Leaderboard

New F-4 Phantom screenshots

Heatblur's F-4 targeting pod picture:

And angry mob units (mad crowd with AK-47, molotovs and RPG), motorcycles, and ability for tanks to penetrate walls and fences.

Since I already posted a version of the Phantom vs xxx turn performance summary I was working on for myself in other threads, I think it is only fair to put the full version here for the sake of everyone else interested in this topic. This summary is strictly based on what I can find in publicly-available documents from the original operator (US or USSR), scaled for fuel state and altitude. That correction uses formulas I have validated against available data for aircraft where turn performance is charted at different weight and altitude. The derivation is not overly complicated, but too long for one forum post. Obviously this is not an "official" document despite the data sources, and should be taken for no more or less than whatever it is worth. However I am very confident that this is better than trying to guess based on comparing the un-altered primary sources with their different formats, units, and assumptions. For example the USSR typically uses 40% or less fuel in their charts, while the US uses 60% or more. These are both totally valid assumptions (representing either the end of a dogfight, or the start of one) however a direct comparison is not valid, since turn performance scales quite directly with weight, and fast jets carry a huge fraction of their total weight in fuel. Finally there are three things DCS players should understand before I post this chart: Data for the Mig-23 at 35 degrees wing sweep does not seem to exist. It's pretty easy to show based on back-of-the envelope calculations from aspect ratio what kind of difference that might make (measurable but not enormous), however that breaks the intent of this comparison to use only official data, so it is not included. This chart is only relevant to the real MiG-21, and not to DCS, as anyone familiar with the F-5E vs. MiG-21bis balance in this game should quickly notice. It is always subject to change if any better data is made public. Someone immediately corrected my F104 post with better data, so maybe (hopefully) that will happen here rule 1.16 permitting. With all that said, here it is: Questions, corrections, criticism, and flame wars are all welcome. Enjoy. Post Script: there is "official" data (from McDonnell) that says the F-4E turns better than this, but I did not use that because I don't have proof it is correct relative to the USAF manual. I may be a Phantom Fanboy, but I try to be objective.

Heatblur hat News gepostet: Phantom Phriday ain't over yet for @everyone ! Look at them Vapes And the Pilot decided to share a selfie looking cool with his Sunglasses on

L-39ZA Albatros: Changelog (13/10/2023): • Complete Guide Overhaul Mi-24P Hind: Changelog (13/10/2023): • Added level bombing tutorial with Petrovich AI • Added attack profile tables for both unguided bombs and cluster munitions (KMGU-2/USLP) F-16C: Changelog (19/10/2023): • Steerpoint Auto/Manual Sequencing logic updated to reflect latest implementation for Steerpoint Navigation Tutorial section and Autopilot STRG SEL Mode section • Offset Aimpoint logic updated

I´m pretty sure that whoever wrote that funny text has never flown a real military fighter. It´s not about translation, the whole lingo is as off as are the statements given. I trained and flew with dutch Viper Drivers, they´d never mix up commonly used concepts like names, terms, visibility, ergonomic aspects and avionics the way that fake-quote does. The Floggers radar was never praised, their whole concept of GCI-centric intercepts obviously not a testament of what some people on the internet think air combat for them looked like. Their RWR-Gear was bad, training minimal etc. Anything can kill you and complacency has no place in Air Combat - but the internet is attaching a value to the Flogger the real military aviation on both sides knew never existed. Which is, as I said, also what our very own Flogger-rated Pilots said. Their strength was in the numbers employed, not the individual capabilities. Yeah, logistics were one reason - but by far not the dominant one. Way more important was their uselessness - bad avionics (radar and RWR-gear were a joke), minimal Range/Endurance, whole different design-concept (point defense fighter), extremely bad visibility, bad flight characteristics, yada yada yada. There was nothing those two birds offered in 1990 that other jets already in western inventory couldn´t do better. They were used for some time for intel gathering, quite good training - and that´s it. Radar in the HUD (when you want to call those two birds´ rudimentary radar-hud-interface that way) is a bad idea - and only partially usable if the radar supplies as little information as theirs did.... Swing Wing might be nice in some Air-Mud tasks or for getting long times onstation like for the big Cat - it´s not an advantage in the air-air world. Well, for the adversary it was always nice to get a huge signal in the sky about the others energy state - and the swing-restriction under G was helping anybody fight a flogger - but I digress... Oh, and there´s way more layers of complexity IRL than "get to M1.5, shoot, kill" - gosh, what easy our job would have been were it as simple as that

