DD_Fenrir

This where most of the trouble starts in these forums; idle speculation can be amusing but too many seem to take that speculation and make it into an expectation; after a while this expectation conflates and in their mind becomes a promised feature - all in their own head. Why can't peeps just enjoy a nice surprise anymore?

I am tempted to agree with you on this aspect. You assume too much. I don't think I am entitled to a free H-Fi module; never have. I have always believed people should be paid for their hard work, if they wish to be. However, I proffered an opinion based on my experience where the 2-week demo angle has been an issue - not for me, but for fellow squad members. Many were intrigued by the graphics and gameplay of DCS yet intimidated by the apparent complexity of some of the hi-fi modules. The A-4 has proven to be an excellent balance of hi-fi systems modelling yet accessible enough to not be a turn off, and allowing more flexibilty of use and time accessibilty than the demo version of one of the payware modules allow. To top it all the A-4 is fun yet challenging and free - for that latter we are extrememely lucky that such a talented group of developers are willing to allow us to utilise their hard work without expecting reimbursement. What I am suggesting is that, given my experience, maybe DCS is missing a trick - especially given that some of those squad mates who initally would not give DCS a second look are actively considering a payware module, something that 2-3 years ago even I would have said they'd only be seen in DCS when Hell was getting the gritters out... I am certainly not demanding a freeware hi-fi module; but considering the demographic that DCS appeals to, a good majority of which is customers over 30, to truly get to grips with a hi-fi DCS module takes more than a handful of 2 hour sessions that some peoples real life allows.

Well I as a husband, father and holding down a 40+ hour a week career, don't have that luxury. Whatever planet you live on must be nice, but when you have responsibilties, that changes the meta considerably. Having them denounced as ridiculous doesn't make me wanna respect or like you very much either.

Horses for courses; for some time to dive into DCS is limited and a two week window barely scratches the surface. Something like the A-4 allows a longer period of acclimation to the DCS meta, plus whether full fidelity is right for you. In addition I would argue you have more time to realise the reward of getting to know a module, something that if you have a lot of other demands on your time, is difficult to accomplish in a 2 week period.

Ah, you’re one of the nuance = nonsense brigade; well then I’ll save my advice for those with the capacity to differentiate. Have fun being angry at everything that doesn’t fit a neat little binary category set!

Because you made a blanket generalisation that doesn't apply to all FFB users. I kind of have a right to do that in a public forum; you expressed your opinion - guess what! - I am allowed to express a counter opinion. Don't get pissy with me when your (very apparent) frustration needs to be directed at ED. No, I suggested a custom input curve that provides a compromise between getting a measure of controllability and delaying the tuck phenomenon to airspeed regions where it will still occur but, as you will not be in that region so often, presents less of an issue. I nowhere stated it was a cure and I certainly don't think that the force/trim model in DCS is helpful for FFB owners - I even started a thread here in an attempt to open dialogue with ED to get it changed but thus far no dice. No, they aren't because I took some time to investigate the issue and try and present to the community an interim band-aid to make the Mossie a little less intractable whilst trying to keep the tuck effect as far out of the general flying regime as possible. I tried to give advice to make the Mossie more accessible and enjoyable to a portion of the community that are adversely affected by the force/trim-FFB issue. So sorry my altruism isn't as wide ranging or officially ratified as you deem acceptable. I never claimed they should do. Given the wide range of physical controllers and their differing stick lengths, throws and displacements (that all effect this issue to varying degrees), there is no one size fits all solution or even mitigation. That's why I prefaced my description with the stick I run. The concept IS however a starting point. YMMV. I would have thought that was a given. Your posting history shows a great deal of this kind of irascible, prickly response to anyone who dares to disagree with you. It's a shame as it precludes constructive discourse. I for example, ordinarily would have asked what the Rhino was like as I have had an eye on getting one; if your tone was more agreeable I'd have even looked at suggestions as to how to improve the curve suggestion for your stick in an effort to nail down some settings that provide a better experience, not just for you but for the wider Rhino using community. However, right now, I think you can go swivel.

