Native German person with engineering backround is needed for DCS Fw190

[Kwiatek]

ED is making FW 190 for DCS. I found that Yo-Yo is need help here.

It would be great if I could find guys with native German and engineering backround to work with German docs. The main goal is to search useful info amongst tons of pages. Sometimes, some key facts can be found in the places you never suspect to be fruity.


If someone is interested plz contat Yo-Yo here:

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=101661&page=2

[CWMV]

Well thats cool.
Still wont get interested until there is a 109.

[ElAurens]

Well thats cool.
Still wont get interested until there is a 109.

And about 2 years worth of work on maps, vehicles, ships, and all the other stuff it is going to take to make are real WW2 sim.

[fruitbat]

Well thats cool.
Still wont get interested until there is a 109.

lol, i'll take a dora over a 109 everyday of the week, personal taste i guess.

After the G2, and really the F4, 109s don't do it for me at all really anymore.

[Jaws2002]

Kwiatek, tell them to contact Mathias from Classic Hangar. Nobody made a better virtual FW-190's yet. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/Jaws_18/bow_down_together-966_zps30c9f5d2.gif


http://sio.midco.net/ftp6/fw190_12_large.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/Jaws_18/FSX/2010-1-2_15-20-3-348.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/Jaws_18/FSX/2010-1-2_14-16-11-551.jpg

[Continu0]

That´s not 1946, isn´t it?

One might also ask Kodoss, he could know someone who could help...

[Osprey]

lol, i'll take a dora over a 109 everyday of the week, personal taste i guess.

After the G2, and really the F4, 109s don't do it for me at all really anymore.


Dora's are for girls. This is an Anton, which at least carries a bit of risk!

[JG52Krupi]

Dora's are for girls. This is an Anton, which at least carries a bit of risk!

If Doras are for girls what does that make Spits :P

[fruitbat]

Griffion Spits, Tempest, Dora and Mustang = best prop planes of WWII.

Big girls blouses need not apply;)

[startrekmike]

Well, at least I am looking forward to a FW-190D in DCS World.

[JG52Krupi]

Well, at least I am looking forward to a FW-190D in DCS World.

I wonder what will come after that, hopefully a Typhoon or a tempest followed by P-47 or an La 5 next :)

[ElAurens]

Hopefull a map, with proper WW2 era ground objects, and 20 or so more aircraft, and...


Well...


See you in 2020.

[startrekmike]

To be blunt, I don't think ED is putting too much focus into WWII era aircraft at this point, let along ground objects or anything else, this is probably something that will (and should) fall on a dedicated third party as they will have time to fill out the gaps.

That said, I always consider the DCS series to be a modern sim environment, as such, I don't sweat them not working on WWII stuff as much, we already have 777 working on another IL-2 so there really is no reason for ED to get too involved.

I still might pick up both the P-51 and the FW-190D when the latter comes out, the P-51 makes anything else out there look like child's play.

[JG52Krupi]

That said, I always consider the DCS series to be a modern sim environment, as such, I don't sweat them not working on WWII stuff as much, we already have 777 working on another IL-2 so there really is no reason for ED to get too involved.

Of course there is a reason! We no longer will be getting a WW2 sim that has decent CEM and since DCS are the only company willing to cater for that they have my my money :).

[Feathered_IV]

I think I'll wait for their F-86 and MiG-15.

[ElAurens]

I think I'll wait for their F-86 and MiG-15.


+1

This is the generation of jets that this old guy can wrap his mind around.
BVR and all that radar guided stuff, and a boat load of modern Milspeak goes right over my head. But lining up the gun sight on my enemy and pulling the trigger is something I can come to grips with.

I don't want another job with a learning curve up in low earth orbit. I want a simulation experience that still factors in the fun to play aspect.

[slipcork]

Griffion Spits, Tempest, Dora and Mustang = best prop planes of WWII.

Big girls blouses need not apply;)
You forgot the P-47, I think.

[JG52Krupi]

+1

This is the generation of jets that this old guy can wrap his mind around.
BVR and all that radar guided stuff, and a boat load of modern Milspeak goes right over my head. But lining up the gun sight on my enemy and pulling the trigger is something I can come to grips with.

I don't want another job with a learning curve up in low earth orbit. I want a simulation experience that still factors in the fun to play aspect.

As much as I love the A-10 and Blackshark I prefer vintage warbirds like the f-86 and mig as like you said the pilot still has his finger on the trigger not the firing solution!

[startrekmike]

Of course there is a reason! We no longer will be getting a WW2 sim that has decent CEM and since DCS are the only company willing to cater for that they have my my money :).


