scoobie

Wheels are great provided you have them Fun fact: such "ramp up time" is there in P-51 if you bind trim controls to buttons (e.g. a trim hat), even though the RL Mustang has normal trim wheel and knobs. No later warbird in DCS got this quality of life improvement. My impression is that... maybe something like 2/3 of all aircraft in DCS, or half of them, IDK, have trimming with buttons set too "nervous"/coarse/fast, so that trimming turns into a minigame on its own. IIRC that was the case back then in LOMAC, probably also Flanker 2 (can't remember this one clearly).

Yeah, the Big Lady is awesome! It keeps puzzling me why people don't run in throngs to the shop to buy the module. I mean... sure, she looks like an old style milk truck, doesn't look hot or badass, as one of you mentioned above, she isn't an attack helo or a proper gunship, either, BUT... Mi-8 IS a top-notch module in DCS and it does matter a lot. RL aircraft is one thing, but the quality and "completeness" of simulation is another thing. She's on par with the Hawg (Charlie) in my book. There's so much depth to the module, the FM feels so good, so detailed, but also all the systems on board, starting from anti-ice and similar serious systems, but even every damned volt- or ammeter seems to work, a switch you didn't even know was there works, too. She's so amazing. You wanna HiFi - that's what's called HiFi. For a few hundred hours of flying Huey and Mi-8 in turns I was on the fence - do I like Huey more, or Mi-8? I finally decided, it's Mi-8 I prefer. I think I know why - Mi-8 is not only an awesome module, but also a very, very competent aircraft IRL. Lots of power, lots of radios (you'll need some to home on), she is TrulyTrimmableTM, she can cruise without you getting tired (as in Huey), you can medevac, you can swing load like a pro, you can also shoot and it's a lot of fun... provided the bad guys don't shoot back too much at you (which is a serious caveat, I know). 120 rockets? Or if you prefer realistic payload - 80 of them? That's a lot. Those machingun pods are fun like hell - you even get two flavours of bullets. Very soft targets, scattered around - spray red tracers (7.62 mm), you've got a million of them. Something slightly more endurable - aim with green tracers (12.7 mm). You need a serious punch - good, replace gunpods with cannonpods (23 mm), not too many rounds, but if you hit, they just kill. The only thing I haven't learnt to deal with (yet) is 30 mm grenades. Maybe some other time I'll get down to it. Even those "basic level" autopilots are really good, SAS that is. For instance, you can "kinda-autohover" in Mi-8. Use pitch and roll SAS - those dials on the center pedestal. Bring her to a manual hover, force trim and then see if she shows a tendency to drift away - use those dials to fine tune the hover. A few fine touches and she'll stay where you want for quite a long time. I have these dials bound to momentary toggle switches (like: minus-neutral-plus) on my button box - one for pitch, one for roll. Works a charm. Oh, you may add HDG hold to the mix. Normally you don't need this as she force trims so nicely (for sling loading etc. use your eye-hand combo, it's best), but when I get lost in a mission and need to consult the map or briefing, I hover OGE and study the papers, no problem. You can also trim her beautifully for cruise, 3 options: force trim (it works!), pitch/roll SAS (that works too), or "proper" autopilots HDG+ALT hold. So, anyway... if you like FLYING the meat and potatoes of a chopper (not a spaceship with a battalion of autopilots under the floor), for me the Mi-8 is still the best one in DCS. I mean FLYING, not missiles, double INU, fancy weapon systems or anything like that - just flying. I just wish she didn't get "knocked" every now and then as nobody from ED comes back to fix her. First the flood lights stopped flooding anything. Then she got that piano varnish at the back of the cockpit. I wouldn't mind varnish on its own, but it displays those spooky ZX Spectrum graphics reflections, jumping once a second. Recently she's got the fake hum, but I hear this is being dealt with (great!). Don't break our milk truck, ED, please!

