Ala13_ManOWar

The ETC500 rack was mounted on most A-8 (not so on earlier variants) even when not using a drop tank, bombs, or whatever the loadout. Why they did that, I wouldn't recall (it's said somewhere on the books, just don't recall) but probably just to avoid the inconvenience of mounting and removing it all the time since most flights would go with drop tanks at least. After all, you lose some 3-5 (or the like IIRC) Km/H with it attached, it's no such a big loss to compensate for the trouble every time an aircraft had to be re-equipped. I mean, they left it mounted all the time, but of course it was removable, just not worth it for them at the time.

Since it's an even more external app for the module, a mod after all, wouldn't another place more dedicated to that specific external tool (which I don't use, I can't link anything) be more suited to ask about this than the module publisher itself? Just wondering.

, roger, wilco.

Mates, the option should be, don't use take off assistance and just learn how to take off. Not only it's unrealistic, it's awful how it moves the controls when you just try to taxi and in the end you can't even get to the runway so "assisted" . More than obvious every server out there enforces not to use it, as it should be… Not sure now. Do you mean you want everybody to have their own realism options online so everybody flies different and sees and feels different things? Online, that would be nonsense to me, but maybe that's what you mean, dunno.

Good!! You reached the conclusion we all knew, online servers do force realism settings on client side. In truth it's the other way around, it's used usually so people getting in online servers are forced, for instance, to realistic settings no matter how you have that setted up on you end. You can have take off assistance, or wake turbulence off, or endless ammo/fuel, or whatever on your end but online those settings are told by the server, not you. Some of those can be tweaked at the time you launch a mission online, most of them are coded and saved in the mission itself when you save it in ME. It's a quite useful option so many times, no matter how people forgot their settings they'll have all of them the same settings once online as it should be.

Yeah, quite true, but it is what it is, sadly.

It's funny how so many of this kind of posts happens the same day there's an update actually .

Actually, my setup is not very far away from yours, so I could take a similar approach. Good enough for me. Thanks for the explanation .

Hey, that setup looks good!! It inspires some wicked ideas on my own setup . And I still have to make that Warthog brake lever too. Thanks for posting. Some more details on how it is would be really welcome.

Yep, I remember watching the video on the first take off of the model and test pilot (wasn't Klaus Plasa as far as I remember) did take off in a three point attitude which seemed a bit weird, but since he also never raised the landing gear in that first flight I simply supposed he was just being conservative on a very first flight of a newly built model. After all they were new aircraft bearing a very different engine than original. Nice to know it was really a thing for the model.

Yep, I noticed it this evening and it's pretty annoying. Don't know if some mistake or a real change to the forum.

Graphics are pretty bad these days, but I was meaning more about physics and FMs… not even close mate, no matter how updated it gets.

You know it's not even close to what DCS has to offer mate. Besides, that one despite the efforts has aged pretty badly. Even if it takes whatever the time, I'd like to see that theatre in DCS some day.

Yep, Channel map would be perfect for that at an earlier 41-42 date, quite an interesting era if you ask me, but too many new planes we would need for that. Hope it happens but when… It wasn't really. F-0 models were trialed from October-November'40 briefly (a month or so) until they realized they had to enhance those pesky flying alone tail units . Full use wasn't until well in 41. And that's the problem with "this date, that date", if it was to be done properly so many things would have to be taken into account. Still this is a game, too much hassle for that and still nobody would be happy, honestly.

Well, planes aren't usually just like one day this one appears, all of a sudden all the other disappear, and the like. Obviously they blend together for a time while being classed out in a slow process. But I believe F model was an earlier model than IX we have. Makes no sense to make another mess while trying to fix the planeset mess, IMO. G models on the other hand, be it early 1943 G6, or even G2, are about the same time of our IX model, though they aren't really since our LF.Mk.IX isn't either the first IX which appeared in 1942, not even close. Still, I get the kind of consistence so many of us (since I'm not out of that) are willing to have here, but still I don't get the rush about "it all has to be the same date to be playable, and if not it's unusable". Aviation doesn't work like that, planes come in and out gradually and they're used until they need to without looking at the expiration date tag.

