All Activity

So, you're agreeing with me that GM1 wasn't operational in Fw 190As. I'm focussing on GM1 because people are requesting it (same as MW50), while it was never used, as it (unlike MW50) quite blatantly sucked in handling. You had to know before starting the motor if you were going to need the additional boost above critical altitude or not, which quite obviously is a BS system. It also couldn't be stored for very long, so logistics - especially on dispersed airfields - was a nightmare. Erhöhte Notleistung made way more sense, as ist was simpler and worked across all altitudes. It was available in about mid July '44 and the kit-installation could be identified by a small yellow ring fwd of the left triangular windscreen. There were other, obvious and relatively simple solutions the RLM messed up: 1) External supercharger inlets. A 15-minute sheet metal job, providing ~700m more critial altitude. 2) Sitting on their hands concerning Jumo 213 development in 1942, leaving the Luftwaffe without a proper counter to the P-51 for the better part of a year. 3) Not being able to call a winner in the whole Jumo 213 vs DB 603 affair (let alone the infighting with Mtt and their raggedy-a$$ aircraft). This alone cost another significant amount of time in high altitude Fw 190 development. 4) Wasting time in development of the 190B up to a fieldable aircraft (with GM1), but stopping just before it was ready. If you need more examples of RLM dropping the ball in program steering, aircraft development and procurement? You think that pragmatic solutions were going to be easy? Seems to me you have yet to meet proper german bureaucracy - let alone one mixed with a nepotistic centralized planned economy. You're sticking to semantics on one behalf, while assuming stuff on the other. The Einbauvorschrift above states the injection nozzles of GM1 and possibly MW50 (poor wording) being in place. It also mentions that appliances and the actual implementation of the systems are to be carried out by the airframer. It then gives a couple of instructions about the routing of the associated lines. It does not say there was an operational GM1-system "coming with the motor", besides the injection nozzles being in place. So were the MW50 nozzles apparently. What's more interesting in that regard is that both systems can't be built into the same airframe at the same time, as they'd need different tanks, taking up the same space inside the fuselage. GM1 would need the 85l tank, MW50 using the 115l tank (see MW50 installation on the Dora). It shows that BMW was providing Fw and the RLM with a motor that could use either system, but ended up with Erhöhte Notleistung in the field. Focke-Wulf Entwicklungsmitteilung from 3 August 44 states that the TU motors had been delivered fom "circa June". It's got the same power output as the D-2 (including Erhöhte Notleistung), being 60kg heavier. No mention of a GM1 system. Looks like "provisions" of the RAE actually means nozzles only. Again, what are you trying to prove? You're arguing GM1 was available/ cleared/ operational. Without a tank (which is not actually stated in the report), it factually is incapable of GM1'ing. The report states "Provision for GM1 power boosting installation, the routing for the GM1 tank being in the position previously occupied by the FuG 16." Farther down, it's stating it (obviously) was equipped with Erhöhte Notleistung. There is no differentiation between the 115l tank and the 85l tank - the latter of which would be required for an operating GM1 system. The former one being a stock installation in the A-8. What's the story of the 190A-5 GM1 wing installation you showed earlier out of that Beladeplan dated 3 November 42? It hints at an outboard wing installation, replacing the MG/FF. A similar wing installation IIRC was tested in the 190B initially, but it never came to fruition in either way.

I don't agree with points 2 and 3 here. The Aliasing does not look like intentional ailasing in the pod image rather it just looks like game engine Ailasing. I.E. something you are not fixing without increasing performance requirements even more. I can't see what you mean by the thickness changing between the PiP images. I'm looking at the water tower legs in the DCS image and it looks about the same thickness as it crosses from the tv to the thermal image.

A friend and I are having trouble with servers. I select a mission and create a public server without a password. When my friend tries to connect to that server, the message "Server offline" appears. I have no problem connecting to existing servers. There were no problems before. We don't use any mods.

283 kts IAS is 342mph TAS at 500ft. That's very close to the 1D's rated speed at sea level (350mph). That could easily be the difference between being even slightly out of trim, or just a bit nose up.

Since there is no response from the Team, I suspect it will be this way for a while.

I think only the original image can tell us the truth. If only somebody has it

Oh I agree it looks odd on your screenshot. I was just referring your description of a "huge fireball". It doesn't look like that on my end, though. Perhaps clearing shader cache (both DCS ones and the driver ones) might fix it? Alternatively you could try a different LOD setting as Draconus suggested.

I'm not assuming that, it can be very well a problem in the litening magnification. Which again, is a separate issue from how good the resolution is on its digital zoom.

