peachmonkey

all we can do is continue to voice our frustrations to ED. The fact they haven't included this mod into IC as of yet is puzzling. My optimistic side thinks that ED finally accepted it as a problem and wants to keep the MP community pacified with the mod. The pessimistic side of me thinks they simply don't care about either IC or the spotting issue, aka business as usual.

yup, can attest to Anton as well, the pitot heat switch doesn't improve its operation in the snowing freezing conditions/temps regardless if it's engaged from the start or in-flight.

yup, it does. The bindings themselves are saved into .xml file that have a unique UUID in the name, but figuring out which one belongs to which in DCS Controls menu is a trial and error business.

yes, and it does, and no, devs aren't looking into this because according to them 'everything is OK'. Meanwhile, you can use the below mod (passes IC check in MP) to get you on the same level of spotting as the 1080p players.

On the A8, if one of the wing cannons get damaged, the AC is clearly getting slewed towards the working cannon during firing, albeit not hugely, but it affects aiming considerably.

you're still using the RHINO ForceTrim with this though, right? I've tried the above setting about 6 months ago (without forcetrim) and even though it was flyable, it was still pretty wonky and unstable, I need a continuous stick input and couldn't fly hands off. With Forcetrim in Rhino obviously it's no longer a problem, but the point is I still need an outside program for that. I guess there's a preference among players on how to actually fly the AC's. Anyhow, I'm glad you keep looking into this to find all possible solutions!!

yay, will for sure try it out tonight! Thank you, @Barthek!

you're welcome, @Digitalvole another comment about engine management: - if you're doing A2G attacks, which are on deck obviously, then the turbo isn't used (it's a high altitude feature), so the only thing you need to look for is simply not to over-boos the engine (i.e. above 52" without water injection, or 64" with water), compared to P51 where there's an overboost protection/regulator in place. Once you set the RPM's they stay where they need to, etc. i.e. it's not a big departure from other planes. - However, when you start fighting enemy AC, that's where the engine mgmt becomes critical/requires more attention. So, you can practice doing A2G sorties and don't get tangled up in dog fights, and the workload won't be that much bigger than P51's. Once you get comfortable with A2G you can try venturing into the air battles. So, from the re-playability perspective P47 is a very interesting AC with many capabilities. With P51 you can also do A2G, but with the current ED's aimbot ground fire you'll have a much tougher time because a single rifle hit can penetrate the waterjacket and you'll have to turn for home pretty much immediately. So there are pro's and con's anywhere you look.

hello, If it were an option during the WW2... could we possibly get the AP and HE ammo in Tracerless configuration? The current tracerless ammo is a mixed bag and not as effective either against ground or air targets. At least that's what it feels like .. which I know isn't a great argument, please correct me if I'm totally off ...

P47 is very heavy. ~9.800kg for Mosquito ~7,900kg for P47 ~4,100kg for P51 ~3,000kg for the Spit So it is by far not a nimble aircraft. Down on deck it becomes very obvious. However, it has excellent high altitude performance at 20,000'+. If you meet LW AC's at high altitude you have a very high chance of getting an upper hand IF you're a master of the controls and don't blow up your engine due to MP, overheat, rpm over-speed, or turbo rpm over-speed. Multi-faceted engine controls are its weak side. To me, it's actually a PLUS, the harder the better , obviously you will make your own conclusions. It also can take a lot of ground and enemy AC fire before it goes down (as long as it's not on fire), so its survivability is much higher than any of the water-cooled ac's. If you want to geek out, get P47.

hi, @Droning_On out of curiosity and for my edification, where can I find these logs? All I was able to find are the notes in SP briefing at the end of the mission that lists out all of the 'failures'. The logs you are showing are bit more in depth. I you could point me to the location in files I would greatly appreciate it! cheers. nm, it's in debrief.log file..

see if this video helps. You need to preconfigure the map & units in the proper way for it to work.

@havebugagain, big thank you for pointing me to this solution!!! It freaking works!! For anyone with RHINO the solution to the curves vs. trim issues = this is the way to do it. 1) enable ForceTrim feature in VPforce 2) enable "Override Trim" as well, this will over-ride the SpringCenter position that DCS generates. If you leave it off the Trim won't work. 3) set the "Slew Rate" = ~20 or higher for faster trim, albeit less precise. 4) assign buttons to Top/Bottom (pitch) and Left/Right (roll) 5) On Mossie i run a Y saturation (instead of curves) to flatten out the response curve, and it works wonderfully. On P47 I run a curve of 40+ to get a nicely balanced pitch response. Couple of gotcha's: - the spring center moves forward about ~35% of the Y throw (i.e. from the center position), i.e. the stick center will move away from you, having an S type of stick extension will help to offset it (I use VirPil S extension, 20cm). The overall move of the center forward 30% doesn't affect the operation of Mossie one bit, since it has a pretty wide Y band that goes way outside of Mossie's practical limits. - in Mossie, if you use the Rhino's trim (i.e. the above force-trim feature) for Y axis only (pitch), and continue to use in-game Aileron trim (X axis), then anytime you move the X trim it will reset the Y center back to the original place causing Mossie to violently pitch up (and requires re-trimming again). Because of it, I recommend you use both Y and X Rhino force-trimmers and avoid using in-game x/y trimmers. (Interestingly enough, it's an issue with Mossie only. I've tried a similar setup with P47 and trimming roll axis (x) doesn't reset Pitch axis (Y) at all, go figure . Edit: Actually, P47 has the same issue, never mind. Gotta use both x/y hw trimmers in these models.)

