DCS: P-51D Mustang Coming in 2012

[4csNIp]

OMG ED,what we gonna do with P51? To dogfight with MiG29? To hit ground units with Ka50,A10? Or just to pay on your bank account 60$ and u make new fighter plane of modern warfare?

 

I really don't know what is yours vision,but with this u gona lost many players and buyers .

[carpadeus]

I have DCS-A10C, the KA50 BS2, Lock On, and i am a big fan of your products.

 

But this time :(

 

Mix old plane with modern plane ??

 

Mig29, Su27, F-15E would be better for your modern customers

[Groove]

Im sure you guys will enjoy the challange to fly and master the P-51D.

 

Years ago i fly Warbirds online and there ain't anything better as WW2 planes to learn BFM.

[carpadeus]

Im sure you guys will enjoy the challange to fly and master the P-51D.

 

Fly and master this wonderful bird, sure.

 

But for military operations i have doubts ;)

 

I know your birds (as A-10C) i am sure this plane will be very well modelized

[sotosev]

I have been flying this plane in my old mac! I liked back then flying online dog fighting only with guns 2 or 4 (teams) people all over the world. This is a very pleasant surprise. I 'll get it for sure and love flying it in my new ASUS GTX 580 DCII which I already ordered. Just to have better FPS in A-10C!!!

[MoGas]

But for military operations i have doubts ;)

 

The P-51 is not a Cessna....;)

[winz]

Fly and master this wonderful bird, sure.

 

But for military operations i have doubts ;)

 

I know your birds (as A-10C) i am sure this plane will be very well modelized

Why you have doubts?

Throw down a convoy protected with a truck mounted AAA, and you got yourself fairly realistic scenario.

Spotting ground targets without any fancy targeting pod will be a lot of challenge. Hell, navigating without a moving map and INS/EGI will be fun :D

You won't be fighting Sa-10, sa-11...but you aren't fighting those in the BS or A-10 either.

 

For AA, you will most likely have to stick to P-51 vs P-51, but that's not less realistic then the air quake we got with FC 2

[frosto]

Flying a A-1 Skyraider in a Vietnam scenario could be interesting.

Mustang doesnt sound that exciting to me. Every flight simulator hat his Mustang.

[effte]

hmm i find this interesting yet a little down.. i'd prefer a Korean war era...

 

"You're giving me an apple? That's nice, but I'd really prefer an apple..."

 

Not making sense there, unless one is to assume you need to read up on the service history of ths Mustang. ;)

[HiJack]

.. This is the first time I can really see what my old instructor meant when he talked about flying the P-51, and I've tried a lot of WW2 sims. ..

I will buy this based on your word EtherealN!

 

Regarding IL-2:

It does a nice job on the combat.

It completely fails on "flight".

That surprises me but I guess you know how the real thing flies.

 

or the mission makers can write down what airframes are avalible / what the mission os for* in the breifing preview that you can read before you connect...

My new mission "UAZ column raid 8XCO-OP" involving the P-51D only is on my design board! :P

 

I'm looking forward to the P-51D ED and think this is a good move!

 

(HJ)

[*Rage*]

Great move.

 

Cant wait for the FW-190D :)

[SAM77]

Oh yes please the DORA :)

[T.Goat]

I think a lot of people here are looking at this the wrong way. ED is in the business of making simulations, not just for the community here, but for organizations around the world. The fact that we get the chance to purchase these simulations (if we wish) is just an added bonus.

 

Winz was probably right back in post 196. This should be an excellent way to be sure that the entire ED team is being used effectively. The P-51 and the continuing Legends series would broaden the market for the simming community and are lighter in the avionics area than all the radar/missile logic/ECM/ECCM stuff they're trying to work out (with acceptable frame rates :P ) in the backround. Why not put the model and flight model guys to work on something else? ED is owned by The Fighter Collection, and look at the list of aircraft they have: Bearcat, Corsair, P-40, Gladiator, Harvard, Hawk, Hellcat, Mustang, Spitfire, Wildcat, Thunderbolt I's, etc etc. Any of these could easily be another addition.

 

This also expands their portfolio to include piston powered, propeller driven aircraft. Why couldn't Piper/Cessna/Extra see this, and want to include some official training software with their new aircraft? ED has the history and credentials to pull that off.

 

But most people who are saying "This doesn't fit!" arn't reading this (or the first post) anyways. Their loss I guess.

[Laud]

As I said: Valueable showcase! ;)

[159th_Viper]

As I said: Valueable showcase! ;)

 

More like a valuable tool to teach virtual Aviators that up to now, notwithstanding their previous assurances, they actually do not know how to fly and that it's time to take a step backwards, note the wrecks littering the runway, evaluate your skill, reset the ego accordingly and start learning all over again :D

[JimMack]

If I can expect beeing able to practise snap roll or a hammerhead with flat spin, like in this video, I'll order it day one for sure :pilotfly:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TuipnDc7dms

 

Yes - been practicing that manoeuvre. Torque can be your friend.

[Slamelov]

Note my emphasis - flying.

 

Let's put it like this: people who "learned" warbirds through flying various FSX addons or (heh) IL-2 games are in for a shock. Flying a plane like this is not the easy-mode you get from those games, including CloD. And yes, CloD at full "realism" is still easy mode. ;)

Even if you are a hardened ace in IL-2 or similar, don't expect to even take off on the first try here. These planes are HARD to fly unless you have the requisite training, and every consumer simulation I've yet seen of the P-51 is (almost) like pretending you know how to fly an F-35 because you flew one in HAWX. Yup, that big, I'm only barely exhaggerating. (And for the record, I absolutely suck at flying the P-51 - I've learned to hate the word "torque". :P )

 

If you want to experience what it's like to fly this, and don't have a real one on hand (like TFC did), there is nothing that even gets close to this. "As real as it gets." ;)

 

Aside from that, feature lists and so on are, as the release states, a matter for the future.

