Fw-190D9 Discussion

[Silver_Dragon]

 

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!

 

Thanks to despise an official statement of ED, and laughs over the person who posted. Do not see the humor in his words.

[Mortifa]

Well, I am new here and never played Il2, but I did try ROF for a while, and put a fair bit of money into it.

 

Stuck around because people on the forum kept saying there would be changes to the flight model, which I expected and hoped for as there were some glaring inconsistencies.

 

Now I have been around flight simulations for a fair while, but I could not understand why aircraft in world war one were so hard to recover from a spin, in fact from what I saw in ROF, I was amazed the planes were allowed to fly, especially the Camel.

 

Imagine my shock when one day Jason Williams admits the ROF team knew of the flight model errors, but as they are focusing on their new product, they would not make any corrections. Well that great Flight Simulation became a dud in my eyes.

 

We'll make more announcements when we're ready.

 

But you want straight talk so here it is. None of our current plans involve further FM changes. We are focused on other parts of the project and BOS.

 

Please stop the drama over the FMs. It doesn't motivate us to do anything more with them. Same complaints from the same people, day in and day out. We're aware of them. ROF is not a tragic product as put above, it is a stellar product that has defied the odds. We are proud of what we have created. You should be too, but it will never be perfect for 100% of users. Just not possible with a flight-sim.

 

If and when we can or choose to re-make flight models we will and we'll let you know. As I have said to all of those that continue to PM me on the subject, we have to make difficult choices on where and how we apply our resources and we'll never be able to address every feature some deem to be deficient. This product as much as it seems is not on a perpetual, forever development life-cycle. At some point we have to move on with our overall larger plans. Maybe future plans can include FM revisions, but that depends on the business climate, what the market will bare and what we can afford.

 

Personally, I hope we can continue to improve ROF in different ways far into the future. I always fight for that, but there are a lot of considerations and different parties involved in such decisions.

 

Jason

http://www.777Studios.net

www.1CGS.net

 

Now I do agree ROF is nice, but it is not that great a flight sim, take an SE5 for a spin, it really does not behave like a plane should, there are simple basic principles of flight that just seem, missing. Which to me detracts from a flight simulation. In the first hour of A-10 I was doing touch and goes, not well, but good enough to know I understood the plane, because those basic principles of flight are modeled here.

 

The other bad thing about ROF is the total control of the forum exercised by Mr. Jason Williams, if you do not toe his line he deletes your posts or locks threads and if you say anything bad about ROF, that is a personal attack.

 

Having had that experience with ROF, I will probably not touch BoS with a ten foot pole.

[Ala13_ManOWar]

It would be great if I could find guys with native German and engineering backround to work with German docs. The main goal is to search useful info amongst tons of pages. Sometimes, some key facts can be found in the places you never suspect to be fruity.

Still looking for somebody? I've a squad mate that studied engineering in Germany (not aeronautical but still engineering), if still looking I can try to ask.

 

 

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...

And about this, here in Spain much of those weapons were also used and well after WWII. I think tracers has to do with chemical in ammunition, isn't it? Well I know were to ask for chemical of that ammo with people that actually collects cartridges and have the ones you look for. Not sure to get an answer but I'll try.

 

S!

[Krupi]

Wow Osram, troll harder buddy!!!

 

The fact is that no other combat sim current models ww2 aircraft well and so aircraft that should be hard to handle due to the number of cockpit controls etc needed to get the best are modelled incorrectly in games like il2 and ROF.

 

I want to play a sim where you need to learn how to fly the aircraft to get the best out of it, not just hit I (or E) and whack the throttle to 100% like Il2 and RoF.

[NineLine]

I think many still forget how the P-51 came to be, that it wasnt intended to be a Module, but turned out so well they decided to release it (that I am sure is an overly simplified explanation) I am sure now that the FW 190 is seeing life due to the success and/or sales of the P-51 (I am of course guessing and have no hard data on that). Because of this you are probably only seeing the early days of ED's WWII (or other era) effort. With continued success I am sure we will see more planes and/or other objects. (Again I am speaking from my own personal opinion, not anything else, mostly because I am trying to work on getting FLAK into the game on my own :))

 

As for all this nonsense of one module holding up another, the only time I have seen any development hold up another part so far has been the dedicated server development held up by multi-player issues... that certainly doesnt need explained for obvious reasons.

 

There is so much more than goes into development of these planes that even I know, that I am sure there is down time for devs with different jobs so much so that they can work on other aspects, to think they need or can only focus on one thing is just silly.

 

And dont even get me started on the comparison of Flight sims... I like IL2:CoD, they have different factors for me liking them, but its just silly to argue and compare...

[Mortifa]

The FW is on my to be purchased list, though I would rather have a TA-152, something that actually can stand against a P-51, the Dora could, but the TA-152 was better.

 

Comparing flight simulations, only if they are flight sims.

[Kusch]

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.

 

 

http://pl.scribd.com/doc/121367842/MG-151-Waffenhandbuch

 

http://simhq.net/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/1159231/What_tracer_colours_did_the_va.html

[osram]

Osram,

 

1. 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.

 

2. 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?

 

3. 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?

 

4. 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.

 

5. 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.

 

6. 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.

 

1. I never stated that I know or am certain that FW-190 is the next module. I wouldn't like seeing it prioritized over new-age modules though, as I have thoroughly explained already.

 

2. Once again: I never stated that ED is certainly developing the FW-190 next. Seems like repeatedly stating my standpoint is still not enough for some to understand. o.O From a customer POV here there isn't much to "understand" in that regard... with ED's conservative information policy. And I respect their choice. I don't see how that would be any different for you?

 

But hey. If you know anything more about module-prioritization within ED than us "regulars" do... feel free to enlighten us. I am very interested.

 

3. Nowhere did I state ED to disencourage development of a variety of different modules from 3rd party groups. I have no clue how you come to that conclusion. As a matter of fact I would actually prefer a FW190 in that specific case to be prioritized by 3rd parties over ED... to save ED's resources for "other" modules.

 

But once again, I think I also made that standpoint quite clear repeatedly. Guess it's just a lot of text to read. Which doesn't mean you should misinterpret my statements. -> Really?

 

4. Makes sense. *shrugs*

 

5. 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.

5. I honestly don't feel like embarassing myself at all. And I usually don't give a damn about "political correctness", or always happily saying "yes" and agreeing to everyones happy opinion just for the "comfort" of it. And if I feel like a different standpoint might be a valid point or possibly valuable to the large picture I will simply make sure to be honest and get my message across. Not caring about "political correctness" doesn't mean I don't value respect. To the contrary... it's just that I prefer direct communication instead of hypocrisy.

 

I still wonder how a user is supposed to gain comprehension about this specific subject matter, if there is no information available. So if ED publishes barely any information in that regard, the users are not allowed to at least make assumptions or talk about their concerns on the forums?

 

Is that what you are trying to get across, Eddie? Because honestly. It doesn't make much sense from a logical POV. You are basically telling me to not debate and keep my opinion to myself... unless I start to learn about a topic where there are no official statements or clues.

 

Kind of impossible what you are asking from me, isn't it? I see that especially wierd coming from an "ED Testers" dude, although I know you do not officially represent ED. And I'm pretty sure you don't hear that kind of statement from people in debates for the first time.

 

But maybe that might still be a good incentive to be a little bit careful before telling people to basically STFU. ;) Just because there's an ED Testers Tag below your nick. I value respect. But I'm not here just for the sake of making "friends"... I am here to participate in a forum. A place of respectful discussion. Even if my standpoint might be part of a "minority" or the "uncomfortable" side. Or even if that meaningless "reputation bar" turns deep red, because nowadays people are too lazy to thoroughly read a few pages of text on the internet. I will voice my thoughts anyway.

 

Feel free to prove me wrong regarding any assumptions regarding module-priority. And I'm not saying that I can predict the future, or have a business or marketing degree. Or know what's going on within ED. (Which is a shame, and might actually help)

 

Just a customer/gamer discussing about the FW-190 module in DCS.

 

 

6. 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.

Now that's what I would also call an assumption or rather direct accusation. ;) The "no offense" was actually meant in a truly honest way towards mjeh. I am not trolling. (There... another accusation) I am serious. But guess in a debate many people just read what they want to read. And calling the "Troll" card is always easy.. especially if you don't like someones opinion.

 

Also I was truly smiling when reading Silver-Dragon's statement. But guess it's hard to get that statement across in a non-offensive manner.. especially in a "hostile environment".

 

You can assume or accuse me of personal-level things like that all you want. I can only repeat how it was meant, not much more to be done. Sometimes it's just a good idea to actually "man up" a bit... instead of being overly sensitive on a personal level. Especially if there was no personal intentions whatsoever.

 

Gonna leave you guys to the regular FW-190 talk now. Let's just hope for the best possible ED/DCS future. ;)

[Eddie]

Nobody is saying you can't discuss such things, but if you're going to do so, at least take the time to research the subject, and read what has already been said.

 

As it stands the vast majority of your conclusions are deeply flawed due to them being based on incorrect assumptions. The main one being that developing aircraft B, delays development on aircraft A. It does not.

[NineLine]

http://pl.scribd.com/doc/121367842/MG-151-Waffenhandbuch

 

http://simhq.net/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/1159231/What_tracer_colours_did_the_va.html

 

 

Thanks Kusch!

[NineLine]

The FW is on my to be purchased list, though I would rather have a TA-152, something that actually can stand against a P-51, the Dora could, but the TA-152 was better.

 

Comparing flight simulations, only if they are flight sims.

 

I dont know, I mean at this time of the war the Germans were more on their heals and playing defense, I am not sure the quality of pilot was as much as earlier years. I think that might have played into it a little.

[Mortifa]

I dont know, I mean at this time of the war the Germans were more on their heals and playing defense, I am not sure the quality of pilot was as much as earlier years. I think that might have played into it a little.

 

Most likely did, but I read that whenever a TA-152 flew cover for ME-262's landing, no ME-262 got shot down.

[Krupi]

Hmm, I highly doubt any truth behind that.

 

The Ta-152 was a high altitude aircraft and therefore most of its advantages over the dora were at height not low and covering the 262's.

[Mortifa]

Actually the TA-152 did well in low altitude dog fights also.

 

Found some notes on the web, and I do recall a US fighter pilot, who flew P-51's, remarking how well it handled.

 

But a D-9 will be nice.

[speckfire]

Will the Dora be of DCS quality?

[joey45]

It bldy well should be...

[LcSummers]

Hi,

 

it depends on wich TA 152 we are talking.

The Ta 152 H version was a Höhenjäger, but there was the C version too.

 

Question is, saw the C version any combat? It is known that there were only "a hand full" of the C version but combat missions? I doubt it.

 

I am very glad, that DCS has decided the D-9 version, a very elegant aircraft.

 

The D-9 and the Huey, and the F-18 are on my list, sure others too, but at the moment i heard much talk about these planes.

 

I will wait and see what DCS has to offer in the future.

 

I am a big fan of DCS after i saw the first screenshots of the A-10C.

I have BS 1, but dont fly it any more, FC I and II, but these were the beginnings, but FC 3 is out of interest for me, as it lacks (my opinion) the realism that the A.10c can give.

 

Hopefully we can see some screenshots of the FW190D-9.

 

S!

[osram]

Nobody is saying you can't discuss such things, but if you're going to do so, at least take the time to research the subject, and read what has already been said.

 

As it stands the vast majority of your conclusions are deeply flawed due to them being based on incorrect assumptions. The main one being that developing aircraft B, delays development on aircraft A. It does not.

 

I have most certainly taken my time to research the subject. And I disagree in your statement that most of my assumptions are incorrect or flawed. The only aspect debatable is actually IF resources and time is possibly "wasted" on an early FW190, over other work-projects:

 

I still like your answer though... because if that truly is correct, then we wont be waiting for years until the next CA-related module is released. (And with that I'm kind of not referring to a FW190 - Even though I might at some point actually enjoy some P-51 vs. FW190 myself... as long as the other CA aspects/modules are being worked out too.)

 

If ED is adequately efficient I suppose working on Aircraft B might not delay work on aircraft B... but for me, as a non-ED-employee that is hard to judge. Since I don't have the insight, it's hard to say if stopping/halting work on Aircraft B, might not actually accelerate progress on Aircraft A.

 

Guess that depends on the question if each team within the different ED projects are actually being assigned their maximal number or maximal "saturation" of assigned employees, or not. Let's just hope what you say is true, and work on 5 different projects is done at the same speed within ED, as if it was only.. let's say, 3 different projects. i.e. if they actually hired an efficient number or enough employees... for all of their current projects.

 

I hope you are right, so we can all enjoy the fastest number and highest possible quality of DCS modules ASAP. ;)

 

And despite sounding critical within this topic, or towards ED.. and despite the fact that ED support has a lot of workload and possibly some backlog. I have had the pleasure to get in touch with very competent and caring ED-employees which have really taken care of my needs as a customer. And I really love their product. I think it's more than fair to mention this too, as to not make it sound too one-sided against ED and the work they accomplish every single day of the week. My posts within this thread were simply some slight concerns regarding the FW190 and/or module-priority.

[jermin]

Any news on the butcherbird?

 

The title said it all. Can't wait to fly it.

[9.JG27 DavidRed]

same here!i really want that bird so bad.but i guess theres nothing we can do except training patience.

though i have to admit, a few screenshots or any sort of official news, information would do it for now.but i really would like to fly the 190 yesterday already :)

[msalama]

It was announced a while back, but no further info (that I know of at least) has been made public yet. Patience guys ;)

[Grim_Smiles]

Wags mentioned they are working on several aircraft at the moment, but was hesitant to confirm which ones and how long before complete, beyond confirming the Huey being the next one off the line.

[Pman]

Nah Wags did confirm there is a Fw190D, Mig 15 and a F86 in the making all DCS level

[Cedaway]

And DCS level titles take time to bake.

 

Take your time for perfection, ED Chefs

[GGTharos]

Since you don't see any news abou the Fw-190 posted, there are no news about the Fw-190. When there are news, it will be posted.