DCS

[Feathered_IV]

9 hours ago, Wolf8312 said:

This seems like good news...

 

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/news/2018-06-08_WWIINews/

 

 

" This map is the ideal battleground for our warbirds that focuses on northern France in the summer on 1944. "

 

Not so ideal perhaps for a Bf-109K or an Fw-190D.  Or any Luftwaffe aircraft they have yet proposed.

[Jaws2002]

My Hornet is downloading now. Will give it a try, but I bet I'll return to the sexy mirage.

[Field-Ops]

Wonder if the Spit clipped wings is in response to the IL-2 spit IX.

[Jade_Monkey]

1 hour ago, Field-Ops said:

Wonder if the Spit clipped wings is in response to the IL-2 spit IX.

They might have planned it already but I'm sure they hurried up so they could release it ASAP.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Clipped wing Spitfire was planned and spoken of a few months before release. Yoyo discussed this, explaining possible differences and effects. But yes, that certainly cant be coincidence  

[Wolf8312]

8 hours ago, BOO said:

 

 Anything for DCS WW2 is welcome but the "Free" references stick in the craw a little

 

One "Free" update to the map fixes some - not all and certainly not the biggest - bugz and inaccuracies

 

The other "Free" update to the asset pack adds some stuff that previously has been mooted as coming along in time anyhow - there's nothing there that isn't anything but what should already be there in a very sparse bit of paid DLC- and theres still a lot that isn't.

 

They did state it is only the start ( We see DCS World War II as a very important component of DCS World and it will continue to grow with new features, content, and numerous improvements. We are just getting started.)

which I think we can take to mean the normandy map will not be forgotten and will be improved upon, as at this point with so many WW2 modules they no doubt need normandy to be a success as much as we do.

I 'm pretty chuffed about this as I think it bodes well for the future and am almost certain now I havent wasted my money. The DCS WW2 flight models seem really cool to fly, I might now get the spit, or at least put it at the top of my list...

 

 

[BOO]

3 hours ago, Jade_Monkey said:

They might have planned it already but I'm sure they hurried up so they could release it ASAP.

Hurrying something up - novel for DCS

[Wolf8312]

9 minutes ago, BOO said:

Hurrying something up - novel for DCS

 

Too negative man. They are not a massive team and it's a massive job to do. Fly vegas or the persian gulf and I think youll agree they do a great job within a reasonable time frame.

[BOO]

1 hour ago, Wolf8312 said:

 

Too negative man. They are not a massive team and it's a massive job to do. Fly vegas or the persian gulf and I think youll agree they do a great job within a reasonable time frame.

EDIT - I'm correcting myself here - leaving in the original so everyone can see what a negative Nellie I am. 

 

Maybe - as ive said before they do a lot of great things. But reasonable timescales in this instance I cant agree on.

 

Damage model - 4 years and counting

Bombs - still limited modelling

Normandy - 1 update in 12 months

Spitfire - 2-3 years in early access

109 - still missing many features after 3 years

 

and now the use of "free" to describe features that should have been there from the start or arrived a long time before now given the promises made on the initial release. Should we be falling over ourselves with gratitude that they haven't really neglected those of us who pumped upwards of £300 into their WW2 project alone?  I bought many of those modules at full price. I didn't buy them as some long term investment or as a speculator for a fraction of their worth and I don't want to wait for D-Day every year to get something new for the sake of having something to say when I could have had it months before. 

 

The update is pretty good - not perfect but pretty good. Still think its been a long time coming and Ill still admit banding the word "Free" about dosent make me feel warn and fuzzy about them. 

 

When you look at the Gulf map and the Hornet its clear ED can really hit the nail and get great stuff right. But I don't want to fly a spitfire or 109 over Dubai. I want to fly it over a reasonably realistic looking historic map. And I want to be able to see those new ground units in detail which is still impossible to do from a cockpit since flying under 300ft transforms the game into a slideshow. And after 14 months I'm still waiting to do so. 