Wholeheartedly disagree. As an Microsoft Sidewinder FFB2 user, trying to fly the Mossie with no curves is unpleasant to say the least; all of the OPs original issues will be exacerbated. It is true that a conventional curve setting (15-25 range) can cause a mismatch between virtual stick force/trim and stick position that causes a nasty automatic tucking sensation as airspeed increases. However, the trick is to use a custom input in the curve setting to get a balance between controllability and moving the tucking phenomenom to further up the speed range: Go to your pitch curve input cell for your FFB stick, highlight it and select Axis Tune. In the pop up window, find the user curve box and tick it. You can then adjust the numbers manually. Use the following values: 0, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 56, 100 I find these the best compromise between controllability and moving the airspeed range at which the mismatch between the virtual stick force and the physical stick position becomes untenable. It will also still allow you to access the full range of the elevator on the ground or at very slow speeds. What seems to be the case is that the shallower that initial gradient the lower airspeed the trim tuck manifests. At these values it does not occur until we’ll above 300mph indicated, so be wary of it during shallow dive bomb or rocket attack profiles from several thousand feet, but it shouldn’t manifest during cruise or level bombing attacks.

Yeah, I should have said "active" rather than "operational". If the Cold War had gone hot and the Soviets got as far as Eastern France though, these would have been the only bases even vaguely able to support military aircraft.

Not having flown a real one I cannot authoratively corroborate; however more often than not the overriding concern is speed when designers are allowing for the size of control surface area in WW2 combat aircraft; larger vertical tail surfaces causes more drag, so the designers calculate the minimum vertical tail surface area to keep the aircraft just positively stable directionally. Else you are slowing the aircraft down. The Mossie is not unstable directionally; the wobble (actually called a phugoid and a realistic behaviour in any axis with low positive stability) dampens out after a time which indicates positive directional stabilty, just not a lot. However the designers may have chosen that as the compromise for the Mosquito to have the straight and level performance it exhibits. If you practise coordinating the rudder and aileron inputs in the right way then the slip and skid issues whilst rolling and turning are much mitigated and the aircraft naturally starts to feel more stable but it is tricky to time the rudder inputs correctly and make the correct amplitude (size of pedal dispalcement) to get it spot on.

@MAESTR0 Firstly, let me say thankyou for all your teams efforts - the general layouts of the airfields look pretty good and I can see the effort that has been invested to make the airfields less sterile. After a more detailed review, I do, however, have some concerns. 1. Many of your RAF fields have too many control towers. One was the norm. In some cases there were two where the airfield topography required it because of blindspots, or where one originally built was not up to the capacity required as the airfield expanded (which they often did as the war progressed). However, they were the exception, not the rule. From the screenshots provided, Tangmere, Ford and West Malling immediately jump out as being examples of where we have a surplus number of unprototypically placed Control Towers. If you would like information on where to accurately place control towers please PM me or @Fred901 as between us we have the data to help you get it right. 2. There should be no foliage (shrubs, bushes trees) within the perimeter track. This is an instruction laid down in Air Ministry Standards long before the war. It's just not a feature of Allied wartime airfields as they present a hazard to aircraft. Please omit them from Gravesend, Ford, Farnborough and Funtington. 3. There should be no concrete block paving on the runways/taxiways. Whilst large aircraft pans were certainly paved with large concrete blocks, taxiways and runways were not. Please adjust the runway/taxiway textures to reflect this at Tangmere and Farnborough. 4. There is a lack of dispersal points and blast pens on some of the large airfields. Tangmere and Ford had provision by 1944 to support 9-12 squadrons each of 18-20 aircraft - this needed a LOT of real estate dedicated towards parking spots for aircraft. These could be as simple as a small poured concrete circle, many of which were in evidence at these two airfields but are missing in your reproductions. So too the blast pens, these dating from pre-1940 and a very distinctive feature on many RAF airfields of the time. Please conside adding some of these in. All the above can be summarised in these annotated drawings of Ford and Tangmere respectively: The layout is 75% correct regards runways and taxiways but the areas where the hangars are is wrong by some margin. Also note the foliage and compared to period plans there's a dearth of places to park aircraft. Tangmere best displays the over-abundance of Control Towers and again, the lack of aircarft parking spots. 5. Incorrect hangar types. Please see my original post on this matter here. I do see a change has been made to the large hangar type being used throughout the RAF airfields from this: to this: But even this generic hangar looks little like any example on any British airfield. In addition, it's uselessly too tall! The only reason you'd have a hangar that high is because you were expecting to put a tricycle undercarriaged bomber sized aircraft with a very tall single tail in it, yet that framed glass full width transom window prevents any aircraft from utilising the height within - it doesn't make much sense. Please, please, PLEASE consider making an accurate 3D model of a single bay Belfast Truss instead; a 2 bay version is shown below: This would be FAR more prototypical for all the airfields shown and I wouldn't grumble if it appeared on other airfields in lieu of their actual hangar because at least it was of a period prototypical pattern.