Thank you for taking time to investigate, @imacken, you're truly a hero, I'm not kidding. There have been so many threads about it in the Spitfire forum and probably as many or more in the Mustang forum. Some of them are general (and it is a general problem), like this one: or this one: Others are "incidentally specific", like this one: (It's the same thing, but the OP simply stumbled upon it trying to bind bomb release button.) Many of these reports are marked "cannot reproduce" or not marked at all. Well, at least in case of Spitfire it's obvious the whole premise is "bugged", regardless of the code, because: 1) launch DCS, 2) open Controls menu, 3) change bindings for the Spit, 4) anwer this question: "Which variant of the Spit have you just modified?". This alone means the bindings CANNOT work as expected by the sheer power of Mother Logic. It's like 2+2=4. Now, if the bug reporting procedure is such that someone from ED must reproduce it or "it didn't happen", then, well - congratulations, sticking blindly to the procedure prevents ED from looking into and fixing an obvious bug bothering people every now and then for a few years now, if we count it collectively with the P-51. As a result, people are wasting their time, NineLine is wasting his time and every time the procedure gets stuck. I know that by and large procedures are neccessary or absolutely neccessary in many places, but when it happens that an otherwise sober procedure fails in 1 in every 200 cases, one simply needs to take a "detour" around the procedure. This is clearly one of such rare cases. Unfortunately the issue is more complex/nasty than that because the Pony variants -25 and -30 do have seperate folders for bindings AND separate "caterogies" in Controls menu to define these bindings, so in theory the Pony should work just fine. Alas, it has the same issue - sometimes new bindings "disappear". In the Spitfire's case it's obvious it can't work every time, by design. And this alone should be enough to pass a bug report to a dev (procedural "emergency detour"). Hopefully if someone plunges into the code, he will discover why also the Pony is bugged the same way. Maybe it's a common code - writen for the Pony, then copied into the Spit? At least is smells like it. Fingers crossed EDIT: Sorry. It would actually be more productive if the "investigation" was started in the Pony as she was the first one to get this bug. Spitfire is a more complex case - it has (most likely) the Pony's bug, but on top of that she got the "variant selection problem". So it's better to start at the source, the Pony that is.

Beauty! Thanks for sharing the pictures and the story. I'd like to jump back to my "favourite" bombing altimeter from another thread - you showed a drawing a few posts above. I don't know your superpowers, but this instrument is likely to become a headache to interface it to electronics. Provided you try to recreate it in your simpit without any simplifications. It's a real pig! You basically have three elements rotating around the same axis (axis in space). One - the cabin pressure altimeter pointer. Two - the index altitude ring/scale. Three - on top of the ring/scale - the release altitude arm/pointer, which rotates both with the ring/scale and on its own if you grab and turn it. That looks like a nightmare. You could go for concentric shafts, something like shafts in a turbofan engine, but then... they don't make "multiple coaxial absolute position encoders", I think you can't buy anything like that. So you'd have to somehow "break apart" those shafts below the face plate of the altimeter and... what - put a cog on each axis so that you can drive separate encoders (each with its own cog)? I get a headache only from thinking about it. There's more trouble with it (e.g. possibly different "transmission ratios" between hardware and DCS), but I don't want to steal your thread too much. It seems you need a Swiss watchmaker for the job Maybe if you lower your expectations, you can get away with it. For example, put a rotary encoder behind the bottom-left knob, make the ring/scale motionless, throw away the arm-pointer or make it just a "decoration" (no electronic interface) and put another encoder on the non-true-to-real-thing knob for setting the arm-pointer in DCS, maybe in the top-right corner of the instrument? I have no idea. Anyway, I keep my fingers crossed for your simpit and I hope you'll keep posting here, it's real joy to watch and read, thanks!

Yes, the breakdown apparently shows an early variant, a bit crude The one in the manual looks more "civilized" or polished, so it's probably a later design.

I'm glad if I could be of any help. Yeah, apparently there must have been different versions of this "front assembly". For instance, look at the "black and white arm" from the picture in the manual and its counterpart in the breakdown picture - part number 12. They are different, the former is "straight", the latter has this circle with a hole punched in it, near the thick end where you grab it. Anyway, if you get a chance to get these parts somewhere, or preferably the whole assembly together, we'll learn everything about it

The assembly drawing of the bombing altimeter. Just found it. I wish I had seen it before! I can't see the target altitude needle in the drawing. EDIT: I can't see the "bumper" for part number 12, either. It must be a slightly different variant of the device from the one depicted in Flight Manual.

