Ala13_ManOWar

IIRC the only map using that right now is PG at night, not sure this one could since it's coming from Normandy 1 and anyhow I believe any WWII map features night lighting for obvious reasons.

Sometimes, depending on the film used, a "darker" colour like that can be even just yellow. But apparently we won't ever know since there's no way to analyse B&W pics to determine what colour radiation originally imprinted the film, so… If I had to choose, that wing and that tank looks just burnt, but . On the colour subject you mentioned previously, I believe to have read somewhere drop tanks where painted in RLM 65 no matter how the plane wearing them were painted, and apparently remaining ones seems to concur with that. In the very end of the war, yes, I'm sure many compromises were taken, but not everything is March-May 45, you know.

Lo has actualizado? El SRS suele recibir actualizaciones cada vez que sale un módulo nuevo, y el F1EE no es el CE con otro color, es otro avión. Si sigue sin funcionar posiblemente el SRS esté pendiente de alguna actualización para eso, aunque no sé exactamente cómo se reportan bugs para el SRS.

Pues yo no lo creo, lo sé. Claro que algunos creadores de contenido pretendidamente famosos de YT van por ahí intentando echar mierda a diestro y siniestro de lo que consideran competencia, aunque esa competencia solo esté en sus calenturientas mentes. Y así nos luce el pelo.

AFAIK it all was RLM 02, the bare metal thing is only a very late in war time saver to my understanding, in fact what I knew about that were… wooden flaps in late Fw190s and definitely Ta-152. I mean, late war subjects are all messed up, mixed up, and all but nobody can tell you it's "wrong" going with RLM 02 aside from single examples of this or that.

Those are cast models?

Noticeable when you're trying to manoeuvre out of the straight an lever mate, read it all, not just what you want. In fact that's equivalent to lowering your airspeed, have I to explain that also? Just test it mate, or don't and SHUT UP. Your choice .

That's either a plain lie or you really are absolutely insensitive to changes mate. Try the experiment I proposed, you'll see. The damaged wing always, always, always, falls first and manoeuvring as usual is just imposible once you have any damage. Last time I experienced in deep was a small internal "tournament" we had in our squad, P-51vsP-51 so it was the same for everyone, and the smallest damage you get is noticeable in your manoeuvring. But since you claim that it's up TO YOU trying it and prove something might be going on. Told you three times now, next is you do the test or just stop the nonsense.

Did you see in the video how it sinks the ill wing close to threshold?? That's how you all of a sudden "notice" that "single hole" which apparently went unnoticed before. Every time, just like that. And it's because? Speed lowers at landing and you notice that lift you lost right there, not a funny place to notice it, definitely not. Sorry mate but physics doesn't work like that. Yes ice might come to both wings, not symmetrical at all, definitely not, nature is random mate. When it's too much it just falls and it maybe one wing more than the other, of course it can, who said it couldn't, so even better than a stall, you're all of a sudden in a spin, inside clouds. Great place to be, yep . And the effect was there the last time I tried mate. Give it a try. Yes a 1% surface "removed" makes it not perform the same, AND IT DOESN'T PERFORM THE SAME. But it's small, really small, you have to make some wilder things than straight and level to notice it. Not to mention as Yo-yo told it's not how aerodynamics works even though in movies and people's minds might seem plausible. Give it a try, make some friend help your wing fill with holes and try keeping it steady at lower speeds. Check your new stall speed . Try to manoeuvre the plane and see what happens. But YOU TRY IT, NOT ME, since it's you claiming something isn't right. And YES, many many times things has been proven wrong right here. Specially like 99% of the alleged bug reports about something wrong which in the end turns out to be lack of proper knowledge of the plane from the OP just talking hearsay . Please mate, I lack memory for other things, but those funny bug jokes some people like to tell are in my mind clear as glass. I said already. TRY IT, TEST IT, RECORD A FLIGHT AND POST THE TRACK, then with whatever you find write a proper bug report. It's easy. There could be something introduced in latests patches, I don't say it couldn't because lately I haven't been flying that much at all. Just look for it and write the damn bug report properly. You know better how it works by now mate. Do it properly and if you find anything I'll be glad to tell you were right. "I think it shouldn't be like that" doesn't prove a thing.

