DCS: P-51D Mustang Coming in 2012

[alpinemike]

Well, correct me if I am totally wrong on this...but I don't remember the P-51D or any other American plane fight.. WWII on North American soil..it was fought on European soil..so what is all the bs about not fitting into the current terrain crap..geez..

 

 

No You are correct the Mustang never saw combat in the US. My statement was western Europe and Pacific theaters. Although ther were a few battles in Alaska.

[RIPTIDE]

'Not enough'. A bunch of .50 API's raining down on your armor from above will mess up almost anything. I'll point out that this is close to the size of the A-10's API subcaliber penetrators. Of course the .50's won't be quite as powerful, but a Shilka isn't a T-80, and that pony can put out a LOT of .50.

Lets get a grip. Sure, the shilka IRL is very vulnerable to heavy machine gun fire. But at what range? 'Cos if you go closer than 2000 yrds slant vs shilka, it's already over. Rockets and bombs would be useful. But if a mission designer wants something usefull, he'll use those ZSU-23mm unguided placements. Would be better if ED added a few 88 flak batteries to the sim.

[ronht]

You know guys, if ED had just announced that they were getting out of the flight simulation market all together to start making Xbox type games you would have something to bitch about.

 

If you don't like what they're doing then go out and buy one of the other high fidelity flight simulations that's available on the market.......... Oh wait a minute - THERE AREN'T ANY!

 

If you don't want it don't buy it.

 

If on the other hand you understand that supporting ED in this limited market helps continue the expansion of what has become not only the best, but the ONLY high fidelity realistic flight simulation on the market, then buy it and give it to someone or put it in a drawer and forget about it, but support the effort if you don't want to see ED flight simulations go the way of the Jane's series, FA-18, Falcon 4 and all the other great flight simulations of the past?

 

Where are they now? How many of them are still supported by their original publishers?

 

We don't need ED to drop this stuff to become another Wii game developer.

[26-J39]

Someone mentioned above the essence of my concern but I lost the post so I will restate it:

 

When you buy Rise of Flight or Cliffs of Dover you are getting some assurance of a combat environment in which to fly these COMBAT planes. I haven't seen any such assurances with Mustang. Had ED announced the Ka50 as a module with no combat world to fly it in, only the truly helicopter-curious would have bought it. The same is true of WH. There is a huge catalogue of threats and allies that were included with that sim to provide the player with a logical world in which to fly his A-10. There is no promise of any of this with Mustang. Once you learn to start the thing, manage the engine and appreciate the torque, you are left with what? H2H with other P-51s? It will be fun but...jeeze, I don't know. Its the oddest simulator announcement in my 30 year addiction to virtual flying.

 

I would agree although we don't have any confirmation on what other units / aircraft ED will add to this DCS module. Can't imagine there will be very many and if there are how does it all tie in with a relatively modern combat sim? It all seems a bit bizarre to me, DCS P-51D?

I can totally understand if ED said " any1 wanna pay $10 for a flyable P-51 as an add on for WH or BS2?" Cool! no probs, i'll pay happily but DCS P-51D is quite odd indeed. :huh: (& it ain't DCS unless there is a full environment to fly in!)

ED's been busy with market research :D

[LostOblivion]

You mean things like TACAN/VOR, ILS, Radios affected by line of sigh and distance, a graphic engine with shadows, HDR and lighting effects. Weapons that are better modeled than any other sim that I know of. Maybe, those things? Yeah, I can’t wait for that :smartass:

What about NDBs and ADF? They are essential to contemporary commercial flight, and are not present in DCSW even though you have said there is code for NDBs already in the engine. What about a better graphical user interface? The current one is barely functional, and not pretty to look at. Especially the multiplayer one, which provides the bare minimum for what is needed. Why not make a multiplayer GUI that is similar to say that of RoF? There is nothing wrong with that. What about some better explosions and effects, and graphics in general. What about birds flying around? What about some more realistic/lifelike airport/runway lighting and curved runways like there is in X-Plane 10? How about configurable generated civilian air traffic? How about autonomous airport ground crew and vehicles? How about some larger sceneries, such as the entirety of Europe? This would cover a lot of countries and combat scenarios. What about proper ATC with flight plans, approaches, centers, navigation, ground control? The current one is barely working. And don't get me started on all the bugs and crashes.