gotcha, thank you again, @havebug! I thought those 0 numbers represented some multipliers, hence I didn't even try assigning buttons because of it and was looking for them somewhere else entirely. I'll test it out and will give you a shout back. Cheers!

gotcha, so, as far as trim in VPForce, are you talking about the Force Trim? (see picture below) if so: - how where do you assign the actual buttons to these trim functions? I can't figure this part out.. - are you also using Curves in FFB axis in DCS for Mossie? null

color me interested! Can you elaborate a bit on your setup? - "removed trim function" <--- what do you mean by this? Setting the trim to 0 in Mossie cockpit? - "input loopback" <--- that's for the Grip, right? (picture below). and with the loopback app you combined your Throttle with Rhino base so you can use the trim... But what trim are you referring to in this case? There's some "Force Trim" in vpforce, it's for helicopters I think... I guess my question is how do you trim (with what) Mossie without using in-cockpit trim bindings.. ? null

A big bomb will do it (250kg or 500kg). I tried knocking them out with a 50kg which should be possible, but alas I got no success with those...

this is an awesome update, @GR00VYJERRY! I've been waiting for some action in the newly added map areas. Thank you for the great work!

you're right, it is in Steam, I stand corrected. But I clearly remember trying to buy it after stumbling over it in the forums, and Steam had the entry, but there was no price, it was a while ago though, maybe it was due to some incompatibility.

I don't think you can even buy it anymore, it's an unsupported module per my understanding.. hence the issues..

there's a lack of content and problems everywhere you look. The ground AI aim bot functionality for light and heavy flack makes me hate the default maps and I don't appreciate server admin's who use default settings for those units. anyway, this is a pointless discussion, ED's gotta ED. With DCS I turn to the philosophy of a realist: "not expectations, no disappointments" cheers.

you're new to DCS, so you're full of ambitions and expectations, and I applaud it. From the dev perspective the D9 is a very old module, released in 2014-2015 (?). Anton was released in 2019, so it was developed using new tech and code. The reason why DCS suffers from a lack of speedy and contemporary progress of graphics and processing tech is that it's a mishmash of different blocks of code that require a lot of rework in to a single coherent platform. The whole WW2 part of DCS is a thorn in their side, where they can't come up with a coherent roadmap that would unify the theaters and ultimately help with a dynamic campaign efforts. I usually shy away from commenting on their business model like I'm some sort of a professional business developer, because it's just super silly from a context of a basic "know it all" consumer, but you still need to keep those points in mind since ED isn't a "game developer", they are simulator developer, i.e. their applications are extensively used in the military markets. They can't just "wing it" or fake it, their reputation is at stake.

yup, it's an interesting debate about what the word "simulation" actually means. When I joined DCS I had the same expectations as you, if each system can be simulated then why don't give us the ability to remove certain elements, experiment with others, actually let us "simulate" the what if scenarios. Unfortunately, time and time again ED showed us that it's not in their interests, and I can understand that. For example, with the delayed fusing, when it was released, they have simulated the actual real-life fuses according to their spec. I thought they'd just give us some amorphous non-realistic timer delay, but instead the simulation is close to reality with the proper delayed timers/arm timers as the fuses allow. And it took them .. well, about ~8-10 months to release since its announcement, i.e. there was a substantial amount of work that went into it. Such approach to simulation allows them to extend the damage model to these elements sometime later, i.e. the fuse got dinged by the shell/explosion fragment, and it no longer works (instead of pretending to simulate some 'hit box' in the vicinity of the fuse). So with gun removal 'feature simulation', they would actually have to develop the impacts to the wing, its weight, stress forces surrounding the area of the removed guns, etc. etc, which is serious dev effort, compared to some basic high level 'hit box' based dev in other more arcade sims. thinking that way helps (me at least) to see the reasons behind current 'limitations'. ww2 stuff is a lot more upclose and personal. The 'guesswork' may impact the ac behavior in a way that it will focus the critics on the 'guessworked' items, which will reduce the trust in the overall system modeling, hence breaking the immersion of the reality, etc.. I doubt ED wants to open that pandora box. Plus, I definitely do not want any guesswork in the way the A8 operates. There's enough of sims out there that can fill in that niche.

1. That's not exactly true. I keep flying a8 doing a2g runs and I'm always interested in how many sorties the bird will last without repairs. I can tell you that after 1hr of running it at maximum power, without the cooling down, it will eventually fail, maybe at 80 minutes, maybe even earlier. A8's bmw engine was bulletproof literally and figuratively. You can fly it without oil for good 30-40kms before it loses power, even though it will still continue to run. Comparing dcs a8's engine resiliency to other sims' timers and tricks is a bit short sighted. 2. I don't believe it was such an option for a8. You can't look at some extremely unique "reported" cases with a8 where the outer cannons were removed and think it was a common modification in the field. It wasn't. It's the same story with "why can't I set the gun convergence, it was an option during WW2!!!" No it wasn't, there were some very specific cases that talk about it, but they were all unicorns. 3. Cluster bombs work as well, but you can't release them too close to the ground. You need to be at 1.5 or 2k altitude, going about 450kmh, and release them while maintaining a horizontal flight path. It's extremely difficult to hit anything with them though because of it. 4. Yup, this was one of the biggest recent improvements in WW2, hooray to that!

A8 is superbly done. FM, DM, survivability, everything. And it's been the most stable module out of all ww2 for the past 2 years. I would love to get the G1 model, or whichever that allows for 2 x SC250's under wings and 1 x 500kg on the center line bomb rack. Currently, with the single bomb + rockets one can do only so much damage in A2G, especially when bombing naval targets..