Ala13_ManOWar

Pitot heating, yes, but static vent has no heating, usually. Wouldn't know how that froze in a sim, anyway.

No worries mate, sometimes it happens we get lost in translation . Here you didn't get what I was trying to explain. New technology (their internal tech, not other, for their own graphical engine, for their own platform, all that, but it'd be unique for this, not shared with any other game out there) would be needed to merge the maps into one, which is what most people are asking (and I'd like to see as well) but turns out to be two maps not necessarily using the same internal tech (because it grows and expands since Channel map first appeared) and from two different developers each one making their own use of those tools. I'm no programmer but from a developer's perspective, not that easy, not that good result, not that straightforward. Anyhow, another thing I was trying to explain, it probably would need another new tech also since the two maps merged together, even if feasible which currently it isn't, would probably exceed the current size limits the maps have. Almost every map until now has been bigger and more detailed than the previous one (new internal tech they were developing, yeah), size and object count has being increasing all the time, yet, how the sim internally works, they aren't allowed to make a map as big as they would like. Not only tech limits (which they try to expand with those new tools they make available for themselves and third parties) but such a map would be impossible to manage for your system. Performance is another really big issue they have to tackle, and it's easy to see now with this release. I don't have much of a problem performance wise with new N2 map, but I'm still on screen, some people are getting varied results, some can use it 2D but in VR is impossible for them (performance), some see all kind of strange things and poor performance so it's unusable for them, some see not bad performance but that until they get into big cities, some… If they'd somehow "merged" the two maps, or simply "allowing Ugra to model Channel area together with the rest of the map", as you suggest, it'd be great to have that map (and weird to those who bought Channel as a separated map, not to mention campaign creators having to adapt their work to a different map no matter how close it'd be, they would probably have to start from scratch) but it would only worsen the performance issues some people have. Believe ir or not, current maps are all in some limit of what they can do with their current tech, and that's why they keep expending it all the time. For instance, Vietnam map is said to come at some point (so many people crave for it), but they need new tech in order to make it as big, as populated (rainforest, Ok, but still object populated) and as detailed as such a map would deserve to be. And all of that, as I explained also, while you keep using the sim all the time because you don't want to stop using it, but it's like a surgery performed on a living, moving and exercising subject. I don't envy them mate…

All of them are fighters, at first, all of them can carry bombs though A8 is closer to a ground pounder with the variety of weapons available.

Yeah, many people does, not all of them though, and sadly online servers are still online servers so things can happen. ED usually didn't pay much attention to that, balancing stuff and so on, they just make accurate modules. But sales are there and I guess they still need to watch where they put their money into. Sadly K4 was chosen by somebody else with that balancing mentality, and now also 10 years later we still have to cope with it. Not that I don't like K4, it's a beast and a really good module like all others, it just don't matches well the rest of the planeset available. So, let's hope we see sometime sooner than later a G6, but I foresee some people's complaints…

Trivial, yeah… If it's so easy just do it yourself mate, you'll be swimming in gold very quick .

K4 was kind of "ultimate 109", it's definitely belonging to the family. It started serving about September 1944, that's even before G10 (December) some folks asks for. About 950 were built, not as much as G6 definitely, still a bunch to consider, barely hit Eastern Front IIRC, but it was there on the Western Front. 190D-9 we enjoy in DCS was an even later aircraft to arrive (October, I believe). It was a bad choice from Luthier/RRG and it only shows how they had no idea what they wanted to do, but it's no paperwaffe at all, it was a fighter on it's own, just late to the fight and not in enough numbers, still no 1946 wonder, no. The problem is, and I believe it might have something to do with the matter, G6 was the most built variant, but it was really lousy compared to what they faced since 43, even early P-51 and P-47s were better aeroplanes, Spit XIV, Tempest, La-5 variants on the Eastern Front… the huge, humongous problem I'd say, is how people asking for a mid 109 variant don't realize how bad it compared by it's time to it's current counterparts and it'll be relatively bad aeroplane. Look Fw190A-8… That's the reality of Luftwaffe by that time. So, personally I'd like to see the G6 of course, either 43 initial variant as well as later ones including G-14 which is basically the same. But people with their (blame other so called sims for that) it's all squared mentality and used to balanced games (43 aeroplanes with 43, 44 with 44, and so on) will greatly complain about how bad an aeroplane it'd be so they'll run to their K4s before it's too late and servers with historical missions start removing them. I'd like to see the G6, but I don't know what sales argument will remain other than historical facts to people with that competitive mentality ever wanting the best aircraft available to fly…

