DCS must have civilian planes. Civilian planes in DCS would benefit newcomers and long time users. It would be really cool to see a "Virtual UPT" Module for DCS going from the C152/172 to the T37/T6 then onto the T38 and then graduation. Civilian birds are necessary for that, and it's always a few loudmouthed crabs who get in the way of advancement...I've been seeing the same "ones" ruining it for everyone over thirty years since I've been a flight sim fan. Enough of it and if you don't want to buy it then don't get in the way of those who do. I'd love to see DCS expand WAY beyond its current franchise and evolve into a full blown sim offering the entire world and hundreds of planes, both civilian and military. Wags and crew could leverage their asset into a real money maker for them and create a flight sim no other one could top at the same time. FSX, FS2 and XP are meh.
Totally agree! Before that there are things that needs in place. 1) for REDFOR a GCI command center and posts with datalinks to SAM sites, early warning radars etc and to Su-27S etc. All radar screens etc Just so we finally can get REDFOR have things that it should have. 2) SAM networks. No groups but cables and radio communications. Early warning sites at 200km distance commanding local SAM to engage target that just went past them. A SAM seats in Combined Arms, join the SAM Simulator to DCS... 3) Real radio operations. So if you get frequency and all right, you can communicate with the radio limits etc. 4) Air Traffic Controller posts and radar screens in airfields and even carrier. Have rosters and sorties etc. Available aircrafts etc. 5) Military hierarchy for servers. Generals, commanders, captains, Lieutenants etc. Each having own responsible like information gathering, mission designs, troops commanding and big drawing board to make the strategy visible for high ranking officers. And this separate from all sides (REDFOR, BLUFOR etc). And then use that to build sorties for virtual pilots to fly. Attack, bomb, strike, supports, rescue etc. And then main thing, cargo transports, troops transport, supplies etc. Heck, even a ship simulator for big ships could be possible in some level. There are those who would love to command a supply ship to carrier.... 6) civilian airliners. Fly small 30 seat jets and big ones. Meaning that there is coming a international flight and you get to jump in its cockpit when it comes to map area to do the landings etc. Take off with them until fly then past map borders and you get to another aircraft.
What DCS really needs most of all is a free BFT and free AFT aircraft. An IFR-equipped non-V Bonananza or best case a T-34 Mentor would be perfect, and I do wonder if Hoggit has any plans for a TA-4J. That would be perfect for advanced navigation, BFM, and initial Carrier Qualification. It might even have enough P/W to do a full qual on the Admiral K! A simple systems airliner would be nice to have for some situations where you need a human reaction. DCS could use more AI civilian aircraft in general, though
I have to admit, I like it a lot. But yeah they REALLY REALLY need to fix that start up sound. I've heard/seen these in real life. They definitely do not sound like that.
I think having acrobatic planes in DCS is freaking really cool and I have already added it to my hanger. As a beginner learning the F-18 it will be great to have this little plane to play around with while I take a break from trying to learn what seems like a bazillion systems :). But what would really give me a lil chub civilian plane wise would be something like the Red Bull Racers. I think that would be huge for DCS
My father flew a Pitts S2B for most of his adult life until he felt too old to be in front of the plane. He Flew some of the DCS games in VR one day while at my house and really wanted a civilian plane to fly as well. This is just fantastic. Anyone complaining about this is so far out of the loop on what "normal" people want its not even funny. Do NOT make DCS THAT community. You've seen that happen in every game known to man, lets be different. Have fun guys!
I love this module. I cannot understand all the people hating it for it being non-combat. Combat includes aerobatic maneuvers, and what is a better plane to learn those than an aerobatic plane! This plane is such a joy!
In all honesty, because I left X-Plane, AeroFly FS and such for a combat environment only, wich DCS was, now I don't anymore as DCS has moved far from what it was initially for me.
@@SnaxDesAvions But the combat part was not changed by adding the Christen Eagle. It is just additional content you can buy if you want to. DCS has not moved away, it has just slightly expanded.
DCS deserves a plane that’s not like a second job to operate. It’s good, at worst like having karting in a driving sim.
5 років тому
No problem there just make them military aircraft. Also they already have planes that are easy to operate and are making a new sim that is a "lock on" type sim with easy to fly MILITARY aircraft. DCS stay true to your name!
Me too. Though even more than that I want a REALLY good J-3 for DCS... if we paint it green and call it an L-4 people can't complain that it's not a military aircraft! =D
@@TripRodriguez Good Lord Trip, I’d love a Cub or a Stinson in DCS. Think of the applications for FAC and more in Normandy! Same with an OV-10 Bronco. Not everyone on DCS has an obsessive need for speed.
Question please. Does the CE2 run smooth as far as FPS like the Harrier and all the FC3 aircraft, or is there an immediate 30% hit to framerates like the still unfinished Yak, f-16, f18, F14 etc? I want to get this aircraft but it is not worth a penny to me if my framerates drop into the toilet like the Yak, f-14/16/18.
Thank you for this video about the Christian Eagle I've always loved that plane since I was in junior high school that's been like 40 years ago this is a great plane and I'm glad it's in DCS and I appreciate your positive comments I agree totally this is a great model easy to fly model and aerobatic it's awesome I can't wait to get it
Truthfully those that hate on this aircraft do seem a tad elitist. If the CE2 brings more users into this very niche market, it can only help further development by having a wider customer base to sell combat aircraft modules. Thank you for your candid review and thoughts on this ground breaking module for DCS. Much appreciated video well done Jabbers.
Absolutely agree. Personally I don't think I will buy this because it's not really my thing, but so what? If they think it's worth their while making it, go right ahead, it's not hurting anyone.
Thank you very much for sharing your first insights into the CE2 with us, Jabbers! I am a big fan of aerobatics and have spent probably most of my DCS online MP time on the aerobatics server for other reasons however. Let me briefly explain: a) Aerobatic servers are the only servers where you can familiarize yourself with the aircraft and learn its flight characteristics in an (almost) weapon-free, "safe" environment. Any Ace Combat 7 pilot who accidentally got lost, finds himself somehow in DCS world and starts randomly shooting players (with the few weapons which are not locked) gets kicked on the spot. b) it is the best MP online environment to learn the non combat related aspects and procedures of your aircraft. I have met so many DCS pilots who are good with the weapons systems and radar but don't fly their aircraft well at all (which became very obvious in dogfight situations), because they haven't realized the importance of knowing how to fly their aircraft in various circumstances. This is especially true for helicopter pilots c) Last but not least from the 800h+ I spent on the aerobatic servers last year, most aerobatics were centered around flying with your proud military vehicle in close formation of various sizes which was as difficult as it was awesome. The AA refueling session on the other hand were sweaty and tense. Saw some very excellent aerobatic performances and training sessions as well but those were the obvious minority. I will not buy the CE2 out of two reasons the first one being time. If I make the effort of spending time in aerobatics I want to be able to do it in a military vehicle. Finally there are so many beautiful military vehicles out there worth implementing in DCS by any 3rd party so that I see the need to vote with my wallet and make a clear statement as to which direction I personally would like DCS to move towards. So no cash for Leatherneck this time or is it Magnitude some? Next station: Razbam! "Oooohhh, hello there! You must be that new Mig-19 gal.... time we two do some aerobatic aerobics together, don't you say?...Who? Magnineck? Learhertude? Nah, never heared of them bebbe...and Fishbed and me that was long long time ago..."
ryu1940 I have both the yak and CE2 and I pretty much never fly the yak, the cockpit textures are in my opinion awful, shame. Other than that the yak is also a great module just the cockpit... CE2 is definetly better.