Крайние новости... Что я жду, это не модулей 100500+, а динамическую кампанию в DCS. В Falcon 4.0 от MicroProse она была. И это в седые-то времена! Помню, залипал... Ох как залипал!.. Это круто моделировать радио, всякие там затухания и пр. . Но если честно... Кому это надо? SRC поставить и наплевать. А можно и не ставить. ОнЛайн- популярных серверов всего 2-3 шт. Там много разговаривают? Сколько замечательных карт уже выпущено -а в ОнЛайне пусто. Кавказ, Кавказ... Эта песочница просто уже достала- кто нет- киньте в меня камень. "Сову на глобус"("круглые карты")- и динамические кампании- даешь! З.Ы. Ну конечно же ИМХО.

NOTE. As always, these videos provide a preview of an upcoming feature to assist you in understanding a new feature. Later, it is quite possible that the feature will change, and the feature functionality has changed. As much as I’d like to, I lack the time re-record these videos. In this rather short DCS: AH-64D video, we’ll look at sending and receiving Fuel, Ammo, Rockets, and Missile, or FARM, reports over the datalink to Primary members. If you have not already watched them, I recommend look at the datalink set up and datalink messaging videos. Once again, I have Chaos 1-2 joining me to demonstrate this capability. Let’s first check our datalink Preset by calling up the COM page, then the desired Preset, and then Network. We can see C-2 listed as both a Team member and a Primary member. To exchange FARM reports, we’ll need to make sure he’s set as a Primary. The next step is to verify that we have the Datalink transmit symbol set to the radio we intend to use to transmit the FARM report. You can see here that the VHF radio has been manually tuned to the same frequency that our wingman is monitoring, signified by “MAN” next to the frequency. However, we can also see that L1 is not displayed next to the VHF radio, meaning the datalink is not capable of transmitting or receiving datalink messages. The datalink will only work if a Preset is tuned. Back on the COM page, we will ensure that our desired Preset is selected. When a preset is selected, a list of available radios will be displayed along the top of the MPD for us to choose from. I’ll select VHF as the radio I wish to tune to this Preset, and now we have several more options along the bottom of the COM page, allowing us to decide how we will tune this Preset to the radio. We could choose to place the Preset in the Standby slot of the VHF radio by toggling the TUNE option from Primary to Standby, but for now, I’ll just leave it set to PRI. All that is left now is to press the button under SC, or Single Channel, to tune the VHF to this frequency. We can now see that the Preset is tuned to the VHF radio, along the Preset callsign of “Hammer” and L1 in the VHF primary slot. Next, let’s send Chaos 1-2 our FARM report first. Select Reports from the TSD and then select FARM. We can then select our Primary members to send it to, in this case, C-2. Now we just select Send over the VHF to Preset 1. We can also of course request FARM reports from Primary members. To do that, select Reports, FARM, and set Message to Request. We then select the Primary members and then select SEND. Once we receive the data, we can view it on the COORD page. From the COORD page, select FARM along the bottom. We can now view received FARM reports, with each listing left to right their callsign, time of reception, fuel level, gun rounds remaining, rockets remaining, radar-Hellfires remaining, and laser-Hellfires remaining. This is the Basic level. Selecting the Type along the bottom, we can view the Primary members expendables like chaff and flares. From left to right: callsign, time of reception, remaining flares, remaining chaff, and other. If we select Type again, we view more detailed missile data. From left to right: callsign, time of report reception, total number of missiles, remaining radar-Hellfire, remaining SAL1 laser-Hellfire, remaining SAL2 Hellfire, and other. If we select Type again and select PP, we can view the 3-dimensional location of our wingman when he sent the FARM report. From left to right: callsign, time of report reception, coordinates, and altitude above sea level. Selecting Type again brings us back to the Basic level.

A screen or two every few months would be great. ED still hasn't officially confirmed that the Hellcat is being actively developed and the last update on the WW2 Marianas map was more than a year ago. There hasn't been any WW2 news from ED this year, and it's already October. As far as we can tell from the newsletter there isn't any work being done on DCS WW2 at all. I'm pretty sure that this isn't really true but it's still a little disheartening to think that nothing important enough to make the newsletter has been accomplished this year. Of course you're right though, it will come when it comes and there's really nothing we can do to speed it up so there's no point in worrying about it. Still, it would be nice if they'd throw us a bone in the newsletter.

