waiting for, but which will also one day be forgotten and will remain unfinished?

And again, it's only my opinion.

Thanks, and sorry for my English.

  • Like 4

Viggen GIF 2.gif

"If we don't end war, war will end us."  

H. G. Wells

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rebel28 said:

The funny thing is I watched the video announcement, but never read that. But I do get a slightly different feel having just read it, and am not sure if you would agree after reading it again.

Notice at the very beginning of the announcement it starts with:

"We are glad to inform you that the WWII bug fixing process is moving along steadily. We have already closed many outstanding issues and these fixes will be available to you in the next Open Beta."

My personal feeling is that they are doing what was promised. There is obviously a focus on the 3 last planes, but both the Dora and Mustang also saw a couple important updates. We could also throw the WWII version of the Mariana Islands, updated radar, bomb fusing, and the Yak in there with the realization there is only so much that can be done at once. They progressed 6 different prop planes, albeit with a focus on the 3 most recently released. As long as they start and continue addressing the long standing issues, I am very happy to also see the most recent 3 get the planned improvements as well.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Callsign112 said:

…there is still a very strong case for ED to update the older modules and fix whatever ails them because just like the most recently released modules, the Mustang continues to attract new players to DCS WWII. The Mustang sells currently for the exact same price as the Jug for example, and it is worth every penny!

Of course I'm not saying they shouldn't keep it alive and updated, and yes for me it was a blast back then compared to anything I knew in simulation, I love the module to the day and I believe it's still great. Of course new people can and still do buy the module and they deserve the same attention, but my point is still many, and I mean a hell of a lot many of us bought it many years ago and won't buy it again no matter how much they update it since we already own it. Those (many) who bought the module about 10 years ago and after for barely 15$ (14.95 BTW) enjoy those updates the same as newcomers, but I'm not sure the numbers are that high now most of us already own the module. The last 3D update with new textures and everything, although it wasn't like a brand new module, really enhanced it, I cannot complain it was a bad update yet still people say it isn't enough for a reason and that it haven't received attention in so many time 🙄, but that update came not long ago, I just don't know what people mean with the "no updates ever", the it's being neglected, it's left unsupported, whatever thing.

Not to mention many complains about bugs and everything comes from actual updates to the core, apparently so many people aren't aware what's going with DCS, they don't realize it's a living platform, you ask for updates, they come with them, not few, some really deep ones, core sim is updated every time but that breaks compatibility with older modules. It's a hell of a lot of work to keep this going on (and I just guess it, I haven't the faintest since I'm not a dev), you have to update things, keep older things working, but all that while the platform is being used!! It's like a doctor had to perform a heart surgery while the patient is still alive and with the heart beating because you can't stop it nor the person can stop being alive. Think the time, not long ago, we got the new props for instance they came almost all together in one single update in, how many modules? at the same time and trying not to stop the game from being usable, maybe bugs happens but still usable. They got the props, I won't seek for the thread but there were a thread like this one back in time complaining about P-51 propeller being awful and the module being neglected with no support and everything… ring a bell? 😆  I mean what the constant complain mates? I believe people are just being bigots here like nobody ever released a bug anywhere 🤣 .

But no, people want it all, new modules (because you want new modules, don't say you don't, I want new modules either), new stuff, new maps, new things to do, new weather, new assets, new damage model, new ATC (WWII related, of course, but also modern ones), new dynamic campaign (WWII usable), new multicore with new VR support with a new game engine (I don't recall how many engine changes I've known since DCSW happened in 2010), you want new everything!! but you don't want what comes with that, bugs, incompatibilities, development problems, delays, and what not. If something I always thought ED's target to be too bold since they obviously aim for a full high fidelity simulation platform with everything, air, ground and sea, the ultimate simulation experience but that while the platform is in use and with a small team (they still are a small team for what they do despite they hired a bunch of new people not that long ago either). I mean, what do you expect from a small team in a niche subject like hardcore simulation is, but with the highest of the targets… it takes time, a hell of a lot of time, and problems, a hell of a lot of problems… and here I'm just pointing out the obvious so many people apparently can't see :music_whistling:, before someone chimes in telling I'm being as bigot as them or something 😆.