I'm not super interested in this module specifically, but I'm super interested in more variety in DCS, including civilian aircraft. I fly DCS mostly as a joy-flight thing, combat is cool and all but mostly I just want to pretend like I'm flying, or learning, a cool aircraft... And civilian aircraft are cool too. Heck I would instantly buy an official Cessna 172 for DCS. It's the benchmark plane for flight sims, I think it'd be cool! A lot of people see the above argument and ask why don't I just fly FSX/P3D/XPlane? Which is a question that always puzzles me.... Have those people *actually flown anything* in those other sims? It's not even close to the same experience. Even the most premium modules in any of those three sims, feels on rails and boring, and in terms of visuals and sound rarely even get close to the same ballpark as DCS (with some exceptions, in favor of either side). DCS is the immersion sim to beat, currently. And I don't see any of the other civilian sims getting close. Only a new player in the market would be able to do this, because it could leverage modern tech the same way DCS is doing, in terms of game/sim engine design and modern software design. But I don't see that happening any time soon. And yes, sure, DCS does lack a lot of things to make casual flying the best it could be - lack of ATC, lack of AI air traffic, and relatively speaking constrained maps, sure. We would all love those things to change, regardless of where you sit on the military / civilian / combat / nocombat fence. But hopefully over time those things will be expanded. And you know what? At the end of the day, if you're flying - you're flying. It doesn't matter if you took off from Gatwick or Sochi, the airplane is still going to fly the same. Personally, for probably 80% of my flight time, I don't really care where I am in the world - it's still a great flight experience, that no other sim can challenge, currently. And let's not even talk about performance... I own XP-11, and fuck me, a completely bone-stock flight sim that can't even maintain 60 FPS, yet the same machine can maintain 144FPS@2K in DCS with every slider cranked as high as it can go? P3D and FSX are even worse. But ey, bring on all the FSX/XPlane flight simmers that somehow find 20fps acceptable, yell at me all you want :)
Does it still work for you as well as 4 years ago? I'm just trying it and the radio and fuel indicator displays are broken - their content is shown not on the displays, but "in the air" so to say.
Thanks Jabbers! I'm super excited for the aerobatic aircraft coming to DCS and have purchased both. I was hugely disappointed to learn that XP11 and P3D come nowhere close to DCS when it comes to flying outside the normal flight envelope. My C172 with Realism Enhancement Pack for XP11 won't even slip properly. DCS is IMO the best sim for this kind of flying. I'd really like to see a J-3 Cub, or to dodge some of the rage on the forums maybe we ought to make it an L-4! That and a Stearman biplane were what my dad (who is 92 years old and loves flying my simulator!) learned to fly in. In his day, passing the test to get your pilots license required stuff you basically aren't allowed to do for the most part nowadays!
Thanks for the review :-) I don't understand why people are against any planes or modules for DCS. The more the merrier and it all adds something. With the great flight model in DCS this might finally be something to really learn aerobatics in! :-D
Jesus Jabbers Your killing me....🤣 I was dying laughing-- You were saying "where else can you take an aircraft, not approved for IFR conditions, into IFR conditions, and stick the landing?" You got to know that that is like the Number 1 reason for most General Aviation accidents. You are a blast
Nice review. I am one who did purchase the Christen Eagle. I have like three helo's, and 7 different planes in DCS. I AM NOT A FIGHTER PILOT or super serious flyer.. I got DCS just because I like to play around, and kinda get a flying learning sim. I am not one of the hard core DCS simmers who think it has to be nothing but combat and blow em up shoot em up flying. I would love to see more CIV. planes, NON COMBAT planes and helos etc. I enjoy getting into flying for the fun of it and not getting shot down by some real pilot here. I would love to see some planes like the Cessna, Apache, More civilian easy to fly planes for beginners which do not almost require a $600.00 plus dollar control system, memorizing 100 plus commands etc. to fly.. Many here would actually PAY and BUY more planes from DCS if it wasn't so hard to learn to fly some and if controls were easier to set up. DCS would ACTUALLY MAKE MORE MONEY from selling easier to fly and learn planes to.
nice video buddy. I was very against this module in the beginning. but over time I thought meh...its their first since the split, get it, and give it a go, i mean it was like $20...boy did it surprise me, really is tons of fun!!! Glad you could rip yourself away from the F14 long enough to make this though :p
Really nicely done, the aircraft and the review! I flew my flight review in a Great Lakes, and have flown the Stearman. I'd LOVE to see the Stearman and AT-6 Texan (flew this as well) in DCS, to be used as trainers for the WW2 aircraft. I'm puzzled by the nerd-rage that comes with a release like this from the 'purists'. Gang, DCS is called DCS WORLD. The more that is simulated, the more of a 'world' it is. I agree that this can only benefit the community. When I get home from deployment, I intend to get an O-Rift and check this out, if not the YAK-52. I'm re-visiting sims, both hardware and VR, for real world training value. I think that the platform, and the Eagle, might be pretty valuable...
Great to see variety being introduced. The more the better. Maybe this can be a start to other modules being introduced, maybe some sea and land modules next? Still dreaming of supporting a war from a naval surface ship. They do need to work on that edge of the envelope flight model, it’s critical for all aircraft.
Yeah, the sound is a bit crude. However, I've been loving this little beauty for a while now and the more I fly it, the more I love it. Aerobatic dances are beyond what other sims can do. Much of my flight hours are dedicated to FA-18C ops with my squadron mates but when I have a few free moments, I climb into the CEII and FLY!!! By the way, landing is as simple as flying as low and as slow as you can to the runway then kill power and ease in the pull to let it stall into a gentle fall out of the sky and get your three point touch. Bouncing is usually minimal that way. P-51's do it that way, too.
What and interesting release! And yes, the piston engine soundscape in DCS has always been of placeholder quality. Let's hope they're going to dish out a rework as they are gradually doing with turbojets.
I'm a war thunder sim player (gross, yeah I know) and I've always wanted to get into DCS but have been kind of intimidated by everything. This allows an "easy" way to get in and familiar with the game before getting completely overloaded by what all the modern military jet aircraft can throw at me. As far as I can tell DCS is rated as one of the best true flight sims, so why not take the tech that this game has in flight models, aerodynamics, avionics, etc and expand the game into a huge sim both military and civilian, historic and modern. I am highly interested in getting involved with this 'game' and this can open a door for so many new players like myself. Thanks for the great review Jabbers!
Thanks man, you should totally just jump right on into DCS, best way to do it, like a cold pool, just get in :) Also nothing wrong with War Thunder... its not for me, but its popular, obviously doing something right, and if you enjoy it, nothing wrong with that.
Admittedly this is not a plane that I am interested in for DCS World but I have no issues with them being developed for DCSW. Anything that is made well can only make my favorite flight sim better. Any new technologies brought/developed, though not specifically for combat/military planes, can always be leveraged for other projects. Lets face it: our hobby is very small and any positive exposure is always a good thing. Congrats to the developers for the successful launch.
I'm not sure if civil aviation can really take in DCS. I can see those pilots in multiplayer turning into target practice for dudes wanting to test the AIM-54 at extreme range.
The difference is probably in the engine modelling. Supposedly the DCS warbirds are using some form of thermodynamic sim of each piston stroke for the slow RPM starting of the engine, before switching to the running model. The CE seems to lack that step. The Yak-52 seems to be missing it aswell. It starts incredibly quickly now - rather than doing slow crank over then fire it used to on release.