The 9m96 missile is active radar, meaning the missile has its own tracking radar, and its own guidance computer. The missile only needs to be directed by the radar in the first phase of flight. in its midcourse flight it uses INS guidance to go to a location, or DataLink guidance from other assets (such as AWACS) in its terminal phase the missile it uses its own radar to acquire the target and its own guidance computer to guide it towards that target, the missile also lofts. which means its likely going to be above you in its terminal phase making terrain masking very difficult.

Sigh... They're not "holding up" any theater of ops. ED has been slowly chiseling their WWII Marianas and Hellcat without looking at M3 or anyone else so both items ARE coming. They just were, are and will be ED's "side-quest", like everything WWII related and we'll have to wait quite a while for these, with only a screen or two posted every few months. At the same time DCS 3rd party developers don't give an F about PTO anyway, so there's noone to hold up from. I personally don't need any info or hype-inducing-content to be posted, because in DCS everything is done "when it's done" and "subject to change", so dates and WIP updates are generally meaningless, whether from ED or any 3rd party (unless the advertized feature is really about to be implemented literally in the next patch). I kind of understand, however, that other folks prefer more interaction with devs.

Great idea, we will look into it. @Silhou please be so kind and track it as a suggestion. Thank you!

I started with F-15C too. In fact I came to DCS for it. Price on sale was $5! A steal! Only after 1 and half year I wanted more and went FF.

To recreate last Israeli events it so good to have more IDF vehicles. Namer, Achzarit, Nagmachon, Eitan. Armoured bulldozer and even excavator.

Updated AP guide with control laws/gear ratios of autopilot at the end. This way you exactly know what autopilot will do and when in precise amounts. I got these from translating the avionics maintenance manual, the AP performance in attitude hold/dampening/compensation can be adjusted by maintenance, but usually kept near these values with a 20% margin of error or so.

Yes, the lack of the smaller pattern is a known issue, it is still pending. Now BE is taking a lot of effort as we are close to its release.

yes it feels pretty much like scripted detection when within a certain range. ANY unit instantly turns the gun at you no matter what the conditions are and has pretty much god tier tracking, I can not believe that an old BTR with the type of optics and the lack of stabilizer it had could fire like that. while the (battlefield is in total chaos)it seems like ground units can always instantly find any aircraft and lead it as if they were using a tracking radar . sadly this aspect of dcs is one of the most forgotten even the air AI seems to be "smarter" {ground pounders suffer }

JAS-39C by Whisky Actual using JF-17 avionics v.1.1.0 Download: https://github.com/whisky-actual/JAS-39-C-by-Whisky-Acutal/releases YouTube Channel This is the initial release of the JAS-39-C Mod using the JF-17 avionics. This is a personal project of mine based on the amazing work of the Community mod. Until we are able to achieve the standalone, this mod will satisfy all your 4th Gen fighter needs, with an advanced radar, TGP, EWS suit, and one of the best SA pages in the game. I've re-mapped our cockpit to match the JF-17's avionics. Fun fact, about 95% of the functions of the Jeff maps directly to the Gripen functions. Thus, if you already know one of these airframes you will feel at home. I will be making some videos to learn this "new" plane, so stay tuned! Developer Whisky.Actual Liveries 313_Paegas, 59th_Jack, Isak Khysing, Megalax, Whisky.Actual Special Thanks Breadmaker91, Currenthill, FatSpacePanda, FrM|Shaft, Gripen Viking, Roughmaster, Ulvar40, VSN Team (Cdpkobra and Razor+) Features Custom clickable cockpit Liveries Exterior model Tweaked avionics Tweaked flight model Custom cockpit sounds Custom Weapons Air-to-Air WVR IRIS-T Air-to-Air BVR AIM-120C-7 Meteor Air-to-Ground guided AGM-65H AGM-65K Brimstone GBU-12 GBU-16 GBU-10 GBU-31 BLU-109 GBU-39 SDB DWS39 RBS-15 Gungnir SPEAR-EW AGM-154A (CBU) AGM-154B (Anti-Armour) AGM-154C (Unitary BROACH) KEPD 350 Air-to-Ground unguided M70B AP M71 Mk82 Mk83 Mk84 Other LDP Litening III Drop tank 1100 liters Drop tank 1700 litres Internal tank Internal tank + 1700 litres Known Bugs Find the full list of bugs and enhancements at https://github.com/whisky-actual/JAS-39-C-by-Whisky-Acutal/issues Installation Download the latest release at https://github.com/whisky-actual/JAS-39-C-by-Whisky-Acutal/releases select assets The JF-39_AI.zip contains the plane and weapons, if you don't own the JF-17 you can still use this as an AI replacement for the JF-17 The JF-39_Liveries.zip contains extra liveries (this file is not mandatory) JF-39_Player.zip contains the cockpit, systems, and files needed to fly the JAS-39-C. This will replace the JF-17 cockpit. Frequently Asked Questions Q: Do you need JF-17 to use the module? Yes. Q: Do we plan to make it a standalone? No. Q: Will the JAS-39C mod pass IC? No.

