DD_Fenrir

I'd like the option to tell Jester to DO NOT ATTACK > from the left / from the right/ from the front / from the back > x1 / x2 / x3 etc so that I can then sort & meld either with an AI or a Multiplayer wingman without a human RIO...

And time and time and time again it's pointed out that it isn't... ED don't seem to think so either... So when are you gonna learn your opinion on this is about as worthwhile as the contents of a soiled nappy?

@SharpeXB Male Bovine Excrement. The point of Open Beta is that ED cannot possibly account for: the vast array of hardware and software combinations out there in use by the community and that can have a direct effect on the game’s stability the almost impossible to replicate way we interface with DCS in terms of mission design, weapons/systems employment, trigger combinations and the gamut of edge of envelope flight model excursions that we as users en masse will execute. It has happened before, though it has been a while, where a serious game breaking bug has been introduced in Open Beta and the community at large has been glad of a Stable version to fall back on; admittedly that has meant that for the owners of module(s) affected it means losing out on a new toy or feature temporarily but generally for a short period and that most of the rest of your consumer base has not had their entertainment shafted by a bit of errant code. Ultimately you have a choice to opt in to Open Beta - if you do so for the “new toys! Gimme gimme!!!” without acknowledging the possible caveats then that’s your own damn fault. If you choose to opt out because you don’t want the risk then be aware that you may wait a while as ED want to square away as much as possible before committing to a Stable release branch - you have no leverage in that process as it’s their software and their decision. Want to sway that decision? Then get on the board or start buying significant shareholder stick cos otherwise you’re farting at the wind. And if you think they are being deliberately obtuse by holding out on porting the Beta to Stable then that says more about you than ED; they will be only too aware of the Stable only user base hanging on for an update and probably have damn good reason to hold back that you aren’t entitled to know about.

Fundamentally fails to grasp the point of OpenBeta despite it being explained ad nauseum. Well done.

I truly cannot comprehend the mentality that dispenses with a module simply because the cockpit doesn't look quite as good as module 'x'. The Spitfire is blast to fly, the cockpit looks as good if not better than a lot of other sims out there and if you're worrying more about the texture quality of the dashboard than the 109 diving on your tail then, frankly, you're the problem; by letting your superficiality overrule your ability to immerse yourself in a game experience.

Game mode enabled?

Also holding off too high…

The map is set in 1944. The flyable planes we can ourchase are all 43-45 models. The Ju 87, Bf 110, He 111 & Hurricane were not frontline operational types in the West. Gliders, however would be a cool addition. The Tempest would be nice but a Typhoon would be nicer - however the data required to develop a module for DCS is very thin for these aircraft; it is also prefered to have SMEs who have flown the aircraft to assist in making the Flight Model accurate, and there are, alas, all too few of these as there are no flying examples. V1 and it's launcher are available as static objects; it was slated to be developed as a fully functional weapon system but we have had no update on this feature. V2 is irrelevant as they were only ever launched from Holland and this does not currently appear on any WW2 period map. As for Paris I will take your word for it, however, bear in mind that 1. this is a flight simulator, not a First Person Shooter and as such some compromises still have to be made to make development time economical and keep frame rates on low-mid range machines acceptable; therefore a degree of inaccuracy will have to be accepted; 2. not every major building can be modelled accurately - there are performance and development budgets that constrain these things and therefore you tend to only see the most famous or noteworthy buildings/structures included; 3. 80 years ago things looked different so it's not always pertinenet to measure the accuracy of a map by todays optics. Biggin Hill and a number of other Kent airfields were not included bacuase they exist on the DCS: Channel map. Battersea Power Station only had two chimneys in the 1940's it was expanded to 4 in 1955.

