no news on other WW2 addons?

[Echo38]

something so unimportant as start-up procedure

 

You sure you're in the right forum?

[nick10]

Of course, i know, but maybe someone don't know Tomcatz became a partner of E.D. ever since...who made these Messers i guess ;)...and you watched eagledynamicstv :music_whistling:

 

http://forum.lockon.ru/showthread.php?t=84075

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Ozv3pOxmY40#t=92s

 

How do we get this 109 in game. C'mon tomcats :thumbup:

[kevdawg66]

A2A would be a good developer for some ww2 aircraft i personally want the corsair or p-47

[Anatoli-Kagari9]

A2A would be a good developer for some ww2 aircraft i personally want the corsair or p-47

 

+1

[Kwiatek]

I talked with A2A chief and he said that they are not interested in making WW2 and any other planes for DCS World. They are stuck with FSX engine :(

[leafer]

Again, Jim Mack mentioned they're interested in developing more warbirds. I don' t think it makes sense for ED tomake a full blown ww2 sim. Too much has been invested in modern combat. All the money and time they've put in CA should tell you where they're going with this.

[Double_D]

I talked with A2A chief and he said that they are not interested in making WW2 and any other planes for DCS World. They are stuck with FSX engine :(

 

Which is probably going no where..since DCS-Mustang come out..I have not flown my FSX and A2A Mustang..actually I had remove FSX and A2A from my hard drive...:music_whistling:

[Double_D]

Again, Jim Mack mentioned they're interested in developing more warbirds. I don' t think it makes sense for ED tomake a full blown ww2 sim. Too much has been invested in modern combat. All the money and time they've put in CA should tell you where they're going with this.

 

You could be right, but if this is the case..why bother developing other WarBirds then...which could go into the direction of another WW2 Theatre action..:thumbup:

[nick10]

You could be right, but if this is the case..why bother developing other WarBirds then...which could go into the direction of another WW2 Theatre action..:thumbup:

 

It's pretty frustrating . The old il2 brand has been teamed up with 777 studios to make a new ww2 combat sim. Cliffs of Dover has been abandoned. The new il2 team have made clear theirs wil be a lite combat is with no clickable cockpits. Back in the day I would have been into this but dcs p-51 has ruined me. I now need full switch and don't think I will be able to go backwards.

[Double_D]

It's pretty frustrating . The old il2 brand has been teamed up with 777 studios to make a new ww2 combat sim. Cliffs of Dover has been abandoned. The new il2 team have made clear theirs wil be a lite combat is with no clickable cockpits. Back in the day I would have been into this but dcs p-51 has ruined me. I now need full switch and don't think I will be able to go backwards.

 

Yea, I also flew IL-2 1946, for awhile until A2A Simulations Mustang, then once DCS-Mustang came out..I removed both IL-2 and FSX from my system..now only fly with the DCS series..:music_whistling:

[nick10]

Yea, I also flew IL-2 1946, for awhile until A2A Simulations Mustang, then once DCS-Mustang came out..I removed both IL-2 and FSX from my system..now only fly with the DCS series..:music_whistling:

 

I did exactly the same. Nothing compares!

 

I just want one ww2 adversary and some ww2 ground objects.

[Teapot]

Again, Jim Mack mentioned they're interested in developing more warbirds. I don' t think it makes sense for ED tomake a full blown ww2 sim. Too much has been invested in modern combat. All the money and time they've put in CA should tell you where they're going with this.

 

Mate! DCS World is not designed to be a period specific sim IMO. Think of it like a huge box full of lego bits. What you make of those bits of lego is up to the campaign/mission designer ... and the lego bits are all the simulated objects. So these "lego bits" we currently have at our disposal aren't numerous enough to create a coherent theater campaign (except modern) ... yet. But hopefully through the fullness of time (always wanted to use that phrase in a sentence .. corny huh?), we will have enough lego bits to create all of our pet scenarios! It all has to start somewhere! :D

 

To paraphrase a film ... if Eagle Dynamics builds it, we'll all come and play ...

Edited December 16, 2012 by Teapot

[leafer]

They just need to let us know what the heck they're building is all I ask. :P

[mmaruda]

I don't get the idea of sim being "light" if it does not have clickable pits. Sure, these are great, but with WWII planes, you mostly click stuff only for start up. Even in DCS Mustang I have everything I need for combat mapped to my HOTAS, so once airborne, there isn't really that much need for clicking.

 

777 knows what they are doing, it's going to be a survey sim, and they probably plan to grab the 1946 crowd, which from what I know are mostly people not too keen on reading several hundred pages of manuals. On the other side, they have shown with RoF, that no clickable pits does not mean easy or unrealistic. As much as I would love a simulator to be "as real as it gets", I'll grab anything WWII that works (CloD doesn't). Though I wish ED would pick up the gauntlet and make more WWII stuff, rather than avoid competition.

[Yo-Yo]

I don't get the idea of sim being "light" if it does not have clickable pits. Sure, these are great, but with WWII planes, you mostly click stuff only for start up. Even in DCS Mustang I have everything I need for combat mapped to my HOTAS, so once airborne, there isn't really that much need for clicking.

