Fw-190D9 Discussion

[Speed]

Jane's has a book on ammunition, might be a place to look. Not sure how far back it goes or if its just for modern day weapons. All other none proven statements point to a pale green.

 

Think its simply called Jane's Ammunition Handbook.

A slightly different story here-

 

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/weapons-systems-tech/mg-151-20-tracers-30212.html

 

Gotta love how a guy says, "according to different sources..." and then NEVER tells what his sources are. I guess a lot of people don't understand how absolutely critical citing your sources is...

[NineLine]

A slightly different story here-

 

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/weapons-systems-tech/mg-151-20-tracers-30212.html

 

Gotta love how a guy says, "according to different sources..." and then NEVER tells what his sources are. I guess a lot of people don't understand how absolutely critical citing your sources is...

 

And there lies the problem with the internet :)

[Speed]

And there lies the problem with the internet :)

 

Well, from watching FW 190 gun cam videos, it is quite obvious that the tracer color was white :D

[GGTharos]

It was yellow shooty bolts :D

[Krupi]

Desperately reading these books for some info...

 

http://www.ianallanpublishing.com/focke-wulf-fw190-volume-1-1938-43.htm

 

http://www.ianallanpublishing.com/focke-wulf-fw-190-volume-two-1943-1944.htm

 

Unfortuantely the dora book is not out yet but if I find anything I will post it here.

 

FYI these books contain a great amount of detail, for example it gives the drag/speed reduction caused by different types of bomb racks etc...

 

Hope I can help.

[NineLine]

Well, from watching FW 190 gun cam videos, it is quite obvious that the tracer color was white :D

 

:thumbup:

[Krupi]

Not relevant but I just read that night fighters used tracers that were not as bright, news to me :smartass:.

 

Unfortunately all the accounts I have read so far just say tracer and do not stipulate the colour :book:

[NineLine]

Not relevant but I just read that night fighters used tracers that were not as bright, news to me :smartass:.

 

Unfortunately all the accounts I have read so far just say tracer and do not stipulate the colour :book:

 

I am finding the same things, reference to glowtracers, no colors...

[Kusch]

Gentlemen, there is a question... I have no idea what tracer color ammo for MG151/20 and MG 131 had. We need proven facts about it to avoid usual hot discussion about it post factum... :)

 

Greenish in low light, the day just white.

[NineLine]

Greenish in low light, the day just white.

 

He is looking for verified sources if you have them as well. I am seeing that as well, but I cant verify this anywhere so far. Its sounding like they are just white, and any color was effected by outside conditions.

[Fox One]

WOW, I had no idea work is in such an advanced state on the Focke Wulf. I suppose getting the tracer colour right is not exactly one of the first things you worry about when you start buliding a new DCS module.

 

My impression was that it is in very early development stages, and honestly I was already thinking "next year"... Don't wanna get my hopes too high, but anyway maybe there will be a nice surprise "soon enough", meaning ... two weeks ? :D

[Krupi]

If that's true any chance of some cockpits shots, I need them for something :music_whistling:

 

Seriously I do!

[Speed]

anyway maybe there will be a nice surprise "soon enough", meaning ... two weeks ? :D

I'm sure a frame of reference exists where that will be so, but it's probably not one at rest relative to Earth.:smartass:

[osram]

-1

some want to fly a WWII plane on a SIM level just like the A10, and not games like IL2 or rise of flight!!!!

 

+100000 for the FW190

 

Don't act like Sturmovik or especially Rise of Flight are complete garbage and low fidelity. Even though Sturmovik is getting old, the feeling and realism is good enough to have some serious and immersive 2. WW multiplayer battles which actually immerse into THAT ERA. Despite Sturmovik being old, with the diversity of it's planes, I would even say it does an even better job than DCS with P-51 vs. FW-190 only.. no matter how high fidelity and realistic those models might become. It's gonna be nothing more than two highly realistic 2. WW planes stuck in the wrong universe and server/module landscape.

 

ROF has proven an exceptional job when it comes to fidelity, complex engine management, realism, multiplayer and also the graphics engine. Even for simulation standards, they did a truly amazing job. They have the skills to compete with ED easily IMHO. Comparing a P51 to a 1. WW ROF plane, I wouldn't even know if the P51 is THAT much "better" and realistic. I've heard people being kind of disappointed about the P51 flight model, regarding drag and losing speed in moderate curves. But anyway, I'm not a physicist, don't ask me. Plus: You pay like 50 Bucks for most of the ROF 1. WW planes, whereas you get 1 single arguably "amazing " P51 for that money in DCS... which has a really hard time being actually "fun" and "useful" within the DCS multiplayer server landscape.