 

But still I like ED's minds, what they aim for, and I want it no matter the time and tears it takes. Those complaining and saying it's unbearable, Ok, good for you, better go play Tetris ultimate, that's probably more bug free than DCS is, or maybe not 🤣🤣🤣 .


Edited by Ala13_ManOWar
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

"I went into the British Army believing that if you want peace you must prepare for war. I believe now that if you prepare for war, you get war."

-- Major-General Frederick B. Maurice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess they must be listening after all. The Mustangs Hot Air and Ram Air levers actually work now and are controllable with analog sliders.  I have not tested if they still have an effect on the engine performance.  But I'm seeing that when I land and refuel, rearm, or pick another plane, the analog control of R/P/Y with GVLs controller is lost, I'm constantly having to restart the game to get it to work again on the Pony, Jug and Mossie, I don't fly the Spitfire much because of the video distortion in the cockpit. The problem is there is no dedicated team to test modules to see if the New Kid on the Block's development has damaged other modules.  I beta test in the other sim and we always look to see if all the A/C still work, in Single/Multi/Campaign environments. I only hope they have it right when they release these buggy Beta's as a Release Candidate for the "Stable" version :joystick:

Cheers

Squeaky Wheel.................... :thumbup:

  • Like 1

Sempre Fortis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Jagdgeschwader said:

I kind of agree with you, ED would better finish all the already released modules and eliminate their bugs, and so on. But instead of that they prefer to relese new modules without completing the released ones and then trying to handle all the bugs and issues that come with the new modules.

I think they are aiming a little bit too high..  They have released a lot of modules already right? Then why not finishing them first and then add more? Instead of adding 2-3 modules every year and then trying to solve all their bugs thereby forgetting about the old modules, they could release 1 new module a year and concentrate more on fixing the old ones bugs.

And it would not be "too few modules" as many would say because firstly there are third-party developers who also release planes, helicopters and maps. Secondly we can say: "Less is more" because if you think about it, it is better to get one module a year but this module will (almost) be bug free and many systems (engines, flight model, internal systems, damage model and so on) will be completed, than to have a half working modules with a lot of bugs, problems and incompleteness that everyone complains about.

I'm not trying to offend or judge anyone, I'm just saying my opinion. Why some modules that many people love remain without attention in favor of new modules that everyone is waiting for, but which will also one day be forgotten and will remain unfinished?

And again, it's only my opinion.

Thanks, and sorry for my English.

Your English is pretty good BTW.

I get your point and don't disagree. I mean how can anyone blame someone for being frustrated because they feel like they are being left in a state of constant waiting. My take on it though is from a slightly different perspective, but again it has nothing over your own view in the sense that we are both just guessing.

Stepping back after reading some of the hot debates surrounding the issue of new module early access release vs older bug/maintenance fixes, the question that kept popping up for me was why would they do that? And the only logical conclusion I could find was they wouldn't by choice. Which leads me to believe building up a module inventory was a necessity to keeping the doors open so to speak. So I think the constant addition of new modules was not only heavily anticipated by the community, it was a requirement for survival. 

If any of this has any truth to it, then the hope is that the current inventory of available modules is now large enough to provide ED with the resources needed to go back and do the much needed house keeping while they continue to move forward. The other side of this is that there will always likely be bugs of some sort because of the constant need for improvements. Bugs are not just the result of an unfinished module, but old bugs may reappear as well as new ones can crop up with each new addition to the SIM.

So unless DCS World itself stops evolving, I don't ever expect to see a bug free SIM. What I hope to see is ED improving on its ability to decrease the amount of time it takes to respond to any issues that do crop up.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, 352nd_Hoss said:

I guess they must be listening after all. The Mustangs Hot Air and Ram Air levers actually work now and are controllable with analog sliders.  I have not tested if they still have an effect on the engine performance.  But I'm seeing that when I land and refuel, rearm, or pick another plane, the analog control of R/P/Y with GVLs controller is lost, I'm constantly having to restart the game to get it to work again on the Pony, Jug and Mossie, I don't fly the Spitfire much because of the video distortion in the cockpit. The problem is there is no dedicated team to test modules to see if the New Kid on the Block's development has damaged other modules.  I beta test in the other sim and we always look to see if all the A/C still work, in Single/Multi/Campaign environments. I only hope they have it right when they release these buggy Beta's as a Release Candidate for the "Stable" version :joystick:

