Apologies that I'm not up to speed on this but does the announcement mean there's a dedicated dcs "flying legends" (hopefully WWII based) simulator in the works? Or will this new model simply be flyable in one of the existing sims?
I want something around the 60's or 70's myself. 2nd or early 3rd generation stuff. Perhaps a swing wing plane. However I would love a good A-6 simulator. Last one I can remember is Flight of the Intruder that came out in the early 90's.
I want something around the 60's or 70's myself. 2nd or early 3rd generation stuff. Perhaps a swing wing plane. However I would love a good A-6 simulator. Last one I can remember is Flight of the Intruder that came out in the early 90's.
Well going buy the clues dropped I don't think we're going to see Cold War/Vietnam era planes. The Fighter Collection has these planes listed -
Bearcat Corsair Curtiss P-40B Gladiator Harvard Hawk Hellcat Mustang TF-51D Nimrod Spitfire V Spitfire XIV Staggerwing Wildcat
"It takes forever +/- 2 weeks for the A-10 to get anywhere significant..." Ice
"Ha! If it gets him on the deck its a start!" MigBuster
"What people like and what critics praise are rarely the same thing. 'Critic' is just another one of those unnecessary, overpaid, parasitic jobs that the human race has churned out so that clever slackers won't have to actually get a real job and possibly soil their hands." Sauron
Its gotta be the Mustang though. Can you think of a more iconic WW2 fighter that is as marketable as the Mustang? (Guarantee someone from the UK will put something in here about the Spitfire...)
I agree that the Mustang is an excellent choice, built by North American Aviation originaly as a fighter bomber for the Royal Air Force, once equipped with an licenced American built British engine it showed it's true colours (or should that be colors..)
Its gotta be the Mustang though. Can you think of a more iconic WW2 fighter that is as marketable as the Mustang? (Guarantee someone from the UK will put something in here about the Spitfire...)
The D perhaps but don't think the B is as iconic. Also depends on the market. Ofc the US market will favour the Mustang, EU will probably say the 109/Spitfire as the most iconic WW2 fighter. I'd be happy with any of the 3 up to DCS standards. You Hogs and Sharks better watch out!
I myself am hoping its more of a release like Lock On was. Multiple planes and good flight models.
_________________________
"Whoever appeals to the law against his fellow man is either a fool or a coward. Whoever cannot take care of himself without that law is both. For a wounded man shall say to his assailant, "If I Die, You are forgiven. If I Live, I will kill you." Such is the Rule of Honor."
XBOX Live Tag/Steam/pCARS: Weaponz248 iRacing/RFactor 2: Jason Bader
Avimimus
Contributing Editor Two-speed Five-Blade Fan
Senior Member
Registered: 11/19/01
Posts: 2980
Loc: Canada
Originally Posted By: WynnTTr
Originally Posted By: Avimimus
I've preferred some type of civilian airplane from the modern era though...
You've got MS Flight, X-Plane 10 coming out so I think that base is covered.
As much as I like kit-bashing designs in the plane builder - Austin Meyer's wouldn't do the same quality of job as ED would. I'd love an Mi-8 (assuming there weren't any air defenses!).
Registered: 04/23/02
Posts: 3948
Loc: Texas, United States of Americ...
Not to put a damper on things . . . but what exactly will one do with a P-51/Spit/109 in a DCS universe? Is this comging with its own WW2 environment, or are we to be reenacting a reverse Final Coutdown?
Also depends on the market. Ofc the US market will favour the Mustang, EU will probably say the 109/Spitfire as the most iconic WW2 fighter.
Remember the russian market...a P-39 Airacobra perhaps, as owned by FLying Legends, to continue the ground attack theme of ED's recent years. What WOULD be useful, and fit easily in the current world, would be a training jet and training syllabus along the lines of Captain Sim's original 'Combat Pilot'. I'd buy it in an instant, even if it was a Russian plane (e.g. L-39 as in CP). Not exactly a Flying Legend though...
