DD_Fenrir

Are you guys using any unofficial mods?

The Seafire 15 never saw operational service as far as I am aware. The Merlin 55 engined Seafire F/L Mk.III certainly did, alongside F4U-1D and Corsair Mk.II in the pacific theatre. The F/L Mk.III however, is more closely related to the RAFs Mk.V version than the LF IXc we currently have. Just putting a hook on our Spitfire LF.IXc really does not adhere to EDs own standards.

https://www.veterans.gc.ca/en/remembrance/memorials/canadian-virtual-war-memorial/detail/1533293

I suspect - I reiterate that what I am about to say is a supposition - that some flight surface airloads are not yet modelled fully or at all. There is precedence for this; Spitfire rudder airloads were absent on initial EA, as were - IIRC - the P-47. It maybe that this feature is WiP.

If suggestions are being taken, I would add that the following would be an excellent QoL improvement, plus be more realistic: User selectable option to temporarily disable catapult 1 & 2 and allow parking on Cat 2 And if it would be possible when parking to have the directors position the aircraft the correct orientation and then for an automatic function push the aircraft back, even if would be a sudden snap rather than a gradual animation, I think would be better.

The book my Father’s work is in was published in 1985. Given that he is not an expert in radar systems or avionics, I suspect the Stevenson book material was used as reference and redrawn. Salamander produced a large variety of military aviation books during the 80’s; it would not surprise me that these drawings would be leveraged across other tomes, or sold to other publishers for use.

For clarity here are the originals with further details and annotations that explain some of the shown information, including a representation of the DDD showing how the MiG-21 referenced bricks should appear:

My Father and his graphic design business partner drew these originally for the book “Modern Fighting Aircraft: F-14” published by Salamander.

Wow. Gaslighting? That’s pretty <profanity>ty behaviour. But what more can we expect from angry man boy wehraboos?

This isn't FIFA 2025. Or farming simulator. The "grass" object has to pretend to be a multitude of plant types depending on the texture underneath; this same object stands in for wheat or barley on crop fields and neatly mowed grass on football fields and airfields. To be fair I think they've managed to strike a plausible balance.

Eh? There's no annular radiator on a Sea Fury; the Centaurus is a radial, cooling the cylinders by direct airflow.

That Garret looks brilliant; only issue is that it never wandered very far from the Worsborough incline (which is halfway between Sheffield and Leeds) - that's almost 150miles North of the most northerly parts of the Normandy map! I would suggest that a Southern Railway mixed traffic type would be more appropriate; perhaps an N Class mogul?

Also have a gameplan for each enemy aircraft type you encounter. Know what strengths or weaknesses you can deny or exploit in both your opponents jet and your own. Fuel and ordnance weight will also factor into what you can achieve so keep these in mind. For example, in an F-14B vs a MiG-29 choosing a 2-circle fight is not usually a great idea as under most circumstances a good MiG-29 will at least match or better your best turn-rate; this means a 1-circle is probably a better option... However, this generally means you'll need to get slower than the bandit and you'll be sacrificing kinetic energy to do so at the merge. A smart driver will use the vertical to drive their speed down to their best radius speed whilst using a gain in altitude to gain PE and mitigate the overall loss in energy. That said, if you can get your nose on faster, you can drive bad decisions from the opponent, which if you are able to expolit can compound their problems and allow you some good follow-on BFM options, if not an immediate weapons employment opportunity.

Or, let's not and let ED concentrate on progressing their proprietary software that they understand better than anyone else in a way that suits their development roadmap that suits them best. Christ, it takes long enough for new features to mature enough to be brought to the community and even then it can take some time for these to become robust and stable. You want to introduce a system that will inevitably extend these timescales?!? No. If you add an unofficial mod and it breaks the game, guess who's responsibilty that is... YOURS. You can sit and wait as the modders figure out how to make their mod re-compatible, if they are still active. If they aren't you are SOL. You did not pay for it, you are not owed a damn thing, especially not by ED. ED have acknowledged the great work done by some modders, enabling a fairly simple and segragated way of implementing them with minimum risk of breaking the game. They have even integrated some into the base game assets; however this does not make them liable and they certainly should not waste $$$ or time (frankly they are synonymous) on appeasing impatient and indignant unofficial Mod users.