 

There is something odd with the map that doesn't like vsync still and either turning it off or using fast sync makes low level flying a smoother (not totally) experience - tolerable for sure. I know Speed trees get mentioned a lot like they will be the great fixer but there are no trees in the middle of the sea and with standard vsync its still a slideshow. So I'm no longer waiting to fly low level and have a fairly usable map. 

 

Overall - yeah I'm probably too negative man.  We shall see what the next 12 months bring. 

 

Edited June 9, 2018 by BOO

[Wolf8312]

1 hour ago, BOO said:

EDIT - I'm correcting myself here - leaving in the original so everyone can see what a negative Nellie I am. 

 

Maybe - as ive said before they do a lot of great things. But reasonable timescales in this instance I cant agree on.

 

Damage model - 4 years and counting

Bombs - still limited modelling

Normandy - 1 update in 12 months

Spitfire - 2-3 years in early access

109 - still missing many features after 3 years

 

and now the use of "free" to describe features that should have been there from the start or arrived a long time before now given the promises made on the initial release. Should we be falling over ourselves with gratitude that they haven't really neglected those of us who pumped upwards of £300 into their WW2 project alone?  I bought many of those modules at full price. I didn't buy them as some long term investment or as a speculator for a fraction of their worth and I don't want to wait for D-Day every year to get something new for the sake of having something to say when I could have had it months before. 

 

The update is pretty good - not perfect but pretty good. Still think its been a long time coming and Ill still admit banding the word "Free" about dosent make me feel warn and fuzzy about them. 

 

When you look at the Gulf map and the Hornet its clear ED can really hit the nail and get great stuff right. But I don't want to fly a spitfire or 109 over Dubai. I want to fly it over a reasonably realistic looking historic map. And I want to be able to see those new ground units in detail which is still impossible to do from a cockpit since flying under 300ft transforms the game into a slideshow. And after 14 months I'm still waiting to do so. 

 

There is something odd with the map that doesn't like vsync still and either turning it off or using fast sync makes low level flying a smoother (not totally) experience - tolerable for sure. I know Speed trees get mentioned a lot like they will be the great fixer but there are no trees in the middle of the sea and with standard vsync its still a slideshow. So I'm no longer waiting to fly low level and have a fairly usable map. 

 

Overall - yeah I'm probably too negative man.  We shall see what the next 12 months bring. 

 

 

Well you make some fair points to be honest and believe me I know the game has a multitude of problems lighting being the biggest I would say. Probably easier for me as I have only just bought into the WW2 content.

 

I guess I just got a little miffed as I was posting some good news!

Edited June 9, 2018 by Wolf8312

[LuftManu]

Nice to hear about the clipped Mk.IX. It's too late for me, I have no interest in coming back to Normandy nor WW2 planes now.

Enjoying the Hornet a lot in the last weeks. 

[Guest deleted@1562]

2 hours ago, BOO said:

Damage model - 4 years and counting

 

 

And that's the one thing that makes A2A combat in DCS not fun at all. Still have hopes the DM that was tested internally in 12/2017 makes it into a release version  this year.

 

Still like to fly around in the P-51 in Normandy, though, but that will change when Bodenplatte is released.

[Trooper117]

I think DCS know what is happening over here... very rapidly IL2 is catching/caught them up.

At the moment, my intention will be to fly Bodenplatte when it arrives and will probably never look at DCS WWII again.

 

[BOO]

39 minutes ago, Wolf8312 said:

 

Well you make some fair points to be honest and believe me I know the game has a multitude of problems lighting being the biggest I would say. Probably easier for me as I have only just bought into the WW2 content.

 

I guess I just got a little miffed as I was posting some good news!

Now I have the map half working it is very nice and the colourscape does seem much improved - but "stuff" remains and  logic (limited in my case) has now failed me.  Seems the issue has been Vsync all along but why is a mystery to me.  If anyone has an answer please do tell!!

