Can we pre order the pony?

You might try telling the FSX boys about pointless flying. At the very least you'll be able to do as much as FSX ie, flying around and just enjoying the aircraft.

Why does it have to be so straight and narrow? All other software development houses branch out into other areas and you don't see customers take up the stand.

You need a plan from a games developer for some peace of mind? ED have already stated that this Legendary Aircraft series wasn't going to impact on their modern era. This just simply breathes a little fresh air into their projects.
I can understand the complaints if they'd announced that this was going to be their next aircraft period and no modern jet was being developed simultaneously but that's not the case.

They're doing it because they can and they have a passion for creating aircraft. Good enough reason for me. If you don't like prop planes don't buy it! If you're scared they're gonna go bust because they're creating the P-51 well I hate to tell you but that means that there's bigger problems behind the scenes than adding another aircraft in tandem.

It's much better to have another ED aircraft than not - especially when there's two in development.

Can we just be very happy that the world's leading sim developer at the moment is doing the P-51, and we will be able to fly it in what will probably evolve into a full WWII environment?

@WynnTTr

No need to be so defensive.....it's a simple question that ED and the test team which know the answer or have an incline may be able to enlighten us with.

We all know ED have created 2 of the most detailed and realistic platforms for us to enjoy our hobby with. The Mustang doesn't quite fit into the existing battlefield and is a little out of the ordinary, therefore lots of people were expecting terrain, additional aircraft and targets that are representative of that era to continue the realism they are renowned for.....but that doesn't seem to be the case.

No-one is asking for a 5 year schedule, business model and financial accounts, just some information on which direction they are going with this.



@Semmern

Everyone would be overjoyed if that was the case.....however, from the information we have there is nothing to suggest that has ever been their goal. You have to be realistic and refer to the amount of time ED has taken to create each platform (A10C/BS), a new theatre or terrain (Nevada) and that the FC3 and the next DCS platform are also being developed in parallel to realise that a WW2 environment would be several years away at the earliest. The name 'Legends' also suggests (to me) that the platforms that will feature could be taken from any era and aren't necessarily going to provide allies or opposition on the same battlefield without taking a major step away from continuity and realism.

I'll be over the moon to take the Mustang out and learn to fly it, but not quite so enthusiastic as to take off from a modern airfield, get shot at by 1970's AAA whilst attempting to take out T-80's. Add the potential of an A10c and KA-50 being in the same airspace and colour me confused.

For the moment the position for the P-51 product would seem to me to match a Super Hi-fidelity FSX 3rd party aircraft (Think A2A's P-40) - as for the rest I don't know. It is possible that a full environment might be considered if there proved to be a market for it.



As far as I can tell the focus for DCS:-Flying Legends is the aircraft and fidelity of the model. Again think less of a complete flight sim and more of the Accusim model. I don't think ED is asking you to believe the P-51 belongs in the modern battlefield.

Nate

Not defensive - just puzzled why people would be so against it or even question the decision. I don't see any problems whatsoever with what they decide... even if I didn't like WW2 era aircraft I simply just wouldn't buy it and wait for my fast jet. It's like I skipped BO because I prefer MW and never bought BC:Vietnam either and just stuck to modern weapons in BC2/BF3.

I'd much prefer to see a modern jet over a prop but I'm not fussed, confused or worried about "which direction" ED are heading. I would worry a bit if they weren't producing my fast jet in tandem. They're already stated that development of that and the modern theatre would not be impacted. I don't know what more you would want from them.
They're a development house and we're all along for the ride.

The mustang does fit in, especially if you aren't entirely dead set on combat (though it can do that too, and nicely so. It will out-turn a flanker ). In any case, it is correct that there is no WW2 environment, but I'm sure there's a bunch of stuff that was also not revealed. I think Nate's hunch might be the best one.

Bottom line, if you like a P-51 and you'd like to see it accurately modeled, with the ability to employ weapons, by all means get the DCS Mustang. It will be an interesting experience; even if you're on the fence but you have a passion for all kinds of aviation, I'd say this module just might show you a new thing or two about aircraft.