I'd also really like a civilian Helo to complement Black Shark, again would fit easily in the current world, but with Take On Helicopter out they probably wont bother.
I'd also really like a civilian Helo to complement Black Shark, again would fit easily in the current world
Why are there a ton of people who are skewed to thinking that ED should do something with a civilian anything? What kind of missions would you put in the sim? Oil rig pickups? Rubber dog doo doo transportation in and out of Hong Kong? I'm sorry to use you as an example, but it just will not happen. I can't believe I've seen people suggest things that range from Beech Barons to 747s. If you want civilian stuff, go to FSX. ED/DCS is about simulating tactical war fighters, not the friendly skies.
Relax, nobody is saying ED 'should' do anything. They will doubtless make their own mind up as they always do. We're just speculating what they might do...not everyone needs to blow stuff up to float their boat, and BS IS the best helo sim environment and a little imagination in mission building could easily create many interesting challenges beyond rubber dog doo doo. OTOH a Huey slick/gunship sim in a small Vietnam scenario could keep us all happy. Cheers Keith
Avimimus
Contributing Editor Two-speed Five-Blade Fan
Senior Member
Registered: 11/19/01
Posts: 2980
Loc: Canada
Originally Posted By: VBA_Rhino
Originally Posted By: Keithb77
I'd also really like a civilian Helo to complement Black Shark, again would fit easily in the current world
Why are there a ton of people who are skewed to thinking that ED should do something with a civilian anything? What kind of missions would you put in the sim? Oil rig pickups? Rubber dog doo doo transportation in and out of Hong Kong? I'm sorry to use you as an example, but it just will not happen. I can't believe I've seen people suggest things that range from Beech Barons to 747s. If you want civilian stuff, go to FSX. ED/DCS is about simulating tactical war fighters, not the friendly skies.
FSX simply isn't high fidelity enough for many of us to really enjoy civilian flying (I've heard it aptly described as a 'flight plan simulator' rather than a 'flight simulator). If you're interested in flying a given route it works - but if your interest is in short range flights, with accurate systems and a high quality flight model ...it isn't so good.
I'd love to fly an aircraft like an Mi-8 - it is sufficiently short range, and it could still be flown in a combat environment (and even carry weapons). I tend to only fly the Ka-50 unarmed anyway.
FSX simply isn't high fidelity enough for many of us to really enjoy civilian flying (I've heard it aptly described as a 'flight plan simulator' rather than a 'flight simulator). If you're interested in flying a given route it works - but if your interest is in short range flights, with accurate systems and a high quality flight model ...it isn't so good.
I'd love to fly an aircraft like an Mi-8 - it is sufficiently short range, and it could still be flown in a combat environment (and even carry weapons). I tend to only fly the Ka-50 unarmed anyway.
WHAT?? Sorry, but every info that I've got including feedback from real civilian pilots is that FSX is in fact "high fidelity enough" and it's so "high fidelity enough" that it's used in civilian pilot training (everyone remember the 9/11 terrorists for example). Honestly I don't see where the ED sims can have a better flight model than FSX. Probably, what you're taking about is flight dynamic or flight "feeling" but if we're going to be "purists" here, neither one (or any other flight sim for that matter) is "high fidelity enough" since no PC sim (or no other kind of simulation for that matter) can EVER come close to what is flying in real life in terms of "flight feeling" that is, period! In the end what I mean is that NO PC fligth sim will ever be "high fidelity enough" when compared to real life.
The only advantage that I concede to ED sims when compared to FSX is the damage model, which in the ED sims is superb but I disagree that the ED sims are "much better" in terms of flight model. But, I would really like to have a damage model in FSX similar to what we have in the ED sims.
Note that regarding FSX, I'm mainly talking about fixed wing aircraft and I admit that the stock helicopters aren't "that good" but some extra/addon helicopters in FSX are really good.
Honestly I don't see where the ED sims can have a better flight model than FSX.