 

You will have a hard time even taking out a single Vulcan with a P51 in DCS... Fightgenossen.ch is specifically hosting some training maps with soft target areas because of that. Hell I even bought most modules, including the P51... just as means of supporting ED. I rarely play the P51 though, it's very hard to fit into DCS.

 

Don't get me wrong. I'm not against including 2. WW planes or other eras. But I am against it if I feel like it makes me wait longer for actual "modern era" content which I would actually expect from DCS. Lock-On and all the other predecessors of "DCS World" they are not known and do not cater or target the 1. / 2. WW fans, i.e. market. They are clearly. or at least "were", clearly targeting a specific branch or modern era simulation enthusiasts. And that's what I find kind of irritating and confusing. If I need to wait 2-3 more years for an F/A-18 or SU-27 because ED is releasing FW190 first, I have to say: I don't like it. You are actually sitting here with your argument and 5-7 exclamation-marks shouting and demanding a FW-190 ASAP and by all means, ignoring the fact that it will actually push back DCS-healthy and DCS-suitable content on the development timeline. Despite ED actually owing their money, support and success to people mostly paying for and expecting modern era flight simulations.

 

ROF has a strong standing in the 1. WW market. And my bet, is that it will even become a stronger rival in the 2. WW market, especially if the 1C + ROF - Joint Venture is successful. When that's going to happen, there will be no way for ED to beat ROF/1C on their "hometurf" and the time spent on FW-190 and simile are partially going to waste.

 

ED is gonna kind of stand here with their pants down, with two 2. WW planes for some lame and boring FW190 vs. P51 dogfighting DCS servers.. and DCS World CA without much newer stuff other than the scripted flight-model FC3 content. "Woohooo!"

 

I can understand that ED needs to earn money, and pay salaries. And I prefer them earning money with 2. WW planes, than going bankrupt. But I really doubt their financial situation to be THAT bad, although I don't know anything about their books anyway. What I really doubt though, is that a SU-27, or an F/A18 would be sold LESS often than a P-51 or FW-190. So why not just stick to your target audience and towards Combined Arms, i.e. the modern military era?

 

You kind of need to respect that kind of POV too. I'm not against the FW-190. I would just pick an F/A-18, the new EDGE engine.. or an SU-27 over a FW-190 or P-51 for DCS World any time of the day.

Edited March 9, 2013 by osram

[9.JG27 DavidRed]

Don't act like Sturmovik or especially Rise of Flight are complete garbage and low fidelity. Even though Sturmovik is getting old, the feeling and realism is good enough to have some serious and immersive 2. WW multiplayer battles which actually immerse into THAT ERA. Despite Sturmovik being old, with the diversity of it's planes, I would even say it does an even better job than DCS with P-51 vs. FW-190 only.. no matter how high fidelity and realistic those models might become. It's gonna be nothing more than two highly realistic 2. WW planes stuck in the wrong universe and server/module landscape.

 

ROF has proven an exceptional job when it comes to fidelity, complex engine management, realism, multiplayer and also the graphics engine. Even for simulation standards, they did a truly amazing job. They have the skills to compete with ED easily IMHO. Comparing a P51 to a 1. WW ROF plane, I wouldn't even know if the P51 is THAT much "better" and realistic. I've heard people being kind of disappointed about the P51 flight model, regarding drag and losing speed in moderate curves. But anyway, I'm not a physicist, don't ask me. Plus: You pay like 50 Bucks for most of the ROF 1. WW planes, whereas you get 1 single arguably "amazing " P51 for that money in DCS... which has a really hard time being actually "fun" and "useful" within the DCS multiplayer server landscape.

 

You will have a hard time even taking out a single Vulcan with a P51 in DCS... Fightgenossen.ch is specifically hosting some training maps with soft target areas because of that. Hell I even bought most modules, including the P51... just as means of supporting ED. I rarely play the P51 though, it's very hard to fit into DCS.