I’ve read a lot of comments about the engine sound and also about how quickly the engine started up without the “normal spool up.” I believe the engine is a subset of the IO-360, which is a four-cylinder engine. Think about the sound of the four-cylinder engine in the vehicle that most of you drive vs 12- cylinder engine in the P-51 or Spit. Also, jabbers didn’t mention setting the mixture to idle cut-off before starting the engine, then quickly changing the mixture to full rich as soon as the engine is running, not starting, running. We also don’t know what mufflers are simulated vs what mufflers were being used in the referenced “real life” video. It makes a big difference.
Players where doing aerobatics back in Lock on and when the Black Shark or A-10C just came out. The 'modern' jet trainers, old Korean war jets and WW2 Warbirds all could not scream 'aerobatics' and 'airshow' more loudly! It feels like we got a whole bunch of carts way before the first horse appeared. Many have joked that if there was a DCS module for a multi-engined transport, it'd draw some not unsubstantial attention from the airliner sim community. The complexity... oh the wonderful clickable complexity...
DCS's 500x500 maps aren't really suited for munti-engined transports though. Especially modern ones with true transcontinental range I would certainly not complain about a C-141 Starlifter module for instance, hell I might even pick it up, but given the kinds of things it does I feel that it's something that perhaps might be more appropriate for X-Plane or Prepar3d.
did you get a sound byte from an actual engine start from within the cockpit, with canopy closed, and helmet on? Apples and Oranges, not saying you are wrong but your test was fundamentally skewed from the get go.
I don't know if anyone else mentioned this but it's difficult to compare Engine Startup Sounds when the Real Life startup video is recorded from the outside and to the front. Furthermore, the Cowling was all removed from the real aircraft. However, in your comparison you were sitting in the cockpit, behind the motor where you are surrounded by fuselage with canopy up/down and the engine does have a cowling. So it is going to (and should) sound different in both the Sim and RL when tested in two totally different conditions. Now I'm not saying the Exterior Sound is any more or less accurate or that it's better/worse when compared apples to apples. But I am saying that in order to fairly compare those engine sounds, the Camera's Ear must be in the Same Position in relation to the Engine for Both Test Samples/Conditions. Since the RL video is recorded outside to the front and side, you should have an exterior view (may have to use Auto-Start) F2 to get into the same position to listen. Sorry if I'm rambling. It's a little past 4:20 !
I am really looking forward to fly this plane! I hope it will come to steam soon. Any information on that? Actually know someone who owns one of these beauties.
I was told that you cannot turn on the radio before you start the engine, because the power usage would spike so much it could cause a short circuit. love the video tho!
I like the CE2 a lot. Had an amazing couple of hours flying it in multiplayer with two other CE2s just now. It's a blast! Leatherneck made a mistake with how they announced it as they built way too much hype, but other than that, the module is totally worth it for me.
Why the hate! It is one of those iconic airplanes! I think the more the merrier, my issue is not having time to learn all the airplanes I already bought. I would love them to add a su-26 or 31 and why not some civilian airplanes, DCS is a bit sterile with the lack of civilian traffic.
Why in the heck doe no one adress HOW MUCH FUEL CAN IT RUN? CAPACITY? RANGE? I have been looking for one hour and cant find it. The cold start in Nevada starts you off in a lone some military airfield and ITS BORING! I wanna cold start and fly in Vegas not in the middle of nowhere does not make sense to put this module far away from a city or buildings to fly around!. guess I'll just have to fly it to E to find out..
i just bought the christen eagle, it's very fun to fly and i think i will enjoy flying through combat zones while my squadron is doing groundstrike. but i don't like the idea of bridging civil aviation and aerobatics. the reason for this is because i feel that it will make dcs into a different game, where the combat community is very small and niche in a game that was originally meant for combat. for civil aviation, i have many options, for combat, i have really only one.
Well I don't hate it. And now that civilian aircraft are on the table In all Honesty I kinda want them to start looking at Air Tractor Aircraft now. I've always been fascinated with Crop Dusters and they have the market on lock!
6:29 A epiphany just hit me... The star on the left side is for angles between your plane axis and the horizon as that can be important for aerobatics. (See also: Aresti Catalog). See web.archive.org/web/20110711001332/www.fightercombat.com/wp-content/uploads/aresti_made_simple_20051.pdf for an interesting article)
Thanks for the video. They have chosen this bird. It's their choice. I respect it. It's an absolute NO for me. NO USE in DCS, Aerobatic is boring as fuck for me. But I'm sure that aerobatic fans will appreciate it. Good for them.
You can try the c172 of FGFS - flight gear flight sim, it's free and open source. That module is impressive, full check list adaption, I'm hoping there is a plane like that one. In our dcsw, there are many missing feature of regular checking. The sick of this community is that ppl know how to play the avionics of the hornet & warthog and fire something, but they don't care about the basic check list, aerobatic maneuver or something others basic. Maybe these guys thought launch some stick is pretty cool, but the explosion stick of this sim is really... really WIP.
I would love to know what the sales figures for this aircraft are going to be. From a business point of view, I don't get it. I mostly fly civilian (X-Plane). I can fly anywhere in the world. I don't see myself buying a civilian aircraft to fly limited maps. But that's me. I don't see any harm in developing it. If it sells well, then all power to them.
As someone who's done a little bit of aerobatic flying in a similar plane, a Pitts S2A, this is pretty neat to have in DCS World, controversial or not. If you want to get some info regarding aerobatics, check out www.snap-and-roll.com/documentation.html this website has a bunch of useful information, along with downloadable aerobatic sequence charts for all skill levels. Also check out openaero.net/# this will let you design your own aerobatic sequence from scratch, once you get the hang of how they go together as far as energy management goes.
I can see how the Christen Eagle would appeal to certain players - especially players from other simulator games, who are not interested in the combat, or people who are on the fence on trying DCS, due to its very much renowned complexity. With that said, it is most likely not my cup of tea, and I'm not that excited about it. It is however cheap enough that I'll most likely end up picking it up once we start seeing the thing go on sale anyways.
As the module is priced at 30 bucks it will be an easy pick up when it goes on sale, with 50% bringing the price down 15 bucks there really won't be any reason not to get it. (We need more quality cheap aircraft in DCS) Also the hate wasn't specifically at this plane but the way it was announced, then it just became a running joke to hate on it.
Well, personally I find no interest in this plane, but I'm not against it. For me it's absolutely fine and let it be in DCS. The more planes we have, the more people will come.
Peopoe are annoyed because as DCS stands for Digital Combat Simulator, it should only have military aircrafts. Like what if IL-2 Sturmovik had a Boeing 314 Clipper lol, something woukd feel wrong. That's how they feel.
Before the plane was revealed they hyped up the community to incredibly degrees, made people try to guess what plane they are making, most of them were expecting a full fidelity Mig 29, which is really one thing that DCS sorely lacks at the moment, a high fidelity, modern redfor fighter. And instead, they made an aerobatic biplane. If they just simply revealed it with no artificial hype, most people wouldn't have bat an eye at it, because ED did the same with the Yak, they didn't hype people up, and now, no one actually hates on the plane. Plus, to make matters worse, Leatherneck is clearly the least competent current DCS developer, and they proved it again, just look at Hoggit. People broke off parts of the plane in high G manuevers, and it flies exactly the same with limited control authority. The engine simulation is nonexistant, the mag check is non functional and as it was said in the review, the sounds are probably the worst out of every module. Now these things could improve with time, but given how bad the current state of the Mig 21 really is (coupled with the fact that it has glaring inaccuracies, it basically does nothing right, check the forums), people are justified in being sceptical about Leathernecks capabilities.
