DD_Fenrir

It's the same for all the WW2 aircraft pm; been using a MS Sidewinder FFB2 for years and have always experienced this behaviour; the force/trim model remains linear despite changes to the input curve and this is results in un-prototypical behaviour; particularly problematic in the Mosquito, where you have to very carefully juggle a compromise between overly sensitive pitch control or a curious tucking phenomenom that manifests as airspeed passes a particular threshold, that threshold appearing at progressively lower airspeed as curvature values increase. The only apparent 100% solution is to get a stick extension that provides a 1:1 scale replica of the moment arm/displacement of the real control column. We have attempted to open dialogue with ED regards this issue and see if there is a way of simulating stick forces that doesn't have these side effects for those of us who have FFB sticks that do not (or cannot econonmically be made to) reflect prototypical displacements to not be penalised.

Maxin, give it a rest chum, it's getting tiresome to read, is wholly unoriginal, not particularly mature and shows a lack of pragmatism. You need to stop letting your impatience get the better of you and taking out your frustrations on the other board members. You have an answer, it may not be the one you like, but there it is. Deal with it. In the meantime, the DCS: F-14 is wholly enjoyable and an excellent product and capable of mixing it with any of the other aircraft in DCS, player or AI flown. Evidence

RAF Ford: Runway orientations and taxiways almost correct - the hangar area and aircraft pans are in completely the wrong locations and do not attach directly to either runway. Also that group of buildings just off the north-eastern side of the NE-SW runway - just NO. They'd present a significant hazard to aircraft. Please refer to this thread for further information:

Annotated version of RAF Ford: This is the layout in 1947, but is practically unchanged since the 1944 version; the unidentified hangar types on the eastern pan may well be post-war additions; I am attempting to tie down what types these were and when they appeared. Notice the large number of blister hangars and a preponderance of the the blast pen type B (annotated with a red K). EDIT: the unidentified hangars on the Eastern dispersal are in existence in a 1940 Luftwaffe reconnaisance photo - their apparent dimensions of ~90ft x <200ft and the fact that in the photo they have low ridged rooves strongly suggest that these are of the "Bellman" type hangar:

Also: If this reflects a train in Southern England those coaches need to be olive or malachite green - in the maps primary focus area the Southern Railway was the predominant railway company; those look like they are based on London Midland & Scottish Railway types, whose area of responsibility was, as their name suggests, much further North.

These types: These don't belong on any RAF airfield; they are too elaborate and continental or even American in their design. The positions these are shown in would have been the much more spartan blister hanger types. This hangar: Is supposed to be representative of the Belfast type hangar? It's got far too much glazing, and is too ostentatious. Again too continental - feels like a French or German pre-war type. Also, camouflage?! This what it should look like:

Not impressed with the generic hangar types present on the RAF fields; they look very little like the prototypes and more like someone's idea of a mid 20th century hangar. There were a specific range of a hangar types in use by the RAF during the war. Given the airfields proposed for the map you will need the folllowing: 1. RFC General Aircraft Service Shed (aka Belfast Hangar) http://www.hootonparktrust.co.uk/images/photos/air_pict2.jpg This is a WW1 era shed that came in 1, 2 and 3 bays. The linked picture shows 3x 2-bay versions. Duxford, home of The Fighter Collection is famously home to the best existing examples. Kenley, Ford and Tangmere had these pre-war but many were destroyed in the Battle of Britain. However, at Kenley and Tangmere at least one survived to still be extant during Operation Overlord. 2. J-Type Hanger This is what the J-Type Hanger and Control tower at RAF West Malling looked like post war; both were present during the D-Day period: The control tower was not white during the conflict, however; it was camouflaged brown and green. This shot shows an Fw 190 that force landed at the airfield in 1943: 3. Blister hangars There were 3 sizes Blister Hangar 45ft wide x 45ft long Over Blister Hangar 65ft wide x 45ft long Extra Over Blister Hangar 69ft wide x 45ft long https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205212731 https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/205210839 Examples of these are seen at Ford: and in aerial photos of Kenley: & West Malling as shown in @Fred901 s excellent annotated drawings in this thread: Others also show up at many of the Advanced Landing Grounds in the UK.