 

Don't get me wrong. I'm not against including 2. WW planes or other eras. But I am against it if I feel like it makes me wait longer for actual "modern era" content which I would actually expect from DCS. Lock-On and all the other predecessors of "DCS World" they are not known and do not cater or target the 1. / 2. WW fans, i.e. market. They are clearly. or at least "were", clearly targeting a specific branch or modern era simulation enthusiasts. And that's what I find kind of irritating and confusing. If I need to wait 2-3 more years for an F/A-18 or SU-27 because ED is releasing FW190 first, I have to say: I don't like it. You are actually sitting here with your argument and 5-7 exclamation-marks shouting and demanding a FW-190 ASAP and by all means, ignoring the fact that it will actually push back DCS-healthy and DCS-suitable content on the development timeline. Despite ED actually owing their money, support and success to people mostly paying for and expecting modern era flight simulations.

 

ROF has a strong standing in the 1. WW market. And my bet, is that it will even become a stronger rival in the 2. WW market, especially if the 1C + ROF - Joint Venture is successful. When that's going to happen, there will be no way for ED to beat ROF/1C on their "hometurf" and the time spent on FW-190 and simile are partially going to waste.

 

ED is gonna kind of stand here with their pants down, with two 2. WW planes for some lame and boring FW190 vs. P51 dogfighting DCS servers.. and DCS World CA without much newer stuff other than the scripted flight-model FC3 content. "Woohooo!"

 

I can understand that ED needs to earn money, and pay salaries. And I prefer them earning money with 2. WW planes, than going bankrupt. But I really doubt their financial situation to be THAT bad, although I don't know anything about their books anyway. What I really doubt though, is that a SU-27, or an F/A18 would be sold LESS often than a P-51 or FW-190. So why not just stick to your target audience and towards Combined Arms, i.e. the modern military era?

 

You kind of need to respect that kind of POV too. I'm not against the FW-190. I would just pick an F/A-18, the new EDGE engine.. or an SU-27 over a FW-190 or P-51 for DCS World any time of the day.

 

and you seem to still dont get it...

i never said dcs should not make any modern planes anymore...not at all...in fact i love the a10 and i will gladly pay for a F18 or pretty much anything with the dcs simulation standard....and here is the thing: dcs= highley detailed and realistic simulation of aircraft.

i love planes...pretty much all of them including WWII planes. and DCS is the only company which delivers such detailed planes in a combat invorment.

 

you dont have to tell me about ROF or IL2...i played IL2 for years...and while it can be fun, its nowhere near as realistic and detailed modeled as the DCS planes...and 777studios and 1c already stated that their new sim/game will lack of many features which are in direct relation to realism...sorry im a realism chunky, and dcs is the only dealer which provides that stuff.

better two correctly and detailed modeled planes than a hundred ones with lower fidelity....that is of course only my opinion,...but i think im not the only thinking that way, and you should start to accept that.

 

and btw, telling people that they should go and play another game is doing nobody good here...neither the devs nor the community.

[osram]

and you seem to still dont get it...

i never said dcs should not make any modern planes anymore...not at all...in fact i love the a10 and i will gladly pay for a F18 or pretty much anything with the dcs simulation standard....and here is the thing: dcs= highley detailed and realistic simulation of aircraft.

i love planes...pretty much all of them including WWII planes. and DCS is the only company which delivers such detailed planes in a combat invorment.

 

you dont have to tell me about ROF or IL2...i played IL2 for years...and while it can be fun, its nowhere near as realistic and detailed modeled as the DCS planes...and 777studios and 1c already stated that their new sim/game will lack of many features which are in direct relation to realism...sorry im a realism chunky, and dcs is the only dealer which provides that stuff.

better two correctly and detailed modeled planes than a hundred ones with lower fidelity....that is of course only my opinion,...but i think im not the only thinking that way, and you should start to accept that.

 

and btw, telling people that they should go and play another game is doing nobody good here...neither the devs nor the community.

 

The fact that you are trying to imply that I am actually trying to "damage" this community or ED in any way actually proves how ignorant you are about my argumentation. I am merely posting my thoughts and opinions. If someone is critical (instead of blindly trusting) and worries about a subculture he is part of, it doesn't mean that this individual is trying to damage it. Actually it means that the individual is trying to help progress and cares. - Even if those thoughts might not be "nice" and hypocritical, but rather annoying or honest.

