Skewgear

... you know Rochester is not modelled as an actual airfield on the Channel Map, don't you... ... as far as the game engine is concerned you've just landed in a field!

The point is that in reality the landing technique is to wheel it on and lower the tailwheel. You cannot do that with the DCS Mosquito - you can't fly it realistically - because of the bugs with the too-delicate tailwheel and that bizarre tail-down swing as soon as the main wheels touch, as Lixma's video illustrates well. Note that there's no stick-back input on the elevators at all.

Your local settings will make no difference on 4YA Project Overlord, our mission file enforces random failures off. Multiplayer server settings override local client settings, otherwise you'd have external views available. Pitot heating is a warbird-wide bug. We need to collect easily reproduced track files under test conditions so ED devs can hunt for the underlying cause. As far as I know it's modelled but incorrectly - there is heating but it won't overcome cold weather conditions in the sim.

Flaming Cliffs simplifies complex aircraft systems so time-poor players can use them without having to go through a virtual type rating course, in effect. What about our warbirds is so complex that it needs a simplified version? Once you've mastered engine start and ground handling, you've got about 90% of it.

Ca somebody please be so kind as to record a video of a Mosquito landing that shows the main gear compression, and capture the track file, and upload both here together? That helps the fault finding process. If the root of the bug is that the gear is simply too stiff and unyielding, that can be reported internally.

You have invested nothing in Project Overlord. You have bought addons for a free-to-play video game made by Eagle Dynamics. You have connected to a free-to-play multiplayer server run by volunteers who spend hundreds of hours keeping it online and running in their spare time, and decided you don't like it because your favourite virtual aeroplane doesn't fly as fast as you want it to. Instead of accepting that and moving along, you have chosen to rant away on here about how hard done by you think you are. You then have the gall to make demands as if you are my paying customer and entitled to dictate how we choose to operate our free-to-play server, which we run in our free time and maintain at some personal cost. You are contemptible.

If you want a neutral merge dogfight server where everything is perfectly balanced so unskilled players can score easy kills, Project Overlord is not the multiplayer environment for you. We focus on historical milsim. That's what on the website and in the briefing of every mission we run. It's not designed to be easy, or even to have all the weapons and options available for each aircraft. That's what "historical" means. Feel free to join one of the many other DCS multiplayer servers if you find that flying solo on a server designed around collective group play within a specific and clearly advertised scenario is too difficult. If you have a bit of patience, join our Discord server (link on the website homepage) and ask if anyone's looking for a wingman, or join one of the squadron groups who fly together on our server. There's a significant number who take pride in flying the Fw190A (which, by the way, doesn't have MW50 as an option in DCS) to consistently lethal effect as pairs or teams.

skill issue

Despite all the whinging and moaning we see about this, we never get similar from owners of the Spitfire (second slowest in the DCS WW2 plane set), P-47 (great up high, great ground pounder, pretty poor elsewhere) or Mosquito (slowest of the DCS WW2 plane set, hopeless against single seaters). Me109 players who have convinced themselves that they can't fly multiplayer combat sorties without their beloved MW50 are not worth listening to. Man up or shut up - and learn to fight.

See the attached flying limitations for the Mosquito FB.VI, taken from the Royal Australian Air Force's Mosquito Instruction No.1 dated 8th December 1944. Page 24 of the first PDF at the following link: Remember that post-war editions of RAF pilots' notes (meaning the digitised original copy that everyone always refers to in online Mosquito FB.VI discussions, with speeds in knots) do not include a significant amount of information that was in the wartime documents. This is because after the war, the requirement to carry bombs and rockets on these aircraft largely fell away as they were relegated to second line duties and training roles. My personal view is the post-war FB.VI pilots' notes omit important information for the pilot including many of these limitation speeds. I fly in accordance with them and I don't find myself tearing off my wings. Adding link because the forum software swallowed it: https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/raaf-mosquito-reports.55455/

Max permissible diving speed for the FB.VI with external bombs or rockets was 350mph. You're probably doing two things wrong: exceeding the speed and pulling out too sharply.

The effect already exists on the Mosquito. Set one of those on fire and within a few minutes it starts falling apart. On the rest of the warbirds ... sigh. It's been reported for inclusion plenty of times.

Max landing weight in the Mosquito FB.VI is 20,500lbs. Max takeoff weight is 22,300lbs. If you land overweight, you're going to damage the aircraft...