Seeing as ED had SME's from the military to help with the FM on the A-10 I don't know where you get this assertion from. Did MS get direct input from Boeing et al for all their aircraft? What about the absolutely borked FM for some of the aircraft where you're feeling like you're gliding through air. Don't even get me started on the default F-18. What about BMS where their FM was plugged directly from NASA? You saying FSX is better than that to in re-creating the FM for the F-16?
FSX = generic flight game with a good FM for some aircraft. It can no way compare to a true study sim - which some addons have been made for FS. THe VRS Superbug is superb but that's a study sim there.
Interestingly I found this over at the BMS forums right after I made my reply above and couldn't agree more. Tango bothered to go into FSX FM a little bit more.
Originally Posted By: Tango
Hi,
Basically the FSX flight model is so fundamentally broken, it doesn't even understand the concept of gravity properly.
First of all there are the subtle handling qualities. Because the flight dynamics are in general totally fabricated (at least, the reactions they bothered to try and simulate) the whole aircraft just doesn't feel right. The most obvious example is prop torque. Non-existent in most FS aircraft, and where they did try, it is not nearly pronounced enough (the only people to really hit it are A2A Simulations with their range of WW2 and vintage aircraft). A friend of mine owns a Mooney - he says the FS flight model is totally dead compared to his actual aircraft. At takeoff he requires full rudder to counter yaw induced by the propeller (and that isn't enough until he gets to VMCG). This for example, is completely wrong in FS.
The stall in FS is screwed. Aircraft simply do not stall properly. Only one aircraft I know of (freeware) spins anything like realistically, but even that doesn't stall properly.
Angle of attack is totally broken. I only know this as I was a dev on a major project. We spent months trying to figure out why our FBW model wouldn't react correctly in high altitude flight regime, until we discovered AoA is CONSTANT regardless of altitude. In short: if the aircraft stalls at 100 kts at sea level, it will stall at 100 kts at FL400. COMPLETELY INCORRECT. As a consequence, we couldn't model other stuff correctly either. Forget trying to model stall characteristics in anything but clean configuration at sea level.
Take any jet aircraft you like to altitude and pull it around. Nothing bad will happen. Deep stall can't be modelled correctly either.
Inverted flight doesn't work properly either, and is related to the fact AoA is totally faked, and wrong at that.
All this on top of the fact that a shutdown engine has far too much drag, and can't be altered. Trying to correctly simulate engine-out is impossible, and is in part related to rudder behavior - the whole concept of yaw is screwed. Needless to say glide ratio is totally #%&*$# as well.
If I could get the funding I would create a BMS style commercial/GA sim, with a proper flight model. Eye candy is one thing, but what is the point when the aircraft flies nothing like reality?
That is it in a nutshell. As you can tell, I appreciate the fidelity of the BMS flight model.
One of my family is a test pilot, hence my obsession. I fly gliders IRL. That really gives you a feeling for handling.
Compare with BMS flight performance. I'm sure if you did these maneuvers at these altitudes in BMS, you would not make the airfield. Note when he drops the gear, too.
I can't comment on X-Plane as I don't have it, but it was good enough to prototype the Virgin Global Flyer on. I know it uses blade element theory.
In summary, FSX is useful as a procedural trainer when coupled with realistic add-ons, but forget trying to do anything beyond straight and level with it.
Interestingly I found this over at the BMS forums right after I made my reply above and couldn't agree more. Tango bothered to go into FSX FM a little bit more.
Originally Posted By: Tango
Hi,
Basically the FSX flight model is so fundamentally broken, it doesn't even understand the concept of gravity properly.
First of all there are the subtle handling qualities. Because the flight dynamics are in general totally fabricated (at least, the reactions they bothered to try and simulate) the whole aircraft just doesn't feel right. The most obvious example is prop torque. Non-existent in most FS aircraft, and where they did try, it is not nearly pronounced enough (the only people to really hit it are A2A Simulations with their range of WW2 and vintage aircraft). A friend of mine owns a Mooney - he says the FS flight model is totally dead compared to his actual aircraft. At takeoff he requires full rudder to counter yaw induced by the propeller (and that isn't enough until he gets to VMCG). This for example, is completely wrong in FS.