 

Sometimes ignorance is bliss.. but most of the time ignorance can actually be severely damaging for a society or subculture. Even if you might not clearly "see" that right now, since you are trying to defend the FW190, yourself or ED. I am not fighting any of these things, I love flying and simply wish the best possible future for this rare gaming genre and DCS. Funnily enough, this kind of includes YOU and ME within this DCS subculture.

 

The reasoning behind my arguments is actually an entirely opposite motivation: It has to do with my personal concern of ED possibly making problematic decisions, and moving into an (for ED/DCS gaming standards) unnatural direction when it comes to their resources, to marketing and the "target audience". And therefore its potential outcome of damaging the quality or prosperity of DCS. Which would not only hinder my own craving for CA-compatible content, but also a FW-190 or any future DCS modules. So I only indirectly "defend" "Combined-Arms-Compatible" and modern content. It is simply a coincidence and part of my underlying worries.

 

My limited interpretation or POV right now, and this is rather a personal prejudice, kind of suspects ED having attained good numbers and sales from the P-51 module, and that they might be tempted to generate another excellently selling module in the same footsteps i.e. era. Despite the risk of actually moving away from CA... and possibly wasting time and resources for a P-51-succesor which might not only not fit in too well, but not stand up to the P-51 sales at all. Also I suspect that the reason for ED's interest in older planes, is that it might possibly be less tedious or time-consuming to get hold of reliable data and therefore save a big part of the workload -> maximize profits?

 

Who knows.

 

For my part: I don't know which, or if the FW-190 is the next module in ED's pipeline. But if that's the case, I am rather worried and dissatisfied. Because I am certainly not going to buy another WW2 module out of "goodwill"... especially if it moves further away from what I would find efficient, coherent and logical for DCS.

 

Possibly maybe others kind of share the same monetary attitude as I do. For my part I can only say that within my group of DCS players most share a quite similar opinion.

 

---------------------------------

 

I have played IL2 for a long time. I am not trying to tell people to move to another game at all. And also played quite a bit of ROF, it didn't sound like you've personally witnessed ROF's or 777's qualities at all. My thoughts of this extremely interesting and innovating experiment between 1C and 777 is that 777 will bring in the outstanding qualities in their engine and programming skills which seems to be the exact opposite of what we could see with 1C's disastrous CLOD display... whereas 1C will rather bring their share of experience when it comes to WW2 Flight-Models. This will in turn provide a highly efficient collaboration, and in my opinion: That game will most probably become a serious contender.

 

From my limited, non-professional logic/marketing understanding and market-share POV I really don't think its a terrific idea for ED to "experiment" and mess around in that kind foreign habitat. Just stick to whats natural for DCS and to what you are already good at.

 

I am very interested in game-design theory/practice and what games actually do well or not from a marketing and game-mechanic perspective. Different opinions are great. And I love maximum realism as much as you do. Where my taste or opinion differs though, is that its not important if every single knob/function is clickable or not... IF the flight model and critical functions of an airplane are actually existant and implemented in an exceptional way. Another factor is multiplayer "fun" and general application flexibility when it comes to usability, performance etc. After all, even if most of us value realism, we are simply gamers... playing a realistic simulation game. And IF one game is super-realistic and rather mediocre in performance, engine, multiplayer, fun and feeling... and the other game is still super-realistic when it comes to flight-model and it's needed functions, but also exceptional in terms of performance, engine, multiplayer, fun and feeling. Which game do you think comes out ahead and provides better quality and enjoyment?

 

If ED does not make the right decisions and provide modders and the community tools and collaboration/communication (i.e. open up the LUA/API/Tools needed) to actually fix the current problems with CA and team-vs-team multiplayer and for example: Create mods with a new ruleset / scoring-system / win-conditions... to actually fix the current CA issues ED doesn't seem to care about or doesn't have the resources to fix... I see potential problems arise. Especially if they continue developing rather wierd products.

 

And even if the new Sturmovik will not have fully clickable cockpits, judging from ROF's multiplayer fun, flexibility and reliability plus their beautiful engine. I am really looking forward to their newest title. The following video is only a small experiment regarding land vehicles, but yes... it looks promising. Also the map will encompass around 83'000 km^2, whereas my estimate for DCS map-size excluding larger sea/water area, is around 150'000 km^2. So I guess their endeavor is commendable even in this regard.