The Mach 5+ number attributed too the AIM-54 is a red-herring; the missile did acheive this under very specific test cases whilst very lightly loaded (no warhead and other mods) which came about as NASA were starting to investigate hypersonic flight regimes. The figures derived from these tests therefore DO NOT APPLY TO THE EVERYDAY FLEET MISSILES. Mach 3.9 sounds about right. Getting shots to connect @ ~100nm is really only acheivable with the launch aircraft at high altitudes (40K ft and upwards) and running at high speed (~1.5M) against fat dumb and happy targets, i.e. multi-engine bombers and transports; fighters are just too manoueverable and will defeat your Phoenix kinematically with ease at that range - unless they forgot to turn on their RWR!

@NineLine @BIGNEWY Hello gents, Could we ask the development team for news on what the future holds in store for the WW2 Asset pack? In particular the status of some items originally slated for inclusion: Bf 109 G-6 Hawker Typhoon B-26 B-25 B-24 Avro Lancaster Also the likelihood of any of the following items to potentially see inclusion: WW2 era Cargo/Tanker Ships Destroyer Class Ship Minesweeper Class Ship WW2 era Mobile AAA vehicles WW2 era Fuel Trucks WW2 era Ambulances WW2 era Fire Fighting Vehicles Eastern Front WW2 Assets Runway Lighting Object for defining runways during twilight operations I appreciate that we've had a fair few additions that were not originally planned but I think most of us here would agree that those items listed above would massively help to make the WW2 Asset Pack be more usefully complete.

*bump* Please ED....

Too right. @draconus - this isn't a First Person Shooter mate - you need to manage your expectations.

I guess you actually mean nose over… In any case, the discrepancy is curious, though different model numbers could well have different CoGs which is the principle factor governing the tendency to nose over; brake effectiveness could also have been improved in later versions which would also make nose over more of an issue.

@MAESTR0 are the Liberty ship and the steam locomotive going to be available as additional assets placeable by the user in mission editor or are they static items to be baked into the map?

Looks like the Spitfire video is showing RAF Kenley; the airfield layout corresponds and it also tallies with the London-Brighton railway line appearing in a valley off the east side of the airfield...

Astounding! Thanks @MAESTR0

I quite agree. The Bf 109K-4 and Fw 190D-9 predate EDs takeover over the WW2 aircraft, maps and assets from RRG and their kick starter; from day one it was pointed out that the plane set and map were mis-matched but no-one was listening. The ideal map would have been Belgium Holland Luxembourg and the west frontier of Germany; all the planes we currently have would have suited this map perfectly. Availability of +25lb as an option for Spitfire IXs would have been a rational argument to reflect early 1945 scenarios. But we don't have this. Bf 109G-6/14 would have been a far more suitable choice for our current map sets, but by the same argument, so too a P-51B and a razorback P-47 as these were present in greater numbers than their bubbletop variants. So the question to ask ED (and yourselves as customers) is do you compound the errors by introducing yet another inaccuracy as a band-aid; or do you focus your efforts to providing content that helps mitigate the historical inaccuracies. Personally I prefer the latter. So, as I see it, EDs ETO development should focus on: 1) providing a flyable Bf 109G-6/14 2) a West Front 44-45 map That way a lot of these arguments disappear. Whether ED would provide a +25lb Spitfire version thereafter would depend on how vocal the community is about it, though in that case I would certainly join the call for it. As it stands, I would rather see a Bf 109G variant than a +25lb Spit.

Still useless information. 1. Parameters of launch? Speed, altitude and aspect of launch aircraft? 2. Parameters of target? Speed, altitude and aspect at launch? 3. Did targets defend? Were they even able to appreciate they were under fire? Did they even have RWRs in the export model of that aircraft? This is the nuance that is required to assess the performance accuracy of the DCS Phoenix because all these factors massively influence the PK of ANY missile, not just the Phoenix. This nuance extends to the modelling of the DCS itself; if there is an issue, where does it lie? Is it in the FM of the missile or the guidance logic? Is it in the programmed rocket performance or an issue with the AI? If the Ai is the issue is it the launching AI or the target AI? Or could it be just poor operator performance, launching at envelope limits? Or a bit of all these? A tacview is insufficient data; it may provide a theatrical performance of an undesirable outcome - the symptom - but it fails to allow any deeper diagnostics of why that undesirable outcome occurred - the ailment. A .trk file is the only way deeper information about the varied parameters that led to all 12 of the launched missiles missing can be mined. Run your test again. If all 12 missiles miss again save a .trk file. Then run it again. Save a second .trk file. Give to Heatblur. Then you may have a leg to stand on.

