Foul Ole Ron

It's waypoint 7 and 8 on your TAD to RTB. Will have you landing at Tiblisi Lochni. Once you land there's no indication in this mission where to go. Some mission creators will be more instructive about where you're supposed to park.

The view is different from the old one still after tweaking. After playing with it for a while I prefer the new view - seems more natural. Only took 5-10 mins of tweaking so I won't be losing any sleep over my time being wasted.

Wasn't happy when I first tried out the A-10 in 1.5.4 but after fiddling around with Track IR for a few mins so I could see the HUD and MFCDs together and getting used to the new view I don't think I'd go back. Feels like a good change overall but I guess an option for either type would be best.

Safest thing is to wait a week until it hits the stable branch - assuming that they iron out the bugs with TrackIR, etc. that appeared in this release.

I think it just removes the shadows. As far as I can see the tree mod updates files here: C:\Program Files\Eagle Dynamics\DCS World\Mods\terrains\CaucasusBase\Structures\High\EDM Starway's mod updates files in the Mods folder here: C:\Program Files\Eagle Dynamics\DCS World\Mods\terrains\CaucasusBase\vfstextures

Don't know about the smoke bit but I was getting some stutters the first time I use the mod - particularly over trees. I used Mustang's no tree shadow mod and this helped things for me. Everything is a lot smoother now. I have flat shadows switched on in the graphic options too which probably wasn't helping originally but it's fine to keep on with Mustang's mod I think. http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2495081&postcount=7

Just use the magnet torrent link in the first post - downloads in no time.

I had that problem. Just clear the throttle category completely and close DCS down. Open DCS back up again and the problem should be gone - worked for me anyway. Not sure if you have to clear the category completely or not - I did but it might only be necessary to clear out the throttle part and restart.

Donated - hopefully you hit the required amounts in good time.

For me it's the server lag issues and damage modelling that keep me from playing MP. The other two WW2 sims can handle large numbers of players with very few issues and have good damage modelling so I play there for MP. I know ED is going to be looking at both these areas - once they're improved I'll definitely play MP in DCS as all the flight modelling and systems are top notch.

I don't think it's been released for Steam yet. The usual process is open beta, then main version and then a follow-up Steam release for the main version. The Steam release is usually a few weeks after the rest.

You're right that it's not very clear but I think you get the deviation from course failure when you fly too high or take a significant wrong turn. When you fly too high I think you get a message from an F-16 or Su-27 depending on where exactly you go to high. So long as you stay low and follow the general route as indicated in the kneeboard map past WP3 it seems to work fine for me. Looks like they're testing following a flight path while staying low but it's a bit unclear overall.

2.5 dependency was not mentioned as far as I know. Only that ED need to integrate the copy protection for the texture pack and depending on how the testing of that effort goes the release could be a couple of weeks past the initial planned date given by Starway. So we'll probably hear something either way later today I would guess.

Voted no as although the aircraft itself seems interesting enough I think the existing/planned plane set covers light attack/COIN needs adequately. If there was a fully fleshed out Falklands theatre including a map on offer then I'd probably be interested. Still I think there's a lot of other interesting planes out there that could be developed before the Pucara. If you're looking for prop planes to tide the business over while more complex modern jets are being worked on I'd prefer to see the WW2 stable being fleshed out rather than add something that doesn't seem to fill any major gaps.

About time for the F-5E to get it's own sub-forum with a release not too far away?

Part of DCS World. All your planes will be compatible as should all be one package. Even if it does end up a separate package for some reason all your planes will still be compatible. Only free for those who backed at the appropriate level in the kickstarter campaign. Everybody else will have to pay. I would imagine that it'll be priced similarly to the Nevada map but no confirmation yet obviously.

The way it works for me is I turn left after engine start and taxi past the parked planes. Then take the left turn and approach the runway. When I get within a couple of metres of the runway I automatically get a prompt for me to use F10 to contact the tower for takeoff permission. I'm not 100% sure but I might have easy communications switched on in my general options - not sure if that would make any difference for this mission trigger though.

Do you have to wait a long time to get take-off clearance from the ATC? I always got the prompt to request clearance via F10 as soon as I get near the runway. I had to try that mission a number of times as I kept screwing things up later in the mission and never had any comms issue with the ATC.

Keep your speed up in the Sabre if you want to match the Mig. You have to resist pulling too sharply to get guns on the Mig quickly and losing your energy which makes following him up on subsequent climbs very hard. As a rule of thumb I make sure I'm going at least 300kts before attempting to follow the Mig up. I find that concentrating on keeping my energy up and basically following the Mig's turns and climbs while making slow positional inroads allows me to end up with more energy than the Mig after a few minutes. After that it's just a case of getting the pipper on target.

