Foul Ole Ron

No but you were clearly trying to link the fact that he was paid to produce arcade sims for museums with the idea that this means DCS F35 will also be arcade like. We're all best of just waiting to see what's produced in the end and making up our minds and ED needs more 3rd party developers to come on board to grow the DCS world. There's no risk to ED in all this or to the DCS franchise - if it's not up to snuff it won't be in the gameworld anytime you play it.

I've never come across a flight sim where the base profile was even close to my requirements. I've always had to completely make one from scratch. It's not hard and is often even instructional as it gives you more familiarity with the functions in the sim.

KI would have made what their customers ordered. Their customers most likely wanted more arcade-like games as what's the point of getting a bunch of young kids in and then giving them the like of DCS A10C to fly. Games in museums and the like have to be simplified.

There's really nothing for you to be concerned about. It's a 3rd party developer and if they make something which doesn't fit or is lacking sufficient fidelity then a) people probably won't buy it, b) mission designers just won't include it in the available planes and c) ED probably wouldn't even allow it to release under the DCS stable. ED need 3rd party developers to grow and get planes churned out in a reasonable time - if KI can do a solid job here then it's good for ED and all the rest of us.

The Ouya console KS raked in $9m and is being released on 25/06.

Good news about the Corsair and Zero - though maybe not so good news for the Zero pilot as even the A6M5 Type 0 Model 52 which was the best model was outclassed by the Corsair. The Ki-84 would probably be a better head-to-head match-up but maybe doesn't have the same magic Zero name to help with sales.

ED are a small company with limited resources. Before they pump some time into making DCS work correctly with the rift they'll want to see it being a commercial success first. I'm pretty sure they've got their hands full with the F-18C, FW190, Edge, etc. and until the rift takes off with a set that can properly display the world I think they're better off not devoting resources to developing support for it.

I think one of the flight characteristics that takes newcomers to the P51D some time to get used to is how the Mustang can fall into an accelerated stall quite easily due to our shorter stick throws and inability to feel the forces in play. Would be interesting to get their feedback on that flight characteristic all the same to see if the boundaries of the accelerated stall are accurate to what they've experienced in the real thing.

It's not to make it easier to reach the max lowered potential - when combined with the curve set to 20 it lowers the stick sensitivity overall but doesn't result in you hitting the full 100% if you get to the end of the curve where the sensitivity goes up a lot quicker compared to the first flatter section of the curve. I know its "wrong" but our sticks don't have the same sort of travel as the real sticks and my x52-pro just isn't the most accurate stick either. I have leeway now and it works better in practice for me for the vast majority of maneuvers. I know there's times when having full elevator might be nicer to have but as I said I'm willing to forgo those to make the stick travel feel better for me. I haven't come across a situation yet in taxiing or spin recovery where not having full elevator has hindered me and you can spin the airplane just fine pulling 75% (I'd changed it from 70 actually a few days ago) elevator so I'm fine with it.

That is the tradeoff but for 99% of the time when my elevator hasn't been half shot away it helps me to avoid accelerated stalls which in turn helps me to avoid getting my plane shot to bits :) My sticks accuracy isn't the best so the changes make it more controllable and reduces the impact of minor inaccuracies. If I do take serious elevator damage I've found that 70% travel is usually just about enough to allow me to still try and run away and make a landing.

I also added saturation on the pitch axis so that at most I can only pull 70% of the full elevator travel - I don't see any need to be able to pull the full 100% as that's just about always going to result in an instant accelerated stall. I then flattened the curve on the pitch axis to 20 so I have some more leeway to pull the stick around a bit without it getting too twitchy on me. For the aileron axis I flattened the curve to 20 as well but didn't add any saturation - I do want to be able to pull the aileron as far as I can to perform quick rolls if necessary.

Did you use auto-update or do a fresh install? I know it sounds obvious but did the easy flight settings accidentally get switched on? I've been flying 1.2.4 and haven't noticed the kind of change you're talking about.

It's the first thing people will add and release as community skins. A few days after the beta release anybody who wants to fly around with the full historical markings will be able to do so. This really is a non-issue.

Grand thanks. I knew alright that it'd be full DCS quality in the end but was curious to see how far along they are in development currently. Seems like things are ticking along nicely.

Sorry if I've missed it somewhere but what type of flight model does the AI FW-190 have? I'm presuming somewhat simplified still?

Go with Track IR 5 - I haven't heard anything about v6 and v5 will work perfectly for all DCS World as well as any other flight sims.

I'd imagine a well planted 500lb bomb would ruin most vehicles day. Hvars of the type on the P51 might not be effective against modern armour but I'm open to correction. They could work against WWII tanks though. Fifty cals against a tank (any aspect) is pointless.