Eh... not so much. Is the Spit intolerant of inattentivesness? Definitely. Are the margins narrow? They seem so at first but once it clicks you definitely find there's wiggle room and it doesn't have to be perfect every time - just pretty good... Part 1: The Prep First off is the approach - the adage goes that a good landing always starts with a good approach. This is doubly true of the DCS Spitty. Coming straight in from a long way out is just making life difficult for yourself; the curved approach give you much better visibility of your runway positioning down to the point at which you flare and cut. Long straight approaches - if done correctly - will hide the runway under that honking great nose and could mean lots of last minute corrections if you find yourself off centreline, with all sorts of potential for over correction and spurious energy in the aeroplane as you try and pull her back to centreline which will only make the flare and cut a more hurried affair, increasing your workload and making an awkward landing all too likely. If on straight in approach you can see the runway all the way in you're coming in damn steep and will make judging the flare all the more difficult. There's a reason that real Spit pilots adopt the curved approach - I would suggest you adopt the same procedure as a matter of course. Part 2: Touchdown! Many of you will be getting down in one piece (mostly) but having a very alarming experience doing so. Wingtips slapping the tarmac, no particular bias, left or right, but either way you're off in the grass, generally facing the wrong way perhaps with a prop strike and maybe some clipped wings. Sound familiar? Me too. I was having exactly the same as you chaps, until I tried cutting later and flaring at a lower alt; I suspected the wing drop was coming from having too much sink on contact with terra firma and the energy from this, whilst not enough to cause a bounce, was still more than could be absorbed by the u/c. With no airspeed/lift to get back up it threw the load into momentum about the u/c contact points thus one of the wings is thrown down. All this behaviour will be exacerbated if you have any side-slip or side load on the a/c as you touch down. Bootfuls of rudder should not be required at this stage in low cross-wind conditions (check your crosswinds by the way; if you're in a mission where you're trying to land in heavy crosswinds then have a rethink. Trying to run before learning to walk is only going to frustrate you). If you're making large corrections in any plane to get on centreline then GO AROUND. Call it quits and try again. It's that simple. So what's the lesson? Cut later and flare lower. Keep rudder input to a minimum. By deliberately flaring at a lower altitude we reduce the height at which we drop from = less energy. By cutting power later the aircraft settles rather than stalls, thus again reducing sink rate = less energy. The flare itself I make very gently - hence the later power cut - as the low longitudinal stability of the spit and the stick sensitivity makes it easy for the nose to end up higher than desired. Get all this right and you should be rewarded with a gentle settle onto the ground and a satisfying squeal of rubber on asphalt. Often my mains touched first followed by the tail wheel a fraction of a second later, so it does not have to be perfect three-point. It's just that the margins are narrow for getting it wrong. Currently your major issues will be flaring too high and cutting too early; just hold off a bit longer on both and it should make life easier. Part 3: The Straight and Narrow You've touched down with no wing drop! Hooray! However, the Spitfire is not yet done trying to find ways to embarrass you and inattentiveness at this stage will end up with you in the grass with some major airframe components likely scattered around you. FLY THE PLANE! You are not done till you're sitting back at the pan with the engine off! All those issues you had at takeoff with directional instability are just waiting to throw you off the runway. Stick back in your lap once you're sure she's down and staying so. Get on the rudder like Michael Flatley (Lord of the Dance/Riverdance for those who need a point of reference) - just avoid brakes! You'll have plenty of airspeed for the rudder to be effective during the early part of the ground roll. Just like takeoff, keep the inputs short and sharp! Adding brakes too soon will throw you into the grass. As you slow you'll start to feel that rudder alone isn't quite cutting the mustard; your inputs to keep her straight will become larger and longer; it's at this point you start bringing in a dab of brakes to help keep her in line. But keep dancing! Finally you'll come to a stop, engine still running, pointing the same way and with all major and minor structures still attached. And it's now that you are allowed to breathe! Congratulations! Flaps away and get out the god-damn way cos someone's likely to be making their final approach and could do without worrying about bumping into you! Getting this right takes practise - it took me a good number of attempts to hit the right formula and get it right more than I got it wrong. However, I'm able to do this consistently - as long as I concentrate! - so I assure you it's not impossible.

Please see here:

Crikey, at least get your facts straight guys… If you own Normandy 44 and choose not to pay for the full upgrade you still will get an update that makes ‘44 compatible with Normandy 2 so you can join MP servers. As Reflected has said this essentially makes Normandy ‘44 into Normandy “1.5”. All of Reflected’s campaigns that use the Normandy map have been (or are being) updated to the Normandy “1.5/2” version.