Cheers

Squeaky Wheel.................... :thumbup:

Of course they listen, but not now, they had always do, even old stuck bugs complained about for many time while people say they'll always be there, even some people quit the sim due to the "intolerable" of the situation. Then it gets fixed but they might not even see it since they quitted out of sheer impatience. I know sometimes some bugs can be really annoying, but if you don't get fixated in those the sim is still pretty useable even when those complain about it being impossible to use. Even old bugs get squashed in the end, look how despite it being so slippery that not even people complaining could post proper data to identify the bug, in the end the Dora engine thing was found and fixed.

Now you say, the problem you mention, well indeed there are a team of dedicated betatesters, always there were but actually not that long ago they announced how the team was embiggened with even more people. Don't you read newsletters? 😛

But let's not digress here, now you mention "the other sim", you realize it's not even close to DCS in complexity, right? "Modules" which aren't modules at all don't feature systems modelling, at all, nor those inexistent features imply updating core engine every time you need any new thing, be it a new radar, a new missiles feature, a new naval asset, a new previously unseen weapon with any sort of guidance, a new FLIR like thing, a new whatever, and when that happens bugs to already working modules using those now enhanced features can happen, of course can happen, but also of course we all want the sim to be renewed constantly, right? That problem simply doesn't exist there, it's impossible to compare any other thing to DCS because there are no other comparable thing out there. The only thing comparable at a distance could be the 98 modern sim still lurking out there, and modders, not dev, modders ended up cleaning the bugs it had 😅 , which is easier anyway when you have a dead platform, so no way mate, no way to compare.

  • Like 2

"I went into the British Army believing that if you want peace you must prepare for war. I believe now that if you prepare for war, you get war."

-- Major-General Frederick B. Maurice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Ala13_ManOWar said:

Of course I'm not saying they shouldn't keep it alive and updated, and yes for me it was a blast back then compared to anything I knew in simulation, I love the module to the day and I believe it's still great. Of course new people can and still do buy the module and they deserve the same attention, but my point is still many, and I mean a hell of a lot many of us bought it many years ago and won't buy it again no matter how much they update it since we already own it. Those (many) who bought the module about 10 years ago and after for barely 15$ (14.95 BTW) enjoy those updates the same as newcomers, but I'm not sure the numbers are that high now most of us already own the module. The last 3D update with new textures and everything, although it wasn't like a brand new module, really enhanced it, I cannot complain it was a bad update yet still people say it isn't enough for a reason and that it haven't received attention in so many time 🙄, but that update came not long ago, I just don't know what people mean with the "no updates ever", the it's being neglected, it's left unsupported, whatever thing.

Not to mention many complains about bugs and everything comes from actual updates to the core, apparently so many people aren't aware what's going with DCS, they don't realize it's a living platform, you ask for updates, they come with them, not few, some really deep ones, core sim is updated every time but that breaks compatibility with older modules. It's a hell of a lot of work to keep this going on (and I just guess it, I haven't the faintest since I'm not a dev), you have to update things, keep older things working, but all that while the platform is being used!! It's like a doctor had to perform a heart surgery while the patient is still alive and with the heart beating because you can't stop it nor the person can stop being alive. Think the time, not long ago, we got the new props for instance they came almost all together in one single update in, how many modules? at the same time and trying not to stop the game from being usable, maybe bugs happens but still usable. They got the props, I won't seek for the thread but there were a thread like this one back in time complaining about P-51 propeller being awful and the module being neglected with no support and everything… ring a bell? 😆  I mean what the constant complain mates? I believe people are just being bigots here like nobody ever released a bug anywhere 🤣 .