 

Source: http://forum.il2sturmovik.net/topic/168-developer-diary/

 

[9.JG27 DavidRed]

well, my guess is, that the 190 will be at least as successfull as the stang was.

fact is, that the stang from dcs is the most detailed modeled WWII aircraft which is actually capable of firing guns...

many people from il2 where looking forward to such an realism...i know plenty of them.and only a guess again, i think that with each WWII module dcs delivers, they will get a bigger piece of the pie...i myself switched from il2 and clod to dcs because of their realism.they got me because of the stang.but i ended up buying the a10 the very next day.

i think, that once the first oponent for the p51 is ready for release, and a map which fits to those warbirds arrives as well, dcs will be very challenging for 777 and 1c and not the opposite...i for myself know, observing the bos forum as well, that i will not touch their product.never again...

 

for you it isnt important that a cockpit is fully functional,...but there are many people who think it is.if i remember correctly the bos team stated that they will not even have operational fuel tank switches...its not neccessarily about beeing clickable, but about beeing functional.and clickable cockpits are just the most useful way to have fully working cockpits.(and its immersive as well)

starting up a plane in dcs is immersive, starting up a plane in il2 is "I".

if you are bored in dcs to make the whole start up proceedure every time, you can use the "cheat function" or use lower realism settings...

 

if you want more immersive and realistic start up proceedures in il2,clod or the upcoming bos, you have to go to dcs.:)

 

in the end i think, that all of us DCS fans will be happy...there will be many more modern aircraft and hopefully many more aircraft from different areas in different scenarios.

 

but regardless of all said above,...i just think that there is a market for such detailed WWII planes.and nobody except DCS offers them.

and i think the fact that DCS now produces WWII planes as well, and especially keeps doing so, is a good sign that they gain enough profit from their work, which is good for all of us.

i just didnt like your comment which more or less indicated that people who want to fly WWII planes can go to IL2...

and i just dont share your fear of DCS losing focus.in my view they just grow and spread out, and thats good.

Edited March 10, 2013 by 9./JG27 DavidRed

[Foul Ole Ron]

I don't think it's fair to say that ED might be losing focus on the modern stable by working on the 190. Right now they're also working on DCS F-18C, DCS F-15C and DCS SU-27SM. We also don't know how ED are managing their resources as they may easily have hired somebody to work on the 190. I just think we need to look at the longer term future. There's absolutely no reason that ED can't operate in both the modern and historical spaces. It's just a question of time and resources and if they can carve out a profit from both areas then they should go for it and grow. The question mark will be around delivering both in a reasonable time frame and that's up to ED to manage. I'm quite sure they're well aware of this and know far better what they have and what theycan achieve on a given time frame. Personally I think in 2-3 years we'll have a decent WW2 stable and an appropriate map which will make for a great full realism playground for those who want that kind of thing.

[9.JG27 DavidRed]

^^ thats my perception as well....listening and reading the last interviews, as well as looking at the last vid shown by wags, the future of dcs seems indeed to be a bright one, with modules for every taste...

[dburne]

Personally I think in 2-3 years we'll have a decent WW2 stable and an appropriate map which will make for a great full realism playground for those who want that kind of thing.

 

I sure hope so, now that would be awesome!

[Silver_Dragon]

ED don´t lossing any focus...... extracted by the DCS:W

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1480510&postcount=1

DCS stands for “Digital Combat Simulator”. DCS is a world simulation engine permitting the user to operate or direct a growing number of combat and civilian aircraft, ground vehicles and ships, from different historical eras and in different geographical locations. It is a true "sand box" simulation. DCS started with the Ka-50 and A-10C, but has recently grown to also include the P-51D Mustang and, with Combined Arms, a ground command and control tactical warfare component. Future products from The Fighter Collection and Eagle Dynamics in the DCS line are in development and will include third party products for the first time.

[mjeh]

Don't act like Sturmovik or especially Rise of Flight are complete garbage and low fidelity. Even though Sturmovik is getting old, the feeling and realism is good enough to have some serious and immersive 2. WW multiplayer battles which actually immerse into THAT ERA. Despite Sturmovik being old, with the diversity of it's planes, I would even say it does an even better job than DCS with P-51 vs. FW-190 only.. no matter how high fidelity and realistic those models might become. It's gonna be nothing more than two highly realistic 2. WW planes stuck in the wrong universe and server/module landscape.