Ice deposits are symmetrical?? And how do you tell ice to go symmetric? Anyhow, stop trying to justify the unjustifiable, "YOU DON'T NOTICE IT UNTIL IT'S TOO LATE". It's in every icing for GA manual. Did you get that or not?? It's easy mate, your "single hole should be noticed" isn't a thing. Period. Damage is there, just not MOVIE LIKE as you all seem to seek for an unknown reason (well, very well known, movies, arcades and what not. A simulator tries to replicate real life, not action movies. Control surfaces are, as their names says, control surfaces, a single dent there makes it different since those controls every movement in the aeroplane. A hole in the wing? Maybe not pretty, but since aeroplanes can sometimes fly even with half a wing (as we all have seen those photographs, ahem) tell me where does the "single hole" thing fit? Think about it before writing again mates, it's tiresome having to explain things again and again without you even reading or trying to understand, and even an aeronautical engineer already told you how it works and calculations are what they are (because in DCS it's calculated, don't forget that).

Maybe you didn't read my previous post… It's a very well known effect and a cause of accidents whenever ice builds up in leading edges of aeroplanes. BUT, it's dangerous because you don't notice it until the plane is literally falling from the sky. Maybe you can tell plane builders they have a bug because ice building up in leading edges of the wings and stabilizers isn't noticeable until it's too late . We aren't talking control surfaces, of course minimal changes in control surfaces does have noticeable effects, that's out of the question, and it's definitely noticeable in DCS. But, a P-51 happen to have 3 axis trims so you can compensate and still fly good enough. Try that same in a Bf109, 190 or Spit with only one or two axis trim .

Like, any time you get back home with combat damage and try to land you mean? You people really don't notice how it flies worse? Haven't tried lately, but at low landing speeds and gear/flaps down it used to be quite noticeable, to me at least. That's why landing with combat damage should be performed at higher than prescribed speeds. Once I saw a video right here at these forums trying to "demonstrate" how you could fly all the way till landing with combat damage and the guy just landed at high speed as per procedure while saying "you see? Damage has no effect", then again he thought we all are idiots and didn't notice his higher than normal landing speed, which is the exact procedure you should follow . As you say, "a single bullet hole should be noticed", eh, well, no, a single bullet hole has an effect but so tiny you cannot notice, which doesn't mean the effect is not there, it's there (or was, not tried lately as said) but it's just not that bad as most people think it should be. A single hole, or just a bird cr@p indeed or any dirt over the wings (that's why aeroplanes are cleaned), has an effect and wing profile has no lift in that chord (care should be put with building ice, for instance), but it doesn't mean you should notice a lot. With ice indeed in civil GA it's known how dangerous it is because it builds up and every single ice pellet stuck to your leading edge means a wing chord not providing lift at all. But you don't notice that loss of lift until the aircraft builds up too much ice and it literally falls from the sky while you didn't even notice first, the plane just keeps flying until it reaches a critical point. My understanding is that it should be the very same with combat damage, your bullet hole for instance, it's there but you don't notice until there're too many holes, or conditions changes like… when you try to land and lower your airspeed. So, as said it was there the last time I tried. noticeable a lot? No, for sure not until it's big damage. Then again, as you come to land and try to lower your airspeed as usual it's more noticeable. Is it not lately? Maybe something's wrong after some patch, test it and write a proper bug report if it's the case. Until it's really not noticeable at all, maybe the effect which was there had disappeared lately for a reason, the effect was there, just not movie like, it's there just as it should be subtracting a part of lift, but not it all. If it's really not there, write a proper bug report. If it's only you aren't sensitive enough to notice the obvious effect, it's no bug, it's you not noticing it because previously it was there and it was noticeable for sure.

And it does, just not like most people think it does. That's my point, only whenever you lower your speed and dirt up the plane to land you discover how much it does affect your flying. Hence, damage isn't mild at all, just not what you expect. Movies and other arcade games have spoiled us to think it should be worse than it is, just that.

I believe it does but it's just not the heavy effect one might think it is. It's usual you get damage, you follow flying, you think there's no problem with the damage you have. Then again you RTB and slow down to land only to find the aircraft falls from the sky, damage wasn't so mild after all but you couldn't notice at higher speeds.

Anytime mate . Yes, it's a vast topic, there're plenty of subjects in aviation and one can't master them all at once. For specific subjects it's best to search for those instead of just generic aviation chat. Whatever you struggle with it's there, but you have to look for the precise topic of course for further information.