But no, people want it all, new modules (because you want new modules, don't say you don't, I want new modules either), new stuff, new maps, new things to do, new weather, new assets, new damage model, new ATC (WWII related, of course, but also modern ones), new dynamic campaign (WWII usable), new multicore with new VR support with a new game engine (I don't recall how many engine changes I've known since DCSW happened in 2010), you want new everything!! but you don't want what comes with that, bugs, incompatibilities, development problems, delays, and what not. If something I always thought ED's target to be too bold since they obviously aim for a full high fidelity simulation platform with everything, air, ground and sea, the ultimate simulation experience but that while the platform is in use and with a small team (they still are a small team for what they do despite they hired a bunch of new people not that long ago either). I mean, what do you expect from a small team in a niche subject like hardcore simulation is, but with the highest of the targets… it takes time, a hell of a lot of time, and problems, a hell of a lot of problems… and here I'm just pointing out the obvious so many people apparently can't see :music_whistling:, before someone chimes in telling I'm being as bigot as them or something 😆.

 

But still I like ED's minds, what they aim for, and I want it no matter the time and tears it takes. Those complaining and saying it's unbearable, Ok, good for you, better go play Tetris ultimate, that's probably more bug free than DCS is, or maybe not 🤣🤣🤣 .

 

I think we seem to be pretty much on the same page here. The only major difference I have with your point is I don't believe they would be required to start from scratch just to update the Mustang, or any other module for that matter.

IMO, the initial development of the module itself was supported by all the people that bought it back then, and any continued development should be supported by the constant stream of new users. I myself bought the Mustang in 2019, so I guess I fall in the constant stream of new users group that is hoping to see further enhancements to the Mustang.

But I really agree with your point on supporting the development of DCS WWII in general. I actually didn't get into DCS for the flying, but very soon afterwards realized that if I want to see the ground war side of things grow, I have a much better chance of seeing that by supporting all the other aspects of DCS as well. And then I realized that not only am I supporting something I enjoy, but I am getting some really great modules.

So if anyone asks me if I think the WWII assets pack, or any of the WWII maps are worth getting, I will be happy to tell them it beats flying in a whiteout.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, 352nd_Hoss said:

I guess they must be listening after all. The Mustangs Hot Air and Ram Air levers actually work now and are controllable with analog sliders.  I have not tested if they still have an effect on the engine performance.  But I'm seeing that when I land and refuel, rearm, or pick another plane, the analog control of R/P/Y with GVLs controller is lost, I'm constantly having to restart the game to get it to work again on the Pony, Jug and Mossie, I don't fly the Spitfire much because of the video distortion in the cockpit. The problem is there is no dedicated team to test modules to see if the New Kid on the Block's development has damaged other modules.  I beta test in the other sim and we always look to see if all the A/C still work, in Single/Multi/Campaign environments. I only hope they have it right when they release these buggy Beta's as a Release Candidate for the "Stable" version :joystick:

Cheers

Squeaky Wheel.................... :thumbup:

There is nothing wrong with being a squeaky wheel... that's how things get oiled!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just give us a brand new high quality (Jug level) Mustang and I am happy to pay another 50 bucks. 

The model is 10+ years old, we need a new one. Every Mustang pilot I know would pay for it. 

The tailwheel sticking out at certain FOVs needs a fix asap. It's the ugliest bug we have in DCS right now. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im not sure why ED is announcing that they will improve visuals for p-47 FW-190A and mosquito in those case i would say that visuals are outstanding and at the same time P-51 FW 190D and spitfire which have a lot of problems in visual, additional extremely out dated models make those birds look simply ugly comparing to the rest.


Edited by grafspee

System specs: I7 14700KF, Gigabyte Z690 Aorus Elite, 64GB DDR4 3600MHz, Gigabyte RTX 4090,Win 11, 48" OLED LG TV + 42" LG LED monitor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, grafspee said:

Im not sure why ED is announcing the they will improve visuals for p-47 FW-190A and mosquito in those case i would say that visuals are outstanding and at the same time P-51 FW 190D and spitfire which have a lot of problems in visual, additional extremely out dated models make those birds look simply ugly comparing to the rest.

Yeah there is obviously no comparison between the Mustang and any of the 3 most recently released planes. Well TBH I can't comment on the Mosquito as its next on the list, but the P-47/Anton are a world apart from the Mustang.

