DD_Fenrir

Then ED miss out. Ultimately they charge what they need to to remain viable as a business. They know their finances better then any forum warrior. And it’s down to server operators to provide accessibility - it’s simple enough to provide a fleet with both SC and a Stennis, this is not an ED issue.

Request picture instead of bogey dope IIRC.

Quartering tailwind + tail-dragger = bad news. 6 Dangers Of Tailwinds During Takeoff And Landing | Boldmethod

Hi Nealius, it would seem your assumption, though logical, was not borne out by experience; the last sentence in