 

It is nothing wrong with aiming for the skies, and Eagle Dynamics have already done really, really well with the series so far, why not take it further by spending more time, or hiring more people, to achieve these goals? During the last decade, ED, with the introduction of LOMAC and DCS, has set the definite standard for high fidelity, precisely modeled flight simulation for the desktop computer. Right now, most flight sim enthusiasts are off playing FSX or X-Plane, but I do not doubt a second that ED can take over this entire market if they play their cards right, and extend their engine to envelop all aspects of flight simulation, military and civilian.

 

I wanted to do a standard instrument approach today to Krasnodar rwy 23L, holding in pattern at Ryazanskaya NDB before turning in to capture the localizer. First I tried in DCS, but no support for ADF. Then I tried in FSX, but the dial to select ADF frequency for the NDB at 312 did not work in the aircraft I was in. Then I fired up the X-Plane demo, where I could not even use the virtual cockpit to turn the knobs. There is no doubt, DCS is the only realistic choice for a flight enthusiast.

 

It appears to me they are focusing so much on modeling each aircraft so well (and really well too!), that they are forgetting about the other important aspects of a video game, which are sorely needed to attract more customers in today's demanding market. There is nothing wrong in working with many things at once, which you have also stated yourselves. My guess is that all of this is actually happening, and that all of the things I have mentioned have been considered, but naturally it takes time. No offense at all. :)

 

Lost

[msalama]

I repeat: what the hell?

 

And I reply: as per Wags's announcement, a 1st in a series of historical aircraft having nothing to do with the 2 previous modules (BS, WH) per se. So they're branching out - what's wrong with that?

[mvsgas]

well I am gonna skip this one then. absolutely not interested in WW2

We can create many scenarios with the Mustang, it was in service as late as the 80's.

How about Korean War, Israel war of independence, El Salvador-Honduras Football War, how about Cuban Air forces vs Dominican Air Force ( not real, but possible).

[leafer]

It's as strange as flying a hornet without gun and missles in fsx. Use your imagination people. You're alreadi pretend to fly in your living room. Now pretend you're a rich russian flying a stang in ussia. I'd love a **** you button right about now.

[aaron886]

You're already pretend to fly in your living room.

 

:megalol:

[ZaltysZ]

1) Ground units that "fit" is possible thing. Take T-55, change 3D model, adjust parameters and you have a Tiger tank. Take ZU-23, change 3D model, adjust parameters and you get Flak-38, and so on.

 

2) Terrain is a difficult thing, just because of amount of work required. However, it is still possible if 3rd party is hired and terrain is sold as addon.

 

3) Flyable opponents for P-51 seem really difficult for me. DCS has high standards, and it will be hard to model something if there aren't plenty of documents on particular aircraft. I suppose, ED is going to model planes, which are in possession of http://fighter-collection.com, because Fighter Collection knows those planes well and can provide lots of information. Sadly, they don't have nor BF109, nor FW190, so I am not very optimistic with DCS having a true WWII branch.

[STP Dragon]

I wish ED can add a type of A2A-Accu-Sim like for the A2A Spitfire in FSX.

A living and breathing engine with sign of wear, more and more after each flight (saved after each flight).

 

WsgEiJoBxX0

 

[aaron886]

2) Terrain is a difficult thing, just because of amount of work required. However, it is still possible if 3rd party is hired and terrain is sold as addon.

 

 

Amount of work is proportional to quality of product and thereby the return on investment.

 

It's not about working harder, it's about working smarter. The data products are all there... the question is in how you go about turning available resources into a product. (Smarter, procedural programming.)

[sylkhan]

If you don't like what they're doing then go out and buy one of the other high fidelity flight simulations that's available on the market.......... Oh wait a minute - THERE AREN'T ANY!

:shocking:

Falcon Bms is the best modern combat high fidelity Sim

Rise of Flight is the best WWI high fidelity sim

 

"THERE AREN'T ANY" you are kidding, right :)

[gonk]

Side project ???

[nick10]

Very, very excited about the P-51.

 

Can't wait.

 

Here's hoping it leads to more WW2 era aircraft from DCS.

 

And was wondering:

 

Couldn't DCS seek the community's help to make a WW2-era map to fly the mustang on?

 

We could all pitch in and build WW2-era tanks, vehicles, ect?