 

Vsync gives me lovely smooth 60fps until I get in the weeds (under 300ft) - then the fps is cut to 25.  Clearly my GPU isn't powerful enough would be the standard reply. But its a GTX1080 running at HD and if I turn OFF the in game  vsync my FPS never drops below 87 even in the weeds. Usually it hovers around 105 fps even over the city.  Oddly though I don't get any screen tear either which id expect with vsync off.  What I do get is a hallway decent experience but with slight frame timing issues that make its just fall short of smooth. The glitching shadows some report are not present (metashader and FXO rebuilt) and it all looks rather lovely - just not butter smooth (more cold margarine with toast crumbs id say).

 

Setting the vsync in the Nvidia panel and ALT ENTER-ing (oddly only works with the default blackshark  "dcs.exe" not the "run.exe" I actually use to start the game) gives the following:

 

FAST - no effect

ADAPTIVE - no effect

ON - the same stuttering mess as the in game option. 

 

What gives - Anyone? (BTW id ask in the ED forums but its been asked by others but got zero response). 

[-332FG-Gordon200]

 

 

 

[CanadaOne]

That Crash Laobi guy is a riot! I love his videos.

[Urra]

17 hours ago, BOO said:

Now I have the map half working it is very nice and the colourscape does seem much improved - but "stuff" remains and  logic (limited in my case) has now failed me.  Seems the issue has been Vsync all along but why is a mystery to me.  If anyone has an answer please do tell!!

 

Vsync gives me lovely smooth 60fps until I get in the weeds (under 300ft) - then the fps is cut to 25.  Clearly my GPU isn't powerful enough would be the standard reply. But its a GTX1080 running at HD and if I turn OFF the in game  vsync my FPS never drops below 87 even in the weeds. Usually it hovers around 105 fps even over the city.  Oddly though I don't get any screen tear either which id expect with vsync off.  What I do get is a hallway decent experience but with slight frame timing issues that make its just fall short of smooth. The glitching shadows some report are not present (metashader and FXO rebuilt) and it all looks rather lovely - just not butter smooth (more cold margarine with toast crumbs id say).

 

Setting the vsync in the Nvidia panel and ALT ENTER-ing (oddly only works with the default blackshark  "dcs.exe" not the "run.exe" I actually use to start the game) gives the following:

 

FAST - no effect

ADAPTIVE - no effect

ON - the same stuttering mess as the in game option. 

 

What gives - Anyone? (BTW id ask in the ED forums but its been asked by others but got zero response). 

Quick question, You have monitor running at 60hz without gsync, right?

[BOO]

2 hours ago, TunaEatsLion said:

Quick question, You have monitor running at 60hz without gsync, right?

yup

 

[BOO]

4 hours ago, TunaEatsLion said:

Quick question, You have monitor running at 60hz without gsync, right?

Now sorted - its was the GPU driver all this time (or rather something in my PC that didnt like the first two times in installed it) - 

 

I'm now closer to Wolf in my DCS WW2 views than ever before!!

 

EDIT - it wasn't even that - The power profile needed to be set to prefer max power in the GLOBAL OPTIONS - setting this in the program specific didn't work. Basic stuff this smartass forgot!!

Edited June 10, 2018 by BOO

[Wolf8312]

4 hours ago, BOO said:

Now sorted - its was the GPU driver all this time (or rather something in my PC that didnt like the first two times in installed it) - 

 

I'm now closer to Wolf in my DCS WW2 views than ever before!!

 

EDIT - it wasn't even that - The power profile needed to be set to prefer max power in the GLOBAL OPTIONS - setting this in the program specific didn't work. Basic stuff this smartass forgot!!

 

I'm loving it myself, I wont even bother comparing it to BOS too much as I like them both for different things. In VR I have to choose the time of day carefully as well as alter the gamma settings in order to make it look nice. Normandy is so bad due to lighting on the bright green trees that I'd rather fly at night and bump the gamma up than I would subject my eyes to such horrors as flying in the day time! But this is much more a VR problem.

