Doughguy

You happen to have the clear canopy mod installed to get rid of the pesky reflections?

That is a model error. Was reported earlier. So far zippo from ED´s side..

Although i dont have the spit i can show you some stuff if you want to. Sent you a DM.

Neither of us could solve it if its a bug.

There was a bug with the mosquito a while back where it bounced uncontrollably. It worked on some airstrips like on caucasus but eg not on normandy. Each surface of a map has also different values apart for its color information, namely how bumpy or rough the surface is... In the said case, some airfields were VERY bumpy... others not. I dont really have any probs with the mustang. at least i cannot observe this on normandy. dont have the mossie or jug nor afghan. Try some runways on caucasus.

If you fight AI you have to understang that they fly perfectly. the do not make human errors but others. they always fly the same pattern. Also, from what i can read, you simply just burn your energy. If a spit so so slow, every other fight can indeed outturn it. It appears, you have not understood nor internalized the concept of energy fighting. I tackle that alot with the SR-F rookies. Many spitfire pilots simply try to outcircle you, but if they simply follow you to get a lead, theyll fall into your trap. Thus, often people simply rely on high bank flat horizontal turns. But that wastes alot of energy. You always need a altitude component to it. With enough energy i waste spits easily in my d9 or anton. However, if the spit pilot isnt overly aggressive, but starts to shadow me keeping his energy high, its gonna get really difficult. It would be best if youd post a video or so of you fighting.

That is not an issue with the mustang. its an issue with the map.

Work on the Dora is commencin. Itll get a massive cockpit improvement. Watch this space.

Youre in a world of hurt...

a viewing tool doesnt make you better.... making textures isnt just about aligning some funny lines ya know...

Look, basically thats how like any of the livery artists think. We enjoy making liveries. Some of the very good artists were even hired and their stuff incorporated into modules. The very same guys now say "uhm... bad idea"... Well.... what do you think will happen ? Most likely they will cease to do liveries and publish them.

Its all valid, but see it this way, if you could make better liveries faster, would you say no? If you want to spend weeks aligning a pattern, fine. It´s your time. I find texturing rather soothing. But "wasting" my time makes my p^ss boil. I take no money, no can i. I make liveries because i like it and its fun, but i will DEFINATELY NOT waste my time switching back and forth between DCS and PS to check if ive aligned something right... also yea.. RAM is quite "limited" running DCS and PS at the same time... We were told that programmer time is rare, and implementing the encryption into the MV would either render its functions unusable, or simply would take too much effort (roughly). Ok, but functions will we have using the "New" method ? None. Neither can we generate *lua files, check each of the channels by one, etc. etc. The community had to BEG! for a lua file because otherwise you couldnt do anything with the released template... It only dawned ED at that moment that they somehow did not see the problems arising by their decision to encrypt their work..... The Output on the F5 is already low. Everyone ive spoken to tried it or made one livery and will never touch that thing with a 10 foot pole... Some parts are broken into 4 seperate sheets.. other supposedly straigh edges are 0,5 deg off... And you want to allign things by starting and exiting DCS? Wow. Well if thats your thing... For the devs its easy. They paint directly onto the 3d model using substance. But the community is supposed to come up with some superb liveries with hands tied behind their back... Thats some twisted humor right there..

Its a slap in the face of any user "with passion and support" supporting this game, in this case with liveries. Liveries that are in turn incorporated into the modules and sold as such... I already deleted my userfiles. So did others and so will others. Pushing a livery competition at a stage where no feasable solution is presented is quite premature... and shouldnt be surprising stirring up bad moods.. rightfully so.

d9 panel

Attached image of a real He162. It is a Plywood panel. A jet plane. Not the only part that was made of wood on the He162 The D9 and later models did indeed use alot of plywood parts. Said dashboard, gearcovers, flaps, and various caps. The only surviving D9 we have that exhibited it a converted A8 iirc. The only late war example is the D13, that actually has wooden flaps installed. Perfectly correct You can also see the difference between a black (instruments) and RLM 66, which is a darker-medium grey.

100 meter mark was intended for 100 meters.. 400 for 400... however.. our now 400 mark is set for a target at 100m... its not correct.. technically, nor historically.. But tell me, how it was intended to be used IRL.. Maybe its not accurate cause you use the wrong numbers. I have no probs with that sight using the correct numbers.

just change the scale lettering back from 400 to 100... ED did a very lazy job on fixing this "bug"....it was 100 before and then the scale will work again, even if not "correct" the mark for 300, 600 etc are all working, only the 100/400 mark is totally off...

There were, especially during late war stages. But dark leather was more predominant. Keep in mind, many D9s were actually converted A8s. The range meter is wrong. I actually made a bug report on this, but no response so far. The indicator itself should have a "400" instead of the "100", as another forum member pointed out. HOWEVER, thats all what ED actually did... the horizontal line between the 400/100 and the 600 is approximately 250is meters for a spitfire sized target at 11m wingspan.... so go figure how to make your gyro work...

Oh i was just taking a break but working on it. Gatherin reference like a magpie. But dont be stopped @SAB0T.. the more the marrier. Just be aware that the dora cockpit is full of mistakes. The leather is was mostly black. Late war doras even had the side walls of cockpit unpainted. The instrument gauges were also all painted black cept markings and the oxygen gauges.

This still seems to happen, or happen again @NineLine

Try with mouse clickin first. I fly the anont pretty regularly and have no issues really.

User error..... If your engine is running, check that all cbs are pushed in. Then turn on the top switch. Wait until all 4 mg151 lights are on. THEN turn on the lower switch. Red lights come on for mg131. Open safety cover. Fire. You have 2 buttons to use. Fire inner wing cannons plus mgs And one for outer cannons.. you can manually lower your pov via camera controls. You can upload a video, no track needed.

i dont really follow what your problem is... if you want unlimited ammo, you can set this in your game options and enforce this in the mission editor. its not the module....

I think what they miss is that actually theyve used the work of modders in their videos and modules... So what impression does that make? Yeah. Shot in the foot. We'll have to stick to textures with skin disease.. And as you said... that encryption is just as good as some internetpages blocking rightclick....

ww2 isnt a priority. never was. the team is small and it takes long. which is fine with me. the f35 is sort of just a questionable choice really, with ed going into a more "speculative" direction, whilest, e.g. the me262 were put on halt, due to lack of documentation iirc, and similiar arguments bein raised against other suggested a/c. ww2 dcs is just nieche. its so nieche that basically are all related in here or know each other over someone else. its not profitable enough. hence you dont see as many ww2 modules. the other thing is that obviously dev time for a module is long and arduous. so having a small team and low yield in revenue results it less planes because not enough interest / money etc etc.