[sylkhan]

Here's hoping it leads to more WW2 era aircraft from DCS.

 

To do what ?

 

Couldn't DCS seek the community's help to make a WW2-era map to fly the mustang on?

 

We could all pitch in and build WW2-era tanks, vehicles, ect?

Not going to append

[aaron886]

:shocking:

Falcon Bms is the best modern combat high fidelity Sim

 

BMS is a still a frickin Frankenstein project. There is so many things that it does wrong, it does not deserve that title. It has some very positive aspects, but it is not "all that and a bag of chips." (Can you tell I'm tired of hearing about how great BMS is?)

[EvilBivol-1]

sylkhah, I think it's pretty clear at this point that you are displeased with this announcement and do not support it. There is no reason to continue to repeat yourself and go over the same thing another dozen times, unless there is some new and worthwhile information to share.

[YorZor]

sylkhah, I think it's pretty clear at this point that you are displeased with this announcement and do not support it. There is no reason to continue to repeat yourself and go over the same thing another dozen times, unless there is some new and worthwhile information to share.

 

Well you have to admit that it's quite a strange choice and it's only the latest in a series of bad choices if you ask me...

 

Been a fan for years and flew FC to death... But ED seems to be slipping in the commercial market funnily due to capitalism.

When you announce that there will be a next patch fine. But when you show of that it's a FREE patch... How far has one slipped?

[Boberro]

:shocking:

Falcon Bms is the best modern combat high fidelity Sim

 

It is great game - but has flaws too.

[manfrez01]

Why am I not excited? eh by this announcement.

I see the proposal interesting, for those who enter any squad and guess what would be the best trainer for new pilots .... an interesting proposal to familiarize the cadet and then pursue training in a Fighter if it comes out someday.

[OB1]

Make a separate division and replace IL2, The quality of DCS flight models and modeling would kick ass and you would also gain the IL2 community. :pilotfly:

[EvilBivol-1]

Well you have to admit that it's quite a strange choice and it's only the latest in a series of bad choices if you ask me...

 

Been a fan for years and flew FC to death... But ED seems to be slipping in the commercial market funnily due to capitalism.

When you announce that there will be a next patch fine. But when you show of that it's a FREE patch... How far has one slipped?

 

I'm not sure what you mean, but yes, I will admit that the Mustang may seem like a strange choice. We have made an effort to explain some of the reasons for this project and we understand that it isn't to everyone's taste or liking. Obviously we're not going to force anyone to agree with us or buy the product. However, my post above was merely a reminder that while your thoughts and opinion are welcome as long as they are presented in a reasonable and considerate nature, repeating your displeasure for no reason other than to state it again will eventually be interpreted as trolling.

 

Those of you who have been around long enough will surely remember the backblow ED received when the Ka-50 was selected as a flyable, and then the flamewars when DCS was first announced. In fact, every ED project since Flanker 1 had its share of public criticism. Yet it hasn't stopped the company from producing some of the most interesting, popular, and generally high quality combat flight sims on the market. Personally, I would suggest looking at the Mustang as a new and different project. If you don't feel its for you, thats fine. It may be of interest to others. As we've said, it hasn't stopped us from working on the more "mainstream" projects.

[Kuky]

I will buy this DCS P-51D IF you announce right now what the next DCS Fixed Wing JET Fighter will be and estimate (rough) timeline of release!

 

I and you (ED) have to see this as Investor/Shares scenario where by I the investor will buy this DCS Mustang module in which I am not interested at all, only because I wish to support further development, but to next actually gime something I want... a Jet Fighter of any kind with Afterburners and guided missiles or any kind... that I would pay for but where's the "guarantee" that such thing will happen any time soon? You (ED) migth as well say your next DCS priject will be another DCS Flying Legends aircaft... correct? As after all now everything really is subject to change and there is no guarante ever that no matter how high your (ED) intentions are to give us a DCS Fighter you can always change your plans and intentions... which would leave me with bad "investment"... see my point?

 

ED would like us to support you... and I have so far... but then I feel we need to be suported also. We've been hoping for something in DCS standard with afterburners for years (I've been active here since 2005... that's 7 years now) and if ED continues to go sideways from this this is not a good sign.

[tintifaxl]

I'll definitely buy this module. And maybe this for immersion: http://www.simaviatik.com/p-51bf109-de.html :D