Totally agree here about the Tomcat, I also enjoy the specific quirks of this or that model, that's simulating them to that point were you can experience those things even just in front of a PC screen, and that makes DCS great IMO. True, I'm no native and apparently in English the word is used with some connotations implied which aren't necessarily used in other countries, or not always, even though the Greek origin of the word means we all use and understand it in many languages. I used it here more in the meaning of an alternate History whatever it is, just that. And to both, of course I'm aware there're and there can be inconsistencies and problems with the approach I'm telling, Ka-50 or Su-25T as we all know were just prototypes barely used, but they were anyway operational and working airframes leading to other models like Ka-52 and upgraded Su-25 I believe, those existed and flew. One can't tell those are any "fictional" airframes, even though of limited use. But nobody declared them worthless, just prototypes to go somewhere else later on. I'll use here an example I've used many times whenever people ask for weird, barely or not used, prototypes variants, etc. The day we get a Bf109E I'm sure there'll be people asking why we aren't getting Galland's ashtray and telescope, because once one aircraft existed using those . Yes, it existed, not sure about how useful those mods were even to Galland himself who asked for them to his crew members. But come on, are those really necessary? Would those, aside from taking developing time which could be used elsewhere, make any difference in the simulation? It's as simple as that.

Why would what if be perfectly acceptable in a "flight simulator environment" were most aircraft designed, planned, but never built or built but being a failure were mostly because they didn't work, were suitable for the task intended, hadn't the proper technology to fulfil its intended duty, etc, etc, etc. It's not simulation if you make work a thing which never worked in the first place in real life. That's not "simulating" it, that's parallel Universe, that's exactly and precisely what's called dystopian stories, not real life and since they didn't work IRL the only simulation possible would be to recreate them in their non-working state, how they actually were, be it lame performance, bad behaviour, unable to comply its tasks, etc. Would be that so appealing to most users? I believe not much mate. What you're talking about is a dystopia where those managed to work flawlessly, not a "simulation". That an imposible option then? Of course not, but that's material for an arcade game, not a simulator and some people tend to forget what the goal for a platform like DCS is, simulating, not recreating dystopias and/or people's wet dreams. Grant you more about simulating, it can be a simulation if we're talking about scientific facts known but unachievable at the moment, be it for instance a well known space game (not the never ending kickstarter, the actually working one) or something like that. It's aimed at a distant future where nobody knows what will happen (hence dystopia), yet you simulate a whole galaxy with all it's systems in place, real sizes and real "flight" times provided some real scientific ideas managed to work, known real physics, etc, using scientific though untested or unavailable technologies, but it's dystopian on it's own way not trying to rewrite History yet simulating to the point you can. O.k. that's simulation. But if you say you're "simulating" a Bachem Natter which flew one single time killing it's pilot and not a single thing there worked as expected, not the parachute, not the rockets, not the separating parts, nothing, but you make it work that's not simulation, that's rewriting History to make it work, that's dystopian, and how on Earth could you "simulate" that without making it not work, that's the only simulation which would be faithful. Would that be alluring to the general public? I believe not mate, but that would be the only thing you could call a real simulation, mimic the real deal as it worked, or not worked. Your goal in simulation is real life, what ifs aren't real life . Back on topic, Phantom did have different windscreens, the single piece one was tested and probed useless/worthless. Why should any developer waste their time with non working pieces when you have so much to actually simulate being such a high demanding task?? I'd prefer them to keep using their precious, invaluable and short time available in developing what they said they're developing, hence the working F-4E in both version they told. Nothing more. Why waste a single second of their time when they have several modules in their hands, and even this one is expected to continue with more versions (naval for sure)??? No more questions your honour. P.S.: I get many if not all of these topics are just wet daydreaming and they get nowhere, but there're always some people treating them as a real and conceivable possibilities. Remember, expectations management mates.

From a modellers' stand point, I knew about the one piece windscreen, IIRC they said somewhere it was only a short test, so tried, didn't like it/work as intended, end of the story. All the airframes testes ended up with it's old trusty regular windscreen. It was no real option whatsoever. And YES, it does matter for a simulation. You misspelled it, "it doesn't matter for a arcade game", in a real simulation OF COURSE it matters. How on Earth wouldn't it matter if you seek the most realistic simulation and start wasting your time with stupid unimportant silly arcade options???

R.I.P.

Don't worry, even if they don't include the ultra-known Kozhedub's ride it'll be a standard AMT-7, -11, -12 VVS camouflage for sure, no need to ask for obvious skins which would be included or done down the road. There's not so many options really unless you mimic La-5 or 5FNs.

