Review: DCS: P-51D Mustang

Fred "HeinKill" Williams reviews DCS: P-51D Mustang.

http://SimHQ.com/_air15/air_550a.html

Reviewed in Arcade mode? Really?

Nate

Fair question, but no. Flown and reviewed in both, though combat gameplay pix largely from arcade mode because this was the most interesting thing that happened during the testing... Getting a wing blown off and still being able to maneouvre and land while on fire with only one wing! But I do note the experience was different in sim mode, where that didn't happen to me.

EG "In "simulation" mode I didn’t experience similar bugs, but I was simply unable to compete against the AI on what I believe was a believable and even footed basis. Perhaps it was just my poor piloting skills, but I was unable to find any control settings which meant I could comfortably fly the Mustang to the edge of its envelope without it flick rolling. This was made harder by there being no feedback indicating the machine is on the edge of a stall (though it is believed stall buffeting will be included in a future patch). The AI however seems to suffer none of these limitations and I never once saw it spin, flick roll or stall."

I qualify my observations on the AI FM in sim mode by saying it could also be my lack of piloting skills... And of course this isn't an issue if you just want to fly P51 vs other P51s online.

Cheers,

H

Great review, and thank you for comparing it to A2A's P-51D. I absolutely love their version, especially the start-up. The plane feels alive, and from what I've seen and heard of DCS's, it just doesn't. I have been on the fence about getting DCS's version, but the lack of terrain to fly it around in also bugs me. Maybe if/when they ever release Nevada or some other terrain, I'd consider DCS: P-51d.

OK, with that you've brought me over to the dark side. "Paunch" and all.



R

Hello Guod,

Thank Fred for his great review.

It is the first time I saw someone write the same things I feel when playing this sim.
In the Eagle Dynamics (ED) forums everybody seems so passionate, so eager to play this sim, that they defend it with all their heart.

Don't get me wrong, though. I love ED. I love their rendition of the A-10 and the Su-27. I bought the P-51 out of consideration for a small publisher. My idea was to support them to keep going.

I know this product is still a beta. But there are a lot of bugs that need to be worked. The flight model really annoys me. I cannot make a small pull of the joystick and then the aircraft stalls. And enter a roll and spins. Something I don't get with the A-10 and the Su-27. I showed it to ED on one of their forums, and the answer I got was that my controls were too sensitive. So, i fiddled around with my joystick settings, and still got the same behavior. It is REALLY frustrating.

Another thing that Fred noted is regarding the enemy AI. It is really very hard to beat it. You fell like you don't have the slightest chance. Also, another problem I found was to to detect the enemy aircraft. You can't see the from a distance. In other sims, like Combat Flight Simulator you could see the enemy a few miles out. But in this sim, you can't. Very difficult.

For all of this, I stopped flying it and tossed it aside.

Anyway, it was my two cents. If you ever thought about getting the P-51D from ED, I really recommend following Fred's notes. They don't stray from the reality.

Fair review, Fred. I've never dabbled with any FSX addons, such as the A2A P-51D, but I enjoy flying the DCS P-51D, even with the flaws you noted. I also feel like the aero model is still a bit off, especially the slipstream effect on the rudder, but it's still fun to fly. The complaint about the lack of a compelling environment for the P-51D is fair and pretty common, but it seems like nobody is even trying to make one using the pretty powerful Mission Editor in DCS. As you pointed out, recreating a WWII environment isn't going to happen with the current tools, but a mission of P-51Ds making a hit and run attack against convoys could be made pretty exciting.

I hope to see ED continue to advance this module with their other offerings.

Who's working the 109E and F modules?

Actually, the P-38 was the first Allied fighter over Berlin, and the P-47 took down the Luftwaffe in France before the P-51 did much at all.

OK, the DCS Mustang FM might be a bit off, but how about A2A's then? The last time I checked MSFS couldn't f.ex. model spins at all. Has this been rectified?

I felt this review was an advertizement for another product with reviewer made his mind before ever opening (starting) the product. First of all - why not latest build? Why no mention of FM? What about ground handling? What about engine abuse damage? Startup procedures? High / Low alt performance of engine? Blower function? Anything about actual simulation of this aircraft? No mention at all of "Auto rudder" function of GUI? I could continue...


Reviewing it in "arcade" mode is an insult to flight simulator community! Thanks for trying, but fail in execution. IMHO of course.

I still don't get the purpose for DCS creating a Mustang to fly in DCS world. Might as well fly the A2A version in a more visually interesting world. No need for an old plane in a modern combat arena, much loved as the Mustang is. Better to get on with a modern strike aircraft and maybe some new maps. DCS will limit itself into obscurity if it doesn't expand in the modern combat arena. Or unless it comes out with a 50s Korea sim or even a WW2 sim. Or any other combat sim as long as the planes are relevant to the era, and not limited to Georgia/Russia. No more WW2 props dancing with modern-era combatants, please. It just ain't happening (for me anyway).
flame suit on,
Flyby out

Which, actually, could even happen. Just mind that these guys like to do study simulations, so anything following the Mustang will probably take awhile too. But if this really happens the results will definitely be worth the wait as well, I'm sure

Ok, so, i'm not the only one who noticed that in the youtube video.

let's just say that there have been more pictures then that one.

I don't think this was fair review also, first you don't show only GAME mode in high fidelity of an aircraft (in every way... even combat... which in case some forget, FSX doesn't have), second, the writer states Acusim P-51D has everything modeled and what... DCS doesn't? Where in reality I repeat again, there is no combat in FSX... and complaining the setting in DCS World is not good for P-51D, ok fair enough for at the moment status because if someone comes up with another WWII aircraft or ground units etc, this is no longer the case while, again in FSX you can have as much aircraft you want you can't do combat.

So no combat missions or campaigns in FSX, no working weapons in FSX, no WWII setups in FSX... what else am I missing from the list, then to say DSC P-51D is worse is just lame because there IS combat in DCS, and give it little time this is very likely 3rd party developers will come up with oponents... then you will have WWII setting in DCS, you will have combat, while in FSX you won't... and that being more expensive route... how can one have the nerve to it better?

I'm out

Someone is working on a BF109E and F? More strange choices for airplanes. If they are intended as adversaries for the Mustang, then they are the wrong models. Both had been replaced by the G (Gustav) by the time that D model P-51's were rampaging over Europe.

As a long time member of SimHQ I must say I've never read such a bad 'review' before. This is an ad for A2A if anything...

Whether one believes product A is better than product B is irrelevant in a review. One must rate the reviewed product on it own merits and faults WITHOUT bias. On top of that; to toot A2A's horn about features that are also present in DCS' offering is lying to a potential customer. If one is to do a comparison, do it on equal footing and not with one product in GAME mode. That's fighting with one's hands tied behind your back. No in-depth 'review' about a flight-model in this flight-simulation? WTF?

This 'review' is so wrong on so many levels, it's not even funny.

It's very true I haven't done an in depth review of flight dynamics and modelling, runthrough of startup procedures and performance comparisons vs real world data etc and perhaps someone would like to do that. Anyone here is very welcome.

That wasn't my intent, my intent was to review the package as a whole and let people know what they are getting for their money.

The reason I approached the review from this angle was because I read a lot of disappointment on several sim sites from people who thought they were buying a standard DCS combat sim, but instead got something different. Hopefully by reading this review people will buy with their eyes open. My intended audience was people who haven't bought the sim yet, not those who already have it.

And my conclusion is quite simple...if you want a fully realised P-51 combat sim game, don't buy this product. But...

If you want a P-51 flight simulator similiar to what you can find for FSX, this is a good value package.

I'd rather discuss that conclusion and whether it is valid, rather than all the things the review didn't cover, because it is perfectly correct, I didn't review those elements in depth.

Cheers,

Fred

And with that 'review' you have done them a grave injustice. Your ignorance of the facts are staggering if you keep in mind that it has been categorically stated from the very beginning, everywhere, that the P-51D is a simulation of the aircraft in a DCS combat environment and NOT a P-51D WWII Combat Simulator. Man, it's akin to the original dead-horse.It has been shouted from the roof-tops: The F.A.Q. has it stated in bold and all the reasons therefore. If one buys the SIM expecting anything less then there is truly no excuse. It's like going to the corner-local and buying decaf and then kicking up a righteous fuss when you realise there's no caffeine-rush. Did you not read the label? Cm'on, pull the other leg......To now base a substantial portion of a review on an already-established fact whilst ignoring the most pertinent aspects of the SIM, ie it's Flight Dynamic and systems-modelling as it relates to combat is, to say the least, woefully poor.




Reviewing the package as a whole? Stop it, you're pulling my leg again.......See above: Had you researched what the package is about, you would have realized that it is not a WWII combat SIM, no matter how hard some want it to be. Why is this so hard to figure?

In any event, each to their own I suppose. Just one more thing: How can you utter in one breath


whilst admitting that you did not bother to review it adequately?


How can you expect objective, first-time readers to make an informed decision based on such apparent, in-your-face bias? At stages it read as an advert for FSX and related add-ons when I thought I was reading a DCS review.

I'm normally not one to pay much attention to reviews and such but hell, this one, with the due amount of respect in the circumstances, really, really needs some work if it was objectivity you were after. If it was to aid prospective members to the genre in making an informed decision by having regard to ALL the facts then you have failed miserably and it is those prospective members who are the worse off for it.

That right there is the great pity.

To put it bluntly... that is a problem with the user, not the product. It has been stated numerous times, on ED's forums and elsewhere, what was included in the package. As I remember there was a lively discussion about the complete lack of period equipment / scenery before the product even entered Beta. At the end of the day ED is a company trying to sell its goods. It is up to the user to make a well informed decision about his/her purchase. ED hasn't exactly been secretive about some of it's product short-comings (and there are some, for sure).



No need to spoon feed. The average user is not dumb and I find it quite patronising to be honest.



Going back to my original point... this is NOT a review but a comparison at best (and a poor one at that, considering all the things you left out). What you're saying can be summed up in one sentence instead of rambling on and on about it for 4 pages (of which page 2 is almost completely devoted to A2A's product, excuse me?).

You're intelligent enough to know that, when people hear "good value", it means cheap and good enough. It is not up to you to make that conclusion.SimHQ shouldn't have marked it a review as such. At least I could've appreciated it for what it was... A personal opinion on ED's P-51.

And besides nitpicking over words, I find your conclusion to be false, for the most part. I'll mention a few things...

ED has been clear from the get-go. This project was born as a tech-demo and evolved in something that they thought was marketable. Whether this will evolve into a full fledged WW2 simulator remains to be seen but there are efforts underway, from 3rd parties, to include other period-equipment (status unknown). Also, the Fighter Collection, is on record saying they are interested in tackling other periods besides modern jet-age. So, yes, this is a test-balloon and they have been quite open about it.


This is a red herring, right? DCS P51 does not frustrate me except for the fact that I don't own rudder pedals (which this sim desperately needs). I appreciate it for what it is. An accurate rendition, system wise, of a P51 with the abillity to blow stuff up. Flight model that is un-equalled or the most part. So, yes, I have issues with you conclusions as well.

I do appreciate you coming on here and discuss this with fellow-readers. I certainly respect that.

Regards.

Good discussion and I also respect your points of view as experienced users of the DCS P-51.

I'm sure the arguments about whether this module is a full combat sim or not, are 'old hat' in the world of dedicated P-51 forums, but again, this review was not written for people who already know that. This review was written for people who read the blurb on the DCS website and are considering buying on the strength of this:

The DCS: P-51D Mustang offers both highly-detailed simulation and easy-to-play "game" mode options for both hardcore and casual gamers. When in simulation mode, this is the most authentic simulation of the P-51D Mustang that has ever been created for the PC. Enjoy both the thrill of flying this legendary warbird and operating its various weapons against a variety of ground and airborne targets...A powerful yet easy-to-use mission editor allows you to create your own missions and campaigns. A one-click Mission Generator also allows you to instantly create battles as small or large as you wish.

So I hope people can see why I looked at it both as a survey sim, and a combat sim, and why I did focus a little on the 'easy to play "game" mode' as battles small and large, and easy gameplay mode are key features the developer promotes.

Not sure why you think I show a bias to FSX. Certainly I personally don't think I have, even though I conclude the Accusimmed P-51 has more to offer in gameplay potential and immersion, with the exception of the inability to use the weapon systems. Is that conclusion really bias, or just an opinion?

At the same time I conclude the DCS P-51 is good value for money compared to the FSX Accusimmed version, if you are looking for a hi-fidelity P-51 to fly around in. Surely then that is bias in favour of the DCS platform?

It is always the case that people will agree or disagree with a reviewer's opinions and I remind you of mine because they seem a bit lost in the discussion above (I actually feel like my conclusions are quite well aligned with what people are writing above...seen from the point of view of both users who are satisfied, and those who are unsatisfied with the release. And taken in context of what the developer PR promises.):

Good

Beautifully realized cockpit and working controls
All weapons and weapon systems simulated (unlike on FSX Mustangs)
Models failures of aircraft systems as well as combat damage
Great implementation of radio commands
Good FPS on my medium range system

Could Be Better

FM is prone to "over reacting" to control inputs
Online interface can't be filtered to deliver only P-51D relevant servers
DCS World maps and objects not built for WWII era aircraft or scenarios
Limited gameplay options beyond training and training style missions
AI controlled P-51D seems not to have same FM limitations as player

Sorry, still don`t see it. You should`ve focussed on the high fidelity part which is the meat of the sim. Arcade mode is tacked on to include the casual gamer. A casual gamer does not buy A2A's P51, does he? This is why your comparison is flawed... it's not fair and balanced.