Honestly I don't know who in real life would calculate actual gross weight in flight, but I'm betting it was the RIO. It would be very cool if we had a way to ask Jester through the wheel menu to calculate weight or max trap fuel for us.

F-14B ias per natops is no burner for take off, don’t quote me but believe it’s due to potential asymmetrical thrust if there is a single engine failure leading to controllability issues (due to the high power of 110s). The F-14A with the TF30s didn’t have that restriction

Dear all, I understand the newsletter text wasn't clear but we continue to move toward mod support with our VC, and would like to offer even better support than is offered now, so deep breath, we are still looking to support those cool add-ons people are creating. Thanks.

Hi @currenthill This is not a specific request but more of a wish. Any chance making any Yugoslav/ Serbian vehicles? We had lots of weird and cool stuff and the m-84 tank is used by some Arab nations so it would be a good addition for desert maps. Some of them have good models already available.

Report functions like PP and FARM will work with AI thank you

Thank you very much!! Yep hearing is most awesome now, all cleaned out. Hearing better than I have in quite some time. I learned my lesson, no more earbuds for me.

Bug? No.. but that configuration should not be allowed.

Actually, you do. A lot - or you would not be so vocal about it. Which is a bit of a puzzler to me, since you've been around the block a few times in DCS and know that the time between bug-fixes here are best measured in geological timescales. Unlike other vendors in the DCS arena, OnReTech have been very forthcoming with information, and we know that they are angling for a November/December update. That's more than I can say about other recent purchases (e.g. Mudhen, Normandy). There always are, you simply choose to not accept them, and that is fully within your rights. Personally, I'd of course be happier if OnReTech already had published some updates to the Sinai map, because more is always better. Then again, I don't feel that OnReTech is withholding a release just to spite me, so I'm feeling that there's some solid reasoning behind not pushing out an update. I see that you are disappointed. I'm happy with my Sinai Map enough to use it (although it does have a couple of annoyances that I hope will be remedied with an upcoming fix), and I believe that I have received good value for my purchase. Just like you, my purchase of an EA product implicitly includes the expectation of updates. It seems my expectation of the timeframe involved is slightly greater than yours. It's the final product that I will judge OnReTech's merits by, and I respect the "caveat emptor" of an EA purchase. Maybe you can too? I think they are worth the risk.

Actually I'd like to "just" have good graphics and performance: -no shimmering of slim objects (like trees, powerlines, etc.) anymore -no shimmering of water/shore anymore -no shimmering of horizon clouds anymore -no wobbling clouds anymore -no weird shadows anymore (realistic shadows actually) -no weird smoke behaviour anymore -more up to date looking exterieur of all aircraft -more up to date looking interieur of all aircraft (realistic reflections and 3d textures for both the above) -updated Caucasus map with better graphics (mods like Barthek being standard) -realistic, dynamic weather And all of this with acceptable FPS on all maps without having to spend thousands of dollars for a supercomputer.

