Ala13_ManOWar

A good replacement for long disappeared VEAO module is VNAO T45 mod, actually. Easy to find and download at their discord.

Funny you post a pattern which shows exactly 1000 feet harmonization/convergence while you say it's wrong…

Yep, many times it's been asked, many times answered. The harmonization (not convergence) from American stuff is 1000ft, 300 yards, with a very well studied pattern that will pepper the target either if you fire at 600 yards or 150. It's done like that on purpose, obviously. The RAF harmonization pattern is 250 yards. The German one is 600m as per historical references, but it works well either at 300 or even more than 600 (well known some pilots fired at that distance to bombers even before gunners had a firing opportunity), but that's because most German stuff had nose mounted weapons. The tricky part is Bf109E in 1940 also had 600m harmonization, even in the wings' cannons, and so Fw190A-8 has even in the outer wing cannons. But Dora and 109 with nose mounted weapons are perfect as they are. Just, and I know ""just"", fire at range and it works really well. Yes, the gunsight setting is up to you . Obviously you should set your sight to the wingspan and speed of your target, so it can't be set in beforehand and in an absolute way to always work. But if you care to set the sight every flight it works quite well.

I'll take it here. Yes, but no. Since in modern day we know the issues, flaws, quirks, and what not from those instruments (but either this or that equipment, system, engine…) so that the modern day operators usually modify this or that little, tiny, stupid, thingy and that instrument, that system, that whole engine which was known at it's time to be unreliable for whatever reason, all of a sudden works flawlessly with no further trouble. But that's due to 80 years of knowledge mates, not because at their own time those whatever hardware it is was flawless, on the contrary back in time those were brand new inventions and many times were flawed by default and by design. It's just we know better nowadays how to make them work properly, not to mention some spare parts, even if it's an original instrument or whatever else piece of hardware, it's rebuilt-refurbished with brand new modern spare parts and those work a zillion times better than original ones. It's like (silly example, but example after all) "look, how good this aircraft starts up now, back it time they weren't able to start it up Ok at once", but it can be related to just the battery is a modern one and it works… If you get my point. Anyhow, the American instrument should be caged from time to time IIRC, the British instrument (from which American one derives, again IIRC) is the one which should centre itself with just some level flight time but it doesn't quite well. Whatever it is anyway, don't mix the two of them because we're talking P-51 here but I believe they don't work exactly the same way. Anyhow TBH I don't know internal functioning of those to tell it's good or badly modelled internally.

You guys don't get it at all… I've said many times but I'll one more… THESE AIRCRAFT WEREN'T SUITED FOR INSTRUMENTAL FLIGHT. Do you wonder why? Modern airworthy examples usually don't equip WWII original instruments, they wouldn't get their airworthiness certificate if so, as well as they don't equip old radios, old range finders, old nothing, they are equipped with VOR/ILS, modern radios, modern instruments with no flaws like old ones had. It's no bug, it's how it worked back then whether people like it or not. It's a simulator for a reason. It's the only simulator for a reason…

Very well known to exhaustion story. But you're getting it wrong, it's the other way around. We aren't at the BoB in 1940 with wrong assumptions because it was all a new thing with fast highly weaponized aircraft, we're flying 1944 aircraft with well studied, very well studied, scientifically studied, harmonization patterns from factory because of stories and experiences like that one, and many more. No pattern of yours or anybody else will be better than the factory studied pattern, it won't never, ever, be better than the perfectly scientifically studied factory pattern. Period .

If we follow the charts posted in the thread this one comes from the design was like that, stick forces charts from various sources and countries tell stick must be pushed most of the flight envelope. The problem is a hardware one because most of us at home don't use long sticks which would be way more appropriate and would help with the constant pushing issue. I do use a long stick and flying the 109 isn't a problem at all. But joysticks on top of the table held with your wrist only… that's a huge trouble. Hence, realism is the trouble after all…

Yep, immortal might be. It's the same, just don't detect collisions, either with ground, weapons or whatever. But remember it's not only your personal options, those can be forced online and in a single mission either so the option might be scripted into de mission if you don't edit it manually.

Usually way that up high there's not enough humidity for carb to create ice, so it's fine and normal as Saburo said. It'd be really bad at lower altitudes with visible, or even not visible, higher humidity and there is where one should use carburettor heat.

Didn't that happen whenever you have flight collisions off?

Not like I pretend to correct such a polyglot, I'm not even close to that, though some things are said out there… https://ielts.idp.com/prepare/article-grammar-101-feminine-and-masculine-words-in-english And not only for ship mentioned there, which I was unsure, but even though it's not mentioned I know it's the exact same for aircraft. You know, when you learn a language those kinds of tips and tricks are usually all around. That's why I got to know it in the first place. It might be a literary, poetic, or whatever it is use so I guess a rare use, but I know aircraft is for sure no matter if people use it any more or not. P.S.: and sorry for the punctuation, I guess I don't follow New York Times' manual of style nor any other and punctuation rules are different in my mother tongue .

But K4 as they explained has plenty of resources and it was a heavily studied aircraft in the after war period, even more than earlier variants as they explained. There're NACA tests, wind tunnel tests, there're everything. Not so with other examples, and even with a well known aircraft as the P-47 is, look what they had to go through to make it happen. K4 FM isn't "disputed", it's gorgeous, it's only the Luftwhiners wanting an invincible machine in their twisted minds who aren't happy to find it's "just" an aeroplane with aeroplane quirks going on, but that's true for any other module they don't pay attention to. The module itself is gorgeously made and researched as anyone can see just reading the documentation available, one ""just"" have to read it leaving our own bigotry aside. An IA sample on the other hand is a whole different kettle of fish, they don't nearly need as much resources as for a full module, the problem with that is a different one. The problem with IA for those aircraft happening is the moment the public see those beautiful 3D models done and in IA condition, the moment people will start demanding asking, "hey, we already have that, just make them flyable"… and you know, "just". But I'd be delighted to have all of that and more in game? Yeah, of course, where do I sign for that . And that includes a properly made DCS level BoB scenario, of course it does.