For someone so sure you have remarkably little evidence. Ah, but that's right you don't need evidence. You're all singing all dancing sh1t of the world and every word that passes your lips is gospel. Please. Do yourself, and us a favour - 1. Your opinion is abundantly clear; you re-iterating it in every reply does nothing to enhance your argument, it just grinds and will ultimately alienate you. If you seek to be taken seriously and not be disregarded as some bleating fantasist, desist in repeating it and find something a bit more constructive to post. 2. PKs, reports, will serve you 100 times more effectively than feels - a lot of AIM-54 were test launched between its introduction and its retirement to test various upgrades in hardware and software so start trying to source them; HB have stated they are happy with their data so find better data to give HB a revised baseline to work to; whining is not a datapoint.

2nd TAF Spitfire IX Squadrons D-Day: 56 132 222 302 308 310 312 313 317 329 331 332 340 341 349 401 403 411 412 416 421 441 442 443 453 485 602 ADGB Spitfire IX Squadrons D-Day (those in 10, 11 and 12 Groups): 1 33 74 80 126 127 229 274 501 504 2nd TAF eschewed the use of 150 Octane for logistics reasons until early 1945; ergo, straight away that removes 73% of the total Spitfire IX force that could usefully undertake offensive operations during the summer of 1944 from utilising 150 grade. Add to that, that at the time of D-Day only 3 of the ADGB Spitfire IX squadrons were testing 150 Grade operationally and that % of use is tiny. Admittedly as the V-1 attacks commence there's a rush to get 150 octane supplied to all ADGB Spitfire, Tempest and Mosquito nightfighter units and we see it become the norm for ADGB use until the autumn, but given ADGBs focus of defensive operations, as a Luftwaffe Jadgwaffe pilot, you're still very unlikely to encounter a Spitfire operating with 150 octane as they are too busy chasing V-1s; you'll much more likely face-off against Spitfires of 2nd TAF running at the usual +18lb boost. Then, in September of 1944 with the V-1 threat almost gone, even ADGB reverts to 130 Octane to make the exchange of units with 2nd TAF simpler. It's not until February of 1945 that we see 150 appear, this time in 2nd TAF with its Spitfires based in Holland and Belgium. So, if you wanna create early 1945 scenarios, which would require 1. a west wall map, and 2. the correct Spitfire (should be a IXe). Then yes 150 octane should be represented. But we don't have these. We have a representation of the spring/summer of 1944. As its stands we have in DCS a Spitfire IX that best represents that most likely to be encountered by the Jagdwaffe in the ETO in the spring & summer of 1944.

Here we go....

Big no from me. DCS WW2 nightfighting is not a thing - currently. And that's partly down to a lack of period radar modelling and the simulation of a GCI for that era. DCS WW2 is incomplete even for daylight ops; there's a host of "day" aircraft that should be available for the late 1943-45 era that we don't yet have. The P-61 would be a white elephant in every respect. I wouldn't support the diversion of developer resources until the "day ops" are better fleshed out and a true WW2 era GCI becomes available. Personally, I would love a DCS Night Fighter environment, with Lancasters, Halifaxes, Mosquito NFXII or XIIIs, Bf 110G-4, Ju 88G, Do 217, even a He 177 and then a P-61. Even then the P-61 wasn't operationally relevant to the autumn of 1944 and we don't have maps to support it's operations realistically.

Done some research and apparently the Merlin could be configured in both dry or wet sump as appropriate to each application; in aircraft dry sump is preferred. In that case the crankshaft is hollow and used as the conduit for the oil feed with channels provided to feed oil to the big end bearing.