Legend. Thank you Outlaw

Which is fine, I'm not offended if people don't believe me, I just want to make it clear that I am not making wild statements without any kind of justification. I've heard that anecdote before and I can only say I have some... doubts that it was totally objective. However this is a F4E thread not a MiG-23 thread so I will restrain myself from continuing that rant. I think you may be referring to a chart I made, which is based various available US and Soviet manuals including the "Prakticeskaja Aerodnamika Samoletov MiG-23" I mentioned previously. I have a full F-4E vs F-5E vs 21bis vs 23ML version, but the problem is that there seems to be no available official data for non-standard wing sweep positions, so I can only include 45 degrees which will not satisfy this community. Also any 21bis vs F-4E conclusion based on IRL data is incorrect for DCS due to... reasons. Probably I should probably post it to the F-4 section of the forum anyway since it should still generate some interest and (heated) discussion.

Got the first part of the repair up on YT. Please check it out if you are interested in it. Why the Wobble? - WINWING F-16EX Viper Grip

Don't forget there are fantastic mods, totally free. A-4 Skyhawk and OV-10 Bronco to name a few.

It is in progress, when we have news to share, we will. Thanks.

Bad Kitty… no more Kitty Kitty Bang Bang for you

I imagine I'm one of the newer members/users here. I'm doing FC3 because I felt a bit intimidated to start with dcs. Plus, FC3 would give me Many options for a shockingly low price. I'm very satisfied, with my 3 weeks of use and I've basically done 99% of my time in F15c. Going to try the A10a(?) So I can see if I like pounding ground. But, I'm also going to trial the F16 very soon to see if FF is all that some say.

Максимальный зуд нетерпения детектед))

i think is not worthwhile to attack this subject from the realism angle but rather from a sociological angle. i have come to terms with the fact that most enthusiasts adopt a hobby for its aesthetics. for them, the airplane is a fashion statement of their taste and values. that's why its important for them to be able to adjust the minutiae, because a "personal gun convergence" is a personal expression. what reality and history say is immaterial whenever they fail to serve this objective of personal expression.

It would be so easy to avoid these kinda rumors. But 10 minutes every 6 months to write an update is apparently too much work. I do hope 2.9 will bring some news about the Corsair. But doesn't look like we'll see it in 2023 and who knows about 2024.

From the newsletter: "We are also working on a separate voice chat program, which will allow you to communicate with units in multiplayer servers without having to actually run the simulator."

Hello Android, as mentioned after the release of the OSA Missile Boats I will be working backward to repair and or update a lot of the older mods as their weapons are out of date. It will take some time but I will do what I can. After a certain update a while back it seemed like the flags on all the ships flipped upside down. You can try flipping the flag in Paint and in some cases, it will fix it. And yes, I have the USCG Sentinel Class WPC in my inventory and will be released at some point. I really like the smaller coastal patrol boats. I will make note of your observations. I will reach out to you when i do update the USCG Vessels. Thanks. Thanks, HighMaintenanceB, I appreciate it. You know being a Navy Vet we all feel like there's nothing we can't accomplish or achieve but sometimes I think we all push ourselves a bit too far. I know my limits though and yes I really need to rest. Something I don't get enough of. Hello Pepin1234 it appears OSA Two has a Manpad launcher. I'm trying to incorporate it now but not sure it will be working on release. It will be added though. It will not be a soldier for the moment. The SS-N-2 Styx Missile is very powerful in DCS. It sunk an aircraft carrier with one hit. If they get within a couple of hundred feet of any ship. That ship will be sunk. The RIM Launchers appear to be more effective at close range than the other weapons in DCS and that includes the CIWS. The OSA CIWS works very well also. The Carrier weapons need some serious updating as they are weak at the moment. I guess that will be up to us to do it though. Thanks all for your feedback. I appreciate it.