@@agostonbazmajer1100 Thanks for the detailed explanation :) I understand now. I never go on the forums unless I need to quick learn a system, I only have KA50 and AV8 any way. Personally I only ever play alone or with my friend, never been on a MP server. I might once I've mastered my Harrier. Yes, I don't understand why, when there are already functioning FC3 aircraft those don't get a fully upgraded makeover with all the systems, buttons, flight models etc. Would be an easy win for a dev.
@@agostonbazmajer1100 They will never be able to do a full fidelity MiG-29 or Su-27 etc. They have clearly stated this ages ago, and anyone getting their hopes up must be pretty ignorant of that fact. ED is a Russian company, they are literally not allowed under government regulation, to make a full fidelity module out of currently-serving Russian Air Force aircraft that have any even remotely significant technological secrecy surrounding it.
Wait, people are actually AGAINST this module coming out? Why? Just because it doesn't have any weapons on it? I'm not big into civilian aircraft myself but the more variety we have the better. If you don't like it you don't have to fly it. Saying it shouldn't be included at all is just asinine.
S'alright but to be honest if I wanted to fly something like this I'd just pick up rise of flight. Folk like it and enjoy it but I personally don't see the point of it and think there's better ways to get that same fix that this module provides
I don't think you should hate on this module for being in DCS. Aerobatics has a place and so does such a plane. I will however hate on it for its obvious lack in quality. This is mod-like quality, not something I expect from a payed addon. As you have picked up on already, the sound is awful - FSX awful, a game released 2006. The cool thing about DCS was always the polish of the planes and the detail. This one is a disgrace to the others. Hell even the default T-51 does a better job than this. - Nothing of this feels analogue, the gauges just represent the underlying values of the engine 1:1. In a stall situation your air speed indicator actually still shows the actual speed of the plane. No lag, no shake, no nothing. Very uninspired. - Sounds are unrealistic, you can really tell they are just loops running without any effect of aerodynamics on them. In this condition, people should not put money into this, it would just signal to the devs that you can get away with sub-par quality and make money from it. It's 2019, and I expect modules to have risen above the quality standards from over a decade ago.
I think the first Trailer ruined the overall opinion for this Aircraft. To be fair they put a realy bad Video out for this cute little Bird. If you compare this with the new Standard set by ED and Co the overall Reaction is not a Suprise
Thats not how you start in real life and the sounds and the flight model are kinda bad ive never been near a CE2 in real life but i have flown in a few aircraft that share the same engine and this is not how they start , sound , handle i hope they improve this model soon i know its just been released and i shouldn't expect a perfect model but i was expecting something much better
Digital Combat Simulator - enough said. Pointless and it doesn't belong in the line-up regardless of how many people want to try and defend its inclusion with training/acrobatics yaddah.
Yet there is a HUGE community of aerobatics players who never engage in combat in DCS world. Sometimes good things extend beyond their intended purpose, its not a bad thing.
@0:50 "Now I'd like to start with a disclaimer that I am in fact not a pilot at all. BUT I do have pilot friends so that pretty much makes ME AN EXPERT ON PILOT AND PILOT RELATED THINGS." Well, thanks for almost making me spit my tea out. That was a good joke. :D Also, was there a reason to not mention the early access bugs and flaws, aside from the obviously obvliviously poor sounds (compared with your canope closed...), in your review? Like the tail wheel lock on excessive rudder input, the lack of landing gear spirngyness / dampening, the indestructible prop and generally poor damage model, weak canope texture / shading etc.? That said I agree with the verdict. A fun little plane nobody is forced to buy but many should and will. But the quality of the review is very underwhelming.
you can see why they split up over this. the guys making the mig 21, f14, viggen were like WTF man. no one will wana play this crap. lets focus on completing all the stuff in these jets, lets PWN DCS and make it our bitch, and roll in the cash and bask in the glory of all the awesome jets we've done. (screeching record) Nah Im gana make the christen eagle. 90% of leatherneck. " I want a divorce"
sfctw1 why not? DCS is an amazing flight simulator, sure it can’t drop bombs or shoot things, although that said I can’t remember the last time I used any weapons systems in DCS. I’m just having so much fun doing circuits and bumps on the carrier in the F18 at the moment. The more DCS branches out the more chance it’s got of continuing. We sometimes forget that this is a niche sim, we need to be looking at new ways to attract people into this hobby and THIS platform in particular. Don’t get me wrong at its heart is a combat simulator and that should never change, but by providing aircraft like this that show off other aspects of flight simulation, we get bigger publicity for our combat simulator and attract more people. More users = More money = More modules = longevity
@@cowboy10uk By 'not working' I was talking about Multiplayer :D Perhaps in the distant future aka soon™ we'll get transport Aircraft to carry VIPs or Troops much like the Mi8 There isnt anything inherently bad about this module.
I don't hate this plane, I tolerate because there is nothing else I can do, it is not my company. I'm not elitist, I fly what I want to fly. DCS needs to change it's name. As far as sound, I've heard lawnmowers sounding better, although I've heard this is a temporary filler,(Which makes no sense to me)if they release it without at least having a decent sound attached to a propeller plane. But hey, I'm not flying it so what the heck?
DCS must have civilian planes. Civilian planes in DCS would benefit newcomers and long time users. It would be really cool to see a "Virtual UPT" Module for DCS going from the C152/172 to the T37/T6 then onto the T38 and then graduation. Civilian birds are necessary for that, and it's always a few loudmouthed crabs who get in the way of advancement...I've been seeing the same "ones" ruining it for everyone over thirty years since I've been a flight sim fan. Enough of it and if you don't want to buy it then don't get in the way of those who do.
I'd love to see DCS expand WAY beyond its current franchise and evolve into a full blown sim offering the entire world and hundreds of planes, both civilian and military. Wags and crew could leverage their asset into a real money maker for them and create a flight sim no other one could top at the same time. FSX, FS2 and XP are meh.
This
Yeah shooting down 737s in MP would be fun lol
Totally agree!
Before that there are things that needs in place.
1) for REDFOR a GCI command center and posts with datalinks to SAM sites, early warning radars etc and to Su-27S etc. All radar screens etc Just so we finally can get REDFOR have things that it should have.
2) SAM networks. No groups but cables and radio communications. Early warning sites at 200km distance commanding local SAM to engage target that just went past them. A SAM seats in Combined Arms, join the SAM Simulator to DCS...
3) Real radio operations. So if you get frequency and all right, you can communicate with the radio limits etc.
4) Air Traffic Controller posts and radar screens in airfields and even carrier. Have rosters and sorties etc. Available aircrafts etc.
5) Military hierarchy for servers. Generals, commanders, captains, Lieutenants etc. Each having own responsible like information gathering, mission designs, troops commanding and big drawing board to make the strategy visible for high ranking officers. And this separate from all sides (REDFOR, BLUFOR etc). And then use that to build sorties for virtual pilots to fly. Attack, bomb, strike, supports, rescue etc.
And then main thing, cargo transports, troops transport, supplies etc. Heck, even a ship simulator for big ships could be possible in some level. There are those who would love to command a supply ship to carrier....
6) civilian airliners. Fly small 30 seat jets and big ones. Meaning that there is coming a international flight and you get to jump in its cockpit when it comes to map area to do the landings etc. Take off with them until fly then past map borders and you get to another aircraft.
I agree but if they do this I hope that they dont add commercial airliners
What DCS really needs most of all is a free BFT and free AFT aircraft. An IFR-equipped non-V Bonananza or best case a T-34 Mentor would be perfect, and I do wonder if Hoggit has any plans for a TA-4J. That would be perfect for advanced navigation, BFM, and initial Carrier Qualification. It might even have enough P/W to do a full qual on the Admiral K!