How can A2A P51 offer more gameplay and immersion when DCS P51 offers at least as much as A2A and add combat to the mix as well... The only thing that is 'missing' from DCS P51 is scenery that covers the entire world... Is _that_ the feature that tips the balance in your opinion?

I stand by my point that it is the user`s problem to not fully inform himself before he clicks the `purchase` button. ED has been very open about it and the marketing blurb is just a one liner that every product has. Show me where you think it is misleading because that is what you are suggesting.

Good review. Told me exactly what I needed to know.

I just want to make something clear. My experience with A2A product is nothing more than reading a website and watching youtube videos (I am somewhat familiar with FSX). Not nearly as well informed to discuss this any further and I've tried to stay objective as much as I can. I fail to see how this can be considered a good piece because it clearly isn't, IMHO. It goes against everything that would be considered a `review` or `comparison`.

PFunk,
What did you need to know that wasn`t on ED`s website? Are you just chipping in to back up HeinKill because he`s a fellow reviewer? I think he`s quite capable defending his own point (which still escapes me but that is beside the point).

I have the DCS P51, FSX, CLOD, Il2 1946. Other products I have DCS vice are BS2, the A10.

As Fred pointed out there are not alot of servers for the P51 active anymore. That was`nt the case, when the beta came out. Have asked my self why and where have they gone I belive I know why

The review is fair as it right clear points out, what is missing and that`s why Im not flying it anymore (the world Im flying in is kind of, hmm off).

Have people lost interest? I have

How can anyone say DCS-P-51D offers same immersion when it does not take into account the day to day operation of the aircraft. More important in a Combat Sim., but you start every day with a new aircraft. If you have x No. of aircraft in the SQD. and you have some down for repair then your Combat Status changes.

So you have Combat but you don't have the full realism of the Aircraft, A2A does this but does not have Combat, well that is a much smaller issue compared to wear and tear on the aircraft. Both have something to offer but for performance of the aircraft and day to day realism A2A is ahead in that area. A2A does not have Combat features DCS does great but aircraft lacks full realism. From what I read in forums as well lacks the aircraft performance compared to accusim model. Not my take but from other forum members including people here.

You can't compare aircraft on the Eagle Dynamics forum as it is not allowed. OK, understand it is a company owned forum. So lack of complaints or observations is limited to the Bug forum and that gives you a good indication that DCS is not upto Accusim yet. Fact.

People compare the original FSX to todays FSX, two different sims. Now that Lockheed Martin has picked up on FSX with P3D. Yes MS dropped it but it is far from gone and improving. Soon will see Combat with P3D and VRS tackPack etc. so FSX is far from dead. You seem to forget to mention this.

Todays Combat aircraft for FSX are just about equal to DCS and the VRS F-18 is by far the best of them all. Don't forget A2A has done this P-51 several times and now with the accusim model, it is a real rival for DCS.

For one, I don't have the time to go poring over a bunch of forum posts at ED to get the general idea. He hit the high points. I'm a casual simmer, and his attention to that really helped me make a decision. Those points are hard to find since the number of people who fly DCS products in Game Mode can be counted on the fingers of two hands.

That's a great single player feature but generally doesn't fare well in multi-play. Generally. One might say though that SP is more important. Squadron management will come, but frankly I don't believe most people who play cooperatively or competitively will give a flying flip about wear and tear, just like they don't normally care for weather, bird strikes or random failures.
If your plane is damaged badly enough when you bring it back from combat, it's probably out of the picture for a good while. Don't need wear and tear for that.

As for the flight model, the DCS FM and A2A FM are different. That's all there is to it ... accusations of lack of accuracy or performance is BS.



Ever shot anyone down with the A2A product? How's the DCS one 'not up to it' yet? They're different sims with different purpose, they just both simulate the pony.



You really don't know what you're saying.

I'm new here but lurk here a lot. After reading this I had to say something. First what did you need to know Pfunk? That seems it was more of a snide remark to back up your reviewer. I have read your reviews and they are miles above this one. The review was extremely poor as it was an advertisement for the A2A P-51. I'm not buying the reason he was in game mode either. This review leaned toward A2A. I have both products, they have their good points and bad points. This review reeked of bias though.

If it was snide, it certainly wasn't intended that way, so I'm sorry if that's how it came across to you. It definitely wasn't meant to be taken that way.

I just felt that the review pretty much covered it. If you thought there was something else at work, I can't speak to that.

Seriously, folks...can't we all just get along and enjoy the bloody software???? Who cares about what "mode" people play?? If people come and play then they may try other things too. This whole "full switch just the way it's done IRL realism or nothing" mentality does no one any good. With that said, I will climb down from my soapbox. With regards to the review, I thought it was a bit biased at first also. Then I went back and gave it a thorough reading. Very nicely done. Seriously. The reviewer hit all of the important points IMHO. I don't know if I would have compared it to the Accusim model but I can see why it was done. It's just too bad people are more worried about what mode the review was done in than actually reading what was said. Kudos to the reviewer.

You don't agree the VRS F-18 is the best aircraft done. Lots of people would disagree with you on that. You also don't believe A2A P-51D rivals the DCS P-51D or is the same, there are lots of people who would disagree with you on that one too.

Leave the Combat out and just discuss the 2 aircraft models. I think IMHO most people would agree the A2A model is more accurate and there are still a lot of errors and bugs to fix with the DCS P-51. Check ED forum. Which FM is more real is up to individual taste but I have to go with the pilots that fly them,hence A2A. Yes ED had access to a P-51 and a pilot but I do believe if you want to look around, A2A managed to get more references for their Model. Unfortunately ED forum is just for Positive ED input or we may see more input from the Communities on Both aircraft. Just on experience alone in building a P-51D model, A2A would have the clear advantage,plus other aircraft of this era. The DCS model was done by someone inhouse and adopted by ED who has never done a model like this before of this era. My opinion would have to lean towards experience. I will leave it at that.

A review of a high fidelity simulation which doesn't touch on the high fidelity flight model? Is this The Escapist or SimHQ?

The article might have been better pitched as a comparison of the two products which it does pretty well, albeit seeming to be a little biased towards FSX, but I don't think it can really be considered a review of DCS P51 when it largely ignores the most important feature other than the author stating he can't fly it very well.

More references? "Had access"?
TFC, the publisher of the DCS series, owns and operates P-51s for both airshow work and movie work. That's what hides behind "had access". Pilots and maintainers who do the Mustang for a living, in-house.

How many P-51D's does A2A own?

The flight model question is simple: none of us here are qualified to say much of anything about it. But like you I do lean towards experience, and TFC sure has lots of experience with P-51's. :P

Ok:

Dudley Henriques(extensive large piston engine flying experience and support
Vlado Lenoch for full access to his flyable "Moonbeam McSwine"
Chris Baranaskas full access to his flyable "Glamourous Gal"
Glenn Wegman P51 crew chief and access to all Mustang's he maintains
Rich Palmer P51 crew chief for "Bald Eagle"

They had access to more than one and also more than one pilot. This is not a competition. I said ED had access to a P51 and pilot.
So did A2A.

They stayed true to the Military Model in every way(FM) and that includes the maintenance of everyday flying which DCS did not. They went the combat route. As I said before even if you think it is not relevant maintaining aircraft in operational readiness is a part of Combat. How many aircraft you can put up against your enemy is relevant. Would be nice to see ED add this feature considering the path ED is taking with DCS-World and DCS-CA and aircraft models.

I'm not sure how many copies DCS:Grease Monkey will sell...

The real pilot's feeling is important. But the feeling in the sims can be adjusted by the curve and deadzone of the stick.
And most real pilots have little chance to exam their p-51 in extream conditions, such as low altitude spin, over G actions, kill the engine in mid air, etc.

Heh, yeah, when your aircraft is one of very few 70-year old war survivors... You end up careful. Every time there's an accident with one of these (like the collision at Duxford) it's not just material damage, it's a part of living history up in smoke.

Also, it needs to be pointed out that Scotsmen goes on about several things here where I don't feel he quite understands how these things work:

"Full access". What does this even mean? That there weren't people hiding the secret things?
Having access to aircraft and pilots is good. I did not dispute that A2A have had so. But let's consider that you are making a Formula 1 simulator. What does you best - getting to make appointments with MacLaren a little now and then, or owning the cars yourself as well as employing the drivers and maintainers yourself. This is a non-trivial difference.

Whether it made a difference in either direction for the simulators? Not like I'd be qualified to check that. Not like anyone else here, I think, would be so either. Neither approach has an automatic advantage because everything depends on what people did with it.

Regarding "experience building a P-51 model", I don't see the relevance here actually, not as stated. The IL-2 team has experience of this. Microsoft Flight team has (well, had) experience. Eagle Dynamics has been making simulators since pretty much a couple weeks after the fall of the soviet union, including military, and has shown what they can do in both fixed and rotary aircraft, including systems modeling. I trust them to not mess up. Someone else might trust A2A to not mess up. But I do take exception when this is presented like A2A has some magical access that, it is implied, was not available to a company that owns and operates the darn thing itself. Takes some serious compartmentalization to take that line of reasoning.

On the issue of maintenance and persistent wear, I don't agree that this is a big deal for a war simulation, not as implemented by A2A. What accusim and all of that does, which is what I find attractive in it, is that it helps you simulate actually owning the thing yourself. It's as close as you can get to having one of these for real. But it's nowhere near what you'd see as an actual combat pilot out at war. A combat pilot reports the problems he found during flight to the chief (who then berates the pilot for dropping some change in the pit etcetera etcetera), whereafter the pilot goes to get #%&*$# while crew works on the bird. If the bird isn't ready by next mission, the pilot flies an other aircraft, or none.

It is a function that can be useful, but it does not require what accusim does and is not worth the time to do for war specifics.

But towards simulatíng ownership rather than war? It's effing amazing.

To all ED forum mods: You guys should be happy that he didn't mentioned some of the DCS major bugs in his review
To guy who did review: Good review. Can u do one for A2A B17? I have B377 with CoS and I'm thinking of getting B17

If I were a fighter pilot I would not care how the aircraft was maintained so long as it flew, deploy weapons on target and get me home safely. I'd write a virtual commendation for my virtual ground crew every virtual month for doing their jobs... so that I can do mine.

And no-one here can say which is more realistic.

As EtherealN said, ownership is a who different bucket to just "full access". With the latter you're still at the whim of the owners. I seriously doubt the owners of such rare aircraft would allow the A2A boys just to drop in to check a one instrument or bolt. It'd be much more like make a list of issues then book an appropriate time, then you better not forget anything you want to try out for the few hours you've got "full access".

That shows your bias right there.

What potential does the Accusim P-51 show? Tacpack? If it's ever released (still waiting), if it's moddable with Accusim, we'll see if it handles ballistics correctly or is it just simple x damage like a game of air laser tag? I can see the potential of DCS World with it's 3rd party support. How much more can they do with the original dud FSX code.

Immersion? You mean the immersion of flying a combat aircraft as a civilian joy ride?

In the review there is a "solo wing fly" bug in game mode of DCS. I am very interested in it: Can he exam the same "solo wing fly" in the Accusim P-51D to show what the correct FM should be?

Hi HeinKill,

Full disclosure - I'm a moderator and beta tester for ED. I just have a couple of nitpicks for your list.

The FM being prone to over-reacting: The FM is fine, but there are issues with translating the real (well, virtual simulation of the real stick) throw to your joystick throw. Adjusting this is a must and perhaps it would have been nice for ED to offer some guidance in this.

Regarding the world: You are correct to say that things are not WW2 era, but they also were never meant to be. Since you are comparing to the A2A product, is that built with this in mind?

Regarding limited gameplay options: Actually there have been a lot of fun what-if scenarios happening with the pony ... perhaps as a single player it sucks to have to fight other P-51's, but when it comes to ground attack I would say you have a fair amount of possibilities.

Regarding the AI FM: All AI's cheat. All of them, everywhere. However I would also like to point out that the vast majority of people just do not know how to do BFM.

I would like to draw some attention to your mention of the number of systems modeled in one product vs another: DCS models a huge amount of systems in the pony, and is in no way inferior to the A2A product in this regard. The two will be different, but I don't know how you could conclude that one is better than the other in this case. The DCS P-51's internals are well, massive. Yes, wear and tear is not modeled in DCS, but this is a matter of saving and reading a file with a modified random failure system sitting on top of that. It wouldn't be too hard for ED to add it because the underlying systems are already there, it just takes time and ... from experience, people turn such things off when flying competitively anyway, which is the point. The wear and tear does serve its purpose, but it would be unlikely to go far in the competitive world.

Now, you mentioned that you stand by your conclusion - I agree, DCS does not support a full blown WW2 war simulation at this point, that is true. But neither does the A2A product.

My biggest nitpick here is more that you're comparing to A2A, giving that a pretty glowing review as if it had no issues whatsoever, and then making a conclusion that has nothing to do with the A2A product because, well, that product doesn't do WW2 war simulation either. I just don't understand the flow of logic with respect to this.

To HeinKill

Could you state how many hours you put into this sim before writing this review/comparison?

Could someone, in charge of this forum, please explain why this 'review' was even published. It does not meet the editorial standards of a product review in any way shape or form.

Sry but FSX game had 2 big FLAWS:

- its engine is only good for modeling avionics, wheather and flight procedures but FLIGHT PHYSIC and flight model in FSX is just crap. Not any A2A or other 3rd party company will change these simple fact. All of them are stuck with poor FSX flight physic engine. So in these area there will be no flying imersion and RL manouvers possible for A2A P-51, Spitfire or any other plane in FSX engine.