Just to let you know - I've got a tiny bit of rotation, too, the difference is that I don't care. Maybe we're too heavy-handed on our joysticks, but regardless of that the gimbal on TM Warthog is by far its weakest point. If (if!) the rotation is an early symptom of the joystick falling apart, I treat it as a "chance" - it will give me motivation to buy a new joystick, and there are better sticks out there to buy! I'm too lazy to buy one without such extra motivation Like Art said - if you're really worried and you can see the grip-gimbal connection has no backlash, you may want to disassemble the thing (watch for delicate wires inside!) and see what's going on.

The track files. Both were recorded in Caucasus instant mission "Cold and Dark" for A-10C II. clicky_Hawg.trk Immediately upon the mission start you can hear erratic clicking sound, something like a Geiger-Muller counter. Actually it's the TCN sound volume knob set to maximum, I'm NOT touching my controls (yet). How can anybody fly like that? Then I started turning the axis left and right to show that ANY change of position in the axis generates a click, for example change of 1/4096 = 0,02% of full travel (single "notch" change in a 12-bit controller). All these actions should result in NO sound at all. turn_me_forever_knob.trk This time the axis is "turned off" and instead I'm using mouse wheel to turn TCN knob. The knob turns forever, which shouldn't be the case. clicky_Hawg.trk turn_me_forever_knob.trk

Tracks included in the post below. (I don't have my PC here now, so no track files yet. I'll try to procure a track later on.) DCS 2.7.16.27869 Open Beta introduced this change to A-10C II: "New cockpit switches sound." This hurt Intercom panel operation in the following ways: 1. When using the mouse wheel to change any audio volume on the Intercom Panel (left console in the cockpit, under your elbow), the audio knobs (for example TCN knob, UHF, ILS etc.) turn forever. The volume goes up, then drops to 0, again up, to 0, up, 0, ad infinitum. The knobs used to turn only 360° before OB 2.7.16.27869. (Side note: even 360° was too much, it should be something like 300, maybe 330, but we're not talking about it here.) Suggestion: restore the limit of 360° of turn. Or even better - make it 330° 2. Any change to sound volume controlled by any of these knobs now generates a "click" sound. They shouldn't click at all. While it may seem not to be a big deal on its own, it becomes a nightmare if you bind an axis to any of these sound knobs. Your physical axis (on your controller) may fluctuate a tiny bit, that's quite normal. Even the tiniest bit of such fluctuation will generate a "click" every time, which in practice means you get a neverending "symphony of clicks" in the cockpit, even when you're NOT touching the axis - the Hawg goes "clickclickclickclick" on its own, all the time. Removing the click sound will solve the problem. Suggestion: remove the "click" sound when these knobs are turned.

Hey @NineLine The document I was referring to: T.O. 1F-86F-1, 27 MAY 1960, CHANGE 10 - 30 APRIL 1971. Secion "MANUAL PIP CONTROL SYSTEM" begins on page 4-36 (p. 162 in PDF), the photo of the bombing altimeter assembly is on the next page. My PDF file weighs 119 049 KB.

Gee... It's always fascinated me how come a human eye-brain-hand combo can do such things. Of all things I'm most useless in this particular field, "100% uselessness", formally diagnosed by a brain surgeon. I can't even draw a proper circle. I guess this particular style may be called "linetillism", which would be a branch of pointillism, a branch of impressionism The Camel over the fields is georgous. Or the Tomcat with folks tinkering beneath it and the sun peeking out from behind. Or the guy sitting in the Spit's cockpit (yeah, the blister canopy is flat and probably doesn't match the canopy bow at the front, but it's not a technical drawing, it doesn't matter). Thanks, man - real joy to watch the pictures!

Just wanted to say thank you, Bailey! Bought the F1 the other day, and - surpise! - instead of spending hours in lua and SD software, I just downloaded your profile for F1 and that's it - it works. I find these especially great: 1. The icons for those "pushable pegs" in F1 (e.g. NWS sensitivity "peg"). I couldn't figure out how to draw icons for such a control, but your icons are just perfect for that - those half-disks - upper or lower, great idea! A quick glimpse and I know whether it's high or low sensitivity. 2. Pipper depression calculator (tables) - this is wild! It took me a second to realize what I'm looking at on my SD. Press buttons to pick attack run parameters, read the mills! Amazing idea! Hats off! Thanks a lot for this and all your great work in general!