What stick hardware you using crazyave?

Ah, well, if it helps some other neophyte F-14 driver then it’s done it’s job but, fair point, how you centre the T when there ain’t no T…

The inverted 'T' symbol that appears within your VDI when you have an STT lock. A dark green ASE (Allowbale Steering Error) circle is also generated behind the 'T' that changes size depending on range, target aspect, closure etc. Your best Pk with any given weapon will coincide when you fly to position the 'T' dead centre of the ASE circle; it will help you account for lead (yes A2A missiles benefit from lead also, not just guns) and imcrease the liklihood of your weapon hitting your target.

Trained - should fire too soon and basically track the target via it's sight, not applying any lead laterally or enough elevation to account for bullet drop over range with large CEP Average - should open fire at about the right range, applying some lead laterally and elevation to account for bullet drop over range but starts to correct the error as the engagement continues with moderate CEP Good - should open fire at the optimum range, applying correct lead laterally and correct elevation to account for bullet drop over range and corrects more quickly after the first burst with small CEP Excellent - should open fire at slightly within the optimum range, applying correct lead laterally and correct elevation to account for bullet drop over range and very small CEP

Because user choice is a thing. I may not want Wake Turbulence on as it negatively effects game performance on a mid level machine. I may not want icons forced off as I have issues with my sight due to my advancing years. There are umpteen different reasons. Now, I get where you are coming fom, it's gotta be frustrating that as a Mission Designer you spend hours and hours - and I know, believe me - crafting your mission to work in certain way and a user comes along and a) blows a lot of that hard work by switching off settngs that are designed to challenge them and b) then moans when a mission doesn't work the way it should because of a). However... They are ALLOWED to. When you put your mission up in public domain for public use you have automatically thrown away any right to dictate how people use it. The 'No force from mission, use mine' is simpy a shortcut anyway - any user can open the mission file in the ME and edit the difficulty options to their liking. The tick simply sidesteps the ME interface and allows people to run the mission at the settings they like best. There's no stopping this. There's no way you can police it. The only thing you can do is mitigate the complaints from people who do moan that the mission doesn't work properly after they've messed with it - put a disclaimer in the mission description warning users that your mission is designed to work and is best experienced with the difficulty settings as they come in the mission and that you as the mission designer will not be held responsible for any perceived lack of playability/functionality/entertainment that may occur should these settings be overridden.

As part of the startup routine in the F-14 you have to setup the ammo counter manually yourself; there’s ammo in the aircraft it’s just not automatically able to detect and display how much. There’s a small rotary knob below an ammo counter window on the far right side of the front instrument panel below the hook lever; set it to 670 and voila! If the gun still does not fire you forgot to switch your air source to both (right side of the cockpit by your thigh), and ensure you have selected gun on the weapon selector and that the Master Arm is on. F-14s never carried Maverick of Harpoon operationally but in reality were often called upon to strafe when they were the only asset in the AO able to respond in a timely manner.

The point of this thread escapes me. If it was planned to elicit a response from Heatblur, then well done, mission accomplished. Cobra categorically stated the Strike Eagle release will have no impact on the F-4. Any post thereafter is essentially engaging in a circle-jerk of escalating speculation and insinuations that he's wrong. The pointlessness of the previous 3 pages of this thread defies comprehension.