- FSX will not be a combat sim ever

In DCS P-51 there is possible to make all RL manouvers, stalls, spins, stall turns and other manouvers similar way like IRL. AS a RL pilo i could compare such things. Other hand DCS P-51 engine allow to model very accurate performance of these plane ( speed, climb rate, etc).

So i must say that for me as RL pilot DCS P-51 is the best modeled prop plane i have played in simulator ever. Regarding flight physic only ROF planes and Cliffs of Dover Su26 are close to it. FSX is really off in these area.

Admin edit - Everyone can discuss and debate their thoughts and opinions, but please leave the other forums out of the discussion.

Well I hope we can speak our piece here. TFC(located where)Russia? Does ED own this P-51D or does it belong to TFC which also has another kept at Duxford UK. A2A had full access to those aircraft as well as the pilots and crew chiefs that maintain them. They are flown on a constant basis(hello experience). So what don't you understand about that. "Full ACCESS" well it means what it says, the were flown and they tinkered with everything in and on the aircraft. Your Formula 1 comment is the most stupidest thing I have read. However there is knowledge to be gained by visiting and seeing and watching. I don't think anyone would disagree with that.

ED has never built WWII aircraft, A2A has done several including several versions of the P-51(experience). Where is ED's experience don't say how long they have done flight sims. that doesn't wash, I am sorry. If ED has such hands on with the P-51D, how come it is still full of bugs to the point that it ruins the joy of flying it.
This is enough of this Crap. You say DCS-P51D is the best. Well other say A2A accusim P-51D is the most real they have flown. You people at ED will always say this about any ED product, so discussing this any further is fruitless.

Well tell dear old Scotsmen what I don't understand. I have had 30 years with simulation. Don't just make a guess statement, tell the people what I don't understand. I will be glad to explain with in the Secrets Act of my 5 years as a Civil Flight Simulator Pilot and 25 years as Supervisor of Training Simulation for Air Traffic Control in the Gander IFR/VFR Region. Yes we deal with Military also. When it comes to dealing with flight simulation, I do know of what I say. You may not like it that's all.

Not taking damage of the aircraft in account has always been your stance, that it is not required for Combat sims. Well this is your point of view and I have mine. What do others think, I don't know, maybe they will speak up here. You always talk about how realistic your models are and well this is realistic. It's part of the operation of the aircraft either Civil or Military. Flight Simulation is getting more realistic every year, Companies push the boundries to give us better products. We see Military aircraft flying into Gander and Goose Bay for just this reason something has gone wrong and need to land. Combat would be even worse as there is the possibility of overstress of the airframe etc. etc. and this makes a difference to how the simulation moves along. This was maybe not so much important in previous versions but DCS-World and DCS-CA have made a change to this.IMHO.

I will end this here and will not reply to anymore discussion on A2A P-51D or DCS-P51D as there has been enough said. The readers will make up their own minds as it should be.

Well im sure A2A made great things with their planes in FSX but unfortunately they will choose and stuck with FSX engine which unfortunately was and is very limited regarding flight physics and flight models. Whatever A2A would do with their planes they will not pass limiation of FSX flight physic engine. FSX planes expecially A2A are good in avionics, clickable cocpits and other systems of planes but they unfortunately are very poor in flight physic becasue FSX was never and it will be never good in these area.

DCS engine proved by their P-51 that their flight physic code is very good and allow to moddel very realistic flight model. Truly speaking it is one of the best flight models i have ever played in sims. Only ROF planes and Su26 from CLiffs of Dover are made in similar way and allow to make real life manouvers close to real life planes bevaviour in the air. FSX is far away from these beacuse FSX was never interested in making good flight phycis in their engine ( they focus on avionics, wheater and other things)

These is the main reason why A2A P-51 is not comparable with DCS P-51.

This has been overcome by a Few Companies who do their own(FM) to work with FSX/P3D from the information I have found on forums. From what I understand this is not the FSX of previous years. You may certainly correct me if I am wrong but I do believe that Companies that want to do more realistic aircraft have found a workaround to the old problem. Again you may correct me if I am wrong.

Ummm... One of the main features in DCS P51 is damage modeling. HeinKill even mentioned it in his 'comparison'. It's just not persistent, ie. it won't be carried over to the next mission.

Unfortunately even if they do something with FSX flight physcis code their results are not satisfactory.

Try to make such manouvers in any FSX plane ( including Accu Sim) like spin, half flick roll, stall turn and compare results with real flying planes. Try the same in DCS P-51 or ROF or in Cliffs of Dover Su26.

Yes you are absolutely correct.

I am referring to getting back to airbase. You can get damage repaired and off you go again. Their also could be spare a/c if you want to go right back up while yours is repaired. If you loose to many aircraft for the mission, you should have the ability built in to start that mission over again from begining, learning from mistakes. If you try another mission then you are starting from the beginning and away you go. This is realizm and it depends on what you want modeled. I do understand that what A2A has done and what DCS has done are different. I do believe give DCS some more realizum in aircraft damage, not out right shot out of sky type thing. Do you see the difference. I am trying to explain to you the difference of outright plane damage that results in the aircraft crashing and making it back to base. Hope This helps.

I guess I don't get it then... DCS damage modeling allows you to limp back to base if the extent of the damage is survivable.

Have you actually tried DCS P51... or at least read up on it for the sake of this 'discussion'?

There is resource management being added to DCS, its early on, but you can limit planes, gas, ammo, as well as resupply, while feature to have a plane repaired while you fly another one isnt there, who knows what will happen as the DCS resource management continues to evolve. But some of the features you describe are there in their early stages, mission builders just need to take advantage of them.

Cool,hope they look at it more but what you describe is nice.

Heinkill, with all due to respect:

Mixing apples with oranges makes at least a fruit salad - but not a review.

It's called "Review - DCS: P-51D Mustang" right?
-so I would expect at least a in-depth look at the Flight model.
Isn't this what a core of a flight-simulation is all about in the first place?, especially when talking about a high performance prop-plane.

But this 'review' misses the flight-modelling part completely.

Edit:
I don't want to imply that it has to be reworked ,just change the title to something like
"First look at DCS P-51D and comparing it with the A2A Accusim P-51D - a personal view"

Actually a2a group is still fighting with bugs today with their long WWII sim experience . They also just copy the historical manual without checking(On page 53 of the wop3 p51d manual:"Limitations for the airplane are given in the illustration above." But where is the illustration?). Most of you said are meaning less only if you can post the real different between these two sims. A sim with or without DM is quite different. I would like to see how a2a simulate the p51d fly losing the wing tips or rudder. But it can't. The difference is not just one can fire weapons while the other cant.

You clearly don't understand marketspeak.
"Full access" means "access to the entire aircraft and it's team."
Does not say anything at all about how this was achieved.

There's F1 games that have had "full access" (as stated by them in their marketing material) to various F1 teams. This did not mean they were on the pit line during races, did not mean they got to have sensor on raceday. It just means that nothing was actively hidden from them. (Though I strongly doubt that since industrial espionage is big in F1, so there probably were things hidden but the game dev just didn't realize - or the marketing department didn't care because saying "full access" sounds cool and sells copies of the game.)



I spy, with my little eye, someone that has never worked on a software project.



No I didn't.

I explicitly said that no-one here (likely at least) is in a place to say who got it better as far as FM goes. It's right there in my posts. Go read.

There are people that are able to make better educated guesses than others, usually people with extensive experience in similar aircraft. But here there are other issues since "reality" doesn't translate very well to a computer, so the experience may depend on something as simple as which stick happens to work better for a given sim. The lack of a seat-stick interface is huge too. So even for people who fly "the real thing" it will be difficult to say anything beyond verifying pure data.



To be clear, no Eagle Dynamics employee, nor TFC employee, has commented in this thread.
I am a (volunteer) forum moderator and (volunteer) Tester for ED. My day job is consulting on industrial solutions.



Damage is already simulated, including wear during flight etcetera.
A2A/Accusim style persistence is not.
Important difference.



Not what I'm arguing against.
I'll try again: damages and wear are important. DCS does this already. Has since Black Shark 1. You can force yourself to have to go down quite easily.

Persistence tracking between missions is, however, not as big a deal; to be useful you need to implement the entire maintenance organization - if you want realism, it's not like the pilot (ie. player) would be involved in any of that, would it? That's crew chief territory and it's not like the crew chief is going to let some loser stick-jockey interfere with a proper maintenance job. (All a pilot knows is how to wreck the plane, after all. :P )

As I said, it's a totally kickass feature for ownership simulation. But when simulating operational use in war it becomes a curiosity at best because you won't be flying the same aircraft. Yes, they write names under the canopy. No, that's almost never the pilot flying it.



First, you say that as if it's something DCS doesn't already have.
Second, why would DCS World and Combined Arms change it? DCS World is a packaging solution towards getting the desired modularity to the DCS platform. Combined Arms is a ground force module in this platform, doesn't impact aircraft at all aside from offering the possibility of interaction with human-controlled targets and human-controlled JTACs.

And as has been stated: people already turn off the failures as they are when flying combat missions. Quite apparently people don't want this for combat use, since even a more permissive version of it doesn't get actively used by people. Would I use it? I don't know. Would I use it in FSX? You bet your ass I would. (To be precise, I would do another round-the-world flight, like I did with my Beechcraft back in like 2002 or something - and use the whole persistence gig to make it an endurance flight in more than patience for islandhopping and stuff.)

Your problem, Scotsmen, is that you don't actually take in what you are being told. Re-read my posts and compare with what you claim they said.

With the release of DCS:P51D ED dumbed down entire DCS universe. I remember time before it when shilka and other AAA were real threat (to my A10C), and now they are free kill (with guns) just because pony didn't have any chance against "old pre-DCS:pony" AAA, and ED felt need to "adjusted A2G difficulty". It feel's like bad console port

The AAA can be controled by player now. The change should not because the p51d, but CA I guess. Infact the p51d is smaller and much more smart than a full load A-10C at low alititude.

Everything you say here has been answered and satisfactory. I just love your word games when you know exactly what is being said. You just want to get rises out of posters as usual.

Answer a question. Does ED own a P-51D? If so what serial no..

I know TFC based in Duxford,UK, has 2 with a great write up of there service and how they came to TFC. Anyone can look it up on the Web.

Anyway you have nothing constructive to say so Bye but please answer the question for the people here. Nice to know information.

The answer is simple, go and find it on dcs p51d manual page 1, 2 and182 by yourself. There is no need for every member of dev team to own a p51d.

Now, now, let's keep the rising of the posters to an absolute minimum, shall we?

The damage maintenance feature of the A2A product that HeinKill mentioned is a great feature, but certainly isn't a game-changer for many folks, myself included. Would my gaming experience be richer, more fuller for having it? Possibly, depending on how it was used. Certainly it would add another layer of consideration when flying a campaign, but the lack of the feature doesn't make the module unplayable. The current implementation of failure modes is pretty extensive and a crafty mission designer can have some real fun with it, if they so desired.

If we were each to start a wish list for the DCS World modules, we'd all be able to come up with a mile-long list of great things to add in, but then, which simulation wouldn't we like to see improved in some way or another?

In any event, this thread is beginning to deviate from its original intent: discussion and feedback on HeinKill's review of the DCS P-51D module for DCS World.

Let me unburden you.........



Make sense now?

I’d like to make a short comment here since our Accu-Sim product was referenced in this review.

When a Microsoft Flight Simulator X customer flies a plane and sees a flaw, a common reaction is to blame the FSX engine. This is even true with 3rd party FSX developers who simply do not have the aeronautical knowledge to make a proper flight model. A developer gets frustrated, throws their hands up and thinks “this is not me, it’s the engine.”

The truth is, most limitations are with the actual person responsible for the modeling, and not with the engine itself. If anyone wants proof, just fly our FSX Accu-Sim Piper J3 Cub. Many believe there is no simulation available that can match the aerodynamics of the Accu-Sim J3 Cub, especially in slow flight, stalls, and spins.

This is not a knock at dcs as they surely have a lot more than flight modeling to worry about with the making of an air combat game (ai, world, missions, etc.). We also don’t want to have to defend our product in someone else’s thread. Let this be about their product, not ours.

We have physicists and career pilots (including a Mustang pilot) on our dev team. I’m a former engine builder and have owned and operated aircraft for many years and we’re all available to answer customer questions.

So if someone wants to talk about flight dynamics, fly our Cub (or any of our Accu-Sim aircraft) and we can discuss aerodynamics properly and in depth in another thread.

Scott

Sry Scott but i never seen proper spin in FSX with any plane included A2A planes. Dont mention about other manouvers based on flick manouvers. For me it is obvious that FSX engine is quite simple and poor regarding flight physcis code comparing to other sims like ROF, DCS or even Cliff od Dover ( SU26). I know that FSX was never interested in making detailed flight physic code in their game. Thats why Your planes are also affected and limited by FSX engine. DCS or ROF give much higher realism level and immersion from flying.
As a real life aerobatic pilot ( Zlin 526, gliders) i think thath FSX engine is not even comparable with DCS or ROF flight models. And i tried all of these games included A2A planes.

Does Eagle Dynamics own a P-51D is the question. You have not answered it here.

No, ED, the company, does not itself own the P-51. The guys who own ED, the company, own the P-51. Does that help you, or do you want to play more word games?

Ok, thanks, then it is Privately owned.

update: the P-51D that ED and Moderators refer to is:

North American TF-51D Mustang 44-84847, Miss Velma, (N251RJ), owned by TFC. They have two Mustangs. I hope TFC can provide more information on same era aircraft as either AI or flyable Models. Would be nice to see more than one.