 

Great thing about DCS is the flight models and the level of control you have over the planes themselves. It might sound silly but it really gives me a greater sense of power, and makes me feel more immersed in the aircraft from a historical perspective! I only had to watch the tutorial twice so unlike with the jets it requires no great concentration, or effort, for the reward of what feels to me like a more authentic experience. Its the feeling I guess that I am actually going through the actual steps a real fw-109 D9 pilot would of had to go through. Silly of course when I try to verbalize what is in truth only a feeling I have, or rather the big smile it paints upon on my face! It's just cool is what I'm saying! ?

 

The two sims are so very different in feeling and flight that it's like learning all over again, and the AI behaves in a very diffrent manner I find to IL2. I cant land for shit either, and the method that has always served me well in BOS is not applicable here and always leads to a four bounce crash into my own propeller! But I love the planes (damage models do suck at the moment) and the physics, and especially how meaty and powerful the guns feel (I know thats probably D9 specific). 

 

This good thing about DCS is also the reason I dont really worry too much about the downsides of DCS (these are to be honest problems/limitations more specific to VR users) that will no doubt increase the more I learn the module, but at the moment I am just happy learning, and getting better at the basics. In short I suck too much at the moment to dive into a campaign anyway!

 

Night lighting is also fixed (or at least no longer bugged) now which is a huge plus though it still needs work IMO.

[Monostripezebra]

some weapons in DCS are really archaic..

 

 

[CanadaOne]

Okay, I admit it, I am frighteningly weak willed. I bought the Persian Gulf map from Steam... again.

 

The last time I bought it, and ended up asking for and getting a refund, it simply would not install, and pretty much ate my dinner and killed my cat in the process of not installing. Now, it won't install again. I've done everything but spank the neighbour's wife and the thing simply will not install. I've started and stopped Steam countless times, checked and unchecked every box, cleared the download cache, even uninstalled a plane just to install it again and see if that would kick start the Persian Gulf map. Nothing.

 

I've got the day off tomorrow because it's going to rain and I wanted to fly around for a few hours. So if anyone has any ideas, I'd be grateful to hear them

 

Thanks.  

[Gambit21]

11 minutes ago, CanadaOne said:

 So if anyone has any ideas, I'd be grateful to hear them

 

Refund?

[CanadaOne]

It figures I could fart around for a few hours and then get it exactly one freaking minute after posting. 20GB, downloading now.

 

I had to enable "open beta downloads". I just found that on a Steam forum. Good grief. They could have made that a bit clearer. 

 

 

[Wolf8312]

10 hours ago, CanadaOne said:

It figures I could fart around for a few hours and then get it exactly one freaking minute after posting. 20GB, downloading now.

 

I had to enable "open beta downloads". I just found that on a Steam forum. Good grief. They could have made that a bit clearer. 

 

 

 

Well it is open beta! Now appologize to DCS!?

Seriously though enjoy, it's great, dont rule out prop planes over Dubai either, fantastic sense of speed flying in and out of those skyscrapers that one cant really feel on more plain and historically accurate maps.

[CanadaOne]

1 hour ago, Wolf8312 said:

 

Well it is open beta! Now appologize to DCS!?

Seriously though enjoy, it's great, dont rule out prop planes over Dubai either, fantastic sense of speed flying in and out of those skyscrapers that one cant really feel on more plain and historically accurate maps.

 

Morning,

 

I wasn't pissed at DCS, I was pissed at Steam for making it a chore to download the map. All they had to do was write "enable open beta downloads" clearly when you buy the map. That would have saved me a good deal of frustration.

 

And I did my first tour in the P-51. Which bring me to, in case anyone is thinking of buying it:

 

First Impressions of the Persian Gulf Map.

 

The map is big. The amount of buildings on the map is beyond huge. Thousands and thousands of buildings. Lots of cities and small towns and installations, and also lots and lots of empty rocky sandy hills. Lots to do and lots to see. The quality of the scenery ranges from good enough to very good. If you have the lighting right, the scenery is stunning and the mountains look fantastic. The sense of distance is accomplished very well, and the water looks great. And yes, the big ass concrete airfields are very nice! There are some great takeoffs and landings to be had in the fast movers on this map.