9lbs boost is the climb power setting. You want something between that and 12lbs for a normal takeoff. Be prepared to smoothly select 18lbs if the end is approaching faster than you'd like. Remember that not every runway on every map is long enough for a loaded Mosquito.

AP 2019E-PN, the Pilots' Notes for the FB.VI. Note very carefully that these were issued in the 1950s and the speeds given are in knots, not mph. This means you need to convert the given speeds to statute miles per hour, which is what our wartime Mosquito's ASI is calibrated in. 105kts = 121mph. 120kts = 138mph. No wonder many people are finding landing so hard - you're well on the back of the drag curve.

I was trying to be diplomatic

I'm limited in what I can say publicly, but the ED beta testers who are members of the Project Overlord team can and do raise problems and highlight bug fix candidates with ED. It's an uphill journey because the vast majority of DCS is focused on modelling jet systems in great depth. Bear in mind that that makes up about 90% of the game, so naturally gets a proportionate amount of attention compared with WW2. If you have 9 jet modules or missiles demanding major bug fixes and 1 WW2 module that needs a relatively low priority tweak (e.g. P-47 repair smashing the gear - yes it drives us all mad but at least there is a workaround of defuelling and dearming before repair), it's not hard to work out which problems need to be fixed first. Be in no doubt, DCS WW2 is a sideshow and that will not change. But we haven't been totally abandoned, despite the outward appearance of silence. FTAOD, PO isn't going anywhere either. Dev time on that has slowed because there is only a handful of us and we all have real life jobs and families.

Yes, though the Mosquito performance is marginal on the US airfields on the Cotentin peninsula especially if loaded with rockets. St Croix is a good runway length with plenty of margin for error.

247kg is 544lbs. This equates to a fuel weight of 6.4lbs/gal. Which is neither the RAF WW2 100/130 octane petrol weight nor the modern avgas weight. I will raise this.

Standard weight of avgas is 6lbs per US gallon. For imperial gallons that figure is 7.2lbs per gallon. https://aviation.govt.nz/assets/publications/products/fuel-conversion-factors-sticker-avgas.pdf I don't have access to my rig at rhe moment but if someone could please check what DCS shows the full internal fuel weight as and post a screenshot, that would be helpful. I don't know where Lau's weights come from. AP1565J Vol 1, the Spitfire IX descriptive handbook, gives the correct empty and full weights plus moments to add or subtract from the CG. It also gives the 45 gallon torpedo tank as a 50 gallon item, interestingly. See below, and for blister tank read slipper tank. You can see by some elementary sums that the RAF weight for petrol is 6.2lbs/gallon.

Could you add a track file? Helps the devs pinpoint exactly what inputs relate to what actions and should illustrate the gain problem nicely. Doesn't need to be a long track at all - pick a cold start mission and spend 20 seconds turning the lights on and off.

It's been deeply frustrating reading this thread two weeks after the block-headed wilful idiocy being displayed towards someone asking a reasonable question. No wonder users shy away from posting on these forums. Nealius. Ignore the oddball who was constantly telling you you're wrong and your understanding was invalid. He is not worth engaging with in good faith because he has been giving you bad faith answers throughout this thread. In English the terms prop pitch, prop RPM selector and prop lever are mostly interchangeable even when this is technically incorrect. The terms are widely understood to refer to levers that, when pushed forward, make the propeller spin faster. In that context "increasing" refers to higher RPM. This post is a great and simple explanation, including the relationship between propeller pitch setting and RPM:

If that video tells you to touch down with the brakes on, that video is full of nonsense. Ignore it. You achieve a good landing by crossing the runway threshold at the correct speed. That's it. Fly the airspeed and everything becomes far easier. No gimmicks with brakes, no silliness Per the Pilots' Notes, 3rd Edition September 1946, this is 95mph for a clipped wing Spitfire at full training load (7,150lbs: full fuel, no ammo or bombs) and 90mph for a full wing Spitfire at the same weight. The approach speed is "20-25mph" above the threshold speed.

I can't download the track from where I am at the moment so these questions may be obvious. Single player or multiplayer? How had you been flying before the failure? Gentle takeoff and climb to cruise? Full power scramble and dogfight? What height were you at?

The main problem is that there are no third parties making ETO DCS content (stand fast Ugra) despite a years-long proven market. My suspicion is ED will leave ETO with no further development as they move focus onto the PTO, which essentially means development is finished unless a third party decides to enter the market.