Seltsames Verhalten von WW 2 KI Flugzeugen: Die C 47 sollte so nicht mehr fliegen können, kein Heck, Besatzung abgesprungen, RPM 5%. Sie fliegt aber weiter, auch wenn die Triebwerke aus sind. Geschwindigkeit und Höhe konstant. Im rebriefing wird sie als zerstört angezeigt, fliegt aber munter weiter. Gleiches Verhalten mit B-17 und A-20G. Lustig ist, wenn ich sie ramme ist es vorbei, leider auch mit mir. Kennt das jemand? Es sind Flugzeuge, die ich über trigger spawnen lasse. .

Hi Raven, as i watched the vid , it STILL looks like a nice rounded cone, if u ask me. Not the whimpering flagged fireball i see on the DCS jet exhausts. Have a closer look when you fly at night or dawn when you see an AI aircraft taking off before you...... ridiculous it looks.

2020s fic CVW-11 set wip

Your assumption that there is a problem with the magnification of the Sniper Pod is based on the assumption that the Lightning Pod is implemented correctly. I would rather assume that the Sniper Pod is implemented correctly and the Lightning incorrectly. In addition, a very high (certainly digital) magnification at some point no longer brings any added value, because the image quality is then so poor that you can no longer recognise anything. This is not even taken into account in the current Lightning Pod.

The JF does not have the best radar. The target, aspect, and radar settings also play a part:

Have you noticed it on other maps? This is caused by the image being so low res, as you noticed I am sure, activating XR cleaned it up. I'll have to test with other maps to see if a similar effect is seen.

Beim Ka50 III funktioniert die Trimmung nicht mehr bei mir. Der FFB Stick geht immer wieder in die Mittelstellung wenn ich den Trimm Button loslasse. Beim Ka 50 funktioniert es noch wie gehabt,. Ich habe bei beiden Modulen die selben Einstellungen. Den FFB Stick schließe ich auch aus , beim Rhino und beim Moza das gleiche Problem.

Kept getting a black screen in VR last night with both meta link and VD. Sound was OK. I gave up as it was late. I need to try again tonight.

f14billy said: With the new update, I'm still getting the same crashes you experienced. However, Windows has just been updated and so far, no crashes... But that could be a coincidence, haha. Me: After the latest update 2.9.18, I tried flying for about an hour without any problems. That could be a coincidence too, haha, but I'll try again in a day or two to make sure the problem is resolved. In the meantime, fingers crossed. Happy flying, everyone. In the meantime, thank you ED for these updates and for continuing to make us dream in this strange world

nullnull

@NineLine My post that was merged here, was talking about something different to what most people are discussing in this post: - I was reporting that the sniper has less magnification than the litening - Here people are debating about the resolution of the sniper vs litening Magnification is how big things are seen. Resolution is related to how much detail you can see. They're of course related, but they're two different things that can be right or wrongly simulated independently. Regardless of the resolution debate (very valid!), I still think there's also a separate issue with the magnification, because AFAIK the sniper should have equal or greater magnification than the litening.

Gibt tolles Video zum Eurofighter Simulator der Bundeswehr. Interessiert hier bestimmt den einen oder andern.

"Well thing is with iPower you should check on what motherboard they use and what speed the RAM will be set at or capable of. I bought an older Ipower PC and the speed of the ram could not go higher then 2600 when 3200 was common.." I was watching review videos on it. They mentioned this and it isn't an issue any more.

Да в общем то я зря в том посте сетовал на старость железяки. Недавно опять запускал симы и там всё исправно пахало. Главное перед каждым запуском шнур питания и на всякий ЮСБи передёргивать.

I think you're very much mistaken And it wasn't just transferred once, but at least twice. The first time onto the jet's magnetic tape and at least a second time when uploading. Even with the first transfer to the F-16's on-board data tape, subtleties are lost. This effect is squared during the second upload. And this is also clearly visible if you look at the only high-resolution image of an original recording (last row, right image). The sharpness of the overlay almost comes close to that of the sniper pod from DCS, but the details to be recognized are many times higher than in DCS. Just look at how razor-sharp the shadows are. What the video shows us has nothing to do with what the !!analog!! camera system of the original can really do. You can extrapolate all this by comparing the sharp original image with the overlay of the video. If I calculate the ratio in my head, the original should be at least 3 times sharper than what we can see in DCS. Knowing the size and resolution of the MFD of the F16 and you know the PPD of the MFDs. PPD is the magic term. I'm willing to bet that what we can currently see in DCS is nowhere near the PPD of the MFD of the F16. And the analog cameras of the original Sniper have a much higher resolution as the F16 MFDs. https://qasimk.io/screen-ppd/ As I said before, it looks like one have missed some parts badly in his calculations. I hardly doubt, by math, the DCS Sniper Pod show us what the original can do, if I am looking at the original razor sharp image picture.

So i have this issue where mavericks do not slave to the new targeting pod, i tried to follow the guide on youtube but either i am doing something wrong or i dont know what else, but the mavericks just arent reaacting to the pod in any way shape or form. (i hope this trackfile is the righ one since i dont realy understand this). LastMissionTrack.trk