The stall in FS is screwed. Aircraft simply do not stall properly. Only one aircraft I know of (freeware) spins anything like realistically, but even that doesn't stall properly.
Angle of attack is totally broken. I only know this as I was a dev on a major project. We spent months trying to figure out why our FBW model wouldn't react correctly in high altitude flight regime, until we discovered AoA is CONSTANT regardless of altitude. In short: if the aircraft stalls at 100 kts at sea level, it will stall at 100 kts at FL400. COMPLETELY INCORRECT. As a consequence, we couldn't model other stuff correctly either. Forget trying to model stall characteristics in anything but clean configuration at sea level.
Take any jet aircraft you like to altitude and pull it around. Nothing bad will happen. Deep stall can't be modelled correctly either.
Inverted flight doesn't work properly either, and is related to the fact AoA is totally faked, and wrong at that.
All this on top of the fact that a shutdown engine has far too much drag, and can't be altered. Trying to correctly simulate engine-out is impossible, and is in part related to rudder behavior - the whole concept of yaw is screwed. Needless to say glide ratio is totally #%&*$# as well.
If I could get the funding I would create a BMS style commercial/GA sim, with a proper flight model. Eye candy is one thing, but what is the point when the aircraft flies nothing like reality?
That is it in a nutshell. As you can tell, I appreciate the fidelity of the BMS flight model.
One of my family is a test pilot, hence my obsession. I fly gliders IRL. That really gives you a feeling for handling.
Compare with BMS flight performance. I'm sure if you did these maneuvers at these altitudes in BMS, you would not make the airfield. Note when he drops the gear, too.
I can't comment on X-Plane as I don't have it, but it was good enough to prototype the Virgin Global Flyer on. I know it uses blade element theory.
In summary, FSX is useful as a procedural trainer when coupled with realistic add-ons, but forget trying to do anything beyond straight and level with it.
Regarding A2A, I don't run FSX, so I'm no expert about such things, but as we camp out over there, I see the A2A AccuSim development discussions go by, and have some awareness of what they're up to. As I understand it, AccuSim involves carving out and discarding considerable amounts of the native FSX code for managing the aircraft, and replacing it with their own; basically connecting to the FSX engine at a deeper and further upstream point than the standard add-on sockets. How far that goes is a moving target - they seem to carve out more for their own domain with each development update. At any rate, regarding FMs and behaviour, check out this promo video, and particularly at 4:50 > 7:00, the discussion of the Piper Cub performance, including a spin and recovery: http://www.a2asimulations.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=26215
WHAT?? Sorry, but every info that I've got including feedback from real civilian pilots is that FSX is in fact "high fidelity enough" and it's so "high fidelity enough" that it's used in civilian pilot training (everyone remember the 9/11 terrorists for example). Honestly I don't see where the ED sims can have a better flight model than FSX.
You don´t believe that yourself, do you ?
I am "civilian pilot" and I don´t consider FSX a flightsim. It´s perhaps a good instrument sim and a flight planning sim etc. But there is nothing existent what you could call a flightmodel.
If you want to test yourself: take the 737, fly level without AP, then idle: What does that FSX "model" do ? Just the opposite of the real plane ! (the real one speeds up significantly, in case you dont know). And you can find those examples for every other FSX "plane". Of course they don´t feel like planes, but I can´t proof the "feeling" is totally crap.
PS: x-plane is not much better. So you can´t compare them both with the "russian" quality sims like DCS and ROF. I didnt check the accu sim planes yet. But they must have been able to replace the FSX FM, if it´s right what those guys tell about it.
WHAT?? Sorry, but every info that I've got including feedback from real civilian pilots is that FSX is in fact "high fidelity enough" and it's so "high fidelity enough" that it's used in civilian pilot training (everyone remember the 9/11 terrorists for example).
