DD_Fenrir

Please consider the addition of some of the ALGs used by the US 9th Air Force. RAF Lymington: Lymington Advanced Landing Ground – Overview – New Forest Knowledge (nfknowledge.org) RAF Beaulieu: RAF Beaulieu - Wikipedia Beaulieu Airfield | New Forest National Park (new-forest-national-park.com) RAF Stoney Cross: Stoney Cross Airfield | New Forest National Park (new-forest-national-park.com) RAF Ibsley: RAF Ibsley, Hampshire Airfield Site (atlantikwall.co.uk) RAF Ibsley - Alchetron, The Free Social Encyclopedia

Please consider the addition of an airfield for this map that was the prototypical home for a Wing of Mosquito FB.VI, RAF Thorney Island: THORNEY ISLAND (hampshireairfields.co.uk)

Ultimately this should be a feature implemented independently of a review of the thermodynamic modelling - the fact is the DCS Spitfires Merlin 66 is missing a system that prevents the temperature ever from dropping below 80 degrees once the engine is running, a system that has been proved unequivocally to be a feature of the real aircraft.

One wonders if you've actually be reading the thread and absorbing the information therein... There are changes to missiles because ED are updating (note present tense, i.e. this is an ongoing iterative process) the core code that drives missile behaviours. Ergo any code written to govern the behaviour of missile 'X' prior to this will be suffering from profound over/under performing issues, particularly at the edges of the envelope. This is the fundamental cause of this quirky missile behaviour we have been seeing over many missile models - including EDS - own over the past year. I think we can all agree that as long as developers can model the physical properties of each missile as closely as data allows and that the guidance logic for each is based upon similarly available data then that's the best we can hope for.

Nonsense. Being passionate is not license to be ill-mannered, insulting, derogatory or aggressive. True passion is persistence, dedication, resilience and vision. Nowhere does it tacitly authorise the requirement to be impolite, unkind or ignorant.

Ward Carroll references 40nm for a 5th gen fighter threat in this video: No mention of altitude, however.

For us WW2 buffs who try to recreate historical missions from an Allies perspective, it would be a nice quality of life addition to provide an option to have the dimensional and speed data presentable in statute miles and mph as well as the Knot/nm and metric options in place. Thanks for the consideration.

My suspicions are that Normandy will, after the update to bring in London and Paris, for the foreseeable future, be limited to the new boundaries that including these two cities sets; this looks like it will cover an area from Bristol to Paris. However it massively opens up an AO for the inclusion of a large number of Allied and Axis airfields and a wider useful chronology for mission builders. Concurrently, I forsee that the Channel Map will be used as a foundation point for pushing East and maybe slightly North to include Belgium, Holland and the Rhineland, making the map more useful for Autumn/Winter 1944 scenarios. Having a useful amount of overlap is no bad thing; plenty of times I would run into hurdles wanting to portray historical missions from an airbase on the Channel map that pushed further West or South into territory that was only available on the Normandy Map. If my theory bears out then it could spell more opportunity for realistic historical mission and campaign developments.

Wow. So much hubris in one person. Piece of advise; don’t contravene rule one.

Open the pilot side window prior to giving the command...

Amazing how many people think the P-38 was not a factor in the ETO; 6 entire Fighter Groups were equipped at the time of D-Day. That's 6 Groups x 3 Squadrons x 16 aircraft = 288 operational airframes on a good day. It may have been outnumbered by it's contemporaries but if any one thinks almost 300 aircraft is somehow insignificant? Well...

+1

It's the Skin Prof. The are two Coastal Command schemes; the one with the 'L' on you cannot manipulate the codes; the second similar skin you can however. The traditional RAF green/grey skin as always had and continues to have the ability to change the squadron codes and serial number.