Do as you like, but starting at 1500 meters AGL is very high (5,000 ft), so are you practicing landings or approaches? IIRC there's an instant mission... in Caucasus (I think) for Dora, where you start hot on the runway. I used this mission to touch-and-go until I bled from my nose It's a nice mission because the runway is huge (long and wide) and you can make all sorts of mistakes and still get her on the runway, at more or less ridiculous part of it, until you get better. And you fly slow all the time, so you can fairly quicky get the feel of how she handles. For example if she's "muddy" (can't remember myself, haven't flown her for quite long time), then she'll become "familiarly muddy". I remember Dora was difficult for me to land, I think most difficult of all warbirds, even the Spitty, so at least you're not alone I've no idea why I found Dora difficult. I was either landing too fast or she was dropping from the last 3 meters down as the piano, or a block of concrete. It might help you "self-diagnose" yourself if you quickly glimpse at the speedo, for example at the Rwy threshold, every time - you may be inconsistent in speed (I was!). But don't worry, you'll get it, no question about it. Each DCS warbird is from slightly to significantly different on landing - which is fantastic! Oh, and yes - the Pony is the easiest of them to land, at least to me (and you, it seems), so this would explain why you are surprised with Dora. Throw in the track file(s), so the gurus can take a look. I'm a semi-noob, but others have thousands of hours clocked in (neeerds!)

Don't quote me on anything below, but: 1. It's not a radio compass, but a "normal" magnetic one. Isn't it? 2. You're right about the manual, it reads as follows (page 70): I wasn't even aware it was supposed to work like that! I wonder whether this is a mistake in the manual or in the simulation. German compass repeaters get stuck beautifully, you never know where you're going I mean... it's the compass that gets stuck, the repeater on the instrument panel only reflects that fact. Was RL Pony any better in this regard? No idea. I doubt it, but don't really know. 3. Regardless, I just look at the DG when maneuvering, then cross-check with the magnetic compass when straight and level again.

Thank you @Big-foot, much appreciated! I just wonder if what you say means the whistle is gone or the Donkey simply didn't whistle at everybody in the first place. It might have been a "selective" bug - some got the whistle, some didn't. Damned magic EDIT (7/25/2022): For the record - the whistling bug is gone on my PC. I'm running DCS 2.7.16.27869 Open Beta.

Sorry for bothering, but would anyone be so kind as to check if the whistling is gone or still present in the yesterday's Open Beta? I-16 went out of EA, release notes don't mention it the whistling, I know, but maybe? I'm still in the no-free-trial period for the Donkey, can't check myself

FC3 planes are here because they were already pre-made to start with. Now, making Lo-Fi versions or separate Lo-Fi warbirds will partly choke the current "throughput" (sorry for such ugly word!) of the WW2 team, which according to at least a few folks (or many?) is a bit lacking already. Yes, a small team, I get it, but still... I'm just a customer, so I can only vote with the wallet, but I don't like the Lo-Fi warbirds idea, simply because I'd like more Hi-Fi WW2 stuff instead. Besides, unlike FC3 jets, in WW2 realm there's the other popular sim, quite cheap "per plane", so why turn DCS into something that already exists? I'm looking from a customer's perspective - I can just buy it, if I want. (I don't, but that's a different story.) I assume we're not looking at it from "module complexity" perspective, as that wouldn't make much sense to me. Warbirds are simple, some do have a few bells and whistles (e.g. the Mossie), but others are dead simple (e.g. the Anton). Yes, "press E to start her up" (if it was "E", I can't remember) is even simpler, but come on - Anton is as complex for the driver as your car is. For the same reason MAC worries me a bit, because personally I'm not a customer for MAC (nor FC3, sorry) and I'm afraid it will divert a substantial number of ED people to that, so... if I get the maths right... would this mean fewer folks to work on DCS? Sad They'll do what they want, business is business, but I'm just anxious.