 

Performance on my i5-6500/1060 3GB/8GB RAM/SSD is good (enough). Single plane, just flying around, graphics up pretty high, 1080p, I'm 60+ in the hills and around low 40s over the heaviest scenery, with short drops into the 20s and 30s now and then. Loading is slow sometimes, the terrain takes a moment or two to come to full detail, but that's to be expected if it's a beta map and your rig is medium level like mine. I can't imagine a heavy mission over Dubai on my rig, but if you have the hardware, it must be something to see. 

 

All in all, an excellent map. Not cheap, but there's a lot of potential for fun with this map.

[Wolf8312]

On 6/9/2018 at 7:04 PM, Trooper117 said:

I think DCS know what is happening over here... very rapidly IL2 is catching/caught them up.

At the moment, my intention will be to fly Bodenplatte when it arrives and will probably never look at DCS WWII again.

 

 

True enough but I do think BOS shouldn't rest on its laurels, as DCS has huge potential if they manage to iron out some of the problems (and there are many) and I'm pretty sure they will eventually. Now the big merge is out of the way things seem to be moving along at a good pace, another update today too! I have to admit I'm playing DCS mostly at the moment as I've fallen in love with the Fw 190 D-9. Yeah there's all kinds of niggles and problems (have to fly at night with gamma on high to make normandy look good!) but the module itself is incredible.

 

I'll attempt a comparison of the two sims though keep in mind this is really VR specific ( I cant really imagine DCS having too many problems if playing in 2D) and many of the things stated below are simply my opinions. I welcome anyone telling me I am wrong and why though lets keep it friendly, as its only a game! ?

 

+DCS has clicakble cockpits. Big plus for VR immersion and convenience IMO (maybe not even up for debate in VR though giving the complexity of the DCS modules)

+DCS lighting has major issues which means the graphics have major issues

+ BOS has much better anti aliasing, DCS has more shimmer

+DCS is better graphically in cities airports etc (Disclaimer opinion not fact?)

+DCS clouds are buggy in VR,

+IL-2 clouds are buggy in VR without mod

+BOS/M/K has better graphics on the whole, but its not really that the graphics are better per say as DCS does look fantastic, its just DCS is terribly inconsistent and comprimised by the lighting at the moment. Again I'd go back to 'potential' because there are times when it actually exceeds BOS/M/K IMO in terms of realistic looking/feeling visuals and by this I especially mean away from the cities, and in the deserts and caucasus valleys. DCS seems somehow on a grander scale, but BOS naturally seems to have a tighter pixel density or something which makes it look generally better in VR. I think thats really more by default than design but then what do I know...

+IL-2 has just better and less buggy trees. Graphically speaking the trees are as bad as the IL-2 clouds without the mod, maybe worse in how distracting they are (especially in Normandy). Forrests though are generally fine and maybe thats it, its rare to see lone trees scattered about in Il-2

+BOS has far superior lighting, though like DCS in VR its pretty rough on default gamma at midday (I rarely fly around such a time if I can help it)

+DCS has better or at least more challenging and believable physics IMO (which doesent mean much), and I only say this because I learned how to land the 109/FW190 etc way quicker in IL-2 than I think I should have been able to, and in DCS its really more like I imagined (difficult). This makes me happy though because it means I can just immerse myself in the challenge which can be both fun and funny...

+DCS flight models are better IMO, more extensive, more challenging with better physics and fully functional systems where every button is usable giving the user -if only in a metaphysical sense- a greater feeling of ownership over the module. BOS planes by contrast feel more limited, more as if your are allowed to fly them, but cant really take them home!

+DCS AI is more challenging at least to me, though I have heard this is because it cheats a bit so I will reserve judgement on this one. I have to wonder if this means the best way to beat the AI is to exploit the loop holes

+DCS is still in beta, but in a weird way I kinda feel slightly comforted by the fact it's still being worked on, as in IL-2 in reguards to VR -at least on the VIVE- there are still some performance problems in the BOS/M/K campaign and I kinda get the feeling that this isnt going to change any time soon as I'm not even sure the devs are aware of this.
+The Jetseat works with DCS. This is something that has to be experieced to understand what a genuine plus it is, simshakers software gets better all the time, and the guns and cannon effects now feel positively godly and empowering! But more seriously I think you can well imagine how great, and helpful it is to be able to actually feel yourself stalling.