That is why I don't think they mean they are giving those planes a texture buff. I think its more likely fixing/correcting visual defects that were pointed out since their release. And the Mosquito is getting an LOD update to address performance issues.

But I thought this was a really good update with improvements in several important areas including controls, RRR/FARP's, EWR radar, and bomb fuzzing. This is in addition to the other fixes made to flyable modules, as well as the WWII version of the Mariana Islands map.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My hope with the updates to the newest of ED's warbirds is implying that they will improve the performance hit those aircraft have.  That's my hope.  Still, maybe it's a sign that they might update the Mustang (and especially the Dora, not just outside but also inside on that one...51's cockpit is fine, it was updated in December of '19) after this, within the next 10 years.
If this turns out to be more than just a performance improvement though, I'll be pretty ticked, I won't lie.  The 47, Anton and Mossie don't need any art fidelity updates...performance hit is the only field I can imagine they'd tackle.

  • Like 1

Hardware: T-16000M Pack, Saitek 3 Throttle Quadrant, Homemade 32-function Leo Bodnar Button Box, MFG Crosswind Pedals Oculus Rift S

System Specs: MSI MPG X570 GAMING PLUS, GTX 1070 SC2, AMD RX3700, 32GB DDR4-3200, Samsung 860 EVO, Samsung 970 EVO 250GB

Modules: Ka-50, Mi-8MTV2, FC3, F/A-18C, F-14B, F-5E, P-51D, Spitfire Mk LF Mk. IXc, Bf-109K-4, Fw-190A-8

Maps: Normandy, Nevada

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Magic Zach said:

If this turns out to be more than just a performance improvement though, I'll be pretty ticked, I won't lie.  The 47, Anton and Mossie don't need any art fidelity updates...performance hit is the only field I can imagine they'd tackle.

I may be miss understand this but ED mentioned "visual improvements" not performance improvement.

Anyway i don't think so that performance improvements are needed to be announced, performance had to be always one of main goals since it directly increase income, if mosquito module impact FPS so much that only high end GPU could handle it, a lot less ppl would be keen to buy this.

  • Like 2

System specs: I7 14700KF, Gigabyte Z690 Aorus Elite, 64GB DDR4 3600MHz, Gigabyte RTX 4090,Win 11, 48" OLED LG TV + 42" LG LED monitor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find this discussion fascinating.  I have been a Eagle Dynamics customer since the early days of the Flanker series in the mid-90's.  I have yet to get into warbirds (yet, I am a fan of the period and love those classic airframes).

That being said, I am torn with where to start my Warbird journey.  I am leaning towards the Mustang or the Jug.  I know these aircraft play very different roles, so I am mentally comparing apples and bananas .... but, this topic has my wheels turning.  Do I purchase the most recent creation that's likely benefitted from all the coding come before it (P47) or go with the original creation (P51) that has a bit of a reputation for being abandoned?   That's for me to determine, but hearing/reading these debates does add uncertainty that my simulation $$$ goes further with the Jug.

Maybe I wait for that $15 sale on the Mustang 😛

  • Like 1

System Specs:

Spoiler

 💻Processor:13th Gen Intel(R) Core(TM) i9-13900K - 🧠RAM: 64GB - 🎥Video Card: NVIDIA RTX 4090 - 🥽 Display: Pimax 8kx VR Headset - 🕹️Accessories:  VKB Gunfighter III MCG Ultimate, Thrustmaster TWCS (modified), Thrustmaster TPR Pedals, Simshaker JetPad, Predator HOTAS Mounts, 3D Printed Flight Button Box 

Thrustmaster TWCS Mod

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Mistermann said:

Maybe I wait for that $15 sale on the Mustang 😛

🤣🤣 Those days are long gone, and I believe won't ever come back, sorry 😁.

Anyhow, if you like the WWII stuff any of them is a blast compared to any previous or even current simulation out there. If you haven't flown any of them (use the test license, of course), I would pick P-51 as a sort of "trainer" (you can always try TF, though it's so lightweight there's definitely a difference), Stang is definitely a great learning aeroplane with regards to tail draggers operation with a shallower learning curve, but I believe any will please you. Both P-47 and 51 are absolutely great modules, it's just an almost 10 years difference in between them with regards to graphical quality despite the 2019 P-51 renewal. But, Flight model, damage model (new on both), systems and everything aren't different quality wise, they just depict real life counterpart. You might pick the P-47 being newer, makes sense, but don't let just the looks of it determine your decision if you like the Pony. And anyway you won't miss the shot with any of them 😉.