It would seem that A2A had the same opportunity to information as DCS although A2A does have a P-51 pilot as a staff member.

This should now clear up the "Full Access" issue.

If I am wrong on this information I will delete this post for fairness to DCS.

Bottom line - they might as well have released an F16 into a WWI game world. The "wow, I'm getting to fly an F16!"
fun factor will be there for a short time, but soon you'll get tired of firing your missiles at Fokkers.

So this DCS Mustang - Fun for a minute as a curiosity, but that's likely to get boring in short order, and not likely to attract as many sales.
It's also allowing the potential customer base to become fatigued with the whole thing long before any AI
aircraft and such are released. Sure they had every right to release whatever they want - just don't expect all
of us to jump on it.

I'll keep my money (and save myself the hassle of the huge download on my crappy slow connection) until they
decide to do something worthwhile with this aircraft - if that day ever comes.

Also, watching movies of the start up - it lacks that gritty, visceral, sputtering to life that I've seen in
real Mustangs. That needs to be fixed IMHO. Immersion killer. That one little thing alone might have changed my mind.

Modeling a P51D = awesome
Having to fly it in Crimea against modern foes = less than awesome.

very interesting review - thanks

I am very happy that ED has released the DCS P-51D, so much so that I am one of the few still making skins for the very very few that like me still seem to care that it will be the first of many Duxford fighters that TFC will release using the Eagle Dynamics DCS brand.

I am not disappointed in it - I did not expect at any time that it would be anywhere near A2A quality.

It should be seen as a descent product, a first attempt, lacking in a theater of War and AI enemies to fight with.

My only complain is the template/model that could be better and the flight model too should be improved - again, we are not expecting A2A quality here, it would be ludicrous to expect TFC/ED to match A2A in this.

I hope the next release will be a better one and that ED will not make this one an orphan. Who knows ? we might even see a P-51D v2 when they release the F-86 and the P-51C.

Tom,
Is this a wind up?
Not funny...

no - it is my honest opinion, considering how much effort I am putting into DCS P-51D skin making,

http://www.lockonfiles.com/index.php/files/category/414-for-dcs-world-p-51d/

I am entitled to one.

to recap:

But it is not a f16 in WWI sims. It's a p51d in combat sims. That's the difference. Even a p51d in a noncombat sim can be successful, why not this one?

It is a P-51 in a Modern Combat Sim. Seems out of place but it is a nice P-51D all the same.

TOM;

Those are very impressive skins, a nice addition to DCS P-51D, beautiful work.

You can also never expect a fsx combat aircraft addon has any other combat sims quality.

It was moden air combat of "LOMAC" before. But now it's "digital combat simulation".

Wow... the 2nd page of that review was nothing more than an advertisement/ glowing recommendation for the Accusim product snuck into a review of a DCS product. How did that happen?


Some questionable quotes from the review:

First this:

Then this:

So I guess every button and knob doesn't work.


Now for the bias:

But the guns don't work, none of the weapon functionality is modelled, and there is no modelling of combat damage. Those are some pretty big omissions for an unbiased reviewer to still claim "title still rests firmly with".


Now this which is simply missinformation:

What exactly is a combat simulator? A simulator involving weapons, weapons systems, and damage modelling. DCS World with the P-51D does all of that does it not. What's missing is WW2 specifics not combat.

And this gem which does nothing more than put further doubt into a readers mind:


I would hope some sort of follow up is done by the reviewer with an apology to those at TFC/Eagle Dynamics.

One thing in the review is right, the a2a one is too expensive. You may spend $29.99 for the "game mode", and $24.99 more for the "simulation mode" which they called accsim pack. And more, a2a removed those inoperatable weapon system, comes a civil p51d, you need another $29.99 for it.

Infact I think the $39.99 for each in DCS is also expensive for me , Nate. More sale is needed.

Beautiful skins Tom. Really impressive work. Congrats.

H

Thank you

If you think that such landings would be possible in FSX you live in a dream:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMduvj3DO88


These is some sample of flight phycis code and damage modeling in DCS.

Real life P-51 hard landing (emergency):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XuMylC7gSc

I am really sorry do disagree on this one with you : his Review, his opinion, to which he is 100% entitled.

I support the freedom of the press, therefore:

http://www.lockonfiles.com/

Thank you Tom for being so level headed about this, unlike some other people posting.

I think reviews can come from different point of views, something that must escape people. I love both DCS and FSX for certain things. I love A-10C for it's almost PERFECT representation of a military jet. Same with BlackShark. I love FSX for just flying, plain and simple.

To be honest I wanted a comparison of the two, because I know how high the bar was set from A2A, and I knew unless EA could reach that bar, I wouldn't be buying it. The reason I was looking at both A2A's P-51D and DCS's P-51D was to see what it was like to fly a mustang. Period. I want to be immersed. I want sounds, creaks, stutters, growls, spats, etc if I'm flying an airplane especially one that is so unique because of it's power plant.

I think this review was perfect. I think he compared two products (because really, WHY WOULDN'T YOU??!!) for a good reason.

Would you buy an iPad and not compare it to Samsung tablet? Would you buy a 4 door sedan and not compare it to another 4 door sedan? I mean seriously, everyone complaining, A2A set the bar, that's why he compared it. Personally, I think A2A set the bar higher, as Tom pointed out, and DCS thus-far, has failed to meet it.

I read the Review again and I must say, everything in it is true and can be backed up through game play or anything else. The reference to A2A in this article is minimal at best and does point out what the A2A can't do over the DCS version. I don't see why there should be any negative feedback other than he dare mention A2A at all. Well he gave a pretty fair response to DCS- P-51D. He didn't bash it but pointed out short comings that we all know are there and most are still there in the Release Version to this time as well as the plus side. An update or patch could reverse these short comings, or at least most.

For the people who seem this is unfair of a Report, what did he say that was not the truth upto time of Review. Ok he could have left out any reference to A2A but none of the rest would have changed.IMHO.

If he left out the A2A references, what would anyone have to say about the rest of the article. He did not as some insist do the report all in game mode but only made references to it as he should, seeing as it is there and by ED themselves. He did say you could mix and match in the battle planner,giving something for everyone who would not want full simulation, a good plus in my book. He also did most of the commenting on full simulation so tell me where the problem is "leaving out any A2A reference". Personally, I don't see any, it is what DCS- P-51D is at this time.

Honestly for the amount of people who have a love/hate for either ED or A2A, they are spending way to much time commenting and not nearly enough time simming. Now back to flying...

-Jenrick

Why?

Thank you
I thought my point was fairly obvious.

The DCS P-51D according to ED was an internal project that ended up being released when they realized that it was worth releasing it

The A2A P-51D uses the A2A Accu-Sim Engine that was also used on the Cub, P-40, P-47D, Spitfire, B-17, Boeing 337 and build up on their previous experience with FSX, and Accu-Sim has evolved a lot over the years,

Understood.
In your opinion then the ED engine is not as capable? Or are you saying that you just don't expect the same amount of
time devoted, and the engine really isn't the limiting factor?

I am simple stating (I believe) the obvious - that ED cannot match A2A 10 year experience with WWII era aircraft with their first release., regardless of the effort spent on it.

Not sure I agree with that logic - obvious though you may think it is.
It all comes down to who's working on the thing.

Tell the difference what is can not match. Does it mean the a2a p51d runs faster than dcs p51d?

From a 3d model viewpoint. DCS still has a few errors need correcting, such as the horz. stabs' actuators..0

It comes down to experience and ED at this point does not have the experience A2A has with this era aircraft. This is ED's first out of the gate while this is the 3RD model of the P-51D that A2A has spent a great deal of time on. It's not who is working on it. There is a lot of talent in both Companies but the more you do the better you get. ED has done a good job but A2A sets the bar on these era aircraft.

Runs faster? Got to explain this before it can be answered.

I answered this before but A2A has more time devoted to the P-51, Yes. This is the 3rd model produced as a flying model and ED has just done it's first. The engines are probably equal, we can only speculate on that one. That is why I say at least equal.

I mean you can just point out what a2a quality is and what in dcs needs improvment. Maybe 3D model, HDR effect, Max speed(FM), bomb effect, tracer looking, or the motion pilot bailing out?

may I ?

let's just keep to the model and analyse it from a skin maker perspective , I made these skins

for the A2A Wop3 P-51D



the A2A has 4 templates - the normal, alpha, specular, alpha specular (I never get the nomenclature right ...)

that give the skin-maker (me) the freedom of playing with the textures feel, reflections, give accurate color intensity, create an accurate color tone, aim to an accurate color matching that I find great. Work intensive I admit.

DCS P-51D isn't bad, a WIP screen of a P-51D I am working on this week



besides the normal map I have the specular, can't do many things with it, and I had to work extra hard to get that aluminium color tone

We can't compare the two - A2A template is head over shoulders better that the one DCS P-51D.

( a typical A2A P-51D template grows to 4GB in size, a DCS P-51D to 500MB - that gives you an idea of the possibilities in the A2A template)

and visually : the A2A model is better than the one in DCS P-51D

and why DCS P-51D template isn't as good ? easy to explain, it is the based on the same type of work that they do for modern fighters:



in a modern fighter : I don't need that many choices as the paint they use hides the metal and the kind of weathering tends to be more simple.

The specular map is also less important in a modern fighter, but I had to rework the not available specular template for that DCS F-15C FC3 skin, then tone it down to tone down the HDR reflections.

In the DCS P-51D where I want the opposite, I can't get the desired results, as it is inherited from the modern fighter needs of the DCS game engine, less well suited to the particular needs of a WWII fighter.

Another thing that I must point out, DCS HDR illumination, being too strong it narrows the ability to play with colors, requiring extra work to achieve acceptable results, you can see it in the Su-25T, one that has an overly complex and poorly laid out template that is a horror to work with IMO, with HDR the game engine wanted to saturate it in white tones, still, it worked in the end OK.

It has no specular map for me to work with:



so we have the HDR illumination of the model (DCS vs. FSX) and the quality of the template (A2A vs. DCS) that gives the advantage to FSX and A2A.

The fact is, I make skins for both - to use an Eagle Dynamics adjective that they over-use, 'hate' - I don't make skins for ED because I hate their work, I like it, made dozens of them, I like the DCS A-10C, Su-25T, P-51D and now F-15C - but for me, clearly A2A simulations makes better templates and their P-51D model is superior.

ED makes great models too - their A-10C and F-15C are the best, the Su-25T model is great.

But please, let's not go too far and just because they are good in what they do, we are now going to start writing that they are better than A2A simulations in their own game. ED made a good P-51D , A2A is better.

And I did not mention Accu-sim ....

Now it's clear. You can find the Microsoft P-51 Racer has a better specular layer than DCS P-51 does. It's the competition between the graphic engine of DCS World and FSX.
I'v been waitting for DX10 or DX11 correction for FSX for years, and it is hopeless now. But FSX still to be one of the best graphic engines for flight sims.

Thanks for explaining your point, Tom. Now it makes sense and so it had nothing to do with the DCS flight model that you were referring to in a previous post...

The flight model is another story - I mentioned the skin because that is my area of interest, my opinion of the flight model is more subjective, still, I like much more the A2A than the DCS P-51D.

OK, so can the A2A Stang do plausible spins and dynamic stalls then? Because I've never seen _any_ MSFS plane doing them correctly, ever.

let me see if I can get you an answer form a real life Pilot that owns an A2A P-51D ...

And you never see. Any A2A or other company would make something better then FSX engine allow to make. And true is that FSX engine is very poor regarding flight phycis. FSX the same like previous version of these sim was never good in flight phycis. It was focus more on avionics, system of planes and flight procedures but stricte flight physics was poor modeled in FSX series.

Thats why A2A planes are limited by these poor flight model engine.

It is clearly too see in lack of accurate spins, flick manouvers and even in landings which were very arcade in FSX the same in A2A planes.

Try the same in DCS P-51 or ROF planes. Well these planes could stall and spin like real one planes. The same landings are challenging and not simplificated like in other sims or FSX.


These is some sample of flight phycis code and damage modeling in DCS P-51 ( beta version - so final was even improved in these):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMduvj3DO88


and for comparsion real life P-51 hard landing (emergency):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XuMylC7gSc

You will never see such things in any FSX or A2A planes. Just DCS engine is much more expanded beacuse there are also modeled all system of planes, avionics, damage model and of course much more realistic flight phycics. FSX had only avionics and system of planes working other things are crap ( damage model, flight phycics). A2A planes dont change these simple facts.

Other than he dare mention game mode. After all ultra-hardcore full-switch just like it's done IRL realism is the ONLY way to fly. Yes, I'm being sarcastic. +1 to your comment sir. You must be a hammer because you just hit the nail on the head.



+1 to you as well Sir

Sorry but as I have said before, 3rd party developer have solved the physics problem with a work around and each developer may have their own but the physics issue is a problem any more on recent aircraft for FSX. Lockheed Martin with their P3D is the FSX of the this time and future. I can not imagine Lockheed Martin not solving the physics issue for P3D as they will be using this software themselves. we are in a new era of FSX/P3D time to drop the past.

why can't some people except the fact that Eagle Dynamics is not the know all of flight simulation. Yes they are good but we have a whole other World out there with people just as talented who work in the flight simming world. I am sure Lockheed Martin has talented people on the payroll as well as other Companies in the Gaming and Simulation World. IRIS has not given up FSX they just added Eagle Dynamics and I am sure other 3rd parties are not walking away from FSX for DCS but adding it to their simulation product line. There is a reason they are not walking away from FSX. Like I said Eagle Dynamics do good combat simulations and they have their problems with their products just like everyone else. There is no perfect software as we all are quite well aware.