It isn't used for real pilot training. Maybe for some procedures it's ok, but for actual flight? Heh. Said terrorists went to train in an FMT for that.
Quote:
Honestly I don't see where the ED sims can have a better flight model than FSX.
That's because you don't know anything about flight models - or flight. Literally your statement says exactly that.
Quote:
Probably, what you're taking about is flight dynamic or flight "feeling" but if we're going to be "purists" here, neither one (or any other flight sim for that matter) is "high fidelity enough" since no PC sim (or no other kind of simulation for that matter) can EVER come close to what is flying in real life in terms of "flight feeling" that is, period! In the end what I mean is that NO PC fligth sim will ever be "high fidelity enough" when compared to real life.
Yeah, and? How does that stop one flight sim from being better in some way than another flight sim?
Quote:
The only advantage that I concede to ED sims when compared to FSX is the damage model, which in the ED sims is superb but I disagree that the ED sims are "much better" in terms of flight model.
Again, that's because you don't know what you're talking about. Educate yourself a little about how real aircraft fly, then get a couple of flying lessons ... then come back and say that.
Here's a hint for you, too: The company that owns ED also owns real, air-worthy 'Legendary' aircraft, and they do get flown.
Registered: 03/19/02
Posts: 10121
Loc: 3rd Planet, Sun
Quote:
Quote: Honestly I don't see where the ED sims can have a better flight model than FSX.
That's because you don't know anything about flight models - or flight. Literally your statement says exactly that
it would be interesting to see how a Spitfire, P-40, P-47 or P-51 made by Eagle Dynamics would compare to something made by A2A Simulations, I have extensive in-depth experience with A2A products almost as much as I have with Eagle Dynamics products and I can´t see how ED could make something better that what A2A does.
and A2A is not just an FSX add on - it is much more than that.
Registered: 03/19/02
Posts: 10121
Loc: 3rd Planet, Sun
which is a pity ... but FSX is not a combat sim and I doubt it will ever be
whatever the aircraft that ED chooses, I am sure it will be a very good product - I just hope it is a jet ( the F-105 was my bet ) and if it depended on me it would be the F-86E and the next one the MiG-15 ...
it would be interesting to see how a Spitfire, P-40, P-47 or P-51 made by Eagle Dynamics would compare to something made by A2A Simulations, I have extensive in-depth experience with A2A products almost as much as I have with Eagle Dynamics products and I can´t see how ED could make something better that what A2A does.
and A2A is not just an FSX add on - it is much more than that.
Did A2A have actual aircraft to base their model on? Because ED's flying legend will come directly from The Fighter Collection.
But no doubt the gauntlet has been laid down and the standard has been set high. If there's one developer that can accept, and beat the challenge, it's ED.
it would be interesting to see how a Spitfire, P-40, P-47 or P-51 made by Eagle Dynamics would compare to something made by A2A Simulations, I have extensive in-depth experience with A2A products almost as much as I have with Eagle Dynamics products and I can´t see how ED could make something better that what A2A does.
and A2A is not just an FSX add on - it is much more than that.
Did A2A have actual aircraft to base their model on?
Registered: 03/19/02
Posts: 10121
Loc: 3rd Planet, Sun
I know that, I also know this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimMack Though the exact varient that is being modelled we no longer own
If it is not a plane anymore in their inventory, then it is one of these
Quote:
Quote:FORMER DUXFORD RESIDENTS Bell P-39 Airacobra G-CEJU Cassutt Racers Curtiss TP-40M G-KITT - Now with Peter Teichman at North Weald Dassault Mystere IV 57 Polikarpov I-15 FLARF-02089 Republic F-105D USAF 59-1822 Vickers Viscount G-OPAS - Currently on loan to Bournemouth Aviation Museum Vickers-Supermarine Spitfire IX G-CZAF Vickers-Supermarine Spitfire LF.XVIe G-BXVI
my guess is Republic F-105D USAF 59-1822, which would point out to a Vietnam era sim.