It's worth checking on Tacview if you have access to that. I haven't checked the Mig-15 AI in a while but I never remembered seeing them pull crazy Gs before. I found that I was consistently pulling higher Gs than the AI opponent throughout the whole fight. The AI opponents tended to fly smoother turns and climbing turns which helped them keep their speed up and caused people to complain about UFOs when in fact people (incl. me) were turning too sharply to chase them and bleeding off their own speed too quickly. The AI didn't go beyond 5Gs very often though if I remember right but I can check later tonight when I get home.

You'll get an automatic communication from the tower. It's waypoint 1 on your kneeboard map. You just have to fly over it. For this campaign it's a good idea to show the pilot's body and track your location with mark points to make sure you're following the right course.

Crosswinds can give erratic cooling - see this below old thread. I remember the same thing happened to me on some mission where a high crosswind nearly killed my engine. http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=101742 Having said that you're going the same direction I did so shouldn't be an issue.

Didn't have any issues with this myself on that mission. Are you turning left or right once you move off the parking ramp? Maybe you're turning into a direction that's giving the engine no airflow. If you're turning left you're going the right direction and I didn't notice any issue - my temps would barely be at 40 by the time I got to the runway.

I had the same problem too. Turned slightly too early and missed the WP. For those who are flying this mission make sure you wait until you hear the tower tell that you've gone past the outer marker. You're safe then to turn. If you don't get that communication you haven't hit the WP and if you fly on you'll get a mission failure at the next WP.

This site had squadron numbers: http://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/bjagd.htm When looking at the make-up of all the squadrons that operated in late '44 the K4 doesn't appear to have been present in large numbers during that period. Most squadrons had G14s and A-8s on the books. The main exceptions with K4s being present I could see were: II./JG2 - got 2 K4s in Nov '44 and then a further 16 in Dec and had 9 by year end losing 3 in combat in Dec . They had 55 G14s on the books at that time but that number had dropped to 20 by year end with 23 of those being combat losses III./JG3 - got 10 K4s in Nov '44 but don't appear to have used them much as only lost 1 to overhaul that month. They had 5 G14 combat losses that month and still had 58 G14s on the books going into Dec. They then lost 1 K4 to combat in Dec while also losing 22 G14s III./JG4 - got 15 K4s in Oct '44 but don't appear to have used them as still had 15 next month (maybe arrived late in the month). They then got a further 35 in Nov '44 and lost 7 in combat that month while also losing 14 G models. By Dec they had mostly transitioned into K4s (had 36 compared to 16 G models) and lost 17 K4s in combat that month compared to 6 G models IV./JG4 - got 7 K4s in Dec '44 but don't appear to have used them that month as still had 7 at year end. They lost 28 G models in combat during Dec II./JG11 - got 12 K4s in Dec '44 but don't appear to have used them much as still had 11 at year end with 1 out for overhaul. They lost 28 G14s in combat during Dec III./JG26 - got 44 K4s in Nov '44 and lost 3 in combat that month. They also lost 6 G14s in combat that month. They got a further 17 new K4s in Dec and lost 7 in combat. They also lost 6 G14s that month. They had about 2/3 K4s by the end of the year I./JG27 - got 1 K4 in Oct '44 but likely not used. Got 14 more in Nov with no combat losses. They did suffer 28 G14 combat losses in Nov so would guess the K4s were not heavily used. They got 19 more K4s in Dec and suffered 12 combat losses. They lost 24 G14s to combat that month too. II./JG27 - got 2 K4s in Oct '44 but likely not used. Got 3 more K4s in Nov and lost 1 in combat. They also lost 17 G14s in combat that month. They didn't receive any K4s in Dec and lost none to combat. They lost 29 G14s and 18 G10s in combat in Dec however III./JG27 - they got 75 K4s in Oct '44 and lost none to combat that month. They lost 14 G14s in combat that month. In Nov they had transitioned to K4s completely and lost 30 in combat in Nov and 33 in Dec From reviewing that site's data for combat losses though it would appear to me that an allied pilot in Oct - Dec '44 would have been more likely to have run into a G10/G14 or A-8/A-9. If thinking scenarios with the K4 I think it fits early '45 much better than any '44 scenario. And 150 grade fuel was in use by the 8th AF on the continent by that time... ahem. That site only has this info up to the end of 1944. Would be interesting to see this data for early 1945 (if it exists) to see how the K4 became more common. Does anybody have it?