I am sure that the new IL-2 will not be as bad as many here would like to think it will be, I mean, lets not light the torches until we know more on that.

[JG52Krupi]

I am sure that the new IL-2 will not be as bad as many here would like to think it will be, I mean, lets not light the torches until we know more on that.

We do know "more" it has been stated that the level of CEM is less than what CoD gave us and for me that a show stopper.

[SlipBall]

We do know "more" it has been stated that the level of CEM is less than what CoD gave us and for me that a show stopper.

Same here Krupi

[Feathered_IV]

I'm looking more for soul. Something clod missed entirely. I want that emotional response and the sense of "being there". Not just a sterile balancing act of mechanical input.

[SlipBall]

I'm looking more for soul. Something clod missed entirely. I want that emotional response and the sense of "being there". Not just a sterile balancing act of mechanical input.

I don't think that soul is possible/compatible with arcade :)

[bongodriver]

I don't think that soul is possible/compatible with arcade :)

I was just going to say something along those lines, strange how some people thing a more realistic experience involves less realism.

[Feathered_IV]

I never said that.

[startrekmike]

I was just going to say something along those lines, strange how some people thing a more realistic experience involves less realism.

I think what he was trying to say is not that realism should be sacrificed for feel but that one must make sure that one gves any simulation a heart as well as a head, you can make a sim that both gives you the accurate systems operation and gives you a sensation of flight, the thrill of a combat mission and the illusion that you really are a combat pilot.

I am a huge fan of the DCS series but I will admit that sometimes I do feel that it can be a bit sterile, interesting in terms of systems modeling but sterile because there is not a lot of feedback from the outside world around the plane, even bullets and missiles that strike the aircraft don't make much noise and instead just make a rather dull thud.

[bongodriver]

No, I think he was trying to say that he would like to have effects in line with his interpretation of realism or 'soul', so lots of Holywood whizzing and banging and other aspects designed to prevent the end user having to potentially suffer the more frequent and monotonous aspects of real world combat aviation. The sensation of flight let alone combat flight will, sad to say, never be recreated on a home computer setup, some of the perceived soul must be donated by the end user and not expected from the simulation, so it's still a little strange to hear expressions like 'the sensation of really being there' being validated by effects that were never really there.
I think CoD got it all spot on, not quite as complex as DCS, graphically stunning, closest to the sensation of real flight possible on a PC and just the right balance between realistic monotony and air combat excitement.
I do get it, I know that some people aren't interested in pure realism and don't have time in the day for stuff like that, I just never understood how quick missions don't seem to satisfy those quick instant action fixes, I thought that's why we have games like wings of prey, war thunder and Janes air combat thingy, it still baffles me why whenever a developer wants to go down a realism route, gangs of console style players want to steer it down the arcade path.....like theres still not enough arcade style games for them.
DCS is a superb product and is yet to realise it's full potential but I will bow to your experience as to what it really sounds/feels like when bullets and missiles hit your aircraft but for me a dull thud is good enough as long as you know what is happening, in my nearly 20 year flying career I have heard/felt what it's like to have various things hit the airframe (a tree, concrete fence post, metal spike, runway, chunks of ice) and most resulted in a reasonably dull thud by combination of the nature of aircraft structures and the way impact is reported through it and the sound attenuating effects of a headset/helmet, the lack of feedback from the real world is accurate and is one of the reasons why the sound radar effect many complain about is well founded.

[Feathered_IV]

I think what he was trying to say is not that realism should be sacrificed for feel but that one must make sure that one gves any simulation a heart as well as a head, you can make a sim that both gives you the accurate systems operation and gives you a sensation of flight, the thrill of a combat mission and the illusion that you really are a combat pilot.

Thanks startrekmike, that was indeed what I meant.

[startrekmike]

No, I think he was trying to say that he would like to have effects in line with his interpretation of realism or 'soul', so lots of Holywood whizzing and banging and other aspects designed to prevent the end user having to potentially suffer the more frequent and monotonous aspects of real world combat aviation. The sensation of flight let alone combat flight will, sad to say, never be recreated on a home computer setup, some of the perceived soul must be donated by the end user and not expected from the simulation, so it's still a little strange to hear expressions like 'the sensation of really being there' being validated by effects that were never really there.
I think CoD got it all spot on, not quite as complex as DCS, graphically stunning, closest to the sensation of real flight possible on a PC and just the right balance between realistic monotony and air combat excitement.
I do get it, I know that some people aren't interested in pure realism and don't have time in the day for stuff like that, I just never understood how quick missions don't seem to satisfy those quick instant action fixes, I thought that's why we have games like wings of prey, war thunder and Janes air combat thingy, it still baffles me why whenever a developer wants to go down a realism route, gangs of console style players want to steer it down the arcade path.....like theres still not enough arcade style games for them.
DCS is a superb product and is yet to realise it's full potential but I will bow to your experience as to what it really sounds/feels like when bullets and missiles hit your aircraft but for me a dull thud is good enough as long as you know what is happening, in my nearly 20 year flying career I have heard/felt what it's like to have various things hit the airframe (a tree, concrete fence post, metal spike, runway, chunks of ice) and most resulted in a reasonably dull thud by combination of the nature of aircraft structures and the way impact is reported through it and the sound attenuating effects of a headset/helmet, the lack of feedback from the real world is accurate and is one of the reasons why the sound radar effect many complain about is well founded.


You throw around a lot of words like "console", "arcade" and others like that in this post, I also don't have time for games that claim to be sims (it is why I don't play Birds of prey, War thunder and the Strike fighters series) but too often it is used to describe sims that only guilty of not being CloD, frankly, I don't get it.

We can go round and round as to what makes a sim but the fact is that Feathered was indeed talking about the "feel" of the sim, this is not something that needs to involve making the sim "arcade", it only means that you take some time to provide the player with more feedback, it is the difference between the scripted stalls in Lock-on vs the realistic stalls in the DCS series, the difference between the rather flat feeling of IL-2 1946 vs the rather vibrant feel of Cliffs of Dover.

Now, I know this will rankle some feathers here but I think Rise of flight is even a good example of giving the player the sensation of flight, I mean, you can hear the wind rushing past you, you can feel the aircraft bouncing about and you get a real feel for it as a result, now, while I love DCS A-10C to death, I do think that adding a few little things here and there that will give the player the "feel" of the aircraft in a more real way would only be a good thing.

Imagination is great, it is the reason any of these sims have appeal but in this day and age we have the means to provide a lot of kinesthetic feedback that is both realistic and thrilling to the player (sounds, feel of the controls, feeling of aircraft weight, etc).

In ragards to A-10C's sound, I doubt having a SA-8 smacking you in the tail would result in a dull thud in the way we hear it in DCS A-10C, now, I don't expect them to go out and record a SAM hitting a aircraft but it would be pretty neat if you heard a more dynamic sound, to be honest, that is really my only complaint and it is a very minor one considering the amount of realism they were able to achieve.

Lets not throw around hyperbole like "arcade", "console" and "casual" as a convenient way to insult someone (or someone's) without actually knowing if they truly are casual or arcade players, I mean, even CloD has it's realism settings so lets not pretend that this is the only sim in town and we here are the only ones who understand what a good flight sim is.

Every time I see another sim mentioned here (like DCS FW-190), it is only a matter of time before one of the regulars here posts a reply that takes a rather obvious jab at it just for not being CloD, to me, that is pretty sad as we all probably enjoy other sims (including the DCS series) when we are not flying around in Spit's and 109's.

Well, at least I hope folks play other sims in addition to this one.

[SlipBall]

I think what he was trying to say is not that realism should be sacrificed for feel but that one must make sure that one gves any simulation a heart as well as a head, you can make a sim that both gives you the accurate systems operation and gives you a sensation of flight, the thrill of a combat mission and the illusion that you really are a combat pilot.
.


Even if that criteria is met someday, I don't think it will become a high sales success. People are locked into 46 and are not big spenders it appears.

[bongodriver]

Well, at least I hope folks play other sims in addition to this one.

Absolutely I do, I'm even guilty of playing the arcadey ones too and even ROF.

Sorry you took my post so personally...

[addman]

"Feel" in a flightsim is -for me personally- very important. I guess some hardcore sim developers think so too, take A2A for example and their Accu-Feel add-on (yeah, it even has the word "feel" in it). That small little add-on breaths life in to even the lowliest of FSX add-on aircraft. I love to fly my PMDG MD-11, it's a wonderfully simulated aircraft but accu-feel gives it a real soul. It makes a difference and I'm not the only one who thinks so, it's a top seller on many simware sites. The feedback of flying a real plane is sooooo far from the sterile environment of a PC cockpit and that's the biggest thing that is missing from flight simulators, you may model a plane 100% perfectly but that doesn't mean it feels right. This is beginning to sound more and more like an ad for A2A but I have to say, the closest I've ever come to feeling the same as flying a real plane is when I fly the A2A Cub with accu-sim. It might sound extra stupid coming from someone who has never actually flown a real plane but it's hard to describe, just awesome though. So yeah, model every knob, get every aerodynamic calculation right and every rivet perfectly placed, it still won't guarantee a plane that feels awesome to fly, feel is equally important for me anyway. This of course does not include, Tie-fighter physics, there are limits.:)

[startrekmike]

Absolutely I do, I'm even guilty of playing the arcadey ones too and even ROF.

Sorry you took my post so personally...

I did not take it personally, just pointing out what it was.

[bongodriver]

I did not take it personally, just pointing out what it was.

Oh, I'm sorry, just not sure how else to refer to casual/console/arcade style players in any other way, I had no idea the litteral was perceived as an insult.

[bongodriver]

"Feel" in a flightsim is -for me personally- very important. I guess some hardcore sim developers think so too, take A2A for example and their Accu-Feel add-on (yeah, it even has the word "feel" in it). That small little add-on breaths life in to even the lowliest of FSX add-on aircraft. I love to fly my PMDG MD-11, it's a wonderfully simulated aircraft but accu-feel gives it a real soul. It makes a difference and I'm not the only one who thinks so, it's a top seller on many simware sites. The feedback of flying a real plane is sooooo far from the sterile environment of a PC cockpit and that's the biggest thing that is missing from flight simulators, you may model a plane 100% perfectly but that doesn't mean it feels right. This is beginning to sound more and more like an ad for A2A but I have to say, the closest I've ever come to feeling the same as flying a real plane is when I fly the A2A Cub with accu-sim. It might sound extra stupid coming from someone who has never actually flown a real plane but it's hard to describe, just awesome though. So yeah, model every knob, get every aerodynamic calculation right and every rivet perfectly placed, it still won't guarantee a plane that feels awesome to fly, feel is equally important for me anyway. This of course does not include, Tie-fighter physics, there are limits.:)

How can something modelled to 100% accuracy feel anything other than right?......awesome is always going to be subjective and very personal.

This really beginning to become a desire for style over substance......which wings of prey achieves perfectly.

Note that the key to your ultimate satisfaction came from 3rd party software, something CoD may in all likelyhood have benefited from given the chance...........Thank god for Team Fusion.

[startrekmike]

Oh, I'm sorry, just not sure how else to refer to casual/console/arcade style players in any other way, I had no idea the litteral was perceived as an insult.

Because you are using the terms to describe anyone that seems to disagree with you, the terms you use (console player, arcade, etc) are used as insults, you know it, we all know it, this is a FLIGHT SIMULATION forum, there are some here who see those terms as insults, you know it and that is why you do it.

Personally, I don't see them as insults, I play enough flight sims to know what a simulation means vs a arcade experience

How can something modelled to 100% accuracy feel anything other than right?......awesome is always going to be subjective and very personal.

This really beginning to become a desire for style over substance......which wings of prey achieves perfectly.

Note that the key to your ultimate satisfaction came from 3rd party software, something CoD may in all likelyhood have benefited from given the chance...........Thank god for Team Fusion.


And here is another fine example of what I am talking about, you are saying that we all want "style over substance" just because we don't agree with your personal views, you make it even more predictable by taking the time in the end of this statement to praise CloD, we get it, you really like CloD, so do we, that is why we are all on this forum.

I don't know if you are just doing it to get a rise out of people or if you really don't see all the subtle (well, not that subtle) ways you take pot shots at anyone who disagree's with you but it is getting kinda predictable at best and just tiring at worst.

So, can we just get back to talking about DCS FW-190 and not continue the usual debates that have (frankly) solved nothing at all?

[bongodriver]

No, really, I'm using the term to desribe casual/arcade/console players

are you saying the best way for me to engage in conversation even if I take a contray view is to not say anything at all?

do you just wan't me to shut up because I don't appear to agree with you?

[startrekmike]

No, really, I'm using the term to desribe casual/arcade/console players

are you saying the best way for me to engage in conversation even if I take a contray view is to not say anything at all?

do you just wan't me to shut up because I don't appear to agree with you?

No I am saying that anyone who has a different opinion than you is treated like they are trying to dumb down flight sims or something.

I have said my peace, this debate has gone on too long and it is going in circles.

[bongodriver]

No I am saying that anyone who has a different opinion than you is treated like they are trying to dumb down flight sims or something.

I have said my peace, this debate has gone on too long and it is going in circles.

No, I'm saying casual/console/arcade style players often contribute in a way that would indicate they would like to dumb sims down as if a fear of the reality aspects might eat into precious Hollywood effects.

I did wonder when you'd realise your argument is unnecessary.

[JtD]

I have said my peace, this debate has gone on too long and it is going in circles.Absolutely. As a moderator I can only agree.