 

From my experience with IL-2 (I do own pretty much everything they've released and have sunk lord knows how many hours into them) their P-51 and FW-190 weren't as bad as some people seem to make them out to be, but their P-51 still falls miles short of any comparison with the DCS P-51. What you mean by "wrong server/ module landscape" isn't very clear, but the whole "wrong universe p-51 doesn't fit in" is getting old because 1. it's been stated that there will be more WW2 aircraft coming and 2. it's been stated that there will be WW2 scenarios coming (although nothing is said as to whether said scenarios will be 3rd party).

 

..."amazing " P51 for that money in DCS... which has a really hard time being actually "fun" and "useful" within the DCS multiplayer server landscape.

...

Hell I even bought most modules, including the P51... just as means of supporting ED. I rarely play the P51 though, it's very hard to fit into DCS.

 

On one hand you complain that the P-51 isn't "fun" and "useful" (both of which are nothing but your personal opinions, I must remind you) and doesn't fit in, and on the other hand you complain that they're releasing an opponent that will make it both "fun" and "useful". Which is it?

 

Don't get me wrong. I'm not against including 2. WW planes or other eras. But I am against it if I feel like it makes me wait longer for actual "modern era" content which I would actually expect from DCS.

...

Lock-On and all the other predecessors of "DCS World" they are not known and do not cater or target the 1. / 2. WW fans, i.e. market. They are clearly. or at least "were", clearly targeting a specific branch or modern era simulation enthusiasts. And that's what I find kind of irritating and confusing.

...

ED is gonna kind of stand here with their pants down, with two 2. WW planes for some lame and boring FW190 vs. P51 dogfighting DCS servers.. and DCS World CA without much newer stuff other than the scripted flight-model FC3 content. "Woohooo!"

 

So you are not against including WW2 or other eras. You just don't think they should ever be given priority, their presence confuse and irritate you and WW2 dogfight servers will be "lame" and "boring"?

 

Come on guy, at least stand up for your opinions and don't contradict yourself.

 

You kind of need to respect that kind of POV too. I'm not against the FW-190. I would just pick an F/A-18, the new EDGE engine.. or an SU-27 over a FW-190 or P-51 for DCS World any time of the day.

 

If you want your point of view to be respected, you can start by respecting those you are trying to sell it to. Currently you are not only directly contradicting yourself on several (if not most) points, you are also trying to disguise your own personal opinion as "DCS-healthy" and "DCS-suitable" (look at Silver_Dragon's quote to see the real focus of DCS as opposed to what you make it out to be) business strategies that ED must follow if they want financial success.

 

I'm sorry if I come across as harsh in this post, but in my eyes all you are doing is spreading negativity because you are unhappy that your personal favourite plane maybe isn't (because you don't even know, do you) the next one in the pipeline.

Edited March 10, 2013 by mjeh

[osram]

Your points are moot. Doesn't quite look you've read or understood, or actually "want" to understand my replies within this thread. I'm sorry, but simply stating I "contradict" my own statements out of thin air, doesn't quite cut the cake. The only contradictory thing happening here is you actually trying to turn my statements upside down since obviously you are possibly unable to refute with facts, or at least a weighted opinion.

 

From my experience with IL-2 (I do own pretty much everything they've released and have sunk lord knows how many hours into them) their P-51 and FW-190 weren't as bad as some people seem to make them out to be, but their P-51 still falls miles short of any comparison with the DCS P-51.

Man. I don't even care to check how old the whole 1946 release/stuff actually is... regarding flight model, that statement is possibly still argueable. For my part: I had amazing experiences with the P-51 in high-energy fighting and high altitudes. Can't say the same for the P-51 in here. But maybe that's just because it is kind of a "non-module" which doesn't fit in ;)

 

What you mean by "wrong server/ module landscape" isn't very clear,

It is very clear. The P-51 is almost impossible to integrate in a relevant manner, when it comes the predominant "coop" multiplayer gameplay. If I fly and enjoy flying in coop within DCS playing with friends in SU-25T, A10 and KA-50. I can actually "do" something.. and sort of complement the vehicles my friends are flying. The P-51 is extremely HARD to fit into that ensemble. It just stands there... and is useless. Does that make sense to you? No contradictions. Nothing to see here.

 

The P-51 doesn't fit into what we currently see in DCS. And IMHO adding another WW2 plane will possibly not be the "magic remedy" for that problem. IMO The issue at hand is bigger than that.

