Ala13_ManOWar

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 .

Yep, it was first a Sea Fury, then a Corsair (F4U-5 or so), and probably more later on, not just 2 MiG-15 downed, but still those models did it. As far as I remember, P-51s had no luck with downing fast jets like those in Korea.

Mafia I (original version, not the recent remake). By today standards probably way outdated, and reason for "deleting" was something related to its sound track (gorgeous by the way). It'd be a bit useless now to search for it, way outdated graphics and everything, but it was a blast back then and you couldn't find it any more is such a quick time after release. The recent remake, well, not bad, but the original Sound Track is completely missing and it was a huge difference in ambience and all. For similar reasons, well some of you probably know the NFSU, U2 and MW (2005 version) legends of the street car racing series, really good games back in time, and it was all due to a gorgeously picked Sound Track, and if I'm not mistaken also the reason why they took them out of the shelves too soon, the sound tracks had an expiration date so you couldn't buy them any more. I believe from not long ago there're some hacks you can buy to run them in present day computers and all, but I think they come without the sound track, which again made half of the game. The series was screwed not long after those by publishers so they keep as mythical street racing titles without a proper sequel or heir, though I believe those probably would still be worth the run even today if you could find them in their original condition. Yeah, recent NFS (really recent, like the last couple) recovered some of the racing spirit of the original titles, but actual sound tracks from those stinks compared to those original ones.

I know it's a bit hard to find, reach, and click being a couple posts above this one, but the data I mentioned is here, https://forum.dcs.world/topic/170630-bf-109-g-and-further-level-flight-trim-quotzeroquot-trim-dive-recover-forces-etc/#comment-3386384 Cheers

That's why those aircraft, any of them, weren't suited for IFR at all. Earlier versions of the 109 didn't even have an artificial horizon nor anything alike. O the drifting horizon in the P-51 and Spitfire, no, those weren't suited for IMC at all. The trim thing in the 109 has been discussed to exhaustion, but the documents used, charts, and all are there, there's even a fixed post somewhere for the suspicious people out there, but charts and documents say what they say. The problem is with moving horizontal surface trim, not the trim itself, it can't be pushed forward because at high speed with that configuration it won't recover a dive, so the recommendation from the test pilot (well known document, with translated to English versions) was to limit trim to 1.15º to prevent unrecoverable dives. Those are the facts, then there're the people's liking and all because in other games it's not like that, but that's a completely different kettle of fish.

It depends on your level of comfort with the DIY stuff, but there're the Authentikit(link) option which are quite good copies of the WWII stuff. You can print them by yourself or buy a kit with all the stuff. The thing is you won't find any commercial option more suited or exact than those for WWII, and there're several aircraft options.

Thanks mate!! Terrific job

What goes on is the absolute maximum speed happens at a certain FL and conditions, and even when it happens depending on your atmospheric settings it may change so you won't see the absolute speed in your anemometer, MACH counter might be because that only depends on temperature (so watch that), but not indicated airspeed. So, I haven't tried those models and conditions you mention, but I've tried for fun with MiG-21 to see it's limits, not only you can reach that top speed but you can even overspeed and following manuals it's realistic and you shouldn't because at some overspeeding point there's a lost of control (like 2.1M is your limit but you could reach much more and over 2.2 could be fatal but the aircraft keeps accelerating, I've reached 2.15M). Same with F-104 which I've also tried but since that's a mod we can't be as certain it's absolutely accurate (pretty good for my taste though) and it's the same, you can even overspeed, you shouldn't. BUT, it was really hard to achieve those exact conditions in which that speed is reached. For starters any external loadout prevents you from reaching the top speed, any, so watch out that (even pylons just in case) and total weight. Besides, the top speed is reached at the altitude and conditions the manual and charts tells you, it's not arbitrary, and off those limits you won't see the top speed ever at the indicator. For the MiG-21 there're videos on YT showing the process, might those tell you something you didn't think about in the conditions for that speeding trial, may be there're also others for the models you mention. The other fun trick to try is zooming with top or even overspeed and then pulling almost vertical attitude to see where the aircraft is able to get you in altitude (altitude records were done like that indeed), also plenty of YT videos on that. And yes, aircraft performances are a biatch and not that straightforward as one might think when seeing those absolute numbers on Wikipedia.

Are you aware that variometers never, ever, read instantly, right? Well, IIRC some really old ones do, and they weren't very useful jumping all around constantly. Usually vario has a delay, a few seconds until settled, so if you chase the needle you won't get a stable reading at all. Maybe that's one source of your problems. Watch the altimeter instead if you wanna check stable flying and trim with that. Besides, a couple of minutes, even if you managed to really set it absolutely stable, isn't enough to achieve top speed anyhow. It's usually a really stable long run thing more than a few moments to reach it. That's why it's commonly really hard to get that top speed.

Hope soon™, and specially I hope it's not longer than this year. MT was huge task and not finished yet, that's for sure, but It's about time we finally see what Vulkan will bring to us.

Always practising with the same mission and conditions, perhaps? Are there any wind you didn't notice? Landing with any tail wind is really bad on tail draggers. Those 90º, always veering into the same direction? Without further details, but there's something weird about high performance tail draggers (well, low performance also have it's glitches) and that's about torque and something more. Something which happens indeed so many times and we pay little attention to is the wheels spinning also create gyroscopic precession, plus lateral movement of the propeller under some circumstances makes one of the wings to load more hence that side wheel grip stronger to the ground than the other one creating a swerve moment. It happens when you raise the tail while taking off, and might happen after landing while rolling out. The thing is, it's wildly counter intuitive because to counter it you have to push the control stick into the swerve since there's where you want to alleviate the differential higher wheel grip into the ground so pushing the stick that way lowers the pressure on that wheel. Don't know about your exact problem without further details about the conditions where it happens, but that so happen and it's really annoying thing about tail draggers. Anyhow, it can be worse with crosswinds, and also less depending on where your crosswind comes from, so it's not even happening all the time, so the conditions of your landing need to be taken into account if you please to tell us.

Wow, I wish I could read the original just for fun. What a read, permanent link to any guy posting, again, anything about "convergence" and why we can't have that option. Terrific explanation, the understanding and knowledge of the OP can be clearly felt in there. Thank you so much for translating and posting Yo-yo. Loved to read that, and it's definitely knowledge to bear in mind next time we're in the air with a warbird.

Yep, marketing purposes. But it was Ilya Shevchenko (AKA Luthier) the only actual responsible. Oleg wasn't even close, and Igor Tishin was included as ED director at the moment, I guess, but he did nothing with the kickstarter at all. Luthier also was selling Fw190D-9 and P-51 in the kickstarter as a part of his failed (or never meant) product but those were ED's, actually. Looking at it now it's all so surreal and unlikely, but it happened, sadly.