Edited by Ala13_ManOWar
  • Like 1

"I went into the British Army believing that if you want peace you must prepare for war. I believe now that if you prepare for war, you get war."

-- Major-General Frederick B. Maurice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks @Ala13_ManOWar - Just downloaded the P-51 on free trial.  Appreciate the advice.

  • Like 4

System Specs:

Spoiler

 💻Processor:13th Gen Intel(R) Core(TM) i9-13900K - 🧠RAM: 64GB - 🎥Video Card: NVIDIA RTX 4090 - 🥽 Display: Pimax 8kx VR Headset - 🕹️Accessories:  VKB Gunfighter III MCG Ultimate, Thrustmaster TWCS (modified), Thrustmaster TPR Pedals, Simshaker JetPad, Predator HOTAS Mounts, 3D Printed Flight Button Box 

Thrustmaster TWCS Mod

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are ED's obligations to legacy modules and what is in their best interest on the matter?

I'm going to start from the base that there shouldn't be an expectation to upkeep a 10 year old module. But is that in ED's interest? They decided (wisely) to implement a system of Maps/Modules at a time when their competitors would release 1 aircraft + 1 map, patch bugs for a year (no upgrades and @*@%block modders as hard as possible), then move on to the next project.

ED's business model gives them the incentive to keep modules up to date and add features as technology becomes available. In the medium term they get more and more products to sell to every new user they acquire. This has brought them to where they are today: a wide range of aircraft, 3rd party developers, and maps. What DCS is today is probably ED's vision of it 12 years ago.

But now they've hit a wall in the long term strategy. Modules are getting old and there are getting to be a lot of them. So they need to find a way to deal with this. They seem to have tried 2 tracks:

1) The A-10A is a legacy aircraft from Flaming Cliffs 3 and was given the new professional flight model but still has low button mashing potential. They sell it for a fraction of the cost of a made-for-DCS module. I think everyone can agree expectations here are low and it is meant to be a low cost springboard into DCS. Then there is the A-10C, everything we would expect from a modern flight simulator (as of 2012). Then they released the A-10C II, discounted for a time for A-10C owners. This $$$ is how they could fund an upgrade to the A-10CII. A-10A owners still get a low cost module to get into DCS, A-10C owners got many of the under-the-hood upgrades from the A-10C II, and everyone that loves the Warthog gets the newest, fanciest, modernist module for DCS in the A-10C II.

2) the other path they took is the one with the Mustang. It was developed by "The Fighter Collection" but something happened and The Fighter Collection is no longer involved with the P-51, leaving it to ED to deal with. [edit: FALSE] They have slowly been adding features and correcting bugs. Then, about 2 years ago, ED upgraded the cockpit and sound completely. This is when the module went up in price and is why people are saying the days of $15 Mustang sales are over.

The A-10 path imo is ideal. But it only works because the A-10 is so popular. But keep in mind ED has to compete with themselves against all the A-10 modules they already sold people (and still sell).

Some people bought the P-51D LONG ago for $15. These people would have very low expectations for future updates because the module came out in 2012 and has been in the bargain bin multiple times since then. Then ED decides to upgrade the Mustang to be more modern and they upgraded the price accordingly. New customers have more recently paid twice as much for the P-51D and they expect it to be upkept as though it was new when they updated it. That's what ED gets for updating the price as well lol.

What if ED released, like the A-10CII, the P-51B/C models? The people that bought the P-51D 10 years ago from a bargain bin would be all to happy to purchase a new module. But what about the people that paid full price just a few years ago for the P-51D module? I imagine they will be pissed.

So yes, the P-51D is the ugly stepchild of ED. And the Warthog is the heir to the throne.

Just out of curiosity, would you guys buy a P-51B/C module (and when did you buy the -D module?)