I've been flying FSX since late 2008 and haven't yet tired of it - and this without firing a round or dropping a bomb, that gives you an idea how good it is.

Or how much competition it has. :P
(It's like Black Shark; a rotorhead flying it is not necessarily a huge testament to it's quality, though I'm obviously inclined to feel that way - there is also the issue of there being no other high-fidelite combat rotorcraft sims to compete with it. Yes, I know there's X-Plane, you get my point anyway.)

I did tire of FSX, but I do believe that's mainly because I never went and got addons for it. (Getting the "proper" FSX experience isn't exactly cheap.) I would actually really love to get an accusim plane and do a new round-the-world flight, but sadly that's an adventure where time constraints are just too prohibitive. Someone get me a winning lottery ticket!

without add ons FSX is like FLIGHT, bland.

You can set up FSX without expending too much - with US$40-50 a month in six months you will have weather, terrain, sky/sea, two or three aircraft to fly ( a Twin Otter, an A2A Mustang and and A2A P-40) and from then on buy an add on a month.

FSX is not expensive - what there is , is so many things that you can buy.

One addon a month would not be worth it though, since I wouldn't fly it much anyhow.

It would be 40-50 dollars a month, for six months, for something that would be used for one little adventure like once a year or so. :P

But of course, if time constraints were less, this could be different.

I understand

this image sums up FSX to me

Yes EtherealN you are correct. If that is all you would fly, it would not be worth the expense. Totally understand. FSX is like a candy store, there is so much that you would want to grab. You have to keep in mind what you want FSX to do for You and purchase accordingly. Although there is a temptation to want a couple of other products.LOL. I would say DCS might be going in that same direction although the DCS-world is free(nice). I think we will see similar things happen as time goes by and that's great always nice to have choices or even get both.

Nice picture Tom. :P

Scenery isn't really that important to me though. I did the previous flight in standard 2002 (I think it was anyway, so long ago), so obviously even standard FSX terrain is way prettier than my prev flight. What would specifically be interesting for me in doing it again would be to try to do it as quickly as possible but without wrecking the plane en route. If I had the time, I'd do it with just standard FSX and an accusim bird purely for the "adventure". And for the nerd cred - I was still studying when I did it last time, and it was hilarious to have my friends come over to my studio apartment only to find me sitting there watching the Baron fly me in real time along my islandhopping route.

Probably wouldn't do it with the A2A P-51 though, now that I think of it. Nothing against their model, but the subject matter of the model just has too long range. Makes a round-the-world flight way too easy.

There's a lot of discussion ( ) about the system modelling in the two sims, and some people expressing the opinion that with the benefit of many years experience modelling prop aircraft A2A obviously have an advantage that will have resulted in greater system modelling depth and realism.

I just read the results of a couple of interesting experiments over at the DCS forums (where - for the sake of transparency, I'm a part of the beta-testing team).
Haven't repeated them myself, but I have confidence in the person that did perform them, and as the OP commented, anyone can do them, so I'm sure someone here will repeat them :-).

The first regards system modelling.
For a supercharger at a given pressure, the hotter the air the lower its density, so the mass of intake air is decreased, reducing the efficiency and boost level of the supercharger.
Set up so that you're stationary on the runway, with the outside air temp to -30C, full throttle, 1700 RPM & check the MP.
Repeat at +40C. In DCS the MPs are 45 & 40 inches respectively. In A2A ? (you know what the answer is, otherwise I wouldn't have asked the question would I :-) ?)

Second test in flight model (+ systems ?)
The impact of power on the trim needed to keep that ball centered.
Throttle back at 150mph and trim. Now push the MP up to 61 in.
Both planes the nose will go left as the power goes on. In one plane the nose will go back to center without a change in trim once the power stabilises, in the other you'll have to re-trim to compensate for the change in power output.
One of these is realistic, the other is not.
Which one do you think is which ?

I hope that they did not come to the conclusion that A2A is a paper airplane and DCS P-51D the real thing.

1400HP are sufficient throw more than just paperplanes around.

To be very blunt: Real people have gotten really killed by f'in up the throttle setting at TO or go-around resulting in something like a paper airplane being thrown around in this aircraft.

You have your guys doing their testing, we have our guys doing testing - hopefully, they all will survive this thread, and live - to write another day.

My point is that the engine has enormous torque which will easily overcome airflow-based stability at slow speeds. This is also the basis of that famous little maneuver you can do by going vertical, bleeding speed, then putting in full RPM's to snap-roll the plane.

and I am joking with you

Sorry, in the business of working on gov't contracts today. Humor deprivation is unavoidable

Personally - I'm not suggesting either is a 'paper plane', only that the attitude that 'A2A have been doing it for longer, so they must be better at it' is naive.
I'm sure that A2A do the best simulation given the available technology, and that this technology gives it an advantage in the simulation of some aspects of flight and ownership not simulated in DCS.
Obviously, DCS is different technology, and has different capabilities and limitations - which give it an advantage in the simulation of some aspects of flight relative to A2A (particularly 'edge of envelope' handling), and of course limit it in others.

Having come late to the discussion, I may as well add my $0.10 worth about the original review.
I also think that the reviewer came to the task with the opinion that CloD is the acme of WWII flight sims ,and that A2A's P-51 sim was the pinnacle of P-51 simulation. Which is his right.
The problem I have is that he appears to have decided that unless the DCS product is a carbon copy of the aspects of the respective sims that he reagards as benchmarks, it has to be inferior.
A2A have in depth system modelling, DCS has in depth system modelling ,but DCS isn't the same as A2A, so DCS must be inferior.
CloD is a WWII combat simulator, DSC simulates combat - but it's not WWII combat - so I'll discount it completely.
I think this is evident in his (cursory) discussion of the flight model. He had trouble mastering high AOA control in ralistic flight model, which I take as 'I can do this in CloD & A2A, I can't do it the same way here, so it maust be the games fault not mine & so gave up and went to game mode. Anyway - no criticism of A2A intended just pointing out that despite the impression the reviewer might have given, DCS does model systems in depth - it's even the case that it does some more fully than A2A's product ...

Hopefully

I believe CoD is the 'acme of flight sims'?

Pls read my review of CoD and you will see that no, this not the case either. Sorry.

http://bobgamehub.blogspot.dk/p/cliffs-of-dover-review.html

Here is the exec summary...

If you are a WWII sim fan and can buy Cliffs of Dover for a bargain price it is worth doing so.

Early performance problems have been mostly resolved in the final v1.11.2 patch and though it is still unstable for some players and lacks a lot of the gameplay features we have come to expect from modern sim products (competent combat AI, immersive single missions, online coop combat and dynamic campaigns) there are many hours of enjoyment to be had for a few small dollars flying and fighting in the many flyable aircraft available.

There are also some high quality 3rd party add-ons available (see Desastersoft) which add some of the gameplay which the original game was lacking.

But be aware: the Russian developers 1C have now walked away from this sim and will not be updating it anymore. They have promised a sequel, but their track record is, frankly, not good and the alleged sequel has not even entered alpha phase yet, so would not be appearing until 2014 earliest.

So if the sim doesn't work on your PC, or you would love to see them fix problem X, Y or Z with the game, don't bother posting your wishlist on their forums. It is what it is.

And what is it? Well, a reasonable WWII prop flight sim faithfully modelling dozens of the aircraft of the Battle of Britain theatre, with a few remaining flaws, and some enjoyable but limited gameplay inside.

Well no matter what aircraft model is done, Eagle Dynamics fans think they are the best and no one else can do what Eagle Dynamics does. Would be nice if a non bias look at other aircraft models could happen. So no matter what proof is given to show that other Companies aircraft models are as good as will never happen. Proof is shown and then something else gets said and then that is resolved and on and on. It would be nice if the blinders were taken off and credit where credit is due.

The Review on the DCS-P-51D is a well done Review and yes another should be done now that it is out of Beta. I'm asking, where did he say anything that was not true. Leave out the minor references to A2A, just on the DCS model itself. Was he not honest in his Review?

We could keep this going and going but what is the point. Those who prefer Eagle Dynamics products will never let it rest as you will not agree that another Company can do an aircraft model equal to or even better, unless it uses DCS. If by chance their is a likeable aircraft model it is indicate, why stay with FSX, make it for DCS it will be even better.

Anyone who chooses another Aircraft Model over Eagle Dynamics(DCS/TFC), in the eyes of Eagle Dynamics fans will always have an inferior aircraft model. We agree to disagree on this issue.

Minor?

You rather have it compared to Wings of Prey ?

Ya, MINOR.

I trust anyone who reads it with an open mind will see it that way too.

indeed

Sorry - I did put words in your mouth.

On the day your review was posted I did look you up on the web. I saw what a significant contributer you were to the CloD community (as one can see from your sig, and CloD websites) I read your original review of CloD, and all I saw in that quick skim moved me to this view.

Just shows the dangers of jumping to conclusions too quickly, and not doing sufficient research before doing so.



Actually I had read your review - but only in it's original form, where after (to me it seemed at the time) skimming over CloD's many faults, your conclusion recommended the reader purchase immedieately, because :
Like a good wine, Cliffs of Dover can be played now, and it should get better with age.

The degree to which you were (at that time) prepared to offer 1C the benefit of the doubt in the review seemed to contrast strongly with the attitude you had to your perceived shortcomings in DCS.P-51, and was part of what prompted the comment above.

I thought your review of CloD was very well done as an exercise in exposing the uninitiated to the product.
I don't think you did such a good job with this one - but that's just my opinion - and you know the joke about how opinions are like *ssh*les - everyone's got one, but no-one wants to see anybody else's

This is not a personal attack, I just don't think this review was your best work.

I will also recommend the CloD as the best WWII air combat sim, and A2A products as the best WWII combat aircraft addon for FSX, as well as DCS P51D as the best P51D simulator.

Well here is a diplomat.

Thanks, it wasn't at all taken that way. I'm actually a working journalist and in this digital age, very used to receving reader feedback..

Fred

I am sure that this part of the review was skipped by those that did not like it



when I write a review, I am careful to do the same, this is the end of my Cliffs of Dover March 2011 review



when someone reads it today, after all that happened with Cliffs of Dover after the release , will appreciate why I did not endorse it in any other way than : it is very good that it works well straight out of the box.

Somewhere in the review there is an explanation for what is or was written.

I am sure that those from Eagle Dynamics that were bent out of shape by the review should next time take time to read the review and understand the 'theme' of the review being written before pillorying the reviewer.

A simplistic analogy re DCS.P51, FSX A2A P-51 & CloD pasted from the DCS forum because I'm too lazy to re-write it in a stand alone form...

It's the equivalent of his playing a classic car simulator, and you playing an F1 simulator, and you're telling him his sim is off because you can't 4 wheel drift correctly in it.
He doesn't care - that's not what he's doing.
He's telling you that your's is off because if you forget to clean them, the cars' won't get dirty...
You don't care, that's not what you're doing.
The questions 'which is the better sim' and 'which would I rather have splinters forced into my eyeballs than play' are not the same question.
The first has no answer, the second does.
If you added a Ferrari 312 to your 2012 season F1 sim, it might technically be a classic car that he might like, but the fact that it's limited to race tracks, and the paint never gets dirty, means it's not what he's looking for...
Some players of (slightly technologically inferior) historic F1 simulations might deride it for having no other comparable cars, and racing on modern tracks.
Some of the community that play your game might complain about it not being able to keep up in their races, or of only being able to do single class racing.
But if you like the car, or want an opportunity to drive the best simulation of the road handling of a Ferrari 312 there is HARD to see that that might have been like, and are happy to do single class racing because you want to test your skills in a classic car - then it's all good for you.

My problem with the original review here at SimHQ is not that the reviewer didn't like it, it's that it only seemed to be a review of what it is not ( a 'classic' simulator, or a 'historic' simulator) and not what it is - a simulator that lets you push the P-51 to its limits with the highest fidelity flight model 'on the edge' out there*, in depth system modelling (more of some needed for combat than AFX A2A, less of some not), and which lets you try your skill using that advanced flight and systems modelling in combat (only 'single class' but against AI or other players)

*Many would say . It's not co-incidence that the virtual horsemen have jumped over to DCS.P-51 as the platform for their virtual aerobatics displays.

I got fed up after the first couple of pages of this thread. I get sick of people (hi ED reps) expecting 'punters' to go to a publishers forum and read every possible item about a product before they buy it.

Look at this:

http://www.justflight.com/product/dcs-p51d-mustang

How the hell is that product description "the truth" about this product? If I saw that, and was not an active member of the online flight sim community (and why should I be - just because I buy a product online?) I would think this was a 'must buy' for every WWII aviation sim fan out there.

Then I would justifiably feel completely ripped off when I found out the truth.

As far as I'm concerned, it's a similar thing with CA, only with that, it's DCS themselves that are misleading in their description on the product page - beta or not. Read of the experiences of members of SimHQ who have it and the responses from DCS/ED's miniions - then go and read the blurb on the product page. Can't be the same product, can it?

Come on, give me one of your usual cocky, supposedly 'clever' retorts that simply make you look like door-to-door cowboys instead of people with a great product to sell.

Sick of it.

Well your right. There is also quite a number of people other than SimHQ members that share this thought but you don't see them here and heaven forbid they even get a mention here. It is always the nay sayers we get here. Even when they are completely incorrect, you just can't negatively remark on an Eagle Dynamics product without them showing up for a good bash session. It is a fact people other than SimHQ have said this is a Good Review. Surely this can't be wrong. I hope this will stop soon as the negatives have been proved positive and the lies have been uncovered. what more is there to say. AH, yes, On to the next REVIEW.