 

but the whole "wrong universe p-51 doesn't fit in" is getting old because 1. it's been stated that there will be more WW2 aircraft coming and 2. it's been stated that there will be WW2 scenarios coming (although nothing is said as to whether said scenarios will be 3rd party).

Here you are kind of admitting yourself that the P-51 alone is out of place. Why else would you need one or even more than one specifically tailored/fitting modules to change that situation? Plus you are acting as if ED or gamedevs had unlimited resources and 2-3 WW2 modules wouldn't actually push back back everything else by YEARS. So when will the customer feel the whole CA thing getting to a rather "completed" and diverse state? In 15-25 years?

 

When ED AND 3rd party devs "pump out" a module every 6 months, I'll be the first to STFU and say: "Cmon! bring all that stuff.. bring it on! 1st, 2nd WW.. modern era... I don't care... development is fast and quality is good enough anyway!" But we haven't even seen a single 3rd party module yet... so none of us knows how well it will go... and don't get me wrong... I wish the 3rd party modules to push the rate of DCS, but we simply don't know yet how it turns out. Therefore my concerns.

 

And in what order is ED prioritizing the modules? Can you answer that question? I can't. Because if it is FW190 first and possibly even WW2-module 2 and WW2 module 3 before everything else... then I don't like it.. that's all I'm saying. From what I understand the FW-190 is supposed to be an ED-internal non-3rd party module. So if that's the next priority, I'm honestly unsure if that's the "best choice" and direction we should be heading in since it WILL take up limited ED-development resources. Not 3rd-party resources.

 

But here we are.. discussing about fairyland unlimited-resources development instead... and pretending that there is no need to be "careful" or critical. Acting as if that "single" nay-sayer has no right of existence. It's like "democracy" in the european union: It's a democracy where you're not allowed to say "NO."... and if you do the non-process is just repeated until everyone is forced into the EU and has said "YES". That's kind of how I feel right now, but that's OK.

 

I am pretty sure my concerns are perfectly valid and I don't care if you, mjeh, respect that or not.

 

On one hand you complain that the P-51 isn't "fun" and "useful" (both of which are nothing but your personal opinions, I must remind you) and doesn't fit in, and on the other hand you complain that they're releasing an opponent that will make it both "fun" and "useful". Which is it?

That's correct. It's rather not my cup of tea... at least not withing DCS. But where you are wrong, is that it is more than just my personal opinion. It is rather a fact, as I cleared up for you above, the P-51 can hardly be "integrated" in multiplayer DCS mechanics.... and be it the P51 alone or turning this into a P-51 vs./with FW-190 will not change a single thing about that. It will just make it a P-51 vs. FW-190 which cannot be reasonably integrated into coop or versus with the EXISTING modules. It will be about a rather useless P-51 and FW-190 flying alongside other DCS vehicles in COOP vs. AI, but actually rather apart of the other modern Strikers and Fighters.... Or: It will be flying separately in COOP. P-51 AND FW-190 vs. AI OR P-51 vs. FW-190.

 

So you are not against including WW2 or other eras. You just don't think they should ever be given priority, their presence confuse and irritate you and WW2 dogfight servers will be "lame" and "boring"?

 

Come on guy, at least stand up for your opinions and don't contradict yourself.

Absolutely correct. And I stand up to my opinion. And there is zero contradiction in what I am saying.

 

If you want your point of view to be respected, you can start by respecting those you are trying to sell it to.

WTF are you talking about? How am I being disrespectful? For being critical? Or generally voicing my unpleasant/critical thoughts? I'm in no way personally/subjectively attacking ED or any other user within this discussion. And seriously. I don't want your respect... since you obviously lack it in first place: You on the other hand claim I'm disrespectful and simply constantly contradicting myself.. and try to push this to the "personal level" due to lack of arguments or respect/understanding/tolerance and repeated paraphrasing. Therefore you are actually the one being disrespectful and negative.

 

I repeat for people who might be offended by my concerns regarding ED's direction: If my opinion is unpleasant... it should be considered "healthy concerns and criticism"... but actually an unpleasant incentive for the better. No personal intentions.

 

Really reminds me of "democracy in the EU". ;) In EU parliament, and apparently some people here are having the same issue: failing to understand that healthy discussion and democracy needs a "YES" (PRO) and/or "NO" (CONTRA). Kind of perverted if you ask me. A healthy subculture NEEDS a PRO and a CONTRA. Otherwise it's simply not efficient, democratic and natural.

