216th_Lucas_From_Hell Posted November 22, 2017 Posted November 22, 2017 Adding to that list are the range of minor issues with the Gazelle, the Mirage 2000 which lost speed way too quickly in turns (to be fixed in the next patch I think), and the C-101 which is still using a simplified flight model years after release.
taildraggernut Posted November 22, 2017 Posted November 22, 2017 (edited) Does anyone know that's the deal with the blue fluorescent mark on the sides of the F15 and F18? Is it a restriction so it doesn't look too real? kind of like the red tips on the toy guns? Night formation lights, which are actually electro-luminescent strips and glow rather than emit light so they aren't too conspicuous, most modern military aircraft have them, look for yellowish strips and patches on fuselage sides, wing tips and fins and that is what they are. Edited November 22, 2017 by taildraggernut 1
bzc3lk Posted November 22, 2017 Posted November 22, 2017 (edited) The lack of flight model criticism in the DCS forums speaks for its self. Never mind the endless threads claiming incorrect plane performance in these forums. All the countless flight model changes to the Fw-190 and Bf-109s. The reason for the lack of VISIBLE flight model criticism is a perma ban for the author of the post and removal of said post. Flight model discussions are treated like this guy below. Everyone knows there are issues but dare not talk about it, for fear of taking a trip to the DCS Forum version of Elysium. Problems were raised by an A10 crew chief concerning issues with the A10 module, only to be ignored and later I was to find out he was put on permanent holiday for his efforts. Check the link below and follow one of their finest in full flight when confronted and cornered in one of his lies when this subject was brought up. https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/25533-dcs-news/page-15 Every flight sim has flight model issues in one form or another, primarily due to what is achievable with the current CPU horsepower on hand and to deny such issues with DCS is either a paid shill or suffering from a bad case of denial. The Bos developers were man enough to come forward after evidence was presented in facts and figures by more learned forum members than myself outlining aircraft flight performance issues with the 190 and rectified the situation. The best was yet to come with a whole flight model revision across the board improving the simulation beyond recognition, for that I take my hat off to the team with the utmost respect and I will support them where ever I can for future theaters. Edited November 22, 2017 by bzc3lk 6
SCG_Space_Ghost Posted November 22, 2017 Posted November 22, 2017 (edited) The reason for the lack of VISIBLE flight model criticism is a perma ban for the author of the post and removal of said post. Flight model discussions are treated like this guy below. -snip- [Edited] The lack of flight model criticism in the DCS forums speaks for its self. Never mind the endless threads claiming incorrect plane performance in these forums. All the countless flight model changes to the Fw-190 and Bf-109s. [Edited] Enough of that. Edited November 22, 2017 by Bearcat
MiloMorai Posted November 22, 2017 Posted November 22, 2017 (edited) [Edited] [Edited] Enough of that. Edited November 22, 2017 by Bearcat
BeastyBaiter Posted November 22, 2017 Posted November 22, 2017 They are very ban happy over there, I generally don't report bugs because that's a great way to get banned unless it is something truly critical such as a BSOD. The DCS forums are not a good place to discuss DCS as it actually exists. But this is going way OT. So pulling this back on topic, oooh, shiny! 2
Lusekofte Posted November 22, 2017 Posted November 22, 2017 I heard they are triggerhappy with the ban hammer over there, I am in for simple info collection and are not familiar with it. Most discussion and honest remarks about DCS I found in Facebook groups. DCS fills in what I miss in BOS series and vise versa, simple as that. In my opinion there are no simulator that fit all my preferences 1
Sokol1 Posted November 22, 2017 Posted November 22, 2017 F-14 "Respectable Vietnam Veteran? For what? Cover that stampede from the American embassy roof? 2
Lusekofte Posted November 22, 2017 Posted November 22, 2017 He he , I think the man making this is not as old as he think he is. I rather call it a Libyan Veteran plane or Iranian veteran plane :D
Cpt_Cool Posted November 22, 2017 Posted November 22, 2017 Other than that, the data on the F-14 is accurate.