Yeah, you're definitely new here mate… In every subforum section there's a wishlist section. You can say there whatever you want mate. Writing there, anyway, doesn't mean your wishes will come true, specially soon enough. We all want things to come, not even ASAP, we want them right now if not yesterday which would be even better. The problem is things takes time, the platform is complex to maintain and expand (yeah, I wrote a lot trying to give you an overall look of the subject, you didn't read I see ) and things won't come any sooner no matter how many spamming posts are written here or in any other of ED's social media . You aren't the first (which apparently you still don't realize), you won't be the last. But, DCS development times are what they are due to the complexity of the platform and that's not going to change is the near future mate. It's not "I say so", it's just "it's what it is" . Yes, people say a lot of things they want, ED's always listening, I can tell you no matter what it looks like since they've demonstrated it so many times. Luckily enough we aren't spoiled child and we know one can't have it all one wants, I wish it were like that, but it isn't mate. Even if ED decides right now, "Ok, we've listened to your wishes and we're going to merge the two maps, who knows how, and you'll have the whole map of Europe…". Yes, Ok, Great, we all will freak out and die of hype overdose the first minut, then again… "Anyway, that job won't take less than 5 years from now and we're taking down any other development of anything… bug fixing, new platform features, new modules, new maps, we ditch it all just to tace care of that, plus, delays are to be expected…". Would you be happy with your wishes now? That's what I'm trying to tell you. DCS has a context and a background and the fact that newcomers doesn't now that past and how this works won't change how it actually works . ED is still a small team, third parties only share the platform for modules release, they don't take care about kernel, graphical engine, Multithreading, Vulkan incoming, anything. Wishes are free, yet ED can do what they can do, I wish they were almighty, but they aren't.

The thing is here in DCS that wouldn't ever be "just aesthetic", it's a bigger rudder with certain aerodynamic properties and it'd come with it (alike clipped or full wings).

It had a facelift not long ago, new textures and some external 3D modelling updating. Perhaps in time, since they're also facelifting (more than that, I believe) the Spitfire we might also get updates to all warbirds.

Japanese assets are being made by M3 together with the Corsair. FYI.

No, that's not said anywhere. The planes from BoB, if they come when they come, will be new modules so of course you'd have to buy them. The map, we don't know if it's adapted to match BoB 1940 layout how or when it'll happen, but another update alike N2 in time might happen, why not, and specially if they make it bigger and all (specially towards the East of Europe). These maps and handmade, I believe the job needs to be compensated somehow.

Not that hard, mate. It's not "people's" argument, it's ED's reason not to model them and already explained all over the forums and beyond. Now I'll add, if they manage somehow (and down the road, I don't expect it to happen, if it happens, any time soon) to join maps and all in their upcoming (nobody knows when) World map, or whatever the way they get to, what's the point in having modelled twice the same area? Channel map already have that area modelled, the other map, even though now has grown so much, is still Normandy map at least in the basic idea. What one of them models doesn't come in the other one, just that, and all that area despite much more detailed than it's said is supposed to be "low detail area". Don't fall for it looking so good, it's low detail area no matter what. To your other subject. ED's graphical engine is proprietary, they make it all on their own, that engine has limitations despite their efforts for so many years and their constant upgrading, which apparently you don't know since your message number is from a brand new user. Ok,you don't know, but still I don't go to a house unknown to me questioning everything without having tried to know, maybe not all, but at least some of the facts in how that house works. After all we're just guests here and it's their house. They know and decide how they upkeep their house, not you nor me . The graphical engine doesn't allow too large maps to be modelled, there's been recent upgrades allowing more area, detail, object count numbers, and all that stuff to be even greater than ever before, those are the new maps we're enjoying now. Those were impossible to make not long ago, not just because of the detail and all, but because your computer wouldn't be able to handle all that detail, hence updates to the graphical engine happen to allow for more. We'll talk about disk space other time. That's why maps have limitations and it seems they'll keep having them until some new tech comes, not because sci-fi, but because since it's a living platform you want it to keep running and all while it's being upgraded almost every patch. They can't afford stopping it all for a time (probably a long time it'd be) and being back when they change it all to a completely different platform, which would have it's limitations again and would need another update some time later. DCS is like you living on a house where new rooms appear every time and it's bigger and nicer every day but you didn't even notice there were workers doing all that work aside for a few misplaced belongings sometimes, but you don't want to arrive home sometime and find it completely shut and locked while they work. That's why they cannot "simply" do nothing here, the platform have to be kept running while they work on the enhances/upgrades/new stuff and all but you keep living in the house and want the minimum disturbance. Then again, the greatest disturbance comes from guests in the house complaining why this or that room isn't even bigger, even nicer, and why don't we have this or that room at all .