 

Currently you are not only directly contradicting yourself on several (if not most) points, you are also trying to disguise your own personal opinion as "DCS-healthy" and "DCS-suitable" (look at Silver_Dragon's quote to see the real focus of DCS as opposed to what you make it out to be) business strategies that ED must follow if they want financial success.

If you really believe I am contradicting myself up to now, and even after this post.. you should seriously work on your "reading" skills. By all means... not trying to offend, but expect reactions if you are attacking someone and twisting their words.

 

So how does Silver-Dragon's quote prove I am contradicting myself exactly? I am perfectly aware of his ED-marketing/thread quote. I remember reading it before his reminder and still have it present. If things go perfect.. that's good to know. But looking at it realistically it's nothing more than a neutral, friendly.. PR statement from ED. Nothing wrong about that. But it doesn't explain or guarantee anything of what we are discussing here.

 

And I have to repeat: Even if my opinion sounds very unpleasant. I love ED. I really do. And I love playing with people who love ED, this game.. as much as I do. But I am also trying to be realistic and critical.

 

ED don´t lossing any focus...... extracted by the DCS:W

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?...10&postcount=1

Quote:

DCS stands for “Digital Combat Simulator”. DCS is a world simulation engine permitting the user to operate or direct a growing number of combat and civilian aircraft, ground vehicles and ships, from different historical eras and in different geographical locations. It is a true "sand box" simulation. DCS started with the Ka-50 and A-10C, but has recently grown to also include the P-51D Mustang and, with Combined Arms, a ground command and control tactical warfare component. Future products from The Fighter Collection and Eagle Dynamics in the DCS line are in development and will include third party products for the first time.

LOL @ Silver Dragon. Sorry.. but I find your statement funny in a sympathetic way. ;) It seems rather cute. Don't know if it's your use of English or the statement or both. And this is not meant to belittle you.. really makes me smile, my friend.

 

ED is not "lossing" Focus, and Silver-Dragon extracted that information from the forums! ;) *smile* Now I'm gonna sleep better at night!

 

But honestly... I really wish ED and the 3rd Party devs completely succeed in whatever endeavors they have or whatever directions/decisions they finally take. But this ED statement does NOT give much information about WHICH modules are actually prioritized. Therefore it doesn't really answer any of this discussion or what I am actually talking about.

 

business strategies that ED must follow if they want financial success.

And well... that statement is certainly debatable. I know ED is being extremely scarce with information/confirmation to protect themselves.. but as a customer it would still be great to actually know more precisely what product they are actually working on for the NEXT release at least.

 

No offense, mjeh.

[Foul Ole Ron]

The "fact" about the P51 and FW190 not integrating in the mutilplayer is only a short term state. First of all there's lots of us who'll love to fly stangs vs butcher birds in the current environment. Secondly it's another step on the road towards making a decent WW2 stable which is something we'll get to in time. This is the direction that ED has chosen and I'm fully behind it. Companies have to make money and these are tough times generallyso if they can turn out ww2 planes quicker than complex jets which helps to keep things ticking over and even expand then it makes sense to me.

[Eddie]

Osram,

 

The only person in this thread who's points are moot, is you. This is because, as demonstrated throughout your rants in this thread, you don't actually know or understand, or alternatively are ignoring, EDs development process or what DCS World actually is. And more to the point, you, nor anyone else actually know which aircraft are being developed by ED and which are being developed by a third party. A few have made "educated" guesses, but nobody outside of ED and their third party developers know.

 

You go on about ED "prioritising" WWII era aircraft, this in itself demonstrates your lack of understanding. Who has ever said the FW190, in this case, is a priority over any other module? And what has ED got to do with how a third party develops products?

 

It seems that you are saying that if a third party developer wishes to produce a WWII aircraft, ED should tell them no, they need to make a modern aircraft first. Really?

 

In order for modules such as P-51D to "make sense" other WWII modules need to be released, yes? So therefore it's kind of obvious that modules such as FW190 will be developed over the coming years.

 

Please, gain some comprehension of the subject matter before trying to enter a "debate". At the moment you're just embarrassing yourself by basing your arguments on incorrect information and assumptions.

 

Oh and adding "no offense" at the end of your post only serves to indicate that you know your post is likely to be offensive, but don't care.