Not being a "Debby downer" ... I just don´t think that it would be positive to speculate about ED doing a WWII sim based on the Lock On FC engine, I could be wrong, but I can´t see that happening.
... of course we all could be wrong and they end up releasing a Vickers Viscount ...
1996: Princess Elizabeth, Stephen Grey, The Fighter Collection - England
I think its a great idea by TFC/ED. The Mustang is very iconic and public recognition of the Mustang will grow with the new "Red Tails" movie coming out soon. They (ED) will surely do a much better job with flight dynamics than anything any developer in FSX will do.
God, I would love to see a P-47 Thunderbolt. From what some of you are saying, it does sound like the Mustang. But I'm a Jug fan.
_________________________
"From our orbital vantage point, we observe an earth without borders, full of peace, beauty and magnificence, and we pray that humanity as a whole can imagine a borderless world as we see it, and strive to live as one in peace." Astronaut William C. McCool RIP, January 29, 2003 - Space Shuttle Columbia
Registered: 07/03/03
Posts: 11493
Loc: N. Central Texas
I am not a prop job fan, but I am a fan of Eagle Dynamics. They make some colossally good stuff.
_________________________
I'm sort of a reverse elitist. I'd love to have a Rolls-Royce pickup truck, a digital Patek Philippe, and a disposable Leica.
Jugs would be nice, but they're big. Big Jugs. My bet is an early P-51, like the one TFC sold a few years ago, Princess Liz. Shame, a Sea Fury would have been cool, carrier action and a Korea theme..
Not to put a damper on things . . . but what exactly will one do with a P-51/Spit/109 in a DCS universe? Is this comging with its own WW2 environment, or are we to be reenacting a reverse Final Coutdown?
Not to put a damper on things . . . but what exactly will one do with a P-51/Spit/109 in a DCS universe? Is this comging with its own WW2 environment, or are we to be reenacting a reverse Final Coutdown?
Less boring than in FSX, especially once they have more maps and more than one flying legends plane.
Now you're making it sound like they're going to come up with new theatres.
They've had the one map (pretty much) for years if you include LOMAC, and the other map announced, Nevada is taking so long (despite being mostly desert) it's becoming a joke.
If the next fighter is F-18, I really, really hope they give us a Gulf map.
The Nevada add on is taking so long because it is not just a new map but coming with a new DX11 terrain engine. As stated repeatedly in the ED forum the new Nevada has little in common with the old Nevada from the A10C beta. I doubt they will use the terrain engine just for a training area and not make new theaters in future. Also a new map just to play around with a few WW2 planes could be very limited. Maybe just Iwo Jima and a carrier.
Making terrain is a very tedious process. Nevada brings more than 'just terrain', but even 'just terrain' is very tedious to create. There have been at least 3-4 terrain-making projects started by the community that failed to produce anything, because it is just a ridiculous amount of work.
Try it yourself, see if you can make detailed terrain measuring 200nm on a side with roads, buildings, power lines, etc, then come back and say it's a joke.
Originally Posted By: tagTaken2
They've had the one map (pretty much) for years if you include LOMAC, and the other map announced, Nevada is taking so long (despite being mostly desert) it's becoming a joke.
If the next fighter is F-18, I really, really hope they give us a Gulf map.
Modern terrain is now largely a matter of money, paying for satellite imagery, which you can paste over a height map freely downloadable from NASA. You do have to expend a bit of effort tinting it so it is uniform. And of course, if you want to populate it with 3D buildings, that starts to get time consuming.
Now if you want to make it more compressed, so it doesn't take up a couple of GB, things get more time consuming. A lot of cutting up and redirecting chunks of image, unpacking while the sim is firing up (I don't know what scheme DCS uses for their sims). Then, if you want to generate a period terrain, where you can't just paste down modern images, things get very labour intensive indeed. You either paint the whole thing (much work and usually ugly) or you do a huge amount of cutnpaste trying to fit convincing chunks of more anonymous imagery over spots with obviously modern structures and modifications. To do it properly, you need to research for detailed information on the state of the region during the period of interest. This can take as long as the actual building phase of the project.