What a beautiful picture this is. Thanks for posting .

Well, I meant of course you should always trim, anyhow don't fall into the other side, it happens that if you obsess a bit too much with trimming one ends up actually flying with the trim instead of your controls and that should be avoided too, but don't hesitate to trim whatever you need. Yes you should trim your aircraft most of the time but it happens not just because throttle changes, it happens actually due to airspeed changes and that can mean a lot of things from a throttle change, an attitude change, a weight change as tanks are emptied or payload dropped, and all that sort of things. Whenever you're on a landing approach usually one tries to slow down to the speed you aim (those said 240-250Km/H for instance) and there you should trim of course as you understood. Then again there will be changes of course as you approach the runway and slow down even further but those changes might well be kept with your stick, or if you like and have a proper trim control setting (like joystick hat) which allows you to do it comfortably, of course do if you want to, or not if you feel comfortable enough holding the stick all the way until touchdown. What can be done is practising to slow down the aircraft until those 240-250Km/H and trim it there with a throttle setting keeping level flight. Remember, just cut engine a bit and try to avoid losing altitude, that's the correct way to lose speed in a controlled way, and you can do that at certain altitude, no need to go mowing the lawn for that . Then while in level flight and already trimmed try to cut throttle a bit and watch how the aircraft lowers it's nose but, after a bit slowing down at first, it recovers the same airspeed you trimmed for but just descending (that's the magic of trimming, you trim for a certain airspeed and it'll try to hold it). That gentle descending attitude is the one you look for to the runway, still "hanging" from your engine, not with an idling engine which is like a lift in free fall to this plane. Actually in the glide path you should control your nose attitude (hence altitude) with your throttle, and airspeed with your stick, that's called controls inversion but perhaps that's for another day. If you practice what I told you I believe you'll discover for yourself. If you manage to achieve that kind of controlled descending (you can practice that in every propeller aircraft in DCS, and even other titles though those aren't that critical about it) you'll nicely and gently descend to the runway, flare what you need once trespassing the threshold and land at a three point attitude (according to 190 manual that should be always the case, landing and actually taking off…). It's just a matter of trying to make it simple and in a controlled way, and once you master that you'll be able to fly it the way you want. It's just you need to master it first and 190 happens to be a little harder, though that depends on you only. Some people find Spitfire harder, some find Bf109 harder and some find P-47 harder, Mosquito is definitely harder just because twin engine, but 190 is hard for some people, you aren't alone in that. In any aircraft anyway, practice is key.

It is, that concrete strip is so short it looks like more an apron than a runway. But grass runway goes on after the concrete and it's there to be used. TBH while learning Dunkirk isn't the best place to learn. Anywhere else would be quite more suited.

Hi mate, welcome to the forums. Dunkirk aerodrome is tricky, perhaps not the best place to learn how to land short with a heavily powered aircraft. Besides bear in mind the concrete area is really short, not necessarily intended to be "the whole runway" but a part of it, don't hesitate to use the grass area also, you aren't getting off runway. I don't know exactly what you do for trimming, yes you should trim your aircraft properly in every moment of the flight and landing is a critical one. It's not that hard to proper trim, but you need to practice it. No secret, just trim your aircraft until you feel no upward/downward force in the stick and the aircraft flies "hands off" in the pitch axis. Uncontrolled glide paths are a common source of problems while landing. Also remember the old adagio in aviation, 80% of the landing is a good approach, so if you're struggling to manage the aircraft in that situation don't try to push it with short landing glides too close to the runway, take your time making a proper landing pattern the long you need it. Once you learn the basic it's easier to make shorter patterns later on. Yes, to right turning props it's usual the left tendency in general, but make no mistake, torque works both ways, left when you add power, right when you cut it, so it's pretty normal when you cut throttle to notice the right tendency or lack of torque because the aircraft is built to counter the left torque present most of the time. Anyhow in a Fw190 you shouldn't make an approach with no engine unless you are really high, when you come in with your engine on the right oposite torque is not that much of a problem. Maybe you're trying to land too slow and that's why you notice even more that. Remember 240-250 is a good glide speed for the 190, which will be 210-200 when crossing the threshold, and after roll out and cutting engine you'll touch ground about 190-180 Km/H or so. Good luck .

Exactly my point . But some to this day still gets amazed by the German propaganda. Go tell propaganda doesn't work .