DD_Fenrir

Partially; I've thrown a lot of bombs at it's walls and 1 out of 10 times I got a wall breach, despite most bomb explosions within inches of the walls. The small outbuildings seem to burn more easily with bombs not nearly so close. It's a bit inconsistent.

464 Sqn (RAAF), 140 Wing, 2nd TAF: 21 Sqn, 140 Wing, 2nd TAF: 487 Sqn (RNZAF), 140 Wing, 2nd TAF:

For every rule there is an exception. On most RAF aircraft @skybaby68, typically you are correct, when reading left to right the squadron code should be to the left of the roundel, however there are numerous exceptions across a number of airframes. In the case of the mosquito, it seems like it depends on the squadron - there are a number that obey this standard however as shown above there are many that don't. From my research, most if not all of the 2nd TAF Mosquito FB.VI units contravene the standard and place the squadron code aft of the roundel on the port side.

Passive aggressive, much?

Yes. It's to do with the hydraulic system which drive the nozzles, and the fact that each engine is responsible for powering a separate system, only one of which actuates the nozzles. From M.A.T.S.:

Nope. That was RAF Hunsdon, 27 miles further Northeast near Harlow.

@MAESTR0 My heartiest thanks to both you and the team at Ugra for taking onboard the feedback from an admittedly fussy old salt and acting on it - frankly, when I saw the Cold War Germany Map I suddenly realised what a vast undertaking your team had taken on, and I was humbled: clearly you all had a huge task and it suddenly made the reasons for the apparent lack of momentum on the fixes for Normandy airfields quite understandable. However, seeing that our research efforts have not been in vain is satisfying, and initial scrutiny of the teams efforts at Kenley, West Malling and Ford give much reason to cheer. So it is that I wish to congratulate you for what appears to be a most successful new map release, and again pass on my appreciation to all of the team at Ugra for their hard work and for listening to the community - or at least a few cantankerous old fusspots therein!

Hint: third hand anecdotes from unverified sources do not constitute evidence. I could claim to be a MiG-29 pilot and announce that it should explode at anytime a western radar washes over it. I’m sure you’d suddenly find a reason to discount my testimony, hmm? Ultimately, there is documentary unclassified evidence that the radar interfered with the SPO. Now, your argument is that this was a maintenance and parts factor; it is therefore up to the MiG-29 fans to find unclassified documentation to corroborate this claim. It really is that simple

The mid to late ‘70s was not a strong period for the US economy; given the F-15 is being developed for the air to air role and the F-16 is coming on board specifically to be a more cost effective fighter and ground attacker and there are limited $ available, investment in the F-4 was likely not a priority; those bucks were better spent on the new toys.

If you are using a Force Feedback device and your pitch trim is felt through the roll axis you will need to tick the Swap Axis option in the force feedback sub menu of the Pitch or Roll Axis control in your controls bindings

LITERALLY UNPLAYABLE!!!! Meanwhile, life continues.

Nice attitude. I'm sure you'll get plenty of people falling over themselves to help you with your issue using that tone and language.

As far as I was aware no WW2 Japanese assets have officially been released yet. If these then are unofficial mods you will garner no support from ED as third party unofficial mods and any issues there with are not their responsibility. My mistake, I had forgotten a selection of IJA ground units had been included. First, remove any unofficial mods and run a repair then test if the issue still exists. If it does then I would not post in this Bugs and Problems thread as this is for issues with the map itself; I would find either the Bugs and Problems thread for AI units under the DCS 2.9 section or try the similar store as under the WW2 Assets Pack sub forum.

The A6M5 was not far the most numerous of the late war fighter Japanese naval fighter types and thus represents the most likely you would encounter. The other issue with modelling a Frank is trying to find reliable data, and establishing how much of that performance was lost in build quality (pretty poor by that stage) and in reliability. A well built, carefully maintained Ki-84 would have indeed been a formidable opponent but in late 44/early 45 by all accounts they were rarely at their best in either category and their performance suffered accordingly.

Have another read of the list, old boy; apparently you missed a couple of points...