The Fighter Collection and Eagle Dynamics will release their next Digital Combat Simulator (DCS) aircraft in 2012: the legendary P-51D Mustang. The Mustang was among the best and most well-known fighters used by the U.S. Army Air Forces during World War II. Possessing excellent range and manoeuvrability, the P-51 operated primarily as a long-range escort fighter and also as a ground attack fighter-bomber with bombs, rockets, and machine guns. The Mustang served in nearly every combat zone during WWII, and later fought in the Korean War.
The DCS: P-51D Mustang will be modelled at the same exacting detail as the existing Ka-50 Black Shark and A-10C Warthog Digital Combat Simulation (DCS) aircraft and it will be online compatible with them. Based on many years of restoring, flying and maintaining Mustangs, The Fighter Collection brings its unique ability to portray this aircraft in its full glory.
The P-51D will be the first aircraft in the Flying Legends series that focuses on historical aircraft that have set benchmarks in combat aviation. This series of simulations demonstrates the broad scope of DCS simulation environment and its ability to introduce aircraft from all eras into a common simulation environment. While the P-51D started as an internal technology demonstration, it has evolved into an independent product that adds an all new dimension to the DCS universe. The development of the P-51D and other Flying Legends series aircraft definitely does not preclude the continued development of modern aircraft.
More details of DCS: P-51D Mustang will be made available closer to product release later this year.
More information, visit: http://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com About The Fighter Collection The Fighter Collection, as well as developing software for the entertainment and serious game markets, also operates, rebuilds and maintains Europe's largest collection of airworthy WWII fighters and is based at Duxford Airfield, in the UK. For more information visit our websites: http://www.fighter-collection.com/
Registered: 01/10/01
Posts: 6186
Loc: College Station, Texas, USA
DCS Flying Legends looks to be a "Virtual Encyclopedia" of historic aircraft that "The Fighter Collection" group in Duxford actually restores and flies. THAT sounds pretty cool! It's as if the Janes Encyclopedia books became a PC simulator.
Also, no more arguing by Mr. Arm Chair Pilot that such and such aircraft actually flew like this, when you have the guys that FLY the REAL things programming and providing input on the simulator!
You technical stick pilot guys should be real excited about this, you are not going to find better programmed flight models or damage models anywhere else on the PC.
Here are a list of Flying Legends aircraft on their website:
Airworthy Aircraft:
Bearcat Corsair Curtiss P-40B Gladiator Harvard Hawk Hellcat Mustang TF-51D Nimrod Spitfire V Spitfire XIV Staggerwing Wildcat
Registered: 02/15/00
Posts: 33095
Loc: Space Coast, USA
I notice no ordnance under the P-51's wings. No bombs or rockets or external tanks. Will a new batch of WWII-era weapons be made, or is this P-51 going to carry Mk82s or Paveways buddy-lased by an A-10C?
The Jedi Master
_________________________
Back off, man. I'm a scientist.
I wondered about that , myself. But I can't believe that they would go to the trouble of making one of the best looking Mustangs I've seen on a computer, and then hang MK82's off of it. How much more work would it have been to create a 500 pound bomb? And I won't be using this in a modern context. Any servers that have A-10's and P-51's on them, I'll vacate, quickly. I'm imagining WW2 coops, especially if they give us an AI enemy fighter. I wouldn't get too nervous because it's not carrying ordnance. We're seeing an Alpha build of the model.
_________________________
"From our orbital vantage point, we observe an earth without borders, full of peace, beauty and magnificence, and we pray that humanity as a whole can imagine a borderless world as we see it, and strive to live as one in peace." Astronaut William C. McCool RIP, January 29, 2003 - Space Shuttle Columbia
Calendar
Downloads
FAQ
Library
Multiplayer
News
Release Dates
SimHQ TV
Previous Topic
Index