Well, here, yes, and no… It's published by Ugramedia, which later on became a third party, true. But at first it was a map commissioned by ED to fulfil RRG's Kickstarter promise (a much smaller map centred over Normandy itself, by the way), and only later on Ugra became a proper third party. It's like Nevada, finally made by ED but at first being a kind of third party at a time where third parties weren't even a thing which promised to include it together with A-10 module but they drop it later so ED had to honour the promise of the quitting third party. Normandy is from a third party, now, but it wasn't at first. Yes, all the mess with this map and almost all warbirds (aside from P-51 and D-9, and I-16 a lot later) are RRG's mess still to this day. Remember Me262 belongs either to the kickstarter and it'll come at some point just to finish that kickstarter promises, not because it makes sense together with actual planeset and all. But sincerely, personally I'd like to see that Me262 to a DCS level even though it might be a hard fitting on the current maps. The same as I'd like to see those early war planes, and BoB was hinted to come to DCS at some point, so… If it were to be on DCS, I believe that'd be the most complete scenery, planeset and map, we've had in DCS to this day.

We don't know ED's plans, plus they already said those models were coming down the road. "It's not if, it's when", Nick Grey's words here on these forums.

I-16 Type 24 might be ill suited performance wise together with late war models we mostly have, but Type 24 was a kind of late model, not pre-war at all. Types 5, 10, and 17-18 quickly after started the war, we've got nothing of that.

Yeah, yeah, I get it, still… this is a mostly combat flight sim not a tourist sightseeing app, and I say that from a standpoint where I use it just to fly for fun so many times (most of the time lately). Yes, it would be nice to have it correctly modelled, honestly though, I highly doubt most of us (out of Parisian French fellow members who really could care) and I mean most like 99% of us would care or even notice a few misplaced details. I'm not at a model makers' debate here (way worst than your "nitpickity" about a few details, believe me), but yes, I clearly see the deviation from the original one (I noticed the first time I saw it BTW), it's just sadly I don't think most people will even care about it. Hope Ugra makes it a bit better, not only this but many details people have already pointed out, but if they finally don't for whatever reason, it's not the end of the World, just that. The debate about whether Eiffel tower is the most recognizable pile of iron monument in the World or maybe any other out there (just one or two, you know), well, let's leave it for another time .

Well, a game is definitely "commercial use", but since it's only night time now what is limited they could do it all the way I guess. So now, where's my Eiffel tower screws and bolts?

Aside from other thoughts, isn't Eiffel tower image copyrighted? In Nevada they couldn't copy exactly the buildings and names there, do we know they can just fully copy Eiffel tower (along with many other things now on this map) straight without any hassles? I mean, even as it is and how we've seen it in screenshots, it's pretty much the thing, it's pretty recognizable, and nobody (ahem ) will pay attention to some screw or bolt outplaced. Just wondering, can they fully copy it to start with?

Lovely post, how well said. Thanks mate, I'm no software developer but I can see so many things going on behind the curtains I can't blame ED's team for "so many" problems, yet the game is more than playable even when people rage in fury about whatever, so I can only take pity on them trying to figure out whatever they're working on. I'm pretty sure Devs are the first ones to want DCS to be perfect in every aspect, they're humans though…

The videos on Paris are awesome. Some folks say nonetheless that grass is still a bit on the way too lighter side of phosphorescent green .

Yeah, I might have been tricked by the fact that he won't say that on the first post, but just "rpm and speed are unrelated and you can get max speed with lower rpm setttings" (go look, it says just that ), which no, it doesn't happen in DCS as far as I've tried. The problem is usually when somebody wants to point out something but he saying a different thing instead, one might understand that he's saying and meaning the former, not the later he's sort of ""hidding"", and those kind of obscure meanings are usually used by trolls just to bog down the discussion. They mean something, but they don't say and expect others to "understand" things not said and endlessly argue about it. So it'd be better to just say what you want or mean instead or "hidding" your true meaning or intentions, you know?

No, you can't , governor will keep working all the time to balance every little change to keep the rpm you chose. You can't control it nor directly, or indirectly, governor does all the time and that's why it makes no sense to try to "control pitch manually", you can't, not even in a kind of philosophical way, period. Still, what the hell wants OP out of that? rpm aren't still related to max speed without the proper MP to hold it. It just doesn't on it's own. But he wouldn't talk about that and just blame others about asking to try to help and understand what he means. We'll be kept in the darkness forever, I guess.