Because in real life, it's not as massive a deal as it is in in sim, as you get far more feedback via the butt cheeks as to what the airframe is doing directionally when on the ground, and whilst it takes getting used to, most pilots had gradually worked their way up to the Spitfire via training aircraft which had exactly the same mechanic. By the time you got to the Spit you would already have had a great deal of experience dealing with castoring tailwheel behaviour on lighter, less powerful types and the step-up would not have been so steep. In contrast most neophyte DCS Spit flyers have had little to no experience of accurate tailwheel behaviour and the learning curve is steep. Furthermore, in a period context, most tailwheel aircraft were exactly the same. Bf 109, Mosquito, Hurricane all had castoring tail wheel. Steerable tailwheels require linkages to the rudder control system = more weight = less climb rate. What if you want to do spot turns? You then have to have a system that can disconnect that linkage system when required, then re-engage when not = more weight = less climb rate. Spitfire is an interceptor. Guess what's important in an interceptor...

Personally I see this as ED generating a level of commercial intelligence to attempt to inspire a 3rd party developer to take the reigns on the DCS: MiG-29 development, given that they have stated it's something they are unable to touch.

Could this be deliberate? Is the weapon magazine fed? Could it be that half the guns engage then when they are reloading the other half engage?

You asked and ED have listened! DCS: Afterlife Modules! Coming soon for the pious Christian - DCS: Pearly Gates. A fully interactive 3D render of Heaven! Experience the afterlife in VR for best experience! Price: $1,999 + seven Hail Marys Been a Bad Boy? Fear not! The alternative DCS: Damnation will provide all the post virtual DCS life tortures you deserve. Price: Your soul. Buddhist? We got you covered - DCS: Reincarnation will see your virtual fighter pilot come back to the DCS world environment but in the form of a worm; accrue Karma points to work your way up through the levels to reach ultimate enlightenment. Price: FoC but you will have to grind the Karma points or unlock them with purchasable DLC. Other religious denominations in development and coming soon!

Okay, apologies, I missed that. Not against that idea but given the development time needed to do that work, wouldn't it be better spent developing an actual Fulda Gap map...? If the Red Army had got to Paris, NATO would have been in a pretty parlous state by that point - and given that the Normandy 2 Paris is at the very Eastern fringe of the map the scope for plausible hypothetical scenarios in Western France is a bit thin. Plus the fact that most of the airfields in the Southern UK were mothballed by the Cold War. Only Northolt, Odiham, Manston and Biggin Hill (and these last two aren't in the detailed area) would have been active operational fields within the map boundaries in the 80's (which I assume is the period you're looking to?). I imagine a similar situation for the French airfields. Again, seems a pointless effort. Keep pushing for Fulda proper I say.

No thanks. Modern era maps: Caucasus Persian Gulf Syria Nevada Marianas South Atlantic WW2 maps: Channel Normandy As a DCS:WW2 user I don't want to see modern airfields on a historical map - there are a great number of modern maps that you can use for modern scenarios, leave the WW2 maps as authentic as they can be.

The issue with any Northern European map will be the sheer density of objects; not only are the population centres more tightly packed but the amount of foliage is several orders of magnitude more dense with not only many woods but many many many miles of hedge lines; why do you think many of our existing maps are in desert areas? It’s because computationally they are much less resource hungry to develop and run. Because of this the European maps we do have cover much less area than their desert counterparts. A whole Germany map is I suspect beyond the engine to support currently, though it could well be broken up into several useful areas: 1. Western Frontier WW2 including Dutch and Belgian borders 2. Eastern Frontier WW2 including Berlin, the Seelow Heights and Polish border 3. Fulda Gap Cold War

F-14 was slated to replace the F-4 in Marine service - so in some regard you can thank the Marines for the Ground Attack options on the RIOs Armament Panel cos they were gonna use it as a fighter bomber! That was going to mean lots of extra $$$ for Grumman. Then the rug got pulled and suddenly Grumman were in a financial crisis... the sale of F-14s to Iran bailed Grumman out of a real bad situation financially.