II/JG17_HerrMurf Posted November 22, 2017 Posted November 22, 2017 Adding to that list are the range of minor issues with the Gazelle, the Mirage 2000 which lost speed way too quickly in turns (to be fixed in the next patch I think), and the C-101 which is still using a simplified flight model years after release. Not sure you can use minor and Gazelle in the same sentence
LuftManu Posted November 22, 2017 Posted November 22, 2017 (edited) Well. I have all of the WW2 Modules, Normandy and the asstes. Been flying WW2 since 1946 and well I has really hyped when RRG studios created DCS WW2. At first it was a blast to have all of the system modelings but the develoement pace was really frustrating. I knew the Normandy theater and Doras wasn´t a good match but I didn´t care at the time. A good community can always create good mood but this never happened in DCS WW2. I was and I am really fed up with the never ending bugs. I understand it is a complex sim but the communication is really bad from my point of view. The community is dead and the sp content is nonexistan aside from one paid campaign. Add this to the simple FM AI, Multiplayer problems (no ds), infinite buglist, lack of content, effects and so on. Don´t get me wrong. DCS is great but I also don´t find their WW2 FMs so great. Remember when the Sptifire rudder was fixed? or the MW50 weight was added? I think no sim is perfect but BOX at least gives you a complete experience in spite of those clicky buttons you enjoy for 5 minutes. At the end of the day you want Il-2 with you for a complete WW2 experience. EDIT: I want to make sure that I love the startups in Il-2 and the complex manuals with emergency procedures but when you are damaged the systems are really simple that it doesen´t matter. Now that BOBP is doing D9, K4, MKIX and P51 I have no reason to come back aside for startups. Edited November 22, 2017 by LF_ManuV 1
Lusekofte Posted November 22, 2017 Posted November 22, 2017 I was and I am really fed up with the never ending bugs. I understand it is a complex sim but the communication is really bad from my point of view. The community is dead and the sp content is nonexistan aside from one paid campaign. Add this to the simple FM AI, Multiplayer problems (no ds), infinite buglist, lack of content, effects and so on. I only fly these birds for the flight. not for the game. I guess Normandy map say WW2 is not given up, but I have no faith in it myself
MacLeod Posted November 23, 2017 Posted November 23, 2017 I bought Dora yesterday, learnt to turn it on in 5 minutes and got acceptable take offs and landings without that much of a problem. It is indeed harder than in il2(the T/O and landing). So the startup part is nice but not enough to put me away from Box. What I would like to ask is if you consider that the difficulty for take off and landing is more akin to real life in dcs than in Box, and I’m talking about the last FM version of both. Box seems way easier, but I would just like to know if I can say that I would be able to fly a real one if I can fly these ones! What do you guys think?
LuftManu Posted November 23, 2017 Posted November 23, 2017 (edited) I bought Dora yesterday, learnt to turn it on in 5 minutes and got acceptable take offs and landings without that much of a problem. It is indeed harder than in il2(the T/O and landing). So the startup part is nice but not enough to put me away from Box. What I would like to ask is if you consider that the difficulty for take off and landing is more akin to real life in dcs than in Box, and I’m talking about the last FM version of both. Box seems way easier, but I would just like to know if I can say that I would be able to fly a real one if I can fly these ones! What do you guys think? All I can say is that I never flew a WW2 prop. Aside from that I suggest you to don't take the assumption of harder = more realistic. That's a common misconception. For me the physics and ground modelling in Il-2 has no rival. The way it goes when you get into snow, grass... Edited November 23, 2017 by LF_ManuV 2
MacLeod Posted November 23, 2017 Posted November 23, 2017 All I can say is that I never flew a WW2 prop. Aside from that I suggest you to don't take the assumption of harder = more realistic. That's a common misconception. For me the physics and ground modelling in Il-2 has no rival. The way it goes when you get into snow, grass... What do/did you fly, for the sake of curiosity? Thanks for the answer, btw!
LuftManu Posted November 23, 2017 Posted November 23, 2017 (edited) What do/did you fly, for the sake of curiosity? Thanks for the answer, btw! As much as I would like I don't. I am talking here about the game feels. We have some pilots in our squadron that always remark how good is to feel the weight of the plane in il-2. From the taxi to a forced stall or sideslip with the rudder. DCS is also great. It wouldn't be here if it wasn't but in Il-2 I can recall more dynamic response. I usually don't mind data like Max speed, they always get this right, the problem is when you get out of the "table" and here is where the physics engine can be outstanding. Don't get me wrong I love DCS and also have WW2 planes (you can see my opinion some posts above) but the simple feeling of seeing the sim progressing is worth it. For me a plane in Il-2 flies because it can, in other sims seems like it does because it does it in real life. This is my opinion ps: and of course, you are welcome! I hope more people get to fly Il-2, DCS or whatever it is. This is such an small genre.... Edited November 23, 2017 by LF_ManuV 2
MacLeod Posted November 23, 2017 Posted November 23, 2017 As much as I would like I don't. I am talking here about the game feels. We have some pilots in our squadron that always remark how good is to feel the weight of the plane in il-2. From the taxi to a forced stall or sideslip with the rudder. DCS is also great. It wouldn't be here if it wasn't but in Il-2 I can recall more dynamic response. I usually don't mind data like Max speed, they always get this right, the problem is when you get out of the "table" and here is where the physics engine can be outstanding. Don't get me wrong I love DCS and also have WW2 planes (you can see my opinion some posts above) but the simple feeling of seeing the sim progressing is worth it. For me a plane in Il-2 flies because it can, in other sims seems like it does because it does it in real life. This is my opinion ps: and of course, you are welcome! I hope more people get to fly Il-2, DCS or whatever it is. This is such an small genre.... Indeed! We need marketing in the levels of war thunder!! On another note, would love to hear what someone like Kermit had to say about our sims! Hope someday to be able to fly the real thing, maybe even something like a Yak 52!
71st_AH_Mastiff Posted November 23, 2017 Posted November 23, 2017 Indeed! We need marketing in the levels of war thunder!! On another note, would love to hear what someone like Kermit had to say about our sims! Hope someday to be able to fly the real thing, maybe even something like a Yak 52! the problem with that is everyone with only a mouse and keyboard would be pissed off, they have to buy actual controls.