EYE FATIGUE WARNING! Amazing campaign indeed! I wish I spoke more English so I could do proper justice to the quality and immersion that Reflected's campaigns offer, the Wolfpack Campaign included. I guess I should have got used to it by now, but I haven't - each time it surprises my how much effort is put into these campaigns. Let's talk for a moment about the thing not commented here, at least not often - the "cinematic" missions, those where you are just an observer. Take your cup of tea, sit down and watch the "movie" as it introduces you to the story. What a treat, where's my popcorn! There are great voiceovers across the whole campaign and they deserve accolades on their own, but even such a small thing as the font used for inscriptions popping up on the screen in those cinematic missions was mindfully selected to pretend the text came out of a worn-out typewriter. Get it? WW2, no computers, no printers, all the bureaucracy punched on typewritters. The briefings are written/drawn in chalk on a blackboard, you didn't expect modern stuff, did you? In each mission you get the "B" channel on your radio tuned to... probably BBC playing some cool swing songs, I listened to it every time on the way back to England. I may be wrong, but I think the song-set wasn't the same in all the missions. If I'm correct, think how much attention it takes to cater even for that! Boy, the list goes on and on, I don't want to write an epic, no one reads epics nowadays. While in fact I had seen it before, played through quite a few campaigns from Reflected, Bunyap and some other folks, it has only recently started to fully "float" up to the surface of my mind, I started realizing actually how much thought and love (yes! that's the right word) is put into these campaigns. And I'm utterly charmed... Now think about this: is it obligatory to create the aforementioned cinematic missions, chalk briefings, add music, add all these countless touches (there are more, but contrary to what you think I'm trying to be succint... to my limited capability), or if you don't, ED won't accept the campaign for sales? No, it's not obligatory, some campaigns don't have it. Do you set the price for the campaign twice higher than other (less sophisticated) campaigns if you do all this? No, campaigns cost more or less the same. In fact... I like to be honest... I've seen a tad bit rough-edged campaigns sold for more than the Reflected's ones. Why then does Reflected make them with such great attention to detail anyway? Well, for starters I suspect he simply does this for his own satisfaction and the feeling of accomplishment (which the campaigns undeniably are), of doing a great job, but at the same time he wants to give something as spectacular as he possibly can to other people, to get us involved, immersed, "soaked" in the world at war, give a taste of those gloomy times when even though you'd prefer to date that girl you met just before coming to Great Britain or fool around with your mates in your home town, you must instead stick your head out against the bullets in a furball mess. Today you live, tomorrow you may not. You never know. If all history lessons at school felt this great, we'd all be historians by trade I'm writing all this to confess that: a) I get it, b) I appreciate it a lot, and c) THANKS A 1000 for taking the time and energy to do all this for us! Part 2. I know there are new people here who haven't played any WW2 campaign yet and may be wondering if it's worth it. Shortly speaking: you bet it is, but here are some pros of a quality WW2 campaign, such as the Wolfpack: 1. You will learn to drive your warbird comprehensively! Initally, you'll want to try instant missions to quickly get the feel of your new warbird, how she can (and cannot) dogfight, what her strong/weak points seem to be, you may learn to take off and land more or less properly and that's basically it. In a campaign you'll be doing all the things that real pilots did (to the extent possible in DCS), not only dogfights, not even predominantly dogfights. You'll be taking off in a queue of other warbirds, sometimes 36 or so of them. How often did you see an airfield in DCS crammed to the limit? You'll be circling above the airfield until the whole group is airborne and formed. Yes, you, too, have a specific place in this big formation, can you find and hold it for 10-15 minutes? You'll be climbing with the whole group, keeping the formation and then you'll be cruising in formation a long way to the AO. Well, not very long as WW2 maps in DCS aren't very big, but still - quite a long trip. You think it's boring? No, it's not, go and see for yourself - formation flying keeps you constantly busy and time flies fast. Oh, and overall you DO become a better pilot by doing just this. Stick and rudder heaven. By the way, how often do you land a damaged aircraft. It's not uncommon in a campaign. I had to belly land once because I messed up my landing gear (the wheel got stuck against the wheel bay flap). Do you know how to feather the prop in the Jug, so that you can turn off the engine, cut the fuel off and decrease the risk of fire? How does it feel to land with other types of damage? I've had oil leaking, so I had to do everything it takes not to strain the engine in the hope that she takes me home in return. How often do you refer to the manual to check the best economy settings (manifold, RPM, altitude, speed), because suddenly you realized you had very little fuel left? All these may or will happen in a campaign, maybe the Wolfpack, maybe some other. And you really though you could fly the Jug, didn't you, eh? 2. You will really need to learn fuel management, something you never do when playing instant missions