What about this one?






Nah. FSX doesnt look good at all, its atrocious. God knows why losers like us even bother.

I would like to just point out the obvious really fast, this is something I posted at LockonFiles at the time of this review being posted.



If you want an unbiased opinion of either product, try them out yourselves. I have both, Ive flown them both, I find them both to be a huge PITA to fly. My review of both simulators -unbiased, by the way- is A2A being my plane of choice simply because the atmosphere presented while flying this particular aircraft. The sounds, creaking and moaning, the wing buffets...outweigh the buggy Eagle Dynamics DCS Mustang by far. And yet I fly them both. Its nice to have functional guns once in a while. The skinny is, this aircraft was born to race, and you can do that in either simulator. Its a matter of preferences, nothing more. And since Im not a P-51D pilot, I cant verify the accuracy of said flight models. But I do trust those who say the A2A simulator is more accurate. That said, my first choice of aircraft to fly is the DCS A-10C.

Bravo! Hitman

That is such a cop-out.. "Im not a P51 pilot"...

Please tell me what show stopping bugs there are in ED's offering? Im truly at a loss here because I havent come across any. Also, it was't born to race.. it was born to fight. If doing circuits and 'buzzing your house' rocks your boat, by all means go with FSX. In all other cases, DCS is your better bet. It definately has the better flightmodel. No, I haven't flown a P51 but I am qualified enough to make an accurate assesment as to what is possible regarding the laws of physics and that is all there is to it. Although A2A offers a wonderful flight model, it all falls apart on the edges. Thats not A2A fault... it's just a limitation of the underlying game engine. Is that a surprise... of course not! The engine is based on tech from decades past. Also this idea that DCS doesn't offer system degradation iscompletely false. There are many failures simulated... possibly more than A2A although I can't verify that claim.

At the end of the day you should play what you like playing but don't twist facts or be ignorant :-)

Did I say they were show stoppers? Where at did I say these bugs were show stoppers? You can check their bug forums for bugs.
http://forums.eagle.ru/forumdisplay.php?f=173

Actually, yes it was. You can ask any P-51 pilot worth his salt, and they will tell you exactly the same thing I just did. It is a thoroughbred racing pony through and through. You think they just wound up in the Reno air races after the war up until today? No. The very original design was to set speed records from the get-go.

Are you really? Are you a physicist? So you arent a P-51 mustang pilot but you just "know" that the DCS model is better? This sounds more like a cop-out than the cop out you claim I made. Wonderful.



Thats where Accusim comes into play - think outside the box, so they say, and thats what they have done.



So you can do maintenance on your aircraft in DCS? Ive been flying it since day 1, and I have yet to see this offering...even though I dont much care for A2A's use of system maintenance.

Like you are trending to be? How very hypocritical.

You can repair a broken wing P-51D in DCS by ground crews. But you can never break a A2A P-51D's Wing in FSX. Not mention repairing it.
That's why A2A products are best FSX addon, and DCS P-51D is the best P-51D sim.

FSX has much more bugs than DCS. But I never post bugs of A2A P-51 in A2A forum. Because I know even all bugs had been fixed, the P-51D in FSX could not fire or been damaged by any enemy's fire.

To HitmanLOF, great pix! FSX has a very good graphic engine for flight sim. but still has problems with it. Better pix also require better PS skills. And if we have more than 30 players dogfighting in such scenery, low fps will kill most of them.

Yes, that much is true. Thing is I dont judge by what each company has to offer outside of flight, because its the flight that matters to me. I can break the airplane equally in both simulators. Now that I have that out of the way...



I dont fly online for personal reasons. Be it lag, cheaters, exploiters, or just simply because of the new people who lack any online manners. Otherwise, I enjoy them both equally. I just happen to have over 10,000 more hours in FSX than DCS, and Ive been flying Eagle Dynamics products since 2002.

FSX was published in 2006. "10,000 more hours" means that you fly FSX 4.5 hours more than DCS EVERY day in this six years. What a pity if they were all single play hours.
You may enjoy your single flight. But for a good sim, the Multiplay is one of the most important parts.

That's highly subjective, you can't tell someone mp is better if that person enjoys sp more, there's no arguing there. It's all personal preference.

For the sim I said, not for any single person.

As a sim, I fly them both. A LOT. SP is my cup of tea, but I still fly them both. And Im not saying I "have" 10,000 flight hours logged, BUT! I have and still do fly it on average 3-5 hours a day. My longest stretch was to see how far I can fly the VRS SuperHornet in ferry, and Ive flown from Jackson Hole to Honolulu in that flight. Kinda hard to do that in DCS. I take my hobby seriously!

4.5h are the average hours. Don't worry about it.
VFAT is playing these days. You can watch and find some beauty of MP with it. Enjoy the weekend!
But livestream is blocked by my government here in China.

Chaos is right. Even if he is not real life pilot he feels right.

Truly i haven't flown P-51 but i got pilot license for both planes and gliders (aerobatic planes also) and i could feel if flight model in sim is good or no. Definitly FSX engine is poor regarding flight phycis and any A2A plane can't change these. Im sure A2A make the best what they can in FSX engine but simply DCS is much better here ( stall,spin, flick manouvers but also landings phycics), the same ROF and Cliffs of Dover Su26. No metter what said armchair pilots here im sure what i said. A2A planes never be such good in flight model in FSX environment like proved to be P-51 in DCS World.

More people Fly SP than MP. Your stats not ours.

There is a lot to flight physics than just throwing the name out there. A2A covers more in that area than DCS. Go and look at youtube and watch some flying for Both, it will become obvious. Listen to what is described in how A2A simulates the engine. Very detailed information. thing is you don't, you just regurgitate old information. I have not seen any in depth info from Eagle Dynamics on anything. There are no big secrets here A2A uses accusim, IRIS use something else for Physics.

Stop comparing FSX of the past. 3rd parties have found fixes for everything you try and shoot down, each with their own way. Get off this 2006 FSX kick, today it is not the same. FACT. There is a lot of fixing of bugs to be done with FC3 and the DCS product list so lets not go to the bugs and bad code.

The bug list for Eagle Dynamics products is quite substantial and always has been. So far nothing has changed but I will say they are trying but that should have been done 7 years ago.

Quite different here in my contry, even within fsx players. Most of them enjoy in chating with ATCs while flying VA online. For WWII prop fans, dogfight and duel are mostly welcomed. You may play with AI in a SP combat sim. But there is no AI in A2A's addon.

Why would there have to be AI for A2A's Mustang? You are there just to fly the aircraft, arent you? This is like comparing FSX to Il2 Sturmovik Birds of Prey.Birds of Prey has P-51's, AI, and air combat, does that make Il2 Sturmovik Birds of Prey more realistic than FSX? At best this is a convoluted argument.

You can add AI's but you need a program but you can add what you want objects etc.. Some will say yes more money. Well I have spent lots on Eagle Dynamics so why not FSX. I get more for my money too. Yes, DCS has Combat, well I am starting to release my breath for FSX/P3D as I think we are going to see this as well as the Civil part.

Check out the Milviz AI package for their F-15E, I got a WSO and missions over Iraq and Iran and Afganistan. So it will come. Obviously this is not like DCS but just wait.

How is he right? You cant possibly know unless you are in the know. Do I take the words of a software developer who is trying to sell me a product, or do I take the words of those who have flown the real thing AND both products and have made his evaulations known? You can forgive me for not taking your word as the holy grail when you claim he is right or wrong because you dont know either. Unless you hold a valid pilots license, have flown a P-51D, are intimately familiar with its airframe and powerplant, and its handling characteristics like I know my vehicle, then you have credentials for me to believe you. And until you have those credentials, your opinion doenst matter to me. I intend to stick with the expert opinion that A2As mustang is the industry standard. This isnt your daddies Cessna.

Just to clear something up that just came to mind. The Virtual Horsmen will be flying the DCS-P-51D in this years VFAT but why wouldn't they. They used the Il2 Sturmovik P-51's so that is why they are not using A2A model. Makes sense. Looking forward to VFAT, always a good weekend. Hope everyone takes a look. Some really nice flying.

They don't have to, because they cant due to the limit. But this is one part of this review to DCS p51d. In other words, DCS has to have a good AI as well as other parts, fm, DM, weapons, etc.

DCS has good AI? lol...ok

Again, to compare -both- of them equally, you have to only look at the "flight model", not which product has which features. If you are going to compare the plane, compare the plane, not the ground crew or air traffic controllers. Again, thats like comparing apples to a tire.

You just skipping something. Read carefully again plz.
We are really talking about products. So in the review there was a comment about DCS P-51D "lack of WWII environment (targets, enemy aircraft, period-representative textures, etc.) " It may be equal to comment A2A's sim lack of full DM, weapons or something. Just to the review, not A2A devs.

Ya, tires don't taste so good.LOL

Tom

- are there any Nth Korea scenario missions for the DCS P51? i'm thinking I might try to put together a Korea mission pack for the DCS bird with the Mustang as a ground pounder. Would be based on 77 Sq RAAF

- which leads to the next question, have you by any chance done an RAAF skin?

This was the 77 sq livery... Pretty basic.

http://deanoworldtravels.files.wordpress.com/2011/11/mustangs-meteors.jpg

Ok, so if they balance each other out, that means we're back to comparing flight models, right? So why are you still debating this?

The most awesome AI in DCS is AH-64D.

Even with this condition. I still vote the FM of DCS better than A2A's. A2A's products are great, better than most other FSX addons.

a few RAAF skins

for the Aerosoft Twin Otter
http://www.lockonfiles.com/index.php/files/file/2048-aerosoft-dhc-6-twin-otter-skin-pack-vol2-v1c/

for the A2A P-51D
http://www.lockonfiles.com/index.php/files/file/2239-a2a-p-51d-raaf-shark-mouth-a-68-750-v14/

and for the DCS P-51D
http://www.lockonfiles.com/index.php/files/file/2222-dcs-p-51d-raaf-sharkmouth-v12/

I am planning to make this one for the A2A and DCS P-51D
http://www.grubby-fingers-aircraft-illustration.com/images/MustangVH-JUC_LRG.jpg

none for the NK, but when the DCS FL F-86E is released, maybe there will be one, let's hope they do one.

Ok, so we agree to disagree. However that is your opinion, and if you like it, thats all that matters. My opinion is that A2A sets the industry standard simply because A)their reputation precedes them, and B) those who I know to be experts say so. Until then, I await the day when both producers settle all the matters once and for all in an all out, alcohol fueled slug-fest...because judging from what Ive read and seen so far in this thread, thats where this bus was headed to.

If you are an FSX fan, fine.
If you are a DCS fan, fine.
If you are an FSX and a DCS fan, even better.

An unbiased review is the best review one can read, and this review was very unbiased. The whole point Ive been trying to get at is those who deemed this review horribly biased, only say "this sim has this feature, that sim lacks this feature, therefore this one is the best one". Apples to tires. FSX to Battle of Britain, DCS World to Ace Combat 6. Again, they are both meticulously accurate for their intended niche, THATS ALL. It all comes down to the accuracy of the flight model, and the experts all agree that A2A holds the industry standard.

Actully, I am a IL-2 fan, and flying from ROF to DCS, FSX, CloD and even something like orbiter.
A2A holds a very good standard of WWII aircraft addon for FSX.
DCS build their standard in combat sims from Ka-50.The DCS A-10C and P-51D just keep this standrad well.

Yes I know what you said "You may enjoy your single flight. But for a good sim, the Multiplay is one of the most important parts.". That text in bold there is your opinion of how a good flightsim is, not a fact since it is highly subjective. Personally, I think the least important part of a flightsim -for me- is the mp, for some people it isn't and that's fine. I could write this for you "You may enjoy your mp flight. But for a good sim, the Singleplay is one of the most important parts." if you don't get what I mean.

Since about 99% of the people who fly flight sims never bother with multiplayer, that is breath takingly overstated. 1% of the users insisting that what they prefer is more imprtant than what everyone else prefers.

Hitman scribbled:

You're trying to simplify things... but that's not what happened. The reviewer chose to compare product A with product B. Product B never had a fair chance because it wasn't allowed to present itself in the best possible light like product A...

It was and still is a biased piece... and that's fine... but then don't call it a review.

I'll try to stay away from this thread now because it's like beating a dead horse.

Remind me again how product B didnt have a fair chance? Product A sets the bar, while Product B doesnt quite cut it. And yes, I am simplifying things because these 2 products belong to 2 different niches with only 1 thing in common - the simple fact they are both P-51D's. Not you nor anyone else here has taken into account that just because these two products are the exact same aircraft, means they should be exactly the same in both simulations.

Ok. FSX is a civilian aviation flight simulator. DCS is a military aviation flight simulator. FSX has no functional weaponry without outside modifications, while DCS does. These two niches should NOT be compared with each other, so why complain about the lack of features of product A to product B and vice versa? Compare the simulated aircraft only. Not one person I know who has flown both aircraft in both simulations agree with your statement that this review was completely biased. Thats the truth.

It's also the truth that people who Fly the DCS model agree with the Review but they get out shouted. I don't see why you can't accept A2A is the industry standard for a P-51D. Putting guns and free fall bombs, effects the aircraft just like any other aircraft that adds extra weight external or internal. Showing holes and some damage from a so called sim bullet still does not change the aircraft compared to A2A. Visual effects ok, what damage it could cause is just a guess on the part of the coders. Not Real. They should not be compared unless you want to strip down the DCS-P-51D. Real pilots and more than one, agree the A2A is the closest to the RL P-51D and therefor the industry standard for that aircraft model. Seems clear to me.