A simple systems airliner would be nice to have for some situations where you need a human reaction. DCS could use more AI civilian aircraft in general, though
I have to admit, I like it a lot. But yeah they REALLY REALLY need to fix that start up sound. I've heard/seen these in real life. They definitely do not sound like that.
I think having acrobatic planes in DCS is freaking really cool and I have already added it to my hanger. As a beginner learning the F-18 it will be great to have this little plane to play around with while I take a break from trying to learn what seems like a bazillion systems :). But what would really give me a lil chub civilian plane wise would be something like the Red Bull Racers. I think that would be huge for DCS
My father flew a Pitts S2B for most of his adult life until he felt too old to be in front of the plane. He Flew some of the DCS games in VR one day while at my house and really wanted a civilian plane to fly as well. This is just fantastic. Anyone complaining about this is so far out of the loop on what "normal" people want its not even funny. Do NOT make DCS THAT community. You've seen that happen in every game known to man, lets be different. Have fun guys!
I love this module. I cannot understand all the people hating it for it being non-combat. Combat includes aerobatic maneuvers, and what is a better plane to learn those than an aerobatic plane!
This plane is such a joy!
I love flying Aerobatics. ❤️🛩️
In all honesty, because I left X-Plane, AeroFly FS and such for a combat environment only, wich DCS was, now I don't anymore as DCS has moved far from what it was initially for me.
@@SnaxDesAvions Fly a combat server then. That's what 99% of them are.
@@SnaxDesAvions But the combat part was not changed by adding the Christen Eagle. It is just additional content you can buy if you want to. DCS has not moved away, it has just slightly expanded.
I just think it's boring even for a GA plane.
DCS deserves a plane that’s not like a second job to operate. It’s good, at worst like having karting in a driving sim.
No problem there just make them military aircraft. Also they already have planes that are easy to operate and are making a new sim that is a "lock on" type sim with easy to fly MILITARY aircraft.
DCS stay true to your name!
I didn’t realize that “stick the landing” actually means “to become one with the ground”!
Awesome release. The hate is beyond silly...
i suspect it might be a feeling of 'hang on what about the all the unfinished COMBAT modules' coming through
They can make a Cessna 172 for DCS, i'd buy it
The Irish Aer Corps put rocket lauinchers on theirs. For some reason.
@@DartzIRL How about Bazooka Charlie's Piper Cub?
Me too. Though even more than that I want a REALLY good J-3 for DCS... if we paint it green and call it an L-4 people can't complain that it's not a military aircraft! =D
Armed c208 with hellfires even better.
@@TripRodriguez Good Lord Trip, I’d love a Cub or a Stinson in DCS. Think of the applications for FAC and more in Normandy! Same with an OV-10 Bronco. Not everyone on DCS has an obsessive need for speed.
Question please. Does the CE2 run smooth as far as FPS like the Harrier and all the FC3 aircraft, or is there an immediate 30% hit to framerates like the still unfinished Yak, f-16, f18, F14 etc?
I want to get this aircraft but it is not worth a penny to me if my framerates drop into the toilet like the Yak, f-14/16/18.
Haters are going to hate. It is good to see different aircraft making their way into DCS.
I cloud buy it for some fun aerobatics... After the F14, I will probably go for this. Just to enjoy flying.
Thank you for this video about the Christian Eagle I've always loved that plane since I was in junior high school that's been like 40 years ago this is a great plane and I'm glad it's in DCS and I appreciate your positive comments I agree totally this is a great model easy to fly model and aerobatic it's awesome I can't wait to get it
Truthfully those that hate on this aircraft do seem a tad elitist. If the CE2 brings more users into this very niche market, it can only help further development by having a wider customer base to sell combat aircraft modules. Thank you for your candid review and thoughts on this ground breaking module for DCS. Much appreciated video well done Jabbers.
Absolutely agree. Personally I don't think I will buy this because it's not really my thing, but so what? If they think it's worth their while making it, go right ahead, it's not hurting anyone.
Thank you very much for sharing your first insights into the CE2 with us, Jabbers!
I am a big fan of aerobatics and have spent probably most of my DCS online MP time on the aerobatics server for other reasons however. Let me briefly explain: a) Aerobatic servers are the only servers where you can familiarize yourself with the aircraft and learn its flight characteristics in an (almost) weapon-free, "safe" environment. Any Ace Combat 7 pilot who accidentally got lost, finds himself somehow in DCS world and starts randomly shooting players (with the few weapons which are not locked) gets kicked on the spot. b) it is the best MP online environment to learn the non combat related aspects and procedures of your aircraft. I have met so many DCS pilots who are good with the weapons systems and radar but don't fly their aircraft well at all (which became very obvious in dogfight situations), because they haven't realized the importance of knowing how to fly their aircraft in various circumstances. This is especially true for helicopter pilots c) Last but not least from the 800h+ I spent on the aerobatic servers last year, most aerobatics were centered around flying with your proud military vehicle in close formation of various sizes which was as difficult as it was awesome. The AA refueling session on the other hand were sweaty and tense.
Saw some very excellent aerobatic performances and training sessions as well but those
were the obvious minority.
I will not buy the CE2 out of two reasons the first one being time. If I make the effort of spending time in aerobatics I want to be able to do it in a military vehicle. Finally there are so many beautiful military vehicles out there worth implementing in DCS by any 3rd party so that I see the need to vote with my wallet and make a clear statement as to which direction I personally would like DCS to move towards. So no cash for Leatherneck this time or is it Magnitude some? Next station: Razbam! "Oooohhh, hello there! You must be that new Mig-19 gal.... time we two do some aerobatic aerobics together, don't you say?...Who? Magnineck? Learhertude? Nah, never heared of them bebbe...and Fishbed and me that was long long time ago..."
That skits easier to start then my car XD
I like it, nice to have such a nice aerobatic masterpiece.
Excellent review! I might pick this up. Seems more interesting than the Yak-52.
ryu1940 I have both the yak and CE2 and I pretty much never fly the yak, the cockpit textures are in my opinion awful, shame. Other than that the yak is also a great module just the cockpit... CE2 is definetly better.
I'm not super interested in this module specifically, but I'm super interested in more variety in DCS, including civilian aircraft. I fly DCS mostly as a joy-flight thing, combat is cool and all but mostly I just want to pretend like I'm flying, or learning, a cool aircraft... And civilian aircraft are cool too. Heck I would instantly buy an official Cessna 172 for DCS. It's the benchmark plane for flight sims, I think it'd be cool!
A lot of people see the above argument and ask why don't I just fly FSX/P3D/XPlane? Which is a question that always puzzles me.... Have those people *actually flown anything* in those other sims? It's not even close to the same experience. Even the most premium modules in any of those three sims, feels on rails and boring, and in terms of visuals and sound rarely even get close to the same ballpark as DCS (with some exceptions, in favor of either side). DCS is the immersion sim to beat, currently. And I don't see any of the other civilian sims getting close. Only a new player in the market would be able to do this, because it could leverage modern tech the same way DCS is doing, in terms of game/sim engine design and modern software design. But I don't see that happening any time soon.
And yes, sure, DCS does lack a lot of things to make casual flying the best it could be - lack of ATC, lack of AI air traffic, and relatively speaking constrained maps, sure. We would all love those things to change, regardless of where you sit on the military / civilian / combat / nocombat fence. But hopefully over time those things will be expanded.
And you know what? At the end of the day, if you're flying - you're flying. It doesn't matter if you took off from Gatwick or Sochi, the airplane is still going to fly the same. Personally, for probably 80% of my flight time, I don't really care where I am in the world - it's still a great flight experience, that no other sim can challenge, currently.