The Merlin 61, 63 of the F and 70 of the HF are rated for higher altitudes in both supercharger gears (can hold rated power up to 30k feet in the case of the 70) and thus reach their top speeds at a higher altitude. Thanks to this their top speeds are actually higher than the LF's, though they are slower lower down. The Merlin 61 also has a lower propeller reduction gear ratio due to its origins as a bomber engine (.42:1 vs .477:1) thus the early Fs had some different characteristics in the climb. "In theory all that would need doing to create a late production F.IX in DCS is adjusting the engine and associated flight model parameters of our current LF.IX, no 3D model changes or major work." - Not so. A lot of 3D work would have to be done. The late F IX with the Merlin 63 of 1943 vintage would lack the outer cannon stub, use the early short air intake, have the fuel cooling port in the port wing root, different undercarriage/wheels (and other features which I'll detail in a list below which also apply to the F IX). That's not to mention the work required in the cockpit to bring it to standard. For example, the F IX used the Mk V throttle quadrant and slow running cutout controls which are completely different to the LF. Unfortunately if the current DCS LF IX were replicating a late 1942 conversion, it would not be an LF. They did not appear until the spring of 1943. The fact is, the current model is a bit of a mess. I'm sure the flight model is fine but the 3d model, inside and out (incl. many of the features in the cockpit) are incorrect. The "classic" LF Mk IX really came into being in November/December 1943 - by this time the Aero-Vee tropical intake was being introduced, the slim feed motor blister for the cannon was standard, as were the late elevators, beam approach aerial, late IFF aerial, booster pump, and other features. For our LF IX which seems to represent (or ought to) an early 1944 LF Mk IXc in ADGB and 2TAF service, the following features are inaccurate: 1. Wing fuel tank cap on the ammunition bay; this is a post-war "warbird feature"- this is however just on the texture mapping and can be removed fairly easily 2. Over-wing wheel well blister and reinforcing strake; late/postwar feature related to a change in angle of the wheel axle (from 8 degrees to 4) when operating off of tarmac; should be completely smooth surface above the wheel wells, in-sim axle angle is correct 8 degrees however 3. Scissor link undercarriage; very late/postwar modification - oddly enough, the model has the correct gear leg fairings and bay without the extra cutout for the links; should be straight spline type 4. 5-spoke wheels; common in 1942 and Mk V conversions but by 1943/44 a four-spoke wheel was the standard, sometimes with a hubcap 5. Recognition light behind the aerial mast; this was deleted in 1943 and should be absent by the time the Aero-Vee filter was introduced 6. Missing gun camera in starboard wing root - the original port wing installation was deleted in lieu of the fuel cooler in the F Mk IXs - the LF lacked this cooler, but when the gun camera later returned on the F (and LF) it was decided to standardise on a starboard wing installation - it is correct that early LF's lacked the camera but probably by late 1943 and definitely by the time of D-Day it should have returned* 7. Missing IFF aerial under the starboard wing 8. Missing drop tank deflection hooks 9. Both wobble AND booster pump; should be either or - early ones had the wobble pump, later the booster pump; ours should probably have singly the booster pump 10. Missing beam approach aerial and associated cockpit control (this is a variable feature as some had them, some didn't) 11. Missing remote contactor control in cockpit** 12. Headrest; this is a Mk V feature not present on Mk IXs 13. Erroneous radiator flap control; this was a feature of the PR Mk XI and is a common "warbird" modification in modern times, is however anachronistic and should be in fact the "Camera Master" switch; only the test button should be present* 14. Missing generator failure light 15. Missing the interconnected prop and throttle control; this was standard in the Mk IX by the time of the Normandy campaign and was one of the other features differentiating it and the F Mk XVI, which wasn't set up for it 16. Missing gun camera exposure control on port wall* There are some geometric issues with the external and internal 3d models, be they missing features or outright incorrect: 17. Cannon fairings incorrect shape; in-sim they taper immediately from the root, when they should have a straight channel, then a second tapering piece which attaches to it (this tapered fairing is the same piece as used on the outboard cannon in the four-cannon configuration, the E wing, and even the single cannon on the Mk VB). I remember originally the model had the later cigar-shaped fairing; this would have actually been fine for 1944 but it was changed in 2017 and in doing so it's now inaccurate. Additionally, the plug for the outer cannon casting is completely flat, when it should be somewhat rounded 18. Cockpit windscreen piece currently replicates the version from the pressurised Mk VII, which had a greater number of bolts and seatings for them in the windscreen casting 19. The windscreen framework is missing bolts; these appear however to be included in the Spitfire cockpit update that's upcoming, judging by the Normandy 2 trailer 20. The outer wing panels appear to be a little too thick in section; it's hard to get a photo demonstrating this but it's something I've noticed since the module first came out in 2016 21. Front of tail fin and fairing very angular and awkward; should be a more graceful curve 22. Profile of the bottom of the rudder is slightly incorrect 23. Edge of gunsight mounting casting is round; should be cut square *These only apply if the gun camera is mounted, which it should be for the Normandy time period **This applies when the wobble pump isn't fitted, which should be correct for the Normandy time period Here are a few photos demonstrating the state of F Mk IXs throughout late 1943 and throughout 1944 - the appropriate time period for the module. Here's an early Castle Bromwich LF Mk IX (before MH434 was built). I really don't think a hodgepodge of features is the way to go, I feel an early and late LF variant set would be more appropriate - and that's not even mentioning potential F or HF variants and their differences!