The point of the Phoenix is long range stand-off missile shots - that's it's raison d'etre. You're supposed to be chucking them at 30-50 nm, not hanging on to them for a sub 20nm close range fight, where you are approaching - or within - your enemies NEZ. If HB had not massaged to make it perform at long range as it should they'd have got a lot more grief from a far wider section of the community. It's a compromise, that relies on people using the missile in an authentic manner. And it's not like they've ignored the issue or have given you the finger and said "tough sh*t, deal with it" - they have said REPEATEDLY that once the new API is available that they'll look at sorting this discrepency but until then it can't be fixed in the current missile engine. How many times does this need repeating? How many times you do have to be told the same thing before your comprehension finally kicks in?

Now that looks better! Back onboard! FlyingIron P-38 gets a preliminary thumbs up from me.

I wouldn't bother with any further explanations; those of us who have the capacity to understand already do. No amount of rational elucidation will satiate the witch-hunt brigade. Let them froth and twitch.

I agree, plus I would add HOTAS+body+module; a curve that works for one module will not automatically be the solution to any others. Each needs to be setup as an individual case. The only universal statement I would say is to use the minimum curvature you feel comfortable with.

It’s less that and more that the lateral sliding is so much more detectable in RL via the butt cheeks that it was making the DCS tail drafters artificially difficult to handle; they decided to allow a bit more lateral slipping to compensate for the lack of feedback.

D-Day happened about 60 miles further southwest.... So.... no.

Three things that I found helped me hit the basket more regularly: 1. Anticipate - Make corrections sooner rather than later (they'll be smaller); sounds easier than it is, I know, but part of this is learning to trust your judgement. I found when I analysed my thought processes that I would suspect a correction was required but tended to wait for a larger visual clue to confirm... by which time it was too late. More often than not that initial suspicion was correct, so trust your instinct and get a small correction in the moment you even suspect it's required. 2. Many small corrections > one big one - when making corrections rather than try to get the exact control displacement required - which is tough to judge - for the stick, I started to use multiple small and fast pulses of the control column; if I was low on the basket I might put three very small but fast pulses of aft stick and then assess; maybe three more, no too much, 2 quick tiny pulses of forward stick now to get it back under control before I start to PIO too badly. 3. Alternate the dimensions - At first I found it easier to work alternately one dimension at a time; do a pitch correction, then a lateral correction; then a pitch correction then a lateral correction, etc. Now, if the tanking is going well, I don't consciously need to do this so much but on those occasions that I'm having a bad day (or night) it's actually a useful process to revert to, plus it breaks down the task in to a couple of more achievable steps to allow you to work your way in progressively.

Any time you move the stick laterally you should be coordinating with rudder correspondingly. For a right turn from level - 1. To initiate: Right aileron + Right rudder - this counters adverse yaw due to aileron input 2. Established desired bank angle: Centralise aileron + Reduced right rudder - this counters the adverse yaw from the outer wing travelling faster than the inner wing. Complications - as you tighten the turn you'll need to decrease right rudder (right turn)/increase left rudder (left turn) input to counter the gyroscopic precession and added P-factor effects.

As a WW2 map it’s got like 1 days relevance in a war that lasted 3 years (5 if you count the pre-US involvement). As a modern map, maybe but given the very tenuous modern day scenarios available even to the Marianas, stretching these to Hawaii seems a little too implausible. Personally I would rather see ED development time expended on a map with a wider period of relevance allowing a greater scope of historical re-enactment or more plausible what if scenarios.

Waaaahmbulance on aisle 4 please.

Gents, might be worth pushing this to the Bugs section to ensure that it's registered and acknowledged as such by ED.

It was more operational doctrine. In the late 70's/early '80s the Soviet fighter AA missile threat was not deemed significant enough that an AIM-7 couldn't deal with it. Save the heavy and expensive Phoenix to protect the fleet. It was with the arrival of the Flankers/Fulcrums and their more capable weapon sets in the late 80's/early '90s that it was decided that the AIM-54 would become part of an approved anti-fighter loadout. Time and again ACTUAL EVIDENCE from source documentation and trained personnel (Dave 'BIO' Baranek) has REPEATEDLY shown that the AIM-54 was a capable anti-fighter weapon FROM THE START, despite the delusional rantings of those who choose to ignore the facts.