You keep bringing up the Review and that has been hashed over. People agree it is a fair Review so why keep persisting. You don't like the Review we get it.

Let me get this straight, you don't care about anyone's opinion in the flight model department unless he's a RL P-51 pilot, right? Which one's of the RL pilots you so often like to cite as evidence for A2As flight model being superior to the DCS one has actually tried the latter?

Which one's of those people that you state have tried both and favour A2A are actually, by your own words, qualified to make that comparison due to being certified P-51 pilots?

Don't get me wrong, i never tried any A2A product and i wouldn't dream to knock them even if their product proved to be inferior in any department to DCS as they seem to have a satisfied customer base, so they must be doing something right, however, the above looks a bit like a double standard to me, and that i find very much objectionable.

(For the sake of disclosure to those that don't know, i'm also a moderator on the eagle boards.)

regards

I believe Ive made that loud and clear, so why exactly are you confused? The fact that those who havent tried both products as being biased? Are you telling me they arent? I know Id be fairly biased if I only owned one of the two products. It doesnt take a rocket scientist to figure out why....

What you stated is that the pilots that helped develop A2A say it's the industry standard (the same could be said for DCS, btw.). I'd just like to know which of them have flown the DCS Mustang.

Ill mention only one name, he was a mentor at the A&P school I attended a while back, who did in fact own 2 civilian mustangs. Vaughn Dowell, he was at the time the director of the A&P program. I asked him to give these a shot. Mustang pilots are not a rarety believe it or not.

Would you like me to recite to you MY credentials in the aviation field?

And what was his conclusion and what was it based on, if you don't mind me asking? Was he at the time still engaged in actively flying Mustangs? If not, what time had passed since he was?



Well, if you're not a Mustang pilot, i really don't.

Again, loud and clear. Here's some advice that is clearly against the grain. How about, god forbid, you try the A2A simulations P-51 and try it yourself? Or you can do what I did - find a P-51 pilot and ask them their informed opinion. I went out of my way to do it, how come you are unwilling to do so?

Well thank you for the information below. It speaks volumes of your posts. You just can't accept the truth. You were provided a name as you asked, now you have to question that. The truth is the truth as much as you would like to change it you can't. Listen, all you people have to do is put some time into looking on the Web and you will find the truths. The thing is you don't want to hear or read it.

(For the sake of disclosure to those that don't know, i'm also a moderator on the eagle boards.)

regards

Well, my opinion on the subject hardly matters. It is also irrelevant to the argument at hand. On a sidenote, i am unwilling to shell out that kind of money for a product that i'm not going to use safe for research, but again, i don't need to, because this is not about my opinion.



I'm not unwilling to do so. I could go ahead and contact Nick Gray of the fighter collection, but i don't know if he has tried any A2A product, and even then, i already know what he is going to tell me. Besides, you forget what i wanted to know in the first place. Remember that i don't claim to know which one is better.

To cut a long story short, you base the assessment of A2A being the *de facto* industry standard on the opinion of, if i didn't misread, a few RL Mustang aviators that state so. So far you have brought forward one name that has tried both, but for reasons unbeknownst to me you don't want to enlighten me with what he had to say exactly. What am i to make of this?

A heartfelt LMAO to that from this engineer. YMMD.

Thats the thing - I did state it earlier, and Im not keen to repeating myself. Youll have to trust your eyesight to scroll back those few pages and find out my reasons to believing why A2A's Mustang is the set standard. It shouldnt be too hard to miss, its only 14 posts or so behind this one.

Ease off guys. You're moving from a discussion about sims to a discussion about each other.

Are we? I thought we were discussing RL aviator opinions.

Edit: Nonetheless, i'm not in the business of causing trouble, so, knock it off it is i guess.

Your date is not accurate to the simmers within my range. They almost never play a sim which has no MP function.

Just because it has MP doesnt mean they play it in MP.

Unfortunately most of them do. In my community of IL-2 part, we have 13,504 recorded pilots flied 309,458.7 hours with 1,316,536 kills in the dedicated server. The longest one flied 4,487.1 hours. If we have 1.3M more players play the sim offline...That can't be true.
There are more FSX and LOFC/DCS online player here. Most SP favored players here will choose something like "Ace Combat x" On PS2.

It was stated, and not from here that majority of flight sim players prefer to play SP not MP. Your figures just indicate some of the people who play MP not which is played the most. Easy facts to find. Your statement just indicates the small Percentage of MP not the whole picture.

In DCS Multiplayer -right now- are total slightly under 50 people online. FSX is about the same. Just because IL2 is popular doesnt mean that these 2 are just as popular as IL2. And to me, 50 people is a lot of people online for DCS.

Wish you have some deep investigation about people flying sims. Or it's really a difference between eastern and western country.
The date I post is just from a single National dedicate server here.
In our country the FSX has the largest number of players. They play online via addons like FSInn.
More people prefer morden combat aircraft than old WWII one. LOFC/DCS has no dedicated server, so they just creat a MP mission and invite/wait friends to join. They may choose use a internal IP to aviod unknown player to join a complex mission, or just use the password. The same to Falcon BMS4 here, but has less player than DCS with it. ROF here is just start recently, because the government here block the proxy server for a long time.

Well for this weekend we have VFAT running, so lots of people that play flight sims are watching aerobatic flight DEC.7-9, they will be away from there MP servers as will the SP bunch. However MP has taken a big dip in last year and half. Why, I would say people cheating,using cheats in MP etc. so interest has dropped of remarkably.

DCS World is a brand new simulator that hasnt been marketed by nothing more than reputation and what little you can find about it online. Il2 has the benefit of having been out for numerous years, like Falcon still has a large online community. Its not well known, and those who do know about it arent comfortable enough to rage quit in quake servers. Demographics are always different between games.

* All this popcorn is making me thirsty! *

I don't think the review is saying: "A2A's P-51D is the benchmark simulation, can the DCS P-51D compete? No!"

So let's cut the melodrama.

The comparison between the products is, obviously, controversial to some but let's look at the greater picture. Within the flight simulations hobby, civil aviation enjoys the majority share of enthusiasts worldwide; and within that genre Microsoft FSX is still the big dog, the king of the hill. Then you have combat flight simulators which, although they each have a rabidly devoted fanbase, all suffer from their respective narrowly-defined content. A guy who likes WWI may not ever fly a jet combat sim; a guy who likes WWII might only be interested in the Pacific Theater.

So, Microsoft FSX is the hobby's largest demographic and it sort of becomes the common operating picture by default. You may not have ever flown FSX but I'm sure you know what it is. And you might never have flown the A2A Wings of Power III P-51D but I'm guessing you at least know about it; in June it was the #1 Best Seller at Flightsim.com, with the Accu-Sim expansion pack for it following as the #2 Best Seller.

I like WWII combat sims. I hate jet sims, either with or without guns. The F-86 is about as modern as I'm willing to go. Before this DCS P-51D was released, I have had no interest in anything Eagle Dynamics has produced. The possibility of flying a fully armed, weapons capable P-51D in a cutting-edge simulation intrigued me enough to read the review, even though I already knew that the DCS environment is anachronistic for the P-51D...unless you like to pretend you're an eccentric billionaire with a Soviet-era military as your personal shooting gallery. So, like it or not, the reviewer was speaking directly to me and addressing the sim using language I could understand and relate to.

Is the DCS P-51D a combat sim or a combat-capable civilian sim? Is it more comparable to A2A's superlative FSX model, or to the "Storm of War: Battle of Britain" aircraft? Does it need to be compared to anything? If not, how else do you describe this product to the uninitiated?

Just my two cents...

DCS Mustang is touted as a fully functional P-51D, within the Georgian/Turkish/Russian borders.

Pros
Highly detailed and accurate external model
Highly detailed and accurate cockpit
fully working gauges
Systematic failures
100% realistic engine performance and true to life aircraft systems
Fully functional weaponry

Cons
Old terrain that predates Flanker 2.0
Theater which has rarely seen this type aircraft/non historic references
No real missions or opponents within the simulation
Lacks in atmosphere (immersion)

To me, its like buying that Barrett M82 Ive always wanted, and there are no beer cans to shoot at, but were generous enough to provide to me vehicles that not only shoot back, but shoot back rockets larger than my aircraft, or has better armour which .50 caliber rounds cannot penetrate, or has guns that out distance those same .50 caliber rounds.

Or if you were feeling really lucky, you might run into someone online who wants to dogfight in one.

OK. Make that 1.1% play multiplayer. The rest play offline. The IL-2 line has sold over 1.25 million copies.

Obviously you're joking there E, as I keep seeing them loitering 1000ft above terrain and hosing targets with 30mm within 1nm or less range and getting wasted within about 15 seconds by AAA, MG, and ATM fire. So AH-64D Ai seems extraordinarily dumb, or maybe you were just making some sarcastic humor about how bad the DCS Ai is at the basics of combining attacking and surviving?

All sold in China?

And let's not forget that sp is all that flight sims had for half of their history, while for the other half, mp has been a minor and much under utilized optional component ... by choice I might add. And there's no getting around ED's own reported user-base stats revealing that flyers apparently very broadly and overwhelmingly dislike flying in mp mode, as compared to sp mode, so mp is very much not a major selling-point for sim comparison.

I had a MP mission with my friends some day. There are some AAA, SAM and Armo. The AI AH-64d group sweep most of them, and shot down two AI MIg29 and a group of ka50. My friend try to guns these chops with his A10C. But he failed. That AI evaded, turn and shut down my friend when passing it.
The AI just do the things without breaking the physics law, but still need improvement.

I also had successfuly bomb a flying chop with a GBU-12. That's the real thing can be done in real world, but never in sims like FSX.

Understood then, I just tend to evaluate it's Ai more from the role of a survivable armored vehicle killer, rather than as an A2A platform.

You must be joking about that one?

Maybe just a tad bit of an over exaggeration, I will admit since I dont have anything in my software sleeves that predates Flanker 2.51...but if you "really" want me to post some screenshots of both Flanker 2.51 and DCS World topography I will be more than happy to sometime today. But something else really tells me you dont want me to, because you know what Ill find.

And just fyi, for those who don't know, Flanker 2.51 was released in February 2002.

Do so.

Time to substantiate your allegation in order to ensure that newcomers to the genre are not misled by arbitrary comments that lack foundation in their entirety.

I see your point - you'd actually have to look pretty hard to see this terrain wasn't DCS.



Nate

You spread false information Hitman i spoked via PM with Vaughn Dowell over A2A forum and he has't tried DCS P-51. So far i didnt saw RL P-51 pilot opinion about what flight model is more accurate and realistic and i doubt i ever see such.

As a real life aerobatic pilot ( not Cessna one like some think here) i could easly feel the difference what is better and im sure that Vough Dowell if would ever try DCS P-51 flight model will have to admit that A2A P-51 is not even comparable to DCS P-51 regarding flight phycis.

Thats my opinion as real life pilot which tried both DCS P-51 and A2A planes.

For me the fact is that DCS P-51 beats any A2A plane regarding flight model. These is not A2A fault im sure they made the best what they can with FSX engine but still these is FSX engine and they are limited by it and they will not be able to make it better. They will have to make new game engine for these.

Truly speaking looking only for fligh model-flying immersion-behave plane in the air ( not avionicvs, system of planes or engine managment) FSX ( A2A Accu Sim) is behind such sims like ROF and even Cliffs of Dover.

Hitman, refresh your memory about where said maps are.

Your statement is false by default.

Yeah like my A&P mentor just so happens to hang around the A2A simulator website. Ill ask him about that later on.

Ok.





LOOK FAMILIAR? I can do this all day. This is just my starting point, and I can go all up and down the coast.

Hitman, you're southwest of Sevastopol.

You know, the area that isn't even on the map for DCS World.

Now let's see some Flanker 2 shots from russia and georgia. You know, the areas that DCS World has right now. Throw in some pics along the mountains as well while you are at it.

Sure sucks when you have to be actively dishonest to make your points, eh? But it's all right, I saw it coming the moment you made your post.

Sry my mistake RL P-51 pilot which i spoke at A2A forum was Dudley Henriques - A2A Chief Pilot not Vough Dowell alhough i never saw P-51 pilot opinion about flight model comparison between A2A P-51 and DCS P-51 but im sure what the answer would be if there will be P-51 pilot who try them both.

And I call your bluff, I dont see any Vaughn Dowell over at the A2A simulations forum, nor any mention of him.

So what you are saying is that this terrain ISNT in DCS World? That wasnt a shot of Simferopol I included in both screens? Like I said, I got all day. Clearly, my screenshots lie.

I get what you are asking now. You want me to also include terrain that was added in LOMAC as well from 2004? Never said that the entire map was made in 2002, did I? Just said it has terrain that predates Flanker 2. You tell me that there isnt ANY terrain from Flanker 2.0 included in DCS World and I will laugh at you.

would you like a pic of me doing just that in FSX with a F-15E, Read Milviz F-15E and you will see I can do the same thing. keep it real. I know its a lot of reading now but the F-15E from Milviz does this in FSX/P3D. Full A/A and A/G weapons. I would say the VRS F-18 can also do it, it has the weapons to do it. Maybe just hasn't been tried.

Hitman, you know exactly what I mean.

The Crimean peninsula was dropped at Black Shark 1 in 2008. It is not populated because it's only purpose is to serve towards the outline of the black sea on the map. But you know this. You knew this before. You're just reaching to save some face.