Yeah, you seemed to imply it's an easy task, just that. Anyhow since we know quite a lot of things are going on there, and I'm sure it won't be all of it anyway, yet let's hope we get a relatively fleshed out theatre by the time we get it since there's one map, two aircraft planned and assets already on the work .

The "not too much effort involved in that" is only your assumption. Any module, or map here, is a LOT of work mate. It's not ever just copy paste this and that as many people seems to think. It's really a lot, and it was since a lot of time, not a new thing, Corsair aside which isn't even related since it's a third party module. The assets pack BTW is coming, the Corsair comes with it as they have already told a zillion times. It's not only the plane itself, it'll be coming with Carrier, with naval and ground assets which we've already seen plenty of screenshots. Yeah, "not too much effort…", I don't think so…

Nostalgia aside, probably makes no sense… I've tried in the past to install the old LOMAC and previous software (old discs lurking around, you know) out of curiosity and… No, it makes no sense, it feels stupid having the same map and aircraft in very good and current quality to go flying those old maps and aircraft, old menus and GUI, old and limited options, but mostly the same at least in the surface since they aren't the same at all, so… quick installed, quick saw it, and quick uninstalled… Yeah, you have the Crimea map in old versions, but it's so old and low quality by today standards it isn't worth it. The old half of Caucasus map makes even less sense, you have all of that available "for free" in DCS with way better graphics.

It's possible you have an Nvidia Control Panel profile active that you forgot about? It's weird there's no MSAA active at all, despite in 4K and depending on your screen size you might not even need it since it's probably crisp enough by resolution itself.

You all wanted realism? Welcome to real life…

Here. You'll have to log into your account first.

Exactly my point time ago, you've been quite more straightforward than me though…

Let me add then those serial number placards are all over every plane, but not all are "the" plane placard with it's serial number (usually in the outer skin). Every spare part from those aircraft had it's placards, some times stating the part, some times not and it's just a spare part number which unless you have the spare parts catalogue you won't get to know what the placard and/or part was that. For instance I've had Ju-87A placards in my hand, and no, they weren't "the" aircraft placard and serial number yet the name Ju-87A was there. Which means, that one in particular doesn't look like "the" serial number placard from a 109, probably some internal part. Landing gear legs have them, for instance, or any other part boasting it's placard but not "the" aircraft's placard necessarily, and I believe that one doesn't look like the part.

Maybe "plane", but I carefully wrote "aircraft", and no, aircraft (I believe ship was also?) and other words like that have a gender and if you don't call it "it", which would be fine, in this case aircraft is "she". Maybe an old use of English, maybe people don't use it any more, I don't know and I'm no English native, I learnt the language, but that's why I do know it's she for aircraft while I know (from reading these forums, for instance) many people, even natives, don't know that. I don't pretend to teach their language to natives, nor I can be considered bilingual at all, but when you learn a language one becomes aware about so many rules of the language that many times are just overlooked by natives .

Yep, aircraft not only is it's own plural, it's also female word in English. It's not the only noun like that.

It's not said anywhere, but I believe 3 B20 canons in La-7 was a different version with different engine cowling, and with it's own problems IIRC. Not just 3 cannons same aircraft. The 3D model we've seen is the regular 2 cannons version.

The name was officially changed yeah, don't recall exact date but around 1944 or so probably. Not just for this one but everything, German ministry just thought (you know, important things to think about when you're miserably losing a World war… ) the names of the aeroplanes should reflect the designers' name and so the Bayerische Flugzeug Werke original builder's name was retired (anyhow, the designer's name was there all the time, it was Messerschmitt after all, not BFW Bf109, did you notice that?), same for Fw which new models and variants started to be Ta152 as well as other aircraft in the company. Funnily enough Me262, Me163, Me210/410 are all known by that name since the production started after the name change or very close, not to mention it wasn't BFW any more. Yeah, Ok, we all know that and since the last change and name was Me109 that should be the name that remains…? Well, depends on what you're naming since for instance if you have either an airworthy example, or a museum one, and it was build before the name change it's name was Bf no matter what, no need to use the "official German ministry name change", we aren't in that context any more. For later variants it should be taken into account and all that? Well yes, sure, but you get used to it and in the end it feels stupid to change the name of something you've already known differently. Even back then they didn't adopt the name change immediately or everybody, we're humans after all mate. In the end it's like P-51/F-51 name, we all know it as P-51 no matter what despite we all know the name officially changed in 1947 as for any other fighters, bombers, attack aeroplanes and all, but since we've known it as P-51 and in a simulator we're using it in a WWII context before the name changed why would we want to use any other name? One gets used to it and keeps using the old one, just that.

Been three days since OctopusG released it's last La-7 video, three days I've been with an earworm about something I knew but couldn't recall what was it… until now… First two-three bars of this easy beginners' piano study, yes, that's it in a really chill out arrangement for anyone wondering what was that , The video in case you missed it… And yeah, musicians do this kind of stuff all the time, even if you don't notice, either on this example but also in movies and tv shows soundtracks and any kind of pop music in general .