Kreutzberg

I've done quite a bit of practice with Shrikes. Looking at the mission again, my feeling is that the attack profile itself isn't that likely to get hits. The Shrike really needs to come in at a steep angle to have the best chance of hitting. A popup attack like in this scenario really needs to get pretty high to get a reasonable angle. I also agree that the Shrike is a fairly limited weapon! And that one real benefit of this campaign is that we can take a training lesson and progress.

Thank you!

I've also struggled to hit with Shrikes on this mission. I have been able to take out the SA-2 with guns, but have gotten killed by AAA to get close enough. The briefing makes it sound like success is not assured, so perhaps it's programmed to make the missiles unlikely to hit.

Are the details of tanker location for each mission somewhere I'm missing? The briefing for the missions gives a callsign, but does not specify a location or altitude. Page 13 of the inflight guide has the general tanker tracks with locations levels and even A/A TACAN, but I'm not seeing a direct connection between the two. In Mission 2, for example, Texaco 6-1 is definitely in AR-641A. I used the inflight guide to find it using TACAN, but only after seeing that the tanker was in that sector. It was also at FL 240, and the guide says that the maximum altitude is 230. It's easy enough to figure it out with the F10 map, but is there a more immersive way to figure out the refueling plan of the day? By the way, the overall level of immersion in this one is outstanding. When there was a minor glitch in the aerial refueling that caused Jester to switch to the wrong frequency, I was able to address it by checking the guide for the tanker frequency and then dialing that in and taking command. Love the attention to detail!

I'm getting the same thing. Here's my track file. Interestingly, even loading the track causes the same crash. Carrier landing CTD.trk

Definitely! I'm not sure DCS can do anything other than meters, but it would definitely be better to use the correct units.

Building on the topics described here, I noticed that I felt much closer than 400 yards when the 50 mil circle covers the wingtips. I set up something in the mission editor, and at 200 yards, the FW190 wingspan (34.5 feet) doesn't even quite cover the whole 50 mil circle. Doing the math, 1 mil is 3.6 inches at 100 yards, so 50 mils at 200 yards should be right at 30 feet. The reticle probably isn't quite perfectly sized yet, but the 50 mil inner circle is more like 200 yards and the 100 mil outer circle is more like 100 yards. All that highlights the need for some shorter convergence settings. As it stands now, something like a 150-200 meter convergence would be ideal. 150 meters is right about 500 feet as well. If the reticle gets a bit more accurate, I imagine 200 meters would be best, as that's very close to 200 yards.

Big +1 for this. The Corsair's guns are very dependent on convergence.

Thanks for that detailed explanation! I agree that convergence is very important to the whole story (it appears that the convergence setting also affects elevation so that the guns are zeroed for that distance in both horizontal convergence and elevation). One useful feature will be the ability to change and check convergence on the ground, which Magnitude 3 has already confirmed is coming.

The F4U has been my first warbird. Lots of fun, but it seems to take a lot of hits to actually bring down an enemy aircraft. Even against relatively low skill AI, I can only ever get two before running out of ammo, firing only at quite close range to save ammo. Some of that is surely my own lack of aerial gunnery skill, of course, but it does seem like the damage thrown by the Corsair's .50 caliber guns is a bit weak (especially because I usually go down to a single burst of enemy fire). The topic of .50 caliber damage has been discussed before. Here's a somewhat recent and fairly thorough discussion: My question is how the new Zero model will hold up. It should be a little easier to bring one of them down than the FW190s we have now. Hopefully, that can "feel" a bit better.

Given that I'm getting into the PTO WWII stuff, I went ahead and bought the asset pack on sale the other day. It's a cheap enough purchase that it's also a good one to use miles if you have any.

I agree completely! We have a similar topic over in "bugs" as well:

Even if that's their preference, I think a lot of players would at least appreciate a toggle in module settings!

I would agree. The basic included missions shouldn't require extra modules. I may try to snag the pack on sale, though.

In most or all modules in DCS, a right click moves a switch up or a rotary switch clockwise, and a left click moves it down or counterclockwise. It seems that the F4U switches are opposite. I would characterize this as a bug, but it could also be a wish list item to at least add a setting. It looks like this convention is pretty well-recognized. Apparently, ED switched the A-10C back in 2020 to conform: It would be best for the F4U to get that sooner rather than later so we don't build bad habits!