Ala13_ManOWar

Let's hope so .

Bf109K4 flies great, you only have to know the quirks and use the right procedures. Oh, wait, like in real life aircraft? No way, impossible, how come?

To finish something you have to start it first, and a few 3D renders aren't exactly a module start, maybe a proof of concept, a show of good will for the future, but a proper start… I want a proper -23 bad like most of us here I believe, but I believe either it's better for them to finish their current WIP modules to a good level rather than spreading the teams among several things before they can release confidently something while they have too much to chew on their plate. It's a change in their policy for Razbam from a time ago and I think it's a good one and in the right direction to keep focus in one module at a time instead of redoing the whole module years later M2000 like.

Somewhat "bad" trimming qualities due to the engineers trying not to kill every pilot diving (as the famous paper you mention shows) doesn't mean CoG is aft of nothing. I can trim backwards any plane and behaviour would be similar. Actually I had the same problem with a Cessna in my baptism due to 4 people in the plane and too much fuel, that's a real CoG issue, though I trimmed later and had no problem with that (only take off and initial climb was a bit cumbersome for me since it was my very first time at the controls). The fact that here it's a CoG issue is only your guess, so all the "clearly shows", "we all can agree", and so stuff is not that clear mate.

Nope, sorry, that's a really, really, reaaaaalllyyyy bad mockup (Emil tail and tailwheel, awfully wrong nose trying to depict a weird G-14, c'mon mate ). That's no example for nothing but awful museum pieces which shouldn't exist. Not to mention, even if it were a real 109, which it isn't, it's clearly hollowed, no engine, no cockpit, no nothing, hence no CoG any related to an aircraft in flight order and the model we discuss here. Should it be able to fly with 0 trim? Nope, it shouldn't. Well, better said, it does fly hands off (which doesn't mean trim=0), but it does in a certain way while cruising, not in the middle of a combat 1.8Ata running with radiator flaps (auto)opened and everything, that's never hands off until you have FBW. The persistent problem is that IRL you have no problem holding a long stick in the position you want, that's not a problem until high speed when pressure comes to become unsurmountable under certain conditions, specially dives, but that's a very precise scenario. Second persistent no problem, I have absolutely none, zero, not at all, problems holding my long stick here or any other plane, but you have to make your own stick extension or get a commercial one for a proper joystick (Warthog or similar). Neither of those, the difference between real life and a simulator, and your limiting hardware, are actually related to ED which only modelled the thing as it should be as per available documentations extensively shown and explained here to exhaustion. If the infamous post keeps coming from time to time after explaining and showing the documentations to everybody (there's a stuck post somewhere with all of this and probably the chart you asked for) I can't blame ED for not keeping trying to fight an impossible war against not reading or trying to understand the documents shown. A change for that situation means: 1.- You have unearthed an obscure previously unknown document showing whatever it is and changing everything we know about the aircraft. 2.- You accept your beloved mighty invincible fighter is like that as the factory documents shows and start enjoying how beautiful she actually flies (because she does fly beautifully, only bad tempered if you mistreat her). You wanted a realistic simulation? There you go with one, cope with that. 3.- If we get a Bf109G-6 at some point, it will still be like that, but different prop, weight, and whatever probably means a change and the effect maybe wouldn't be so accused. Just wait. P.S.: should I had known, suspect in the slightest, the apparent innocent CoG question was, again, related to 0 trim and people not liking their home joysticks setups, as usual, I wouldn't even had answered in the first place .

Dora infamous and slippery bug was squeezed a few patches ago, yes. Some things happened either with Ponny, Hot/Ram air levers back to work included, and probably some tweaks to the engine either. I believe they keep working the new WWII engine model, but those we got might well be a kind of preview. A few things related to WWII stuff came with that patch IIRC. If you'd like to know the details just seek among recent changelogs because those changes are recent and we haven't had so many patches lately. It's maybe three or four openbeta patches away. Yes, you should stop starting these threads and enjoy the gorgeous stuff we have, changes to IA included .

These posts pop up from time to time, somewhere on the forums those images were posted time ago. CoG was about at the pilot IIRC which makes sense since you're sitting on top of the fuel tank.

In these kind of aircraft there aren't any fuel gauge for external tanks usually (Mosquito is a exception IIRC), you know they're empty because of flight time, or when the engine quits, only then you can switch to internal fuel and drop the tank. In some aircraft the gauge doesn't even measure the whole tank, so you only know actual remaining fuel when the needle starts to drop, but that's usually perhaps half the tank or even less. So to answer your question, yes, it's pretty normal not knowing your actual fuel quantity.