I would DEFINATLY buy a P-51B/C or even an A model (that would be awesome). The P-51D was the second module I ever bought. And yes, I only paid $15 for it.


Edited by Theodore42
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Mistermann said:

Thanks @Ala13_ManOWar - Just downloaded the P-51 on free trial.  Appreciate the advice.

To be honest, I really don't think you can go wrong with any of the DCS WWII modules, but I might be biased because WWII is my major interest here.

I'm only missing one of the props now, and honestly can't say there is a module I don't like even though the Mustang is my favorite.

The other thing to remember is if the two week trial period wasn't enough time, you can still use the Mustang trainer if you want/need to expand your experience more. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Theodore42 said:

What are ED's obligations to legacy modules and what is in their best interest on the matter?

I'm going to start from the base that there shouldn't be an expectation to upkeep a 10 year old module. But is that in ED's interest? They decided (wisely) to implement a system of Maps/Modules at a time when their competitors would release 1 aircraft + 1 map, patch bugs for a year (no upgrades and @*@%block modders as hard as possible), then move on to the next project.

ED's business model gives them the incentive to keep modules up to date and add features as technology becomes available. In the medium term they get more and more products to sell to every new user they acquire. This has brought them to where they are today: a wide range of aircraft, 3rd party developers, and maps. What DCS is today is probably ED's vision of it 12 years ago.

But now they've hit a wall in the long term strategy. Modules are getting old and there are getting to be a lot of them. So they need to find a way to deal with this. They seem to have tried 2 tracks:

1) The A-10A is a legacy aircraft from Flaming Cliffs 3 and was given the new professional flight model but still has low button mashing potential. They sell it for a fraction of the cost of a made-for-DCS module. I think everyone can agree expectations here are low and it is meant to be a low cost springboard into DCS. Then there is the A-10C, everything we would expect from a modern flight simulator (as of 2012). Then they released the A-10C II, discounted for a time for A-10C owners. This $$$ is how they could fund an upgrade to the A-10CII. A-10A owners still get a low cost module to get into DCS, A-10C owners got many of the under-the-hood upgrades from the A-10C II, and everyone that loves the Warthog gets the newest, fanciest, modernist module for DCS in the A-10C II.

2) the other path they took is the one with the Mustang. It was developed by "The Fighter Collection" but something happened and The Fighter Collection is no longer involved with the P-51, leaving it to ED to deal with. They have slowly been adding features and correcting bugs. Then, about 2 years ago, ED upgraded the cockpit and sound completely. This is when the module went up in price and is why people are saying the days of $15 Mustang sales are over.

The A-10 path imo is ideal. But it only works because the A-10 is so popular. But keep in mind ED has to compete with themselves against all the A-10 modules they already sold people (and still sell).

Some people bought the P-51D LONG ago for $15. These people would have very low expectations for future updates because the module came out in 2012 and has been in the bargain bin multiple times since then. Then ED decides to upgrade the Mustang to be more modern and they upgraded the price accordingly. New customers have more recently paid twice as much for the P-51D and they expect it to be upkept as though it was new when they updated it. That's what ED gets for updating the price as well lol.

What if ED released, like the A-10CII, the P-51B/C models? The people that bought the P-51D 10 years ago from a bargain bin would be all to happy to purchase a new module. But what about the people that paid full price just a few years ago for the P-51D module? I imagine they will be pissed.

So yes, the P-51D is the ugly stepchild of ED. And the Warthog is the heir to the throne.

Just out of curiosity, would you guys buy a P-51B/C module (and when did you buy the -D module?)

I would DEFINATLY buy a P-51B/C or even an A model (that would be awesome). The P-51D was the second module I ever bought. And yes, I only paid $15 for it.


The A10-A is a legacy aircraft from EDs early Lock On and Flaming Cliffs products and priced as such. Like the F15C, Su25, Su27, Mig 29 it’s not suddenly going to be updated to full DCS module status, it’s a limited systems an non clickable Lock On module. Those aircraft aren’t waiting to be finished.


Nick Grey is director/owner of TFC and Eagle Dynamics so both remain linked, even if the TFC logo isn’t displayed quite as much as it used to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...