 

777 knows what they are doing, it's going to be a survey sim, and they probably plan to grab the 1946 crowd, which from what I know are mostly people not too keen on reading several hundred pages of manuals. On the other side, they have shown with RoF, that no clickable pits does not mean easy or unrealistic.

 

Only to clarify: the clickable cockpit is only a mean to make all modelled systems available to control without using $10e3 control panels and hotas. The effect of cockpit familiarisation is a kind of positive side effect.

[Anatoli-Kagari9]

Yea, I also flew IL-2 1946, for awhile until A2A Simulations Mustang, then once DCS-Mustang came out..I removed both IL-2 and FSX from my system..now only fly with the DCS series..:music_whistling:

 

Oh, I know so well what you mean :-)

 

Years and years, and €€€€ of sims taught me that I should really be selective. There's a time for aeach sim, and FSX's time is gone, not because there aren't still great add-ons being developed for it, but because it's a platform that will not receive any sort of update from original makers, can't grow more in terms of core, is rather limited in terms of flight dynamics and other aspects when compared to what DCS World offers, and there is simply no point for me, these days, to "fly" an airliner for hours when in just a couple of minutes I can extract 10 times the joy of flying and meeting some hugly flyers in the skies, shooting at poor me :-)

 

Yesterday I saw the announcement of Combat Pilot, about to be oppened. Couldn't resist reading through it... Nice for folks with thousands invested in FSX... Very very expensive, the same underlying flight dynamics model (it's FSX in the core...), and all of that offering nothing compared to the complexity and detail in terms of air war that DCS World can offer.

 

I'm not a fighter pilot, and the proof is that I still spend time with ELITE for IFR practise, Silent Wings for virtual soaring, and DCS for the rest (now helicopters too, like never before on any other simulation platform...).

 

Should I have taken the right optio early this year, I wouldn't have spent my precious €€ in additional FSX add-ons (just a few, but useless...), X-Plane10 (my worts "investment")... The time spent trying to find any use for thos sims would have been better employed studying the complex BS2 manuals... (and soon the A-10 too :-)

[Echo38]

On the other side, they have shown with RoF, that no clickable pits does not mean easy or unrealistic.

 

Um? Rise of Flight has simplified engine & systems management. In their case, as with every other flight sim-game I know of, "no clickable 'pit" does mean "not realistic." RoF has very realistic flight physics, but engine management is unrealistically simplified; most of the elements are either non-existent or unrealistically automated.

 

As Yo-Yo indicated, clickable 'pit isn't technically requisite for realistic systems management, but there's no way on standard simming hardware to do a realistic system without it, unless it's a ridiculously simple-systems airplane like a Cessna 152. (And even that would take up a fair number of keys on the keyboard.)

 

In short, lack of clickable 'pit does not inherently necessitate lack of realism, but every sim I know of that doesn't have a clickable 'pit does have unrealistic systems management. They go hand in hand, because you practically can't have realistic systems management on standard P.C. simming equipment without a clickable 'pit.

Edited December 16, 2012 by Echo38

[Ala13_ManOWar]

...unless it's a ridiculously simple-systems airplane like a Cessna 152. (And even that would take up a fair number of keys on the keyboard.)...

Heeeeyyyyy, don't bully my C152, she flies like a charm and is a very fun to fly plane :pilotfly:(and also have a bunch of buttons :P :D).

 

S!

[Teapot]

They just need to let us know what the heck they're building is all I ask. :P

 

A 'hi-fidelity' sandbox sim. You get to build your sandcastles the way you want in the sandbox ... eventually! :thumbup:

 

Other posters, Re the P-51D, I agree completely, it's the yardstick by which we can compare any other aircraft from all other WWII flight simulation. While other sims may have well developed WWII environments, these so called 'hard core' WWII sim's implementation of the P-51 is a joke by comparison. I can understand that they're catering for a mass market and necessarily dumb down the flight model and handling characteristics, but that is not what they tell the audience. I remember (somewhat vaguely) that IL2 was touted as being 'realistic' ... what a laugh!

 

So, like others my focus has shifted. I couldn't stomach IL2, CloD, FSX etc any longer so I removed them from my HD. Now, like others I wait and hope that someone will take the first step and create a beaut adversary for the P-51 :).

Edited December 17, 2012 by Teapot

[Echo38]

While other sims may have well developed WWII environments, these so called 'hard core' WWII sim's implementation of the P-51 is a joke by comparison. I can understand that they're catering for a mass market and necessarily dumb down the flight model and handling characteristics, but that is not what they tell the audience. I remember (somewhat vaguely) that IL2 was touted as being 'realistic' ... what a laugh!

 

Indeed! "Mass market," taken literally, could be considered an odd way to describe any flying game demographic; however, relatively speaking, your assessment is dead-on.