Again: let's see you fly your Flanker 2.5 bird down the coast from Anapa, give me pictures at Sochi, Sukhumi and Batumi. After that I'd like som pictures from the mountains between Vladikavkaz and Tbilisi.

This is off-topic for this thread though, but I'd like to see it anyway.

Well i never heard about Vaughn Dowell in A2A forum or any other planes but i spoke with Dudley Henriques is well knwon over A2A forum and not only there.

http://www.a2asimulations.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=93&t=32607

http://www.migman.com/pax/Henriques/P51.php

Dishonest? Who said they owned a P-51D? Don't go in this direction. Avoid the personal or were all outa here.

Then you do the same.

I've never said I own a P-51D? (And just in case you've forgotten, I'm not employed by TFC/ED.)

I've said TFC does. Which is correct.

That was all covered pages ago though, I think Viper included the pointers.

Why do you keep saying FSX engine? You have been told what Physics engine they use. Your opinion on Accu Sim. Just like you say this are our opinion. As you all seem to state here, only a RL P-51D pilot can make realistic comment by flying both or an honest review of A2A and another for DCS. Then compare.

Do what?

You know, never mind. You are definitely not worth my time.

It was dropped? If it was dropped, it wouldnt be included in the map, now would it? Just because they removed the airbases and cities on the Crimean peninsula doesnt mean they deleted that entire section of the map. My point is still valid, and I believe I made my point. If you want to gloss over lipstick on a pig, then have at it.

Ok, so....what does this have to do with me spreading false information about an actual P-51 pilot -whom I know- who has tried both products?

You know, this is going to eat some butts here. Im going to quote his exact words to me. "First, this isnt an actual P-51D. Second, the torque in the DCS Mustang is a little too exaggerated. Not by much, but the right wing dips faster than it looks like it should under a full load. Otherwise, the popping and crackling of the A2A's Mustang just screams like home to me. Otherwise they are both accurate."

Now come on it was mentioned then corrected to say the owners of ED own the P-51D, it is TFC who owns the P-51D. do you wnat me to go back and get the thread no.'s. Gees, keep it real. I was the one that posted all info reg, etc on the P-51 used.

Hitman, read the post you quoted. It makes responding accurately much easier.

And okey, your "point" is that a part of the map, used to outline the black sea, where no-one ever flies in the actual game, is old. Yup. A part of the map that is not used is old. Wow. The horror!

You use this towards making the statement that a con is "terrain the predates Flanker 2.5", terrain that is not used and whose sole purpose is to be a shoreline in case someone wants to throw in some naval op missions. Your purpose is to create a general impression using this which is incorrect.

Now, if you had said that "The Crimea, where I would love to fly, is Flanker 2.5 and unpopulated", then things would have been different. But instead you make a blanket statement, seeking to create a more general impression, and you are now backpedaling because your bluff was called.

Anyways, this has nothing at all to do with this thread. Was fun while it lasted. Apologies to SimHQ people.

You're acting out of confusion about the TFC/ED relationship.
I'll note that several of the people developing the software are TFC employees, not ED employees. Exactly how that all works, I honestly don't know, because as mentioned I'm not an employee of TFC/ED.

I shall note though that there's a lot in business that gets complicated. You will, for example, often have multiple entities in the same concern for any of a myriad possible reasons. It might just be because you bought one of them and never bothered doing a full integration. It might also be because you need to do so for legal reasons (having establishments in multiple countries can be one such). And sometimes it is to protect investments; you establish multiple limited liability entities such that investments in one cannot be negatively affected by problems in another. (This is common in industry, where each production facility can technically be it's own company, and all of these companies are in turn owned by a holding company. In the automobile industry similar things are used, where spare parts, engine ("power train") etcetera tend to be separate entities.)

So if we go by your definitions here, we could for example state that General Motors doesn't produce automobiles. Neither does Ford. And they don't.

So what you are concluding is that the terrain in DCS World is not outdated? I just proved otherwise. I can pick out any mountain in the entire map and count on all of both hands how many sides it has. It is bland and featureless. Cougar Mountain is a perfect example of what I am referring to, which coincidentally, was released in 2004 with LOMAC. But I get it. You want to bash one little nugget of an honest opinion because DCS Series is the greatest thing to happen to mankind since sliced bread. Its not. It was fairly reviewed and compared to the pinnacle of FSX addons, and it came up ever so short in surpassing this that everyone from Eagle Dynamics had to rage-quit to soothe ButtHz.

I havent seen anything positive information come from any Eagle Dynamics / The Fighter Collection representative about this particular review, even though this review was A) Truthful, B) Positive, and C) with a glowing recommendation to try this product. Ill be honest with you. I find your attitudes regarding this review deplorable and disgusting to demand an apology for such a positive review. Its amazing how anyone can support Eagle Dynamics with attitudes such as this. With that said, my job here is done.

Same choice for Geographical area of earth, including the whole of the Black Sea coastline? Yes.
Same areas of the Black Sea map Populated and Detailed? No.
Same 3D Terrain Mesh in DCS and Flanker? No.
Same Detail/polycount of 3d Mesh used? No
Same Textures used to cover the mesh? No
Same models used to populate these areas? No.

You are incorrect in your assertion.

Nate

I Believe he's saying that your assertion that the terrain is from Flanker 2.5 is incorrect.

Nate

I haven't seen any ED/TFC reps comment on anything here?

There are some individuals, including myself, that play ED/TFC products. But not a single employee or otherwise contracted representative, in this entire thread.

no, just Moderators and a lot of Fan Boys from a place not here. doing what they do in their far away lands.

You're not "here" long yourself Scotsman

Nate

The simple fact that you are A) Eagle Dynamics Moderators, and B) Beta testers is enough representation from those of Eagle Dynamics. Contracted or not, you are representing them. And so far, the majority of you have not conducted yourself in a professional manner.

So you are saying that the Crimean peninsula mesh from Flanker 2 is not included in DCS, correct? I ask this because they are identical.

No, but it sure is a pleasure to be here.

This coming from the person that said we here at LockonFiles hasnt done anything for the community. I applaud your bravado. Take care.

Sounds a little funny since the Merlin turns clockwise as seen by the pilot, which exerts a net torque that wants to turn the plane left, hence torque makes the left wing drop. Kind of a grave error for a RL aviator.

So you are going to nail me on my dyslexia? Ill take that. But its nice to know you can nitpick out the smallest thing Ive said and loudly complain about that. No, Sobek, nobody makes a small minor mistake like that at all. Ever. My bad. You can draw what little comfort you want from it, but Ill take that. Even though you know full well what I was talking about and referring to, Ill take that. Thanks for pointing out my "minor" brain fart.

Directed to all and not to any individual - stop with the personal commentary. Second warning.

If you have a problem with another individual, click the notify link in the lower right corner and report.

Loud and clear, Im done.

Do You think he is talking about the DCD-P51D dipping the right wing the wrong way other wise accurate, maybe except for sounds that make the A2A feel like home? However it could be a slight error in posting. One does not always get printed what is in ones mind.

Now this Review has been well represented both for and against I think it is time to get on with something else. No one is going to give in so lets just get on to something else. let the community and readers think what they may over this.

Well if you really think that A2A P-51 has quite realistic flight model i would like to see how these plane make such simple things in the air:

- 3 correct spins to the left and to the right
- stall turn
- tail slide
- flick roll

Maby you or any other will make a video with A2A P-51 making such things? If you think that Accu Sim make noticable difference in FSX flight model i really would like to see it because these simple figures testing how good is flight physcis in any sim

For now i know only four sims where it is poosible but unfortunately A2A or any FSX planes is not in the list.

So that is how it's served these days, eh? A liberal scoop of BS sprinkled with a wee bit of truth to hide the smell........Let me set the record straight as it seems that my integrity has been called into question:

With the release of the P-51 beta (not 100% sure of product as my membership and attendant access to mentioned PM's has since been terminated at LockOnFiles at the behest of LockOnFiles) I, in my capacity as tester and moderator at ED forums, received a request via PM from LockOnFiles to approach ED/TFC on behalf of LockOnFiles in order to request a free serial/copy of the product for evaluation and review purposes. I thought it reasonable until I received another PM from LockOnFiles requesting another ten (or so) free serials/copies for the moderation staff as well, so yes, you are 100% correct when you assert that I stated that I am of the opinion that said moderation staff at LockOnFiles have not done enough to warrant a request for a free serial/copy of the product in question. After informing LockOnFiles of my opinion and why I would not request free serials for the entire contingent of the LockOnFiles mod staff the request was hastily withdrawn in the third PM received.

And here's me thinking PM's were reasonably private.

Shame on me.

In any event, I stand by my opinion and you are quite correct in the above, shall we say, conveniently selective quote of the truth.

I'm not quite sure why we are debating terrain here but having bought Flanker 2.0 back in 2k and playing it for some years I can't recall flying over the same area as we have now in DCS. Wasn't Flanker 2.0 only the Crimea map? If we are debating terrain here then I'd like to say that I'd rather have one well modelled representation of a country/map rather than a whole world full of ugly (FSX). I recently installed GEX Europe to fly in my A2A P-47 (which I love). So I flew the area around my hometown Gothenburg and it's barely recognizable and this with an add-on texture pack. If we are debating FM's and physics then everybody here that hasn't flown a real P-51D are not really qualified to debate it, isn't it?

I have FSX with Vancouver and it is a great representation of the area. I have flown over it for real and my Cousin toke his Private Pilots license there. He flies FSX as well with Vancouver. Don't know why yours is inaccurate but I believe you or you wouldn't say it. Your last sentence is quite true and that is why I say let's give this up, we are getting nowhere nor will we.

[admin edit - warnings were given to not fan the flames - keep it civil]

[admin edit - warnings were given to not fan the flames - keep it civil]

[admin edit - warnings were given to not fan the flames - keep it civil]

There is some really good discussion in this thread mixed in with low-brow rot. I know this community can produce a better discussion than this. Clean it up.

This Review kinda left me with the impression. What do I want. Flying an accurate P-51D or doing battle with one although the theater is not there you can shoot and drop free fall bombs. Also reasonable in its accuracy. My preference would be to fly because of the continual wear and tear that I would put on it as a pilot and my decision on when to put it in the hanger. If I don't do that right I could be trying to glide somewhere.LOL. This is just my reasoning on picking the A2A model. I think I would like to fly this one a lot before taking one into Combat. Lots to learn if this is your first fast prop aircraft. Which in my case it is. Only flew jets before.

Almost afraid to do this, but here goes (gulp)...

"Mustangs over Samcheok."

http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3695841.html#Post3695841

This is an AAR inspired by the Australian entry into the Korean War on July 2 1950. Skin by Tom Weiss.

Enjoy...

Nicely done

Yep... looking forward to part 2!

and that P-51D has a very nice skin great choice

Nice, looking forward to part 2. Tom nice paint job. Well done guys.

It comes down to who's working on it - you made my point again for me.
ED could easily have a guy with equal ability - thus my original point which stands.

That said, looking at the videos, the A2A startup does have a more realistic, visceral sputtering to life, which adds
a huge amount of immersion. ED needs to improve that IMHO.

ED has done a good job producing a Military P-51D with its damage model and ability to fire and drop weapons. A2A has from the videos etc. spent more time on the finer little things as you have pointed out one. Both are well modeled but if we have learned anything in this thread is we are comparing apples and oranges. Both deserve recognition for what each has done. I am sure ED will improve and we hope with TacPack that A2A will also improve. Like I have just said both are great representations of the P-51D. For ED, I would like to see a theater of war with some bandits to go up against and if they stay on track I am sure we will see something emerge in the future. We as simmers should benefit from either offering. Both are offering the detail we as simmers have been asking to see with clickable cockpits.etc. Wonderful time to be a sim pilot.

Wow looks like I missed some fireworks.

Good review for those of us who are not fanboys on either side, and own both FSX and DCS World/A10C/BS2, this shows what I expected, the two planes are kind of apples and oranges despite what some may try to compare.

For me A2A is the sim of a modern day airshow P-51D which I can fly around in a realistic civilian world, and DCS is a combat sim P-51D if one were to get somehow activated in the modern Georgia theater.

For someone like me the two aren't really competing with each other and so there is no need for the fans of each to put the other down.

I hope someday the A2A version gains the ability to shoot and drop bombs, and I hope someday the DCS version gets the ability to fly in a more appropriate and period specific theater, for now they both have their compromise and you just decide what your priority is. I also hope someday folks can get past their civil sim and combat sim biases and just appreciate good products in both.

As an owner of the A2A P51-D with accusim, both the military and civil version which I love, I'm off to pickup the DCS P-51D too, a Mustang fan can appreciate two good products...

Amen brutha!

Not claiming to prescient or anything (well, maybe a little!) when I wrote...

It is impossible to spend time in this sim without thinking (or hoping) it is just a "test balloon" for future DCS WWII offerings.

...but...fantastic news that DCS will be bringing out a P51 based WWII sim in a project led by the legendary Ilya Yevchenko of IL2 Pacific Fighters and Cliffs of Dover fame.

Given his passion for the era, combined with the solid DCS platform as his sandbox, great things await!

And as the DCS team has delivered a Dora as the first AI opponent for the P51, odds must be high for a late war Western Europe scenario.

Salivating yet? Edge GFX engine, with the DCS approach of focusing on a single flyable of high authenticity and building great single amd multiplayer content around it? I am!

This project should deliver the game that is missing in the existing P51 release from ED DCS. Too much to hope we P51 title owners will get a free or discounted download?

What? Why? It is s 3rd party effort, not ED.

Nate

Ah, didn't realise. Will start saving my rubles...