 

I'm sure than the Mustang made by DCS will be very detailed, but P51 Mustang is a combat plane and need a war scenery, with enemyes for fighting. If I want to fly a Mustang without enemys, I have MS FS or X-Plane, where you can buy very detailed Mustang and fly. Only fly. And I have the whole world for flying my Mustang in those sims. I could fly a Mustang with human ATC's using IVAO network. Real procedures, real airports. P51D from FLight1 for MS FX, by example. Or this one http://flightsim.com/main/review/leaderii.htm .

 

DCS are the only guys making sims about modern planes with a extreme detail. Why create a P51?. It has not sense. I'm sure all the people here wants a F/A 18, Su-30MK, AH64 or another modern plane/chopter. P51 is out of place here. It's kind aunrealistic fight p51 vs p51, or P51 vs Su25, or P51 vs Ka50.

[159th_Viper]

...If I want to fly a Mustang without enemys, I have MS FS or X-Plane, where you can buy very detailed Mustang and fly. Only fly....

 

That's the point we are trying to make - if you think that the above are actually accurate representations of the P-51's Flight Fidelity then you are mistaken. But that's OK too, don't take our word for it - nobody is forcing you. It's like going to the store: I always walk out with a packet of Fillet Mignon as opposed to Ground Beef. As least the choice now exists that, should you want to do it properly, then you can avail yourself of the DCS P-51D. If not, that's also OK - It's all about the choice :thumbup:

[141st_Eko1]

I'm sure than the Mustang made by DCS will be very detailed, but P51 Mustang is a combat plane and need a war scenery, with enemyes for fighting. If I want to fly a Mustang without enemys, I have MS FS or X-Plane, where you can buy very detailed Mustang and fly. Only fly. And I have the whole world for flying my Mustang in those sims. I could fly a Mustang with human ATC's using IVAO network. Real procedures, real airports. P51D from FLight1 for MS FX, by example. Or this one http://flightsim.com/main/review/leaderii.htm .

 

DCS are the only guys making sims about modern planes with a extreme detail. Why create a P51?. It has not sense. I'm sure all the people here wants a F/A 18, Su-30MK, AH64 or another modern plane/chopter. P51 is out of place here. It's kind aunrealistic fight p51 vs p51, or P51 vs Su25, or P51 vs Ka50.

 

completely agree +1:thumbup:

[RoaringBones]

"You're giving me an apple? That's nice, but I'd really prefer an apple..."

 

Not making sense there, unless one is to assume you need to read up on the service history of ths Mustang. ;)

I'm fully aware of the mustangs service history :D.Not the point though,I'd prefer Korean/Nam era..Mustangs/109's etc etc been used in just about every sim known to man..I just think the whole World war 2 scenario thing is just over used now.

 

 

If you really want to take it back..Who remembers the days of Air Warrior?:D:)

 

gotta admit it does bring back memories. same thing with EAW/PAW.

[IvanK]

Late model P51, RWR, zero length HVAR launchers ... I smell Kimchi in the DCS future

[Nobody96]

Hi

 

I was not that happy about DCS becoming another WWII sim also. But then I watched some accusim youtube clips about how they model their planes for FSX and if ED's P-51D gets anywhere near these level of detail, I am all in. Just watch this vid about manifold pressure:

 

 

Also, since this product will be based on the same framework DCS:BS2 and DCS:A-10 uses, improvements done for the P-51D to this framework will also effect this products and also the upcoming fixed wing US fighter. What happens when you put a lot of planes into a single base framework you can see if you look at the speed RoF is hammering out updates to the base engine. I am really pleased with the general direction ED is taking. It was said plenty of times that the guys/gals working on the P-51D are not the guys/gals working on the new jet. Therefore the P-51D isn't slowing down the jet but, since they share the same framework, is instead speeding up its development. This doesn't necessarily mean that it will be finished earlier, but that it will be finished in a even better state.

 

so long

Mathias

[RoaringBones]

I kind of like how Rof is doing it,want new planes? pay a few bucks for them to be added to your game..At least you would have the option instead of buying boxed sets over and over.

[tflash]

It's totally not my cup of tea but I'm supportive and think it will enrich the collection!

 

I tried everything on WW2: BoB, IL2 in all its guises, CloD, Wing of Prey, ... everything back to the dustbin. however, I did have some fun with Realair's Spirtfire for FSX, geiven the very nice models, excellent aerobatic performance (of the spitfire, not me of course) and the sound of the the merlin engine.

 

I guess this will be the appeal with P-51D: hopefully fantastic engine sound, incredible aerodynamic performance (one of the best designs ever!) and some engine management to work with.

 

And then read the announcement, which really gor me wildly enthousiast:

 

"The P-51D will be the first aircraft in the Flying Legends series that focuses on historical aircraft that have set benchmarks in combat aviation."

 

Given this definition I for myself am already 100% convinced we will at some point have the F-4E Phantom, the absolute strike fighter *ever* to have flown the skies! :=)

[effte]

Yes - been practicing that manoeuvre. Torque can be your friend.

 

In that particular case, physics and aerodynamics will be your enemy to the point where they make it impossible.

 

That's a CGI artist's impression of a journalist's understanding of a 60-year old memory of something happening over the span of a few seconds to a panicked, adrenaline-rushed 20-year-old with probably rather rushed and basic flight training.

 

Now we will have people claiming a simulator put together by qualified engineers and aerodynamicists is inaccurate as they can't replicate what they saw on Youtube...