I think care is needed here; it looks a lot like he was flying the previous beta patch version, prior to the latest flight model tweaks and one in which the wing rock seemed amplified. He already acknowledges the crucial lack of sensational feedback that pilots use when in real aircraft. It also must be borne in mind that a real Tomcat control column could have very different throw (angular travel envelope) and top of stick displacement (the distance a stick travels) for an expected AoA at a given airspeed when compared to your average flight-sim HOTAS; Nasty's muscle memory (at least 17 years rusty) might have been working against him if the stick was not exactly replicating the stick displacements he was used to. Bear in mind he was flying the B in sim, whereas he acknowledges he previously had most of his time in As and Ds - while the D is close, it is a slightly heavier airframe. All of the above would need to be accounted for and mitigated before a reliable answer could be truly expected.

... unless you have already exceeded the stress limit once prior and structurally weakened the wings so it can no longer sustain the stated load limit (let alone the safety factor). This is a thing in DCS; over G once and you may get away with it but you WILL have lowered the structural g failure point. Ergo, so the next g excursion you make could well result in a failure well below the rated g limit + safety factor.

- V-1 has no ability to launch them. Agreed. Let's see this enabled as a priority. - V-2 has missing from Normandy / The Channel. V2 is not relevant to Normandy as none were operational until September, firing from launch sites in Holland. - Complete the "planned" axis air units (Ju-52, Ju-87, He111) and add more transport / maritime aircrafts. Ju 52: maybe, He 111: maybe, but both these types were very much 2nd line (the He 111 relegated to transport duties by this time, it was just too vulnerable) and the Ju 52s were actually not much seen in the ETO after 1943. As for Ju 87: no. It simply is not relevant to the late war ETO. Now, an earlier model as something for the I16 to play with, I can see that being an idea, but without an Eastern Front WW2 map.... meh. - Get some bombers to UK (Mosquito B, Short Stirling, Lancaster), atack aircrafts and transports. Again, a dedicated bomber Mosquito is chronologically right but DCS WW2 is about daylight tactical ops; a pure bomber Mosquito at this time is a night-time strategical animal so I question it's relevance. The Lancaster was used on daylight tactical ops over Normandy so get's thumbs up. Plus a few were used on long range daylight strategic ops around this time so. The Stirling as a bomber? Late war, no. It was used as a Glider tug by this point in it's Mk.IV form, however, without something to tow, it would be kind of a white elephant. - Add more bombers to US (B-24, B-25, A-26). All these would be nice, but the B-26 was by far the most numerous (700-800 in the ETO) and as a daylight tactical medium bomber, the most useful in DCS WW2. The B-25 interestingly enough was only used by the RAF in Northwest Europe as the Mitchell II/III, but again as a daylight tactical medium bomber would be most welcome. The A-26 didn't arrive till early 1945 so again, is not relevant. - Add more vehicles, tanks and AAA to complete WTO. I think the tanks are there; what is needed is more second line ground units that are vulnerable to tactical air attack; fuel bowsers, mobile AAA guns, more towed artillery systems, WW2 mortar teams and ships, both period appropriate merchant and minesweepers, frigates and destroyers on both sides.

Alas no. BigNewy confirmed earlier on EDs Discord that Normandy 2 will not be dropping in todays patch.

It's my hope that the Channel Map will eventually see expansion of it's boundaries to the East and North making the two maps more divergent in terms of operationally useful areas but gradually seeing the area where they do overlap become more similar, with the same airfields and landmarks consistent on both. It does seem odd that the Maunsell Forts: Are included on the Normandy 2 map. Why? These are only found in the Thames Estuary and in the North Sea nearby, areas that are described by Ugra as "Low Detail" in the previews. Yet, they are missing on the Channel map where these would fall within EDs own described "High Detail" boundaries. Don't get me wrong, if Ugras definition of "Low Detail" is still so comprehensive, I won't complain, but it would be nice to see more consistency between the ED & Ugra offerings.

