DD_Fenrir

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.

It should also be noted that there is no Spitfire with 4x .50s. The .50s we’re placed alongside the cannon, not in the outer wing positions.

One wing (125 wing) of IXe was in evidence just after D-Day, consisting 602, 453 and 132 squadrons. Others were upgraded prior to the wider appearance of the mkXVI on operations. There is photographic evidence of this - both Johnny Johnson and Geoffrey Page are pictured in or alongside .50 cal equipped Merlin 66 engined Spitfires in D-Day markings at a time long before any serial numbers denoting mkXVI variants would have appeared at the frontline.

Whilst I agree with the sentiment (I have also started threads requesting the MkIXe, this being the sub-variant with the 2x .50s instead of 4x 303s) this last statement is not entirely correct; the C or Universal wing can indeed accept both armament configurations but some 3d re-modelling work would be required: Cannon shrouds are not only moved to the outboard position but also shortened and often had a different profile The bulges to accommodate the feed motors to the cannon in the overwing ammo tray access hatches also have to move outboard with the cannon The spent cartridge ejection ports on the underside access hatch also change to match the revised position of the guns breeches. So some work is required; however it would be a useful expansion of the module for a modest amount of work and would certainly help the Spitfire have a version more relevant to the later war Luftwaffe fighter types in DCS.

It’s complicated but doable - it’s been a while since I’ve done any. You’ll need Photoshop to do the editing and the template available in these forums. The first note is that there isn’t one texture file, many are used across the aircraft - this can make lining up geometric shapes that cross texture boundaries challenging. Then there are alpha channels - these are texture layers that have transparency characteristics and are used to drive how Matt or gloss the skin finish is. A search on YouTube for DCS skin creation will help - there’s a few good ones that helped me when I started. I’m on my phone currently and don’t have time to search out the links but if I get the opportunity later I’ll add some for you. Just be advised that it is a time consuming process at first (and even accomplished skin artists can find complicated paint schemes a black hole of time and effort) and takes a while to get the rhythm of. This probably why your request was not immediately taken up - as even a noob skinner I can see there’s a lot of complication in adapting that paint scheme to the F-14, and that even before we worry about lining up those geometric white lines and making them make sense with the wing sweep etc. There’s scope to lose a lot of hours there! Hope this helps somewhat.

You need to do the following steps: Wing Sweep Handle (inboard of throttles) all the way forward and right click handle to engage into spider detent Punch the grey circular RESET button just forward of the quadrant on the vertical panel Now find whatever you have mapped to the wing sweep auto button (you may need to assign it) and hit it. Voila, your wings will be coming forward. For flaps, you should now be able to use your flap lever to engage the flaps.

Hi Wolverine, I can only suggest a compromise solution that seems to mitigate (though not eliminate) some of the issues. 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 trim tuck effect takes effect. 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.

Ha! The entirety of this thread, started by you, is one massive act of passive aggression, with that costing exercise the pinnacle. Excuse me for calling you out using your own modus operandi. Thats called irony by the way.

So?

The above should be noted for being the dictionary definition of “clap-trap”, “balderdash” and “piffle”. Male cow manure may also suffice.

Last night (on the 18th aptly enough), the DangerDogz invited a number of the DCS community members to partake in a recreation of the Amiens Prison Raid. Despite a few small niggles it went extremely well and feedback has been overwhelmingly positive - I certainly had fun despite having flown the mission more times than I can count during the course of testing! Some screenshots, all courtesy of @MJDixon, for your delectation:

Anytime... baby! Oops, wrong sub-forum.

1. Go into your control settings 2. Select the axis commands filter from the drop down menu. 3. Highlight either the aileron or elevator input axis cell corresponding to your MSFFB2 input 4. Choose the "FF Tune" button which will have now been made active 5. In the pop up window find and check the box which says "Swap axis" You will need to do this for ALL ED developed aircraft modules else you will find your pitch stick forces acting on your aileron and vice-versa.

This needs to be boldened, underlined and printed in all caps. This the new Gospel. This is your new mantra. DCS is not Ace Combat; the enemy - and chance - gets a vote.

Another insightful post backed up with legitimate documentary evidence. /S Modus operandi KoN everyone.

I don't understand the hard-on for pilot body; there's an element of increased immersion seeing limbs in the cockpit in lieu of the controls moving as if a particularly compliant poltergeist is your avatar, sure, I get that, but in aircraft so profoundly dependent on switchology I always find that these semi-static limbs ultimately get in the way, and that is equally if not more immersion-breaking. Each to their own I guess.

1. MLC = Main Lobe Clutter Essentially it's a filter for your radars Main Lobe: The Main Lobe is what you use for detecting targets - all the others are a nuisance and we want to ignore any return from those. If the WCS calculates that due to antenna elevation any part of the Main Lobe might be catching a return from the ground it enables, automatically, this filter. Why? To do look down/shoot-down you have to use doppler processing, i.e. assessing the closure rate of a return. This is where the WCS looks at your calculated ground speed and throws out any returns whose closure rate to your aircraft it thinks correspond to that number, ergo ignoring any return from the ground. Simple, right? In theory, yes, in reality... there's a few gotchas. This is not, particularly in the AWG-9 (which whilst amazing technology of it's time, is essentially 1960's tech), a very precise technology. It cannot estimate your GS down to the nearest 1 Knot accuracy. Or even 10 knots. Or even 50. It's more like +/- 100 knots. So, if your target is flying either very slowly or turns perpendicular to you and your radar's MLC is active he's gonna disappear. When that happens, you get the dreaded 'x' appear over the contact, the track file is now bupkiss and you watch the target you just committed a missile to march off the TID at some incredulous angle at unfeasible speed. Bugger. 2. There is another issue in the AWG-9s ability to discriminate between multiple fighter sized targets at range that can cause lost track files. If you commit to a target aircraft group that is flying in close formation it can be difficult for the AWG-9 to determine that there's more than one contact, and as such it might tell you there's only one. Sometimes, when break-out occurs it can confuse the AWG-9 and where it had one contact it now has two, does not know which to maintain as the 1st Track and which to start building a 2nd Track for and seems to throw a wobbly; it dumps the nice track file you had and starts from scratch. Which is great, except when you've already put a Phoenix in the air. Sometimes it is able to break-out the other aircraft before your Missile Engagement Zone (MEZ) and at others not. It depends on the RCS of the target and how close they are flying form.

Yeah, I kind of doubt it, remember hearing one source, might have been the F-14 Tomcat Radio Show saying that the kneel was a hydraulically pressurised at 1000 psi; be damn dangerous for ground crews to be working in proximity to that in the event of a sudden failure. Regards the DCS bug where the jets spawn in kneeling, I only get that from hot start F-14s; cold start F -14s spawn in fine for me.