True, it has. Deepest regret of a purchase I've ever got. What a piece of …

Yeah, I was thinking out loud about different pressures along the map, not gonna happen in this sim for now… Interesting test, and good data gathering. Never spotted that difference, I guess I didn't pay attention to that. Nice finding .

I wouldn't know about WWII, even if they existed at all, but modern charts usually state only mean sea level of the field (or was it highest/lowest spot? wouldn't recall), but airfields usually aren't flat at all so using that information unless you are parked at the right spot in the apron where that info is taken you'll never get that exact reading in your altimeter. That as IRL, does Funtington airfield still exist now? Does it state 125ft MSL? If it does exist today, it'd be quite usual modern place has "grown" from WWII one, they're simply on top of whatever there were before. Anyhow, if 29.92 is set for the whole map, where is it set? If it's not exactly set for that aerodrome that means probably it's set anywhere else and that's where your difference is.

I don't recall any stall horn in the Pony, maybe you're confusing it with the lowered flaps/idle engine with no gear down horn? That's still there of course.

You can take a look here also, there're plenty of them on YT,

I believe, yes, you always have to select a fuse for your bomb according to your desired target and drop method. No auto-nothing, this is WWII stuff. About bombing, I know It's not 190, but reticle is the same so reference is also the same obviously. The thing is IRL you have tables with speed, dive angles and so, there are no quick solutions for all situations, I'm afraid. But as a quick reference in sims in an "average" dive, I find lower part of the reticle cross is a good reference for bombing, or even awaiting until target disappears under the reflector glass as you can see here, it only depends on your dive angle and speed,

Since that's unhistorical it's not gonna happen. A G6 on the other hand…

No problem mate, just asked you to try to pinpoint the problem you were having with the info you provide. I don't mind how you enjoy the sim .

This @grafspee, thanks @Art-J. That's how you retrieve information for a bug report, and what I meant to pay attention to.

Mate, I'm not in that position since I already own N2 hence never even saw updated N1.5 on my PC, but I think it's easy. What would you want a free trial for if you get the same result as just updating your regular N1 map? So, if you see low res things you aren't in N2 and you aren't trialling anything since you aren't watching the full map to decide if you'd like to update or not. Just that. Low res, N1.5, High res, N2. If you already bought N2 and are seeing low res you probably had some of the Steam problems with the update, perhaps? If you didn't buy it you're 1.5 and not enjoying the trial since in low res you aren't trialling a thing. So, something's going on there.

Mate, I asked you in another thread if you were flying in external view because of your words, you didn't answer. Now here you confess… Yes, offline or whatever you can fly however you like, but this is a flight sim and since you sit inside the cockpit on a plane, of course you're limited to cockpit view, in particular in online server forcing that option, which today I believe will be most of them even though sometimes it happened also what you mention, at least time ago. Haven't checked that kind of servers lately, TBH, but there were also that kind time ago if that's what you like, and of course offline flying you can use anything you set.

If you see low resolution you don't have N2, either trial or already bought, it's the updated Normandy "1.5".

That means you didn't buy N2.