And let's not even talk about performance... I own XP-11, and fuck me, a completely bone-stock flight sim that can't even maintain 60 FPS, yet the same machine can maintain 144FPS@2K in DCS with every slider cranked as high as it can go? P3D and FSX are even worse. But ey, bring on all the FSX/XPlane flight simmers that somehow find 20fps acceptable, yell at me all you want :)
I'm in exactly the same boat!
Does it still work for you as well as 4 years ago? I'm just trying it and the radio and fuel indicator displays are broken - their content is shown not on the displays, but "in the air" so to say.
Thanks Jabbers! I'm super excited for the aerobatic aircraft coming to DCS and have purchased both. I was hugely disappointed to learn that XP11 and P3D come nowhere close to DCS when it comes to flying outside the normal flight envelope. My C172 with Realism Enhancement Pack for XP11 won't even slip properly. DCS is IMO the best sim for this kind of flying. I'd really like to see a J-3 Cub, or to dodge some of the rage on the forums maybe we ought to make it an L-4! That and a Stearman biplane were what my dad (who is 92 years old and loves flying my simulator!) learned to fly in. In his day, passing the test to get your pilots license required stuff you basically aren't allowed to do for the most part nowadays!
Thanks for the review :-) I don't understand why people are against any planes or modules for DCS. The more the merrier and it all adds something. With the great flight model in DCS this might finally be something to really learn aerobatics in! :-D
Cool plane. I will get it, fly it and have fun in it. Which is rather the point of the whole exercise.
This am SERIOUS sim you am not allowed FUN.
I think you have the right attitude :) enjoy
Jesus Jabbers
Your killing me....🤣
I was dying laughing--
You were saying "where else can you take an aircraft, not approved for IFR conditions, into IFR conditions, and stick the landing?" You got to know that that is like the Number 1 reason for most
General Aviation accidents.
You are a blast
Nice review.
I am one who did purchase the Christen Eagle. I have like three helo's, and 7 different planes in DCS. I AM NOT A FIGHTER PILOT or super serious flyer.. I got DCS just because I like to play around, and kinda get a flying learning sim. I am not one of the hard core DCS simmers who think it has to be nothing but combat and blow em up shoot em up flying. I would love to see more CIV. planes, NON COMBAT planes and helos etc. I enjoy getting into flying for the fun of it and not getting shot down by some real pilot here.
I would love to see some planes like the Cessna, Apache, More civilian easy to fly planes for beginners which do not almost require a $600.00 plus dollar control system, memorizing 100 plus commands etc. to fly.. Many here would actually PAY and BUY more planes from DCS if it wasn't so hard to learn to fly some and if controls were easier to set up. DCS would ACTUALLY MAKE MORE MONEY from selling easier to fly and learn planes to.
Can't wait for the steam release. The plane looks like fun and I can't wait to fly that sick little beast in VR.
Oh boy 3 am!
That thumbnail is amazing
Nice landing! I was expecting the "YOU'RE DEAD" text. ;)
nice video buddy. I was very against this module in the beginning. but over time I thought meh...its their first since the split, get it, and give it a go, i mean it was like $20...boy did it surprise me, really is tons of fun!!!
Glad you could rip yourself away from the F14 long enough to make this though :p
A great man acknowledges and admits his mistakes!
Really nicely done, the aircraft and the review! I flew my flight review in a Great Lakes, and have flown the Stearman. I'd LOVE to see the Stearman and AT-6 Texan (flew this as well) in DCS, to be used as trainers for the WW2 aircraft. I'm puzzled by the nerd-rage that comes with a release like this from the 'purists'. Gang, DCS is called DCS WORLD. The more that is simulated, the more of a 'world' it is. I agree that this can only benefit the community. When I get home from deployment, I intend to get an O-Rift and check this out, if not the YAK-52. I'm re-visiting sims, both hardware and VR, for real world training value. I think that the platform, and the Eagle, might be pretty valuable...
Can't say your video hasn't made my heart a bit softer towards the plane. Cheers.
Great to see variety being introduced. The more the better. Maybe this can be a start to other modules being introduced, maybe some sea and land modules next? Still dreaming of supporting a war from a naval surface ship.
They do need to work on that edge of the envelope flight model, it’s critical for all aircraft.
I want a C130 ! Tranportation troops and cargo planes !
Looks like a fun little plane, and I can confirm it can fly with half the wings gone! xD Nice landing!
Yeah, the sound is a bit crude. However, I've been loving this little beauty for a while now and the more I fly it, the more I love it. Aerobatic dances are beyond what other sims can do. Much of my flight hours are dedicated to FA-18C ops with my squadron mates but when I have a few free moments, I climb into the CEII and FLY!!! By the way, landing is as simple as flying as low and as slow as you can to the runway then kill power and ease in the pull to let it stall into a gentle fall out of the sky and get your three point touch. Bouncing is usually minimal that way. P-51's do it that way, too.
Any weapons?
What and interesting release! And yes, the piston engine soundscape in DCS has always been of placeholder quality. Let's hope they're going to dish out a rework as they are gradually doing with turbojets.
Not an aircraft that I wanted in DCS, but it looks fun and I will probably get it at some point.
Nice review of the module, cleaver ending.
I'm a war thunder sim player (gross, yeah I know) and I've always wanted to get into DCS but have been kind of intimidated by everything. This allows an "easy" way to get in and familiar with the game before getting completely overloaded by what all the modern military jet aircraft can throw at me. As far as I can tell DCS is rated as one of the best true flight sims, so why not take the tech that this game has in flight models, aerodynamics, avionics, etc and expand the game into a huge sim both military and civilian, historic and modern. I am highly interested in getting involved with this 'game' and this can open a door for so many new players like myself. Thanks for the great review Jabbers!
Thanks man, you should totally just jump right on into DCS, best way to do it, like a cold pool, just get in :) Also nothing wrong with War Thunder... its not for me, but its popular, obviously doing something right, and if you enjoy it, nothing wrong with that.
That red Barron skin makes me want a Fokker dreidecker module
Admittedly this is not a plane that I am interested in for DCS World but I have no issues with them being developed for DCSW. Anything that is made well can only make my favorite flight sim better. Any new technologies brought/developed, though not specifically for combat/military planes, can always be leveraged for other projects. Lets face it: our hobby is very small and any positive exposure is always a good thing. Congrats to the developers for the successful launch.
Great video! Maybe I'm in the minority here but I love the CE2! It was a pre-order for me and I'm loving every second of it.
I'm not sure if civil aviation can really take in DCS. I can see those pilots in multiplayer turning into target practice for dudes wanting to test the AIM-54 at extreme range.
Naughtius Maximus What about civil-only multiplayer servers?
The difference is probably in the engine modelling. Supposedly the DCS warbirds are using some form of thermodynamic sim of each piston stroke for the slow RPM starting of the engine, before switching to the running model. The CE seems to lack that step.
The Yak-52 seems to be missing it aswell. It starts incredibly quickly now - rather than doing slow crank over then fire it used to on release.
I’ve read a lot of comments about the engine sound and also about how quickly the engine started up without the “normal spool up.” I believe the engine is a subset of the IO-360, which is a four-cylinder engine. Think about the sound of the four-cylinder engine in the vehicle that most of you drive vs 12- cylinder engine in the P-51 or Spit. Also, jabbers didn’t mention setting the mixture to idle cut-off before starting the engine, then quickly changing the mixture to full rich as soon as the engine is running, not starting, running. We also don’t know what mufflers are simulated vs what mufflers were being used in the referenced “real life” video. It makes a big difference.
