DD_Fenrir

@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.

Because it has the autokommandgerat system that automatically adjusts propeller pitch based on speed altitude and manifold pressure and prevents prop driven engine conditions. For similar behaviour you need to look at the I-16 and possibly the upcoming F4U and La-7 modules.

It's a radial engine problem. In the inlines the crankshaft essentially sits in an oil bath, this keeps the bearings lubricated. Not so in a radial. Oil is fed directly through the bearing to the face of the bearing and crank interface - but this point is optimised to lubricate the bearing when under power. I.E. when the engine is driving the propellor. When you allow the propellor speed to overcome that of the speed of the engine the bearing and crank pressure point is now reversed - this is sub-optimal lubrication, causing the crank/bearing interface to heat and ultimately, if left unchecked, resulting in main bearing failure. Diving at a high RPM and low throttle setting and letting airspeed build will cause this condition. The propellor is driving the engine, not the other way round. For the reason listed above, this is not good engine management. It is one of the compromises that comes with operating radial engines.

I read that as Normandy 1 cannot be extended due to being built with legacy map technology; however, Normandy 2, having been built using the later map tech will have the ability to be further expanded in the future.

There has to be some care taken in requesting airfields; firstly there were a LOT of them in France, and expecting a developer to model them all would be unfeasible in both time, cost and processor budget; secondly, not all of them were used operationally. What do I mean by that? From my analysis - and this is not authoratitive, I'm sure there are some better educated Luftwaffe airfield experts that could correct the following opinion - there seem to be two distinct types of airfields: Operational - these were used (at some point, not necessarily throughout the war - I will expand on this in a minute) by combat units, for offensive or defensive combat missions, i.e. by bomber, fighter, fighter-bomber or nightfighter units. Administrative - these are too small or too under developed logistically to support combat units but were useful to keep maintained for embarking or receiving mail, light stores or personnel, stuff that needed to be moved expeditiously around France (which, after all, is a big country) Now, Dieppe-St-Aubin (and similarly Fecamp that is shown on the WiP map) seem to fall definitively into this last category. Whilst these would be nice to have, with airfield capacity of any given map at an apparent budget for those reasons listed above, given that we fly combat aircraft against other combat aircraft, would it not make sense that the adminstrative fields be relegated far down the priority list? Triquerville, on the face of it is an operational airfield, and therefore worthy of inclusion; but there's a catch... The last unit based there was in I./JG 2 and they left at some date in June of 1943. A full year before the invasion. Now did the airfield exist around the invasion? Sure, it was bombed repeatedly from June of '43 till February of '44 by B-17s and B-26s but eventually the Luftwaffe conceded and covered it in anti-invasion obstacles. So by the time of the map makers apparent chronology of the map, it is irrelevant; no Luftwaffe units were flying from there against the Allied forces in the 6 months prior to or in the immediate aftermath of invasion. The same is true of many, many of the Luftwaffe airfields in France, especially those nearer the coast, and those that we otherwise associate with the famous Luftwaffe Geschwader; Abbeville - 15 Mar 44: all 3 runways were mined during the preceding month and by 27 May the mines had been detonated and trenches dug across all remaining landing runs. Audembert - 23 Apr 44: work underway to permanently obstruct the landing area with trenches St Omer - (firstly, which one, as there were a number!) all of the airfields around St Omer are obstructed and/or mined by April of 1944. So many of those famous Luftwaffe airfields that people have heard about, by the time span relevant to the aircraft we have currently in DCS, are largely irrelevant. Would they be nice to see? Sure, but given that we don't have the aircraft types to recreate their operational history for the appropriate time periods, would it not make more sense to focus development energy on providing airfields with an operationally historical precedent to the aircraft types and at least rough chronological relevance? I know, people will say "what about the Battle of Britain", or "what if I want to create scenarios from earlier in the war"? Well fine. But if you are happy to use incorrect aircraft variants then why are you unhappy to use the wrong airfield? It is logically inconsistent. Personally, I say let the maps reflect the historical record as true as possible. This will allow the purists to make accurate scenarios. If you wish to what-if thereafter, then fine, subvert to your desires, that is your right.

My 2 cents; 1. Farnborough and Heathrow are irrelevant airfield choices; there are far better choices better relevant to the aircraft available in DCS. For example there are a slew of Advanced Landing Grounds based in the New Forest area west of the Solent that would be eminently suitable for the P-47; additionally RAF Thorney Island would make a prototypical home for fighter bomber Mosquitoes on the Normandy map. I have already provided information pertaining to these in these forums. 2. The lack of airfields that otherwise appear on the Channel map is disappointing; if ED are willing to share their development data for these airfields (Biggin, Detling, Manston etc) it opens up far more flexibility for mission makers who wish to make historically authentic missions to utilise both maps as appropriate to the mission target whilst keeping the player’s home base accurate - for example I might want to use 132 sqn based at Detling but attack a target that appears only on the Normandy. Previously I would have either had to use the channel map to have the correct home base but make the target in an inaccurate location or alternatively, use the Normandy map but use the wrong airfield to base the player at and have the target in it’s prototypical location. I was hoping this quandary would have been a thing if the past. 3. Since day 1 of Normandy 1 being announced many of us have been asking for the ability to remove/redact or otherwise have a version without the French allied ALGs; this would allow for the map to be prototypical for a far wider period than having them baked in. Is there any way that the locations could be left as grass field locations and for mission makers to load in templates to show the ALGs as required by mission date? 4. If any detail is required on any airfield layout I am happy to assist, free of charge, and provide relevant documentation, maps etc to ED or Urga. Please PM me. 5. There are a few of the large Luftwaffe airfields in France that are often referenced in allied combat reports (Poix, Montdidier) that aren’t included but the tiny (and operationally almost irrelevant) Fecamp field is; what is the justification for this choice?

I dunno rust; that analogy doesn’t seem to port well… look at what we are getting vs what was offered; an F-14b and 3 different variants of the A against originally just the b and an a. Heatblur have worked continuously and listened to a lot of customer feedback to prioritise delivery of content in a way that not just suited their development roadmap but also has given greater bang for the buck than was originally in scope. That’s way outside of any purchase model for physical objects I’ve ever seen where generally you’re wallet takes a hit for every optional upgrade….

No. Channel is also a 1944 map if the layout of Manston is used as a benchmark. However, it can be representative of some mid-late 1943 scenarios.

Yes and no... If Paris establishes the Eastern and Southern limit of Normandy 2 then, yes, most of the territory covered the Channel map also falls into this area. The Channel map will still be a separate module and map. Does this render the Channel map moot? No. 2 Reasons. 1. Multiplayer performance- Syria is still quite demanding performance wise on an average machine; it must be assumed that Normandy 2 may come with a similar performance hit. The Channel map can be used to provide more focussed scenarios at lesser impact, good for MP environment. 2. Future expansion - if the technology that allows Normandy to be so substantially expanded can also be applied to the Channel map itself, we could potentially see an eastward expansion of the Channel map to include most of the Netherlands, Belgium and Western Germany almost as far East as Bremen; it would also allow East Anglia of the UK to be modelled and a range of the air bases therein used by the 8th Air Force B-17s, P-51s and P-47s in the daylight strategic bombing campaign against Germany. This will allow some reasonably authentic bomber escort missions to be recreated, as well as provide a home for scenarios for the 9th and 2nd Tactical Air Forces based on the continent in the winter of 1944-45; this would also provide a prototypical environment for the Fw 190D-9 and the Bf 109K-4 to finally be used in.