Hit ctrl + enter when flying and have a look at the control inputs to see what they're doing. Sounds like you might be getting a conflict between a couple of things. I had this before when I plugged in the pedals for the first time. They ended up getting automatically mapped to the elevator controls for some unknown reason. As for the ground behaviour make sure you keep the stick back a little to ensure that the tailwheel is locked or you'll be spinning around. Keep the power at 3000 and 46" max for takeoff as torque can be tough to control especially when getting used to the sim. Check your takeoff assistance and auto-rudder settings as well. You'll probably want auto-rudder off and takeoff assistance to be set to 0%. You have to be light and quick on the rudder during takeoff or you'll end up doing that side to side waddle and skid off the runway due to all the powerthe 'stang puts out.

Don't get yourself all worked up. Somebody just proposed it as part of a wishlist. If it'll make you feel any better you can make a big wishlist of modern aircraft to even things out.

The normal was the reflective sight Revi 16B: http://www.fw190d-9.com/Fw190D-9_panel1.htm According to Fritz Hahn there was about 200 EZ-42 gyro sights put into FW190s and ME-262s. Allied tests found that it was superior to their computing sights. Would think that the DCS version probably should have the Revi 16B sight though if we're talking the common match-up that would have occurred.

6S.Duke put together a nice X52-Pro profile - has everything you'll need mostly and it's all arranged nice and logical. You can find it here: http://files.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/181028/

As Viper mentioned above make sure you keep the stick either neutral or pulled back a bit to keep the tail wheel locked when taxiing to the runway and during the initial run once you've applied some power or you can end up in those twirls. You can hit CTRL+Enter to get a little diagram in the bottom left of your screen of where your stick, rudder and brake inputs are. Remember to apply 5 degrees of right rudder before starting to take off. Keep the revs at full and manifold pressure at around 40 during the whole take-off run - on these long modern runways that's ample power to get you off the ground. Once you've picked up a bit of speed the rudders will become operational. You'll probably need to make some quick adjustments with the rudders before you transition into the air - keep them nice and light though or make some adjustments to your rudder curve to make it easier. You don't want to be jerking too hard left and right at that speed and with all that torque going on as you'll skid out of control pretty quickly. You have to be quick with the adjustments too - don't wait until you're quite noticibly veering off to one side as when you try to pull it back the other way you'll skid out of control. Once in the air you'll find it's a breeze to fly around.

Engine start-up procedure from original (I think) - would seem to suggest that primer is done first. I use primer first in the game as well and works fine. Have prop pulled through, with ignition switch OFF, if plane has been idle more than 2 hours. Generator and battery switch ON, unless battery cart is being used, then battery switch OFF. Open throttle 1 inch. Mixture control in IDLE CUT-OFF. Propeller control in INCREASED RPM. Supercharger switch in AUTOMATIC. Carburetor air control in RAM AIR. Turn ignition switch to BOTH. Fuel shut-off valve ON and fuel selector valve to fuselage tank (if full), or Left Main tank if fuselage tank not used. Fuel booster pump on NORMAL, check for 8-12 pounds of fuel pressure. Prime engine 3 to 4 shots if cold, 1 to 2 if warm. Clear the prop. Lift guard on starter switch and press switch to START. Caution in use of starter not to overheat. As engine starts, move mixture control to AUTO RICH. If engine does not fire after several turns, continue priming. WARNING: When engine is not firing, mixture control should be in IDLE CUT-OFF. Warm engine at approximately 1300 RPM. Check for constant oil pressure. If no oil pressure or low pressure after 30 seconds, SHUT DOWN engine. Check all instruments for proper readings. Check hydraulic system by lowering and raising flaps; loading 800-850 pounds and unloading at 1050-1100 pounds. Check communication equipment for operation. Uncage all gyro instruments. Check both LEFT and RIGHT MAIN and FUSELAGE fuel systems by rotating fuel selector valve with booster pump switch in EMERGENCY. Check for 14-19 psi. If drop tanks are installed, check fuel flow by rotating fuel selector control.

My guess is that the USAF being an institution issued one set of boresighting patterns for the standard 1000 feet range and wouldn't issue other patterns as this would result in people deviating from this standard. However soldiers have being doing field mods on their weapons since the dawn of time and to think that aircrew and some of the more experienced pilots didn't experiment with the patterns is being overly stubborn. Soldiers constantly tinker with their weapons no matter what the "rules" say. There's clear anecdotal evidence that a number of more experienced pilots shortened the harmonisation pattern on their aircraft. Although this might not have been the official standard I would think that some of the more experienced pilots were probably given leeway to make these modifications unofficially. I'm also sure that all new pilots were given the standard pattern as for average pilots this would work the best for them. All in all the proof will be in the pudding if people are allowed to make these modifications themselves and experiment as their real-life counterparts did. They may well end up being disappointed but they can have no complaints if they are.

It was geared towards what the average pilot would do in normal combat situations. As Hegykc pointed out we typically don't fly like average pilots would have done back then. More skilled pilots may have lowered their convergence if they were confident they could maneuver into that 150-200 yard kill zone that their guns converged at. It meant they would have had to pass up other shooting opportunities. Your average pilot was probably better off doing the high speed passes at distance and then going around again for another pass.