I think this is just muddying the waters. Modern restorations use updated instruments and avionics for a variety of reasons, but many still do incorporate original flying instruments. The crux of the issue is that the instrument simply isn't modelled correctly. It's supposed to incorporate pendulous vanes, that with sufficient vacuum pressure, would trend back to finding the horizon. It doesn't do this and it's not the only attitude indicator that seems to have been modelled this way by ED. Almost all the warbirds, but also more modern aircraft like the F-5 suffer from the same issue. Here's an excerpt from a description of the AN5736 (the gyro horizon in the p51) in its service manual: Nobody is saying that it shouldn't topple or develop errors if left uncaged during a dogfight. But even if it does, it should slowly return back to an accurate horizon due to the mechanism described above. This would also allow us to uncage said gyros on the ground, after the engine (with vacuum pump) is running, as per normal procedure. You could (and should) still use the occasional cage to quickly correct errors from extreme maneuvering or low suction pressure when running on the ground, but it would not be required in the way that it is now. As the instruments are currently modelled, you first have to get up in the air, then pick a reference straight & level attitude to uncage before you get accurate indications. This means, as an example, that you can't uncage it on the ground with the attitude nose-high while the aircraft sits on its tailwheel and have the instrument read accurately -- this is nonsense.

3+ final version will depend on tweaks and ongoing testing

DLSS works well for me in VR, you have various quality settings while using DLSS, if you want more frames and set to performance then you will reduce quality. So it will be about finding the right balance for you personally. thanks

Jakt Viggen.

Apparently I'm a little behind the curve; I can't fly more than one aircraft at a time and I don't fly any of them to their limits, so I'm a lot less concerned about models and a lot more concerned about the world around them. Weather, because every time I start a mission the same cloud is in the same place every time. More targets, regardless of fidelity, because the idea is to blow them up. At that point I don't really care if the wire harnesses are laced or zip tied Less detail in modules, because see above. I have quite a few hours in the Ka-50 III, and none hours staring at the playboy centerfold behind the access panel. When I see developers proudly showing off cartoon Amphenol connectors on cartoon avionics behind cartoon access panels I start to wonder what cool things that might actually be visible could have been done with that time Better maps, because I do see the terrain I fly over and I'm bloody sick of desert Dynamic missions, because that's what I do when I'm not just flying 1v0 or landing practice or improving consistency to burn off a bit of stress If they made modules out of some of that; real time weather, for example, I'd be happy to pay for it. Object bundles with ground equipment and personnel. Dynamic missions. Those are a lot of work and I don't feel entitled to my lunch for free.

I wonder if this is again one of those 1st and only posts of a new account to keep us busy.

Hi everybody, I would like to share another little project I developed in last 6 months during my spare time: a 3D printable Luftwaffe KG13B stick. As you can see project is for Warthog base but can be adapted. This is a replica of the stick used in most WWII Luftwaffe fighters such Me109 and Fw190. Starting from a free model I found on the web I deeply revised all the details in order to optimize 3D printing purpose: - Most of the screws are internal; - Models are separated in order to avoid to color them; - Internal space is adapted to common micro switch sizes; - Components thickness is enough to give strength (please note I printed it using ABS, but I think also a strong PLA can be suitable); - Fully working safety using a small magnets; - Some revisions from the original one to optimize usage. As you see replica it come out is pretty similar to real one; all parts are connected with screws and can be disassembled if needed. Screws visible are even few than the real stick, they are mainly inside the internal structure. Only lateral button needs some glue where it joins with handle, this will keep all the object completely dismountable for maintenance purposes. If anyone is interested to STL please write me a message, I decided to share them for a small price privately before start a subscription on any sharing platform (People interested might be few). I will also share schema for the internal board for the Warthog witch is by public use and far known. To resume, I include: STLs to print for yourself Renders showing how to assemble List of parts for the build (screws, resistors, etc) Schema for the internal board (working for Warthog stick) You can print for your own or, if you prefer, ask to print pieces to a 3D printing service. Obviously I will ask to use STLs for your own and keep them private.