MacLeod Posted November 23, 2017 Posted November 23, 2017 the problem with that is everyone with only a mouse and keyboard would be pissed off, they have to buy actual controls. Didn’t understand you. Care to elaborate, please?
Field-Ops Posted November 24, 2017 Posted November 24, 2017 (edited) Didn’t understand you. Care to elaborate, please? I think he means people used to mouse aim game modes from WT. In actuality our IL-2 also has mouse flight controls. Edited November 24, 2017 by Field-Ops
MacLeod Posted November 24, 2017 Posted November 24, 2017 Well, I would like just the marketing, not the game For me at least, war thunder appeared everywhere on the internet, even before I came to this sim!
Field-Ops Posted November 24, 2017 Posted November 24, 2017 https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/news/2017-11-24_Yak52/ Are they going to call it just "DS" instead of "DCS" with this new plane?
Blooddawn1942 Posted November 24, 2017 Posted November 24, 2017 I don't mind getting a civil aircraft for DCS. But I just can't imagine to pay more than 30 USD.
ZachariasX Posted November 24, 2017 Posted November 24, 2017 I don't mind getting a civil aircraft for DCS. But I just can't imagine to pay more than 30 USD. I don‘t really see much point in that, but I do wish them good sales. It‘s just that I see DCS as a (weapon) systems simulator rather than a full fledged flight simulator, although it simulates flight as such rather well. But for GA aircraft, comparing it to Prepsr3d v4... no, there‘s not even a point in doing so.
ram0506 Posted November 24, 2017 Posted November 24, 2017 Isn't (or maybe was in the past) the Yak used for military training purposes? The aircraft seems to be developed for a customer of ED. Now they got the clearance to release it for public use. No problem for me if they try to make some extra money with the Yak as a module for DCS, even if I'm not interested at all.
BeastyBaiter Posted November 24, 2017 Posted November 24, 2017 (edited) That's the impression I got from the newsletter. They aren't making the Yak-52 specifically for DCS, they are making it for a military or commercial simulator and then tossing it into DCS because why not? Also, the Harrier is currently scheduled for release next week according to RAZBAM. Edited November 24, 2017 by BeastyBaiter
ZachariasX Posted November 25, 2017 Posted November 25, 2017 Isn't (or maybe was in the past) the Yak used for military training purposes? The aircraft seems to be developed for a customer of ED. Now they got the clearance to release it for public use. No problem for me if they try to make some extra money with the Yak as a module for DCS, even if I'm not interested at all. Every good aircraft module is a plus I‘d say. Still waiting for the F-14 and F-18... Stoll haven‘t made up my mind about the Harrier.
Monostripezebra Posted November 25, 2017 Posted November 25, 2017 I still think the Huey module alone justfies everything.. So much fun https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6FDyimradw 2
216th_Lucas_From_Hell Posted November 25, 2017 Posted November 25, 2017 I'm actually excited for the Yak-52. Most Warsaw Pact and modern Russian pilots started their careers aboard it, and the aircraft itself looks dreamy to fly (high on the list of my 'when I get rich I will buy' items too). Aerobatics teams will definitelt enjoy it, as probably will squadrons who do the whole proper training shtick.
=362nd_FS=Hiromachi Posted November 25, 2017 Posted November 25, 2017 I think it is a good move. Civilian aviation is just as popular if not more in virtual community, there are numerous aerobatic only servers, so this can be a road to pursue.
Lusekofte Posted November 25, 2017 Posted November 25, 2017 I like the Huey, But Like the MI 8 more Both are from specific tedious training just to get the hang of it 2
Stig Posted November 25, 2017 Posted November 25, 2017 Stoll haven‘t made up my mind about the Harrier. Surely you meant STOL 1
Gambit21 Posted November 26, 2017 Posted November 26, 2017 I still think the Huey module alone justfies everything.. So much fun I'd be tempted if I could fly medevac in Vietnam, or insert/extract troops, or fly gunship missions in Vietnam. Vegas and Normandy - yeah that kinda lets the air out of my balloon unfortunately.
Monostripezebra Posted November 26, 2017 Posted November 26, 2017 I'd be tempted if I could fly medevac in Vietnam, or insert/extract troops, or fly gunship missions in Vietnam. Vegas and Normandy - yeah that kinda lets the air out of my balloon unfortunately. Vegas for Helos actually makes sense.. it´s looking good. just found this on yt:
Uufflakke Posted November 26, 2017 Posted November 26, 2017 just found this on yt: That is really a well made ánd very entertaining video. He must have spent quite some time on it to get such a result. I just saw he also made 2 BOK videos. By the way, anyone noticed the spelling error at 2m:13s on the Vegas map? Instead of HENDRSON it should be HENDERSON on that building. (Sorry for nitpicking)
ZachariasX Posted November 26, 2017 Posted November 26, 2017 That is really a well made ánd very entertaining video. He must have spent quite some time on it to get such a result. I just saw he also made 2 BOK videos. By the way, anyone noticed the spelling error at 2m:13s on the Vegas map? Instead of HENDRSON it should be HENDERSON on that building. (Sorry for nitpicking) Copyright issues.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now