or any kind of short missions. You may even want to make some new control bindings for it (I have). Two drop tanks? How do you deal with them? Here's a supposedly historically accurate practice: initially fly 5 minutes on the left tank, then take 10-minute-long turns from each tank. Why do it this way? Because you'll have weight imbalance from 5 minutes of left fuel burnt (righ wing heavy), through perfect balance, to 5 minutes of fuel right burnt (left wing heavy). If you don't allow for the initial 5 minutes, you'll have imbalance from 10 minutes of fuel one wing heavy to a perfect balance. The latter is worse. I like to think about it this way: it's better to walk like a duck (swinging left and right symmetrically) than to dramatically walk like that guy who had his whole leg put in a plaster cast, but forgot his crutches. Yes, it's all small details, but hey - you wanted a WW2 pilot's job? Here it is, it's not only about shooting down bandits. There's another good reason to do it this way: AI planes climb with very high power settings. If you create a large weight imbalance, you'll have to compensate with rudder/aileron trims, perhaps to a point where you won't be able to keep up with your group. Haven't checked that myself, but it seems likely if you really don't care about fuel. 3. Since the Wolfpack is for the Jug in particular, you'll learn how to babysit the Double Wasp: warm it up first, then keep an eye on the oil temp. - adjust oil cooler shutters, carb temp. - adjust intercooler shutters, cylinder heads temp. - adjust cowl flaps. You really need to take care of it depending on the current regime of flight (climb/cruise/etc.) and altitude. Get used to carefully listen to the hiss of air from the turbo - the manifold pressure may have just risen above the red line even though you haven't touched the throttle and boost lever. Don't get caught. And so on, and so forth... 4. A common psychological catch in long missions. When 40 minutes have passed since the mission start, and you finally face bandits, not only do you want to shoot down one or two, you also want to survive, not get shot down - just because you've devoted quite a lot of your time and effort to get to this point. Do you want to refly the mission only because you went reckless and got shot down? That's something you NEVER consider in single player in an instant mission (or any short mission), where you instinctively go reckless because it doesn't matter - if you loose, you tap ESC, click "Quit" and "Fly again". That's it. That's not the case in a campaign. Typically it takes quite some time to meet bandits (not always), so you do care not to get shot down in a stupid way. This makes A LOT of difference as far as immersion is concerned. Yeah, yeah, I know this post is too long already and you may think "Man, why blow the trumpet so loud, you liked the campaign, so just say it and go", but you know what? I've noticed these forums are a bit "asymmetrical". You see a lot of complaints about specific modules (aircraft), because there are old bugs, or new bugs, or missing this/that feature and your favourite plane isn't perfect yet. This is a skewed picture, but the campaigns get a skewed picture the other way round - they are seldom ranted on, if ever. No one wants to discourage creators, for various reasons, one of them being that everyone hopes the authors get better during the process of making new missions and new campaigns. Frankly though, some of them are technically flawed - "touchy" triggers etc. Some have subpar documentation, as if it was pulled out of one's throat by force. Or documentation where there are true and erroneous pieces of information in a 50:50 ratio. Or campaigns which require telepathy to figure out what the autor expects from the player. Oh, man... Anyway, I understand and accept this assymetry, but as a side effect I think it raises the need to praise the quality campaigns, as loud as you can, so others can spot the difference. By the way, I haven't said a single word about triggers in the Wolfpack. Why? Because everything just works and the only quirk or two I experienced were due to the "smart" AI doing their "smart" things (such as crashing on the runway etc.). I just happen to have learnt already that mission creators can do very little about it, it's a DCS core thing. That's why I think it's really important to elaborate on excellent campaigns (such as this one) and elaborate on the "value added", i.e. all those additions that (some) authors put in to increase the immersion, even though it's not strictly required to get the campaign to the shop. At least it's fair to mention them, acknowledge the author's extra efforts. The Wolfpack Campaign is one of those top-notch campaigns which you plunge into and don't want them to end, ever, and those that unfortunately do eventually end and leave you as sad as a kid who ate the lollipop and there's nothing left. I've dragged my chunky Jug into the hangar and it felt really bad and empty. This simply means I've had a freaking great time. Also make sure you understand that Reflected's campaigns come in two main "flavours": one is "fantasy" campaigns, where missions are basically made up (though anchored in the author's knowledge about WW2 reality), and historical campaigns which try to recreate missions actually flown back then during WW2 (based on written reports etc.). The Wolfpack is the second flavour. Which do I like more? I like more both They're just a bit different, the fantasy ones have a slight proclivity to be more funny, or surprising at times, but the historical ones feel equally great when you realize that these exact events really happened, you take part in the history. It feels very special.