+BOS has better performance (though not the campaign for me) generally. Big plus because it means the majority of the content is not off limits especially not multiplayer. DCS though I'm scared to even try multiplayer or certain campaign missions knowing how poorly they have performed in the past. Though to be honest they are still both pretty close performance wise and even in this aspect, they both kinda have palpable pros and cons that are difficult to put into words. I kinda feel DCS seems smoother when in reprojection which it always is. Perhaps this is because somehow VR suffers when making the transition from 90 to reprojection or something.

+Over the last few weeks DCS has improved (just a week ago it was basically broken VR wise), but it still has problems that seem to be module specific (viggen) and assets loading into the game seem to cause FPS drops. The way round this seems to be to play the mission a second time, or to make missions with two of each asset (enemy plane), one being active and the other static. BOS dosent have this problem but then DCS gives the user the ability to fix it with the mission editor, which leads me to...

+Mission editor gives user ability to edit or change almost anything from the time of day, to the number of assets, or whether or not you want to fly with clouds etc, which really is a huge plus for VR. Mission editor also means you can easily create your own missions or edit existing ones, to optimize them for performance or make them better or more suited to the users own tastes. It kinda annoys me how limited the user is in terms of customization in IL-2. Why the campaign for example dosent have options for weather, and time of day etc baffles me, though luckily there is PWCG..

+Il-2 feels more historically accurate, with a more atmospheric setting, flying over stalingrad for example is pretty hard to beat for a WW2 buff like myself, though to be honest I dont have much historical attachment or interest in the Kuban map though it is beautiful. DCS lacks the WW2 atmosphere though the tools to make it happen are there, or at least will be one day!

+BOS has less of a learning curve

+DCS has more of a learning curve. Pick which one you prefer but IMO I feel DCS gives a greater sense of satisfaction and can therefore be more rewarding if you take the time to master a module. That said I think its a stretch to say I have 'mastered' any of them!

 

 

Well thats it for now I will add to it anything else I think of later haha! God I ramble like a nerd on cocaine, all I intended to say was glad you're liking it Canada!

 

Actually I get good performance over Dubai in VR but it does mean lowering the graphics options. I think the most important was to change visibility range to medium which is painful to do but worth it in exchange for keeping 4x MSSA. No shadows for me of course as well, no traffic, and a whole ton of other stuff lowered but it still looks great. In VR though you gotta get a nice time of day and lower the gamma, and even with, the lighting still causes a rather oversaturated and cartoon ambiance which I think needs to be fixed. It's mainly when the sun hits the buildings which make them look great if you're flying into the sun but garish if flying with your back to it. The gulf of persia is a great map great for helicopters and the desert and mountain areas are really beautiful and feel very realistic in VR.

 

Oh btw people on the DCS forums recommended using nvidia drivers 397.93, and I gotta say although I know theres alot of variables (not least just a DDU clean install) I really am getting smoother performance than I was getting in DCS now. So maybe give them a try and tell me if you feel it too!

 

 

 

Edited June 16, 2018 by Wolf8312

[-332FG-Gordon200]

New patch for Open Beta available.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=3529290#post3529290

[scram77]

I have to say I’m loving the hornet! She’s a beaut to fly and it’s the first module that I have been putting proper time into and seeing the benefits.

 

Am tempted by the Persian Gulf map but think I’ll wait a bit

[dburne]

12 hours ago, 19RAF_scram77 said:

I have to say I’m loving the hornet! She’s a beaut to fly and it’s the first module that I have been putting proper time into and seeing the benefits.

 

Am tempted by the Persian Gulf map but think I’ll wait a bit

 

I wouldn't wait too long, it's a beaut...

 

I too am loving the F/A - 18C, especially learning the carrier ops. I need to move on to learning systems though.