There were a video posted around here a few days back with the Collins Foundation Phantom pilot explaining a few things. Adverse yaw at low speeds was one of them and how you should use rudder instead of ailerons to roll and everything, but what they have is a hard wing D model. I believe, from some readings here either, the slatted wing probably were less prone to that nasty effect, but I'm not sure either if the two versions we're getting from E are both slatted or maybe the early one is really early still boasting a hard wing. If we get a hard wing version it's obvious we should get the effect in all it's glory, but if they both are slatted maybe only a bit of it, though I wouldn't know how much of it.

I know that happened, but a few new textures aren't a "rebuild" of the model, some things have to be done in order to keep the module in working condition and so they did, but real major changes? Never happened. Remember it's been a hard to move module since release, very detailed for the time it was released, the most detailed at the moment indeed, but it wasn't optimized and we can only move it now with today's much more powerful PCs than what were available back in time. A real major rebuild and optimization is really welcome. If you've been awaiting a couple years for that with CEII, we've been awaiting for it in MiG-21 since 2014 mate . I don't blame them, they're a really small team and many things happened in this while including Heatblur's split from the team, and what not. But whatever the reasons the -21 deserves some love and updating to current modules' standards. CEII might need some bug and features work, this module needs a whole rebuild since it carries out so many things from the past including it's beginnings as a mod with a different team and lead. I'm just remembering that for the record, I'm not willing to take your CEII updates out like that were up to me or something .

Any surprise with regards to assets since they already said it would be like that . Anyhow nice to see the update on them so people might come to remember they said there would be Japanese assets.

"Another"?? What "another"? When have they redone the whole aircraft? I'm not saying CEII wouldn't need some love (according to your words, I don't own it), but, I don't know about you, I bought the MiG-21 in 2014 and it's been there since then with few changes aside from adapting to new patches/cores/features/game engines. Let them do what they have said so many times they would. Some newer modules than -21 have enjoyed that kind of overhauls, it's about time for the 21 to get that love she truly deserves.

Thanks for the heads up!! So nice to see a sum up of all the stuff we've seen this months before plus some news. Specially interesting the, according to some forum users, "inexistent" Japanese ground assets . Really cool stuff you guys carrying out, keep the good work on and we'll be eagerly awaiting for the release .

It's worthless to keep trying to explain things mate, he doesn't understand, he doesn't want to understand. The precise points have been presented to him, it's up to the flatearther trying to understand those points and clear data or just go full denial and not seeing or even try at all just because. At some point it's better for one's health just let it go and stop trying to deal with these kind of individuals all the time by own experience.

Maybe there was a mod or something, .50 cal guns haven't ever been an option in DCS. Search through the forums or downloads page, the mod might be somewhere if you knew it. In DCS nothing is "just changing a few lines of text", modders do that, devs can't, they have to have correct info and everything to support it the way it's meant to be. So, no "easy new variants", even though we happen to have some variants, sometimes, like clipped wings in Spit, P-51D-25 and D-30, or P-47D-30 early, mid, plus D-40. For the MW50, it's not that bad, any MP player will tell you, and still server owners usually take that into account and many times MW50 is limited or non present at servers. As said before, you can't just squeeze a few HP more out of LF.Mk.IXc just because. Yes you could be able to model later variants, but you need actual info on those engines, not hearsay or wikipedia. The clipped wings options wasn't added "as easy", there were actual documentation on the model, even more than from the regular full wing IIRC, but without that documentation it wouldn't have been "that easy", or even possible. I know there are games out there with all those "options", just like that. Wonder yourself what kind of base those actually have, ahem. As said, everything in DCS tries to be based on actual real data, no guesswork. Indeed, weapon don't just "converge", they are harmonised as per manual, all aircraft got out of factory already harmonised, there are charts of harmonisation and those are the ones used here. British usual harmonisation was 250 yards IIRC, and Spit follows that. American harmonisation was 300 yards I believe, and German one is 600m. If you don't hit a thing you're aiming wrong and biased by other "games" out there giving you laser guns options and absolutely fake "convergences", you can just practice it and soon you'll get used to real life parameters.

Any hardware you own can be used for all the stuff, including WWII, no problem with that. Don't know or have used that model in particular, but I use HOTAS Warthog for everything and there's zero problem with it. On the contrary, having two throttle levers gives me easier management of piston engines, just using actual throttle in one, and prop rpm in the other one. Extra buttons are just helpful, no problem with that either. I don't think you would need any more with such a hardware.