How do you change liveries in the game? Is there some kind of keyboard shortcut?
via the loadout dialog for rearming
@@SnaxDesAvions I know this way; but here video is smooth without breaks and I can't see rearming menu
I moved it off screen and with the livery selection drop down selected last you can just press up and down
@@Jabbers I see) Thanks!
Players where doing aerobatics back in Lock on and when the Black Shark or A-10C just came out.
The 'modern' jet trainers, old Korean war jets and WW2 Warbirds all could not scream 'aerobatics' and 'airshow' more loudly! It feels like we got a whole bunch of carts way before the first horse appeared.
Many have joked that if there was a DCS module for a multi-engined transport, it'd draw some not unsubstantial attention from the airliner sim community. The complexity... oh the wonderful clickable complexity...
DCS's 500x500 maps aren't really suited for munti-engined transports though. Especially modern ones with true transcontinental range
I would certainly not complain about a C-141 Starlifter module for instance, hell I might even pick it up, but given the kinds of things it does I feel that it's something that perhaps might be more appropriate for X-Plane or Prepar3d.
Now that they have biplanes down so well like they do, we should get a WW1 module. You could notch an F-15 while flying straight at him!
did you get a sound byte from an actual engine start from within the cockpit, with canopy closed, and helmet on? Apples and Oranges, not saying you are wrong but your test was fundamentally skewed from the get go.
Yup
Great video, If I had money I would buy.
I don't know if anyone else mentioned this but it's difficult to compare Engine Startup Sounds when the Real Life startup video is recorded from the outside and to the front. Furthermore, the Cowling was all removed from the real aircraft. However, in your comparison you were sitting in the cockpit, behind the motor where you are surrounded by fuselage with canopy up/down and the engine does have a cowling.
So it is going to (and should) sound different in both the Sim and RL when tested in two totally different conditions.
Now I'm not saying the Exterior Sound is any more or less accurate or that it's better/worse when compared apples to apples. But I am saying that in order to fairly compare those engine sounds, the Camera's Ear must be in the Same Position in relation to the Engine for Both Test Samples/Conditions. Since the RL video is recorded outside to the front and side, you should have an exterior view (may have to use Auto-Start) F2 to get into the same position to listen.
Sorry if I'm rambling. It's a little past 4:20 !
Gosh your right sound is a total misery ,
Good review cheers
Might pick it up aid it receives updates etc
I am really looking forward to fly this plane! I hope it will come to steam soon. Any information on that?
Actually know someone who owns one of these beauties.
I was told that you cannot turn on the radio before you start the engine, because the power usage would spike so much it could cause a short circuit. love the video tho!
Niels Mallant ye, My instructors ( I fly 172's at the moment) specifically told me not to turn on my avionics before I start the engine.
Thanks for the vid! Ever thought of covering the C-101 Aviojet at all? Still a WIP but a fun little plane.
I like the CE2 a lot. Had an amazing couple of hours flying it in multiplayer with two other CE2s just now. It's a blast!
Leatherneck made a mistake with how they announced it as they built way too much hype, but other than that, the module is totally worth it for me.
Jabbers, you stall the aircraft nose up slightly with the engine at idle, not at full revs. Happens quicker and perhaps more realistically...
11:55 Is that a P-51 to the left?
Yup
Is this for MS FS?
Dcs world
Why the hate! It is one of those iconic airplanes! I think the more the merrier, my issue is not having time to learn all the airplanes I already bought. I would love them to add a su-26 or 31 and why not some civilian airplanes, DCS is a bit sterile with the lack of civilian traffic.
In ed forums leatherneck said sound is still a placeholder
I was told that by them regarding the external sound only.
@@Jabbers oh ok
Why in the heck doe no one adress HOW MUCH FUEL CAN IT RUN? CAPACITY? RANGE? I have been looking for one hour and cant find it. The cold start in Nevada starts you off in a lone some military airfield and ITS BORING! I wanna cold start and fly in Vegas not in the middle of nowhere does not make sense to put this module far away from a city or buildings to fly around!. guess I'll just have to fly it to E to find out..
Make a mission and stick it at any airport near the city
Not gonna lie... i wouldnt at all mind seeing a c172 or a piper pa-28 in dcs. I also would like to see a c-130, c-17 or maybe an an-26 as well
i just bought the christen eagle, it's very fun to fly and i think i will enjoy flying through combat zones while my squadron is doing groundstrike. but i don't like the idea of bridging civil aviation and aerobatics. the reason for this is because i feel that it will make dcs into a different game, where the combat community is very small and niche in a game that was originally meant for combat. for civil aviation, i have many options, for combat, i have really only one.
oh hell yeah
You're IFR landing would've been helped tremendously by landing into the wind ;)
my only problem with DCS is that it seems like there is never any wind or turbulence, The air always seems so smooth.
Cause no one turns it on in missions, but you can, 100% up to the mission maker
How come your DCS looks so damn good??? I have mine maxed and I don’t get colors, and beauty like that..
Turn down your Gamma to 1.8
Thanks mine was on 2.3
Well I don't hate it. And now that civilian aircraft are on the table In all Honesty I kinda want them to start looking at Air Tractor Aircraft now. I've always been fascinated with Crop Dusters and they have the market on lock!
I see it's not only in Alaska that IFR means, "I fly river"...
6:29 A epiphany just hit me... The star on the left side is for angles between your plane axis and the horizon as that can be important for aerobatics. (See also: Aresti Catalog).
See web.archive.org/web/20110711001332/www.fightercombat.com/wp-content/uploads/aresti_made_simple_20051.pdf for an interesting article)
Thanks for the video. They have chosen this bird. It's their choice. I respect it.
It's an absolute NO for me. NO USE in DCS, Aerobatic is boring as fuck for me. But I'm sure that aerobatic fans will appreciate it. Good for them.
You can try the c172 of FGFS - flight gear flight sim, it's free and open source. That module is impressive, full check list adaption, I'm hoping there is a plane like that one. In our dcsw, there are many missing feature of regular checking. The sick of this community is that ppl know how to play the avionics of the hornet & warthog and fire something, but they don't care about the basic check list, aerobatic maneuver or something others basic. Maybe these guys thought launch some stick is pretty cool, but the explosion stick of this sim is really... really WIP.
CORSAIR HYPEEE
I want the DHC-4 for DCS sooooo
I would love to know what the sales figures for this aircraft are going to be. From a business point of view, I don't get it. I mostly fly civilian (X-Plane). I can fly anywhere in the world. I don't see myself buying a civilian aircraft to fly limited maps. But that's me. I don't see any harm in developing it. If it sells well, then all power to them.
As someone who's done a little bit of aerobatic flying in a similar plane, a Pitts S2A, this is pretty neat to have in DCS World, controversial or not. If you want to get some info regarding aerobatics, check out www.snap-and-roll.com/documentation.html this website has a bunch of useful information, along with downloadable aerobatic sequence charts for all skill levels. Also check out openaero.net/# this will let you design your own aerobatic sequence from scratch, once you get the hang of how they go together as far as energy management goes.
I can see how the Christen Eagle would appeal to certain players - especially players from other simulator games, who are not interested in the combat, or people who are on the fence on trying DCS, due to its very much renowned complexity. With that said, it is most likely not my cup of tea, and I'm not that excited about it. It is however cheap enough that I'll most likely end up picking it up once we start seeing the thing go on sale anyways.
canopy open and cowling open vs closed
About 25% of civil flight simulators users use DCS as a secondary simulator
As the module is priced at 30 bucks it will be an easy pick up when it goes on sale, with 50% bringing the price down 15 bucks there really won't be any reason not to get it. (We need more quality cheap aircraft in DCS)
Also the hate wasn't specifically at this plane but the way it was announced, then it just became a running joke to hate on it.