[HippyDruid]

So, I haven't tried DCS in a while, how is the VR optimisation?

 

[dburne]

17 minutes ago, HippyDruid said:

So, I haven't tried DCS in a while, how is the VR optimisation?

 

 

It's "ok", however DCS can certainly be more demanding on VR.

At the same time though it has more configuration options for fine tuning to get better performance.

On my rig I can at least maintain 45 fps (ASW off), and it is fairly smooth. Have not really tried it lately in heavy combat scenarios.

 

In my opinion IL-2 is better optimized for VR.

[Wolf8312]

25 minutes ago, dburne said:

 

It's "ok", however DCS can certainly be more demanding on VR.

At the same time though it has more configuration options for fine tuning to get better performance.

On my rig I can at least maintain 45 fps (ASW off), and it is fairly smooth. Have not really tried it lately in heavy combat scenarios.

 

In my opinion IL-2 is better optimized for VR.

 

I'm getting great performance in normandy now Dburne using the drivers refrenced earlier in this thread. No ghosting when turning my head to the sides and the planes themselves dont seem to either (maybe a little somtimes). Thats only with about five planes (plus four static) and a few ground targets so far but its vastly improved for me compared to a few weeks ago. Just bought the spitfire in fact.

 

Persian gulf though I need to lower visibility range if over dubai for a similar smooth performance.

[Wolf8312]

I know a few weeks ago we discussed DCS take off's being on rails. Just found out that in options I had take of assist at 100 for both 190 and the spitfire. Guess im going to have to learn how to take off properly now!

[dburne]

8 hours ago, Wolf8312 said:

I know a few weeks ago we discussed DCS take off's being on rails. Just found out that in options I had take of assist at 100 for both 190 and the spitfire. Guess im going to have to learn how to take off properly now!

 

Lol yeah especially for the Spit.

Prepare to be humbled.

[Lusekofte]

I never said DCS takeoffs is on rails. I always messed up the takeoffs. Torque effect is badly modeled in all sims I have flown, and when I tried out the WW2 planes (1 to 2 years ago) I simply could not make a takeoff because of that. 

If you look at warbird pilots of today, they say takeoffs and landings are very demanding, but foreseeable . P 47 is a brute to land they say. My feeling is not overdone torque effect or underpowered per se . More the means of counter it. 

I have taken on the ka 50 again, Apparently one forget how they works after a few month, I was pretty sure I knew that rotorcraft until I tried it on my new computer, but zip nada, had to relearn it. But upside is I having just as much fun with it as first time

[9./JG27golani79]

10 minutes ago, LuseKofte said:

I never said DCS takeoffs is on rails. I always messed up the takeoffs. 

 

I think it was Beasty Baiter who said warbirds in DCS were on rails (groundhandling).

[Wolf8312]

6 hours ago, dburne said:

 

Lol yeah especially for the Spit.

Prepare to be humbled.

 

Well taxi/take off wasnt a problem actually (although I do often still mess it up by say braking too hard) was much harder on the dora I found with the left and right toe brakes. Kinda got used to taxi-ing the DCS modules with the mig-21 etc and so the spitfire was actually okay being a similar concept (move carefully with throttle and breaks), didn't really notice any difference after having changed the options to be honest. Landing the spitfire was tough though but with help of the tutorial I just successfully completed my first landing (or at least one I was happy with).

The Spitfire is a fantastic module, though as with BOS (and in WW2 itself) does have a kinda puny cannon/gun which is much more noticible if you have given the Dora a few spins. The Doras guns are monstrous and I do appreciate that!  ?

[Wolf8312]

Hey guys not sure if this is a DCS damage model problem or just better or worse physics than IL-2 but I've noticed in DCS, losing half a wing is far less of a problem than it is in sturmovik. In sturmovik you're pretty much dead once a piece of your wing snaps off but DCS with half a wing you can pretty much land. Can anyone say which is the more realistic?

[216th_Lucas_From_Hell]

Which aircraft was that in, Wolf?