No it doesn’t, particularly if you read back across the previous posts. Ironmike has said that the current random appearance of these Forge elements is a test bed only; eventually you will be able to define which forge elements appear in an individual jet by what skin is loaded, in the early stages at least, where the appearance or otherwise of various elements will be defined within the description.lua in the livery’s folder. This means that even if you download a skin that shows a load of forge elements you don’t like it will be a simple enough task to open the .lua up and edit some “1”s to “0”s or “True” to “False” entries (or vice-versa depending on your mood) and you are done. Whether there’s an interface in the ME or Specials tab in the options menu to override these settings is a reasonable question but in the greater scheme of things it’s not worth getting one’s underwear in a knot… also why it’s so important that you must be informed now and you can’t just wait and see how the implementation is handled when it gets here like the rest of us, is a feel the greater question.

Point 1 - it’s not about timescale it’s about man hours; a skyscraper will have a couple of hundred bodies working on it; a developer crew may have as few as 4 people in their team; maybe even only one. Point 2: for most of the 3rd Party developers, building DCS modules is not their day job/primary source of income. Most of these people are building these modules in the small hours after dinner or at weekends. That effectively halves the man-hours you can invest per week. Suddenly those timescales seem a lot more impressive.

The short sightedness of some commenters is surprising. Is a PC-9 getting me moist in anticipation? No, not really. However, we have another 3rd party developer interested in bringing content to DCS and using a trainer-light attack to cut their teeth with learning how to interact and integrate with the DCS code base. This is a tried and tested entry route for DCS developers; Aerges, M3 and India Foxt Echo have all done the same to provide themselves a solid understanding of how to simulate systems and flight models in relatively simple aircraft, then utilise this experience as a stepping stone to produce more complex combat aircraft thereafter. So, quit the petulant whining about useless aircraft and just be happy that we have yet another 3rd party interested in expanding the DCS meta and the potential that exists for what more they could bring in the future.

Thanks NL. Checking through my copy of Spit & Polish: RAF Polish Squadrons Fight Back from Chailey, Sussex in Support of the D-day Operations of 6th June 1944 I can find a single solitary photo: I suspect that's an Extra Over Blister. From what information I can glean there should be 4 total, each located at the 6. reference on the airfield plan; see marked version below. That seems to be it. Even the British ALGs were pretty spartan affairs. Accomodation was entirely tented. It must be remembered that these airfields, as well being places to help locate some of the vast number of air units a useful distance from France, were also being used to help acclimatise the tactical units of the RAF 2nd TAF and US 9th AF to the austere lifestyle they would have to come to expect post invasion, particularly those who may have, up until 1943-44 become accustomed to comfortable heated mess areas, warm brick billets and a cosy bar...

Note:

The version of the Mustang that comes free with DCS is a TP-51 - it has no armament. It's there to give you a taster of what the systems and flight modelling fidelity is like in DCS and to allow you to decide whether or not it's your cup of tea. If you want to be able to blow stuff up/shoot stuff down in a Mustang in DCS you'll have to purchase the DCS P-51D Mustang module: DCS: P-51D Mustang (digitalcombatsimulator.com) Regards Steam compatibility, I do not use DCS via Steam so I cannot be of any assistance in that, however it does appear to be listed as DLC for DCS: DCS: P-51D Mustang on Steam (steampowered.com)

Wow. Someone needs reminding of rule #1…

This is the point - he can't. The triggers he utilises are provided by ED, they are the that tools he is obliged to use and that he has zero quality control over. Yes, he uses them in some very clever and complicated ways to get outcomes some of us who do know the ME can only marvel at, but when he built the missions the triggers worked, otherwise he would not have released the missions. There is no way he can foresee what EDs updates bring in terms of breaking trigger logic. What you ask is impossible. Whist it is appropriate to highlight issues here for Baltic Dragon to be aware, you need to direct your grievances at ED in the appropriate forum: General Bugs - ED Forums (dcs.world)

Some screenies taken from a VF-103 Division BVR Timeline practise session: