Jump to content

No.322_LuseKofte

Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

    4900
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by No.322_LuseKofte

  1. Even a free map is wrong in this site. It takes a great deal of pretending and make do attitude flying ww 2 in DCS. And some attributes on some modules are questionable. But truth be told after some hours flying in my favorite us planes ( P 40, P 47 and P. 38) in GB I ended up in the one I never really cared for. The P 51. P 38 got two reliable and pretty strong allisons but throw a nail at the plane and it loose all controls. P 47 engine made of glass. So it takes for me even more pretending and make do attitude flying GB in those planes. I never believed it would. Those flying DCS is frustrated by lets say the “mess” of modules. But it is still many very good reason for them to fly DCS. I am happy for those satisfied flying only GB, good for you. I need a healthy dose of MI 8 to get over my frustration in GB myself. Whatever rocks your boat.
  2. Well I cannot understand your problem. Does the needles on both engine show 44 and both on rpm 2600? If so you must found a way to switch off the radiators. I fly it constantly with those settings. It climbs like a homesick angel with that. what I cannot get with the p 38 is the low divespeed. do you fly with divebrakes on or flaps or undercarrage?
  3. There is a reason for the Norwegian skin. They did ground pounding and got decimated by aa.
  4. but it cannot in anyway be compared to earlier wooden airplanes. My english is pretty bad so I cannot give a reasonable explanation on its design. But it is available and innovative
  5. What I read about it is the pilots loved it. There is no mention of sluggish controls but rather the opposite. I recall it said to be a responsive airplane. Not maneuverable like a fighter but pretty responsive on both aileron and lift. I do not think we will notice much of a speed advantage if we need to go low. But high up interceptors will struggle to climb and catch up
  6. Take a simple thing as maneuvering a plane. In a fighter at speed it is actually hard work. Maneuverable fighters was not usually a stable gun platform. Fingertip maneuvering as we do was out of the question. You do not have realism because there is no stick with hard enough resistance to replicate real thing. The pilots flying a Cessna can tell you differencd in yoke resistance in speed
  7. I know Jason is or was keen on going there. But ambitions has a tendency to change in time. Maybe 1C is stopping any development there. Thing is we do not know what budget they got. I do not think the only obstacle was plane blueprints
  8. There are a lot of ww2 tanks destroyed by air attacks. But main thing was they did not move on clear days during Normandy and Ardennes if not in crisis. All support vehicles was decimated. So needed supporting infantry and fuel and supply was decimated. IL 2 took out just about anything moving around the tanks. Same with western Europe. I read medium bombers also took out tanks hiding in forrest. They attacked because of spotted there. Air attacks is much about making life unbearable for the enemy too.
  9. I got a track ir you can have for free
  10. I want to see that ace next time we fly together
  11. Yes that was exactly what I wrote. you even took the time quoting my post without reading it. Or you tried to put a meaning that was not there. If improvements was to be made in this game, is it really the set parameters on physics set equal to all , you would prioritize? You must think everything in this game follow law of physics and planes are realistic in every way in order to think that
  12. A Rift S is not heavy. And I did really expect airsickness using it. Had only problems while taxiing. In the start that is. Abd when I tipped the wings sideways from and back multiple times. But if youre ok without VR I reccomend not trying it
  13. To me this is no issue at all. We fly a P 47 made of glass. And simplified engine parameters really set the line on how things will be. The overall complexity level is set. And here is the forum filled with topics demanding medical and science report on physics. It must be a joke, fly within the boundaries the game has. The developers might read this and tweak it, or not. When I realized that this is how it is, I bought VR and start enjoying what we have to the fullest. Your ambitions for this game is admirable, but in the other end people say this game is too expencive. If I got it the way I wanted every plane would cost the same as one Battle series
  14. Priceless. There are no consensus in what we like, whats fun, or whats right. There are as many opinions as members here. I advice you to fly within the limits we all have. There are many things needed changing. In my opinion this is not the first priority
  15. Is this not whats lacking in all systems this software got, lack of parameters. I feel I have to say this every time I am negative, I love flying in this sim, but its simplified way of dealing with complicated systems is the main problem when it comes to engine parameters/ handeling. I am willing to live by these Law of physics as long as I knowit is game engine limitations. If it is not, I find it hard all these things continue to be over looked
  16. This gonna be my Huey in Nam sandbox. Unlike many others here I do not mind pretending. While flying in GB I pretend I am a pilot. I actually do not believe I am able to kill 123 buildings, 23 vehicles, 4 heavy guns, and 5 fighters in one mission, for real
  17. This is difficult, I am not able to say wether it is realistic or off. My feelings is when you combine PK and this effect I feel it happens a lot. I do not think that feeling is enough in order to change it. Feelings have not yet made any changes in this game
  18. If that is what it takes I go for it too. But I think it would be neat having a pit there. Miss it in the A 20
  19. Well it should, like G suits is a factor. But Idk any way to check that
  20. No.322 will attend this server with a few people around fnbf time about 19:00 CET if I remember correctly. I hopE many more will do this so we can make war
  21. I have to laugh a little bit. After defending this attribute here, I went down and flew a mission achtung spitfire. I was on a 109 six and went into a massive endless blackout. And I was apparently loud in my protest and frustration since my wife came along and asked whats wrong. Talking about meeting oneself in the door. But still it was my own wrong doing
  22. In order to enjoy GB I simply had to transfer to VR. This sim fantastic flight dynamic and feel of flight. And that is what I want the full taste of. Being able to easily look behind you is a minor issue. Because you can by turning a bit witch real pilots did. The feeling of sitting in the cockpit is simply breathtaking with newest VR.
  23. This would be the cheapest allied medium bomber to make only bomb aimer cockpit as extra. It will bring back big bombs to LW side too
  24. Well I cannot argue about that. By late lw bomberpilots looked for other jobs. Some unsuccessfully converted to fighters or got transfered to places like Norway where they still could be used. I still think time era around Bobp allied medium bombers had great importance. We do not fly Bodenplatte missions online. No sp either. To me leaving bombers out make this sim less interesting. And by all means, if you want fighters only do not expect more than average 160 people on mp world wide anytime soon. Bombers bring in objective focused people.
  25. If a combat flight sim developed to be fighters only. It will in my mind be a very shallow meaning to it. Look at Boobp. You have those bringing bombs and you have those bouncing them. Very repeatable scenario. I love flying in this game. But my interest in aviation is more to it than eye candy and easy kills. So I advocate the fact that even for a hard core fighter pilot a good mix of every type of plane is needed, and the lack of medium bombers due to no production will make this in my opinion sidelined with DCS.
×
×
  • Create New...