People are a bit too obsessed with historical accuracy and a WW2 environment. The DCS concept is not about historical periods, it is a framework that can enable them to happen. Further, it isn't even really about aircraft. Yes, ED's strength at least right now is in flight simulation, and this is what they will keep doing, but there's no reason to think you won't end up seeing a destroyer simulation in DCS for example - the P-51 is not just another module, it is a message ... and at the same time, I don't think the pony will be left nemesis-less for long.

It's also easy to dismiss racing or P-51 v P-51 combat ... again, depending on what you're into, this can be very fun. Perhaps you don't even have to shoot at other P-51's, but run a gauntlet with AAA and targets, trying to not only get first plane but destroy targets along the way for points and avoid being shot down - there's plenty of ideas, and they can and will all put your skills to the test.

In the end, no one's forcing you to buy it and I don't think anyone will seriously hold you in contempt if you do not. Nevertheless, I'm sure ED would appreciate it if people checked it out.

I've never said the WW2 aircraft don't appeal, they most definitely do and it's an aircraft I'm massively interested in......but without anything else from that era in and around the battlefield it's going to be a bit lonely.

The Mustang packs a nice punch, but what are the targets going to be? I guess I really want you to tell us that there are some additional bits and pieces here and there because if it is a new platform only then the combat element is almost pointless.

FSX is different in that respect....everyone knows/knew it is a non-combat sim (bar the limited use of the Accelleration add-on) and therefore expectations in the most part took that into consideration. The DCS series however has it in it's name....which is also a little ironic based on your statement of 'if you're not dead set on combat'. If you're not dead set on combat would you be playing a Digital Combat Simulator'?

Greyghost...your post was submitted after I posted the message above. Thanks for the extra bit of info, it's appreciated.....I do think ED can improve their communication to the community and yeah,I know this is pre-alpha but a bit of info regarding how the 'Legends' series is going to pan out in their plans would be interesting and helpful. Looking at the amount of people echoing my sentiments in here and on the ED boards should be enough to spell it out if they're not already aware.

Again, look above



I disagree; ZSU emplacements and trucks give you AAA without making things seem too unrealistic, IMHO. You're in a bit of a pinch for an OPFOR aircraft of course, unless you're able to settle for fighting other P-51's, A-10's or Su-25's - but that IMHO is a temporary thing. Meantime, you can have plenty of A2G action at least ... and as well, look at my suggestions above. Not all combat needs to be historical combat.



Yes, and there's no lack of combat if you want to find some

Now, you see, that's a flawed comparison IMHO. There are indeed M$FS P-51 add-ons that allow you to do exactly the same thing as Flying Legends will, zooming around in an accurately modelled Mustang but somewhat devoid of purpose and divorced from the present-day environment in the sim. However - in those cases by definition you already have a fully featured sim with a global map, while Flying Legends basically seems to be just a P-51 with some lethally dangerous present-day opponents set in a corner of the world few will know and care about.

I'm sure there are going to be a good number of existing DCS customers who will find the Mustang a charming curiosity to fool around with, but as a stand-alone product for new customers I can't see many to whom it would appeal without a proper WWII context. In fact, ED might take an (undeserved!) hit to their reputation from newcomers who don't read the small print before purchasing and then are disappointed when it turns out not to be a fully-fledged WWII sim. Expecting a random buyer to see things the way you (and, to a certain extent, I) do may be a tad optimistic.



Well, it's fine for ED to say so, and up to this point at least it's probably even true, since the Mustang is an outgrowth of an existing tech demo. However, how is it NOT going to impact on their other projects if they expand the Flying Legends environment in future by adding other WWII units, fly-ables and perhaps even a map? Where are the required development resources going to come from and why could they not be put to work on modern fly-ables or a present-day theatre - is this not a zero sum game? Let's not forget that ED has proved incapable of meeting their original goal of a 9-month release cycle for new DCS fly-ables - it is frankly hard to fathom how an additional, completely unrelated product line will help in putting them back on that track. Also, as good as their modern-era products are, it's not like isn't any room left for improvement in them either and losing focus does not seem to be a good way to make progress on those issues.