Edited December 17, 2012 by Echo38

[NineLine]

In short, lack of clickable 'pit does not inherently necessitate lack of realism, but every sim I know of that doesn't have a clickable 'pit does have unrealistic systems management. They go hand in hand, because you practically can't have realistic systems management on standard P.C. simming equipment without a clickable 'pit.

 

I cant imagine flying with out a click-able cockpit anymore, the F-15C is fun and I can jump into it and have some quick fun but I miss not being able to flick switches and push buttons. I personally feel at this point it is mandatory if you are going to call you Sim a Sim... I am still looking forward to see what the 777 guys put out, but I feel like the decision on skipping the click-able cockpit is a knock against it (obviously I understand the added development time to add this)... I mean CoD didn't have a fully complete click-able cockpit, but it was enough to feel a little more immersed.

 

On the otherside, how detailed do we need to get as well... will Logitech or Thrustmaster release a hand crank? :D

 

 

Ok, I'd probably buy it lol

[Echo38]

I personally feel at this point it is mandatory if you are going to call you Sim a Sim... I am still looking forward to see what the 777 guys put out, but I feel like the decision on skipping the click-able cockpit is a knock against it

 

Again, it isn't necessarily the omission of the clickable 'pit which causes it to be unrealistic, but rather the omission of full systems & engine management. In the case of RoF, the real aircraft were simple enough that one could simply use key binds to perform the various things, if they were modelled. (Obviously, there isn't a good argument for omitting clickability, if you've already got all the functions in place for keys.)

 

You can have a realistic simulation without a clickable pit: all systems modelled, controlled with joystick buttons and/or keys. I myself would not like being so deprived of the ability to also use the mouse to move them, but having to use keys (instead of having the option of key or clicky) doesn't detract terribly from the realism. (Although it does make it unrealistically difficult to have to remember which key is bound to which switch.)

 

So, the problem with RoF isn't only that it doesn't let you use the mouse to click on the various switches and stuff that you need to operate in the real aircraft, but that these systems aren't featured at all. E.g. fuel tank selection--IIRC, the real SPAD 13 had two fuel tanks and a selector switch, but RoF does it arcade style--no selection, one tank. Magneto switches, magneto crank, fuel pump lever, and other things move by themselves in an unrealistic automated process when you hit the E key. RoF has great flight physics, but simplified engine management and no systems management.

 

In short, omitting the option of mouse click to perform a function, forcing keypress to perform it, would be a problem, but not nearly as much of a problem as the omission of the function altogether. You can have a high-fidelity simulator without clickable 'pit (although I'd feel sorry for anyone who had to use it, because trying to remember all the keys would be a nightmare of harder-than-reality), but you can't have a high-fidelity simulator without full systems & engine management.

Edited December 18, 2012 by Echo38

[NineLine]

I guess what I was getting at is they claim that for the new IL2 title they will model the engine and its operation accurately (which in itself is open to personal interpretation) so if they claim they are doing so, but cant animate the switches, levers, etc that operate them I think it leaves you with a less than fulfilling experience... of course its a personal opinion at this point, others may hate clicking around a cockpit and prefer the keyboard and/or flight stick...

[Echo38]

I guess what I was getting at is they claim [...] they will model the engine and its operation accurately [...] so if they claim they are doing so, but cant animate the switches, levers, etc that operate them I think it leaves you with a less than fulfilling experience...

 

Well, are we talking you actually control it? I mean, is it a case of "you control the levers & switches with keys, but you don't use the mouse and it doesn't show them moving?" Or are we talking "you can't move the levers and switches"? I suspect the latter, because it's the standard in the misleadingly-marketed flying games industry.

 

Best case scenario is "everything is modelled, and you have option of key/button bind or mouse clicks" (e.g. DCS), but the scenario of "everything is modelled but you gotta use key/button" is still more acceptable than "these things aren't modelled" or "these things are modelled, but they unrealistically manage themselves."

 

they will model the engine and its operation accurately (which in itself is open to personal interpretation)

 

I'm not sure I can agree that it's open to personal interpretation. I mean, sure, when we're talking about minute details (e.g. how many degrees the engine temperature changes under given conditions), even the best simulation is going to have slight inaccuracies, but, if they leave out entire parts (e.g. no mixture control or automatic mixture control on an aircraft which had manual mixture), I don't see how anyone can honestly describe it as "accurate." But, I guess, that's the fun thing about words, isn't it--one can always fall back behind the defense of relative definition. (And I can't argue with them--word definitions are, after all, arbitrary.)

Edited December 18, 2012 by Echo38

[Echo38]

I was half-asleep when I wrote my previous two posts. Reviewing them in a more awake state, they're rather unnecessarily verbose. What I was trying to say was this:

 

A clickable 'pit technically isn't necessary to have a high-fidelity P.C. flight sim. It's clearly the best way to do it, but there are other ways of implementing full systems management. Full systems management is a requisite element of a high-fidelity flight sim; using mouse click to do it isn't. Nice, but not absolutely necessary. Good luck trying to do it all without mouse, though, if it's anything more complex than a Piper Cub.

 

(There. A lot shorter, that.)