Congratulations to a braveheart! The Hawg version "Charlie" is (very) complex, but I heard this great piece of advice once: accept the learning curve, but don't forget to enjoy the ride along that curve. Eat one "chunk of the elephant" at a time and you'll tame it. Well, technically it's a pig, not an elephant. Whatever. Just take your time, simply because there's no other choice - it must take some time. On the sweet side, she's so incredibly competent at the single job she does, especially the "II" with HMCS, and so enjoyable for the driver when you finally learn by heart how to use the Mammoth-HOTASTM plus all the myriad of cool stuff she has onboard... and under the wings. (EDIT: Forgot the nose - the BRRRT!) Those engineers should get some Medals of Honor from the president, or whatever appropriate you get in the States Have fun!

Thank you, @BIGNEWY. Track included (17 seconds long). Stock instant mission. ah64_wpn_ase_unase_tsd.trk

Thanks, Kharrn! Hmm... I don't know. If I understand correctly the passages you quoted, they're about when and how "ASE data" can automatically pop up on an MPD, on their own. Let's say you have WPN page on the left MPD and FUEL on the right one. Now the Apache detects a threat, so it may automatically display a good page to tell you about it - the moving map with threat overlay or maybe the "bare" ASE page itself, whatever. That would make a lot of sense! However, when I'm doing this WPN->ASE->unASE sequence, I'm doing it on the left MPD, while I keep TSD displayed on the right one so I end up having two TSD pages on both MPDs and have to press WPN again on the left one. Like I said - no big deal, but it seems to violate the rule of entering and exiting subpages, that's why I started suspecting there may be something wrong with the way it currently works.

(Scratching his head...) I don't know if it's a bug, Boeing's ideology, or myself being too dumb (as usual) to dig it. Press "WPN", enjoy the WPN page, then box "ASE" and do your changes on the ASE page as you wish. Now "unbox" ASE and... you don't return to WPN page, TSD gets displayed instead. Shouldn't "unboxing" ASE cause MPD to return to the page you were previously viewing? In this case - to the WPN page? No big deal, but since we're talking "Bugs and Problems" here...

It may be the case that pitot heat is currently broken across all warbirds, look here: Speculations now: I haven't had a dead speedo in a warbird for a long time, so either I've been just lucky, or maybe (just maybe) they "blocked" pitot icing as a temporary workaround for the pitot tube heating issue? No idea. I'd love more talks about systems, or better yet more systems actually simulated as this is what makes the birds feel "alive", to me at least. Flight model is most important, sure, but then come the systems, which add so much depth to the airplane, and so much immersion to the pretend-pilot like myself Thanks to Reflected I've just learnt that in the Spitfire oil dilution actually works. I had never bothered to try it before because I was somehow convinced it was just a "fake", the switches or buttons are there in cockpits, but it's no use flicking/pressing them. I'm glad I was wrong, but don't know if dilution works in the Jug (for the same reason).

It is! I was thinking about something quick and dirty, because... sometimes I have the impression that only quick and dirty "non-core features" stand a chance to crawl into DCS. Maybe I'm being unfair, no rant intended, really Sure, a human-friendly editor sounds awesome.