Sorry, MEGALOL . By 2010 when A-10C happened we already knew Hornet was meant to be the next jet to be released. It wasn't that easy, DCSW and so many things happened either in between, but it was promised and we finally got it. I wouldn't know what the heck you mean by "a few years ago we were told random BS". Maybe you were told, I wasn't, and I was here those few years ago and many more before . You're welcome . P.S.: which doesn't mean F-35 in DCS is so stupid and impossible at the time, but I don't think, even if we see it anytime "soon", it could be more than a nice arcade placeholder. Legacy Hornet, and Viper, on the other hand are both at the end of their service life and makes sense we can have them.

Just telling mate, whatever you want to understand out of that (and I acknowledge my explanation here is probably not quite good without the specific technical terminology and me being no English native, not to mention I have no intention here of digging a PhD about the subject just to please a few ones' unsupported suspicions) is up to you. Still, you can't just F2 and say "this is true AoA because my guesswork is good enough for designing high performance fighter jets" .

Saw it coming, sorry I couldn't explain myself better. I'll tell you a secret. Even in PPL they tell you AoA is just "free flow current against wing chord", that's the theory and what they expect you to answer in tests. BUT, then again if you happen to have a curious enough instructor/teacher, they tell you, "but even that isn't exactly true if you go CPL/ATPL, the real deal is that other thing". And that thing is there's a low pressure spot below leading edge (zero pressure indeed) in any given wing, and AoA is measured against that spot, not actual foremost leading edge spot. PLUS, as I said, and m4ti140 also explained, free airflow isn't just straight line in front of you since an object submerged in a dense fluid while moving actually displaces the fluid even before you reach the place where fluid has already been displaced, you displace fluid ahead of you even though you haven't reached the physical place. Hence, "free flow" isn't either that straight line just in front of the wing. Actual AoA is the difference between low pressure spot and the already "curved" flow in front of you. My point being, if you understood any of it, that's why one can't just press F2 and eyeball the angle one thinks to be seeing between the direction one thinks aircraft moves and actual aircraft seen and say that's "real" AoA. Even less one can take a screenshot from a different aircraft, since delta wings are quite a special profile kind, and directly compare. Just that .

Sad to hear . As you, didn't know him besides these forums, but always believed he was quite a valuable member of the community. R.I.P.

Those screenshots of you two in external views can't be exactly "right" either. Real AoA isn't the angle between wing chord and a horizontal line, or even the free flow incoming, you can fly descending with that attitude shown, still be flying, and AoA wouldn't be what you think you're visually seeing as is obvious. That's why a external pic showing whatever isn't actual AoA whatsoever. AoA is meant to be the difference between a high pressure spot below leading edge (which is not just the wing foremost spot), and the incoming airflow which is not either just the free air current, but the corrected flow angle because a wing moving through a dense fluid pushes air downwards even before it reaches the wing. Because of that, actual AoA can be either lower or higher than what you visually think you're seeing. Now, the delta wing as you know in fact needs AoA to fly, without any AoA there is no lift at all (you could run the whole Groom Lake 7Km runway and still the plane wouldn't take off without AoA no matter how fast and wheelless you get), which is true for almost any wing profile but specially true in delta wings, so it makes perfect sense I can get a variometer showing 0 (next time BTW show also airspeed in the screenshot), KPP showing 5º nose attitude which is not AoA, while actual AoA reading (measured with a couple of small pieces on the nose to get them out of wing or any disturbing influence) can be 10º and those 10º are the ones making you fly. But, in the F2 screenshot view shows AoA to be 4.9º which is what your KPP nose attitude reads (so not that bad), and as per devs explanation it wouldn't match AoAmeter and that's normal. By the way, even in the Hornet screenshots there are inconsistencies, the HUD showing 10ºAoA but your velocity vector isn't 100% over the horizon, following your logic that means actual AoA should read 10'somethingº but it doesn't? No, it means velocity vector isn't the free flow either so it's no exact reference to eyeball an AoA. If AoA actually matches at some point nose high attitude in the Hornet it's because it's designed like that, meaning nothing to the MiG-21. Also, bear in mind anyway a Hornet isn't delta wing either, you should try to compare at least with something comparable, another delta wing plane at the least (M2000 is the only available in DCS, I believe), even though different wings with different profiles and designs aren't exactly comparable either, but at least it would be closer to start with. Edit: Funnily enough OP title says "critical AoA" which is a whole different thing either .

No problem, we got lost in translation I guess .

Glad it doesn't disturb your already done work then .

Hence you didn't get the joke. Ok, ok, I leave…

Did you all remembered to open the cockpit?