The salt I am talking about is the huge numbers of people who are against non combat planes in a combat sim.
Well, personally I find no interest in this plane, but I'm not against it. For me it's absolutely fine and let it be in DCS. The more planes we have, the more people will come.
I don't get the butthurt... can anyone explain it? For me, if you don't like it you don't have to play it.
Peopoe are annoyed because as DCS stands for Digital Combat Simulator, it should only have military aircrafts.
Like what if IL-2 Sturmovik had a Boeing 314 Clipper lol, something woukd feel wrong.
That's how they feel.
Before the plane was revealed they hyped up the community to incredibly degrees, made people try to guess what plane they are making, most of them were expecting a full fidelity Mig 29, which is really one thing that DCS sorely lacks at the moment, a high fidelity, modern redfor fighter. And instead, they made an aerobatic biplane. If they just simply revealed it with no artificial hype, most people wouldn't have bat an eye at it, because ED did the same with the Yak, they didn't hype people up, and now, no one actually hates on the plane. Plus, to make matters worse, Leatherneck is clearly the least competent current DCS developer, and they proved it again, just look at Hoggit.
People broke off parts of the plane in high G manuevers, and it flies exactly the same with limited control authority. The engine simulation is nonexistant, the mag check is non functional and as it was said in the review, the sounds are probably the worst out of every module. Now these things could improve with time, but given how bad the current state of the Mig 21 really is (coupled with the fact that it has glaring inaccuracies, it basically does nothing right, check the forums), people are justified in being sceptical about Leathernecks capabilities.
@@agostonbazmajer1100 Thanks for the detailed explanation :) I understand now. I never go on the forums unless I need to quick learn a system, I only have KA50 and AV8 any way.
Personally I only ever play alone or with my friend, never been on a MP server. I might once I've mastered my Harrier.
Yes, I don't understand why, when there are already functioning FC3 aircraft those don't get a fully upgraded makeover with all the systems, buttons, flight models etc. Would be an easy win for a dev.
@@agostonbazmajer1100 They will never be able to do a full fidelity MiG-29 or Su-27 etc. They have clearly stated this ages ago, and anyone getting their hopes up must be pretty ignorant of that fact. ED is a Russian company, they are literally not allowed under government regulation, to make a full fidelity module out of currently-serving Russian Air Force aircraft that have any even remotely significant technological secrecy surrounding it.
@@@Mythricia1988 A lot of people speculated that this is the case, but ED never clearly stated it.
26 liveries? Must have a large install size.
Not bad but the engine start sound is way off!
*Need to purchase intensifies
Wait, people are actually AGAINST this module coming out? Why? Just because it doesn't have any weapons on it?
I'm not big into civilian aircraft myself but the more variety we have the better. If you don't like it you don't have to fly it.
Saying it shouldn't be included at all is just asinine.
S'alright but to be honest if I wanted to fly something like this I'd just pick up rise of flight.
Folk like it and enjoy it but I personally don't see the point of it and think there's better ways to get that same fix that this module provides
I don't think you should hate on this module for being in DCS. Aerobatics has a place and so does such a plane.
I will however hate on it for its obvious lack in quality. This is mod-like quality, not something I expect from a payed addon.
As you have picked up on already, the sound is awful - FSX awful, a game released 2006.
The cool thing about DCS was always the polish of the planes and the detail. This one is a disgrace to the others. Hell even the default T-51 does a better job than this.
- Nothing of this feels analogue, the gauges just represent the underlying values of the engine 1:1. In a stall situation your air speed indicator actually still shows the actual speed of the plane. No lag, no shake, no nothing. Very uninspired.
- Sounds are unrealistic, you can really tell they are just loops running without any effect of aerodynamics on them.
In this condition, people should not put money into this, it would just signal to the devs that you can get away with sub-par quality and make money from it.
It's 2019, and I expect modules to have risen above the quality standards from over a decade ago.
I think the first Trailer ruined the overall opinion for this Aircraft.
To be fair they put a realy bad Video out for this cute little Bird. If you compare this with the new Standard set by ED and Co the overall Reaction is not a Suprise
Thats not how you start in real life and the sounds and the flight model are kinda bad ive never been near a CE2 in real life but i have flown in a few aircraft that share the same engine and this is not how they start , sound , handle i hope they improve this model soon i know its just been released and i shouldn't expect a perfect model but i was expecting something much better
Digital Combat Simulator - enough said. Pointless and it doesn't belong in the line-up regardless of how many people want to try and defend its inclusion with training/acrobatics yaddah.
It’s here and it’s staying so whatever, doesn’t really affect the complainers, things change
Sound of the module is a disaster... Not that I’m gonna buy this thing...
DCS stands for Digital Combat Simulator...…….. go to Flightsims for this, totally unsuitable for DCS.
Yet there is a HUGE community of aerobatics players who never engage in combat in DCS world. Sometimes good things extend beyond their intended purpose, its not a bad thing.
@0:50 "Now I'd like to start with a disclaimer that I am in fact not a pilot at all.
BUT I do have pilot friends so that pretty much makes ME AN EXPERT ON PILOT AND PILOT RELATED THINGS."
Well, thanks for almost making me spit my tea out. That was a good joke. :D
Also, was there a reason to not mention the early access bugs and flaws, aside from the obviously obvliviously poor sounds (compared with your canope closed...), in your review?
Like the tail wheel lock on excessive rudder input, the lack of landing gear spirngyness / dampening, the indestructible prop and generally poor damage model, weak canope texture / shading etc.?
That said I agree with the verdict. A fun little plane nobody is forced to buy but many should and will. But the quality of the review is very underwhelming.
Hmm. Alright.
This looks like the sort of thing you fly around in for an hour and never touch it again.
I e already spent 6 hours flying it and plan more with some friends
I just dont see non-military aircraft working in DCS.
There seems to be a market for these though...
you can see why they split up over this. the guys making the mig 21, f14, viggen were like WTF man. no one will wana play this crap. lets focus on completing all the stuff in these jets, lets PWN DCS and make it our bitch, and roll in the cash and bask in the glory of all the awesome jets we've done.
(screeching record) Nah Im gana make the christen eagle. 90% of leatherneck. " I want a divorce"
sfctw1 why not?
DCS is an amazing flight simulator, sure it can’t drop bombs or shoot things, although that said I can’t remember the last time I used any weapons systems in DCS. I’m just having so much fun doing circuits and bumps on the carrier in the F18 at the moment.
The more DCS branches out the more chance it’s got of continuing. We sometimes forget that this is a niche sim, we need to be looking at new ways to attract people into this hobby and THIS platform in particular. Don’t get me wrong at its heart is a combat simulator and that should never change, but by providing aircraft like this that show off other aspects of flight simulation, we get bigger publicity for our combat simulator and attract more people.
More users = More money = More modules = longevity
@@cowboy10uk
By 'not working' I was talking about Multiplayer :D Perhaps in the distant future aka soon™ we'll get transport Aircraft to carry VIPs or Troops much like the Mi8
There isnt anything inherently bad about this module.
I don't hate this plane, I tolerate because there is nothing else I can do, it is not my company. I'm not elitist, I fly what I want to fly. DCS needs to change it's name. As far as sound, I've heard lawnmowers sounding better, although I've heard this is a temporary filler,(Which makes no sense to me)if they release it without at least having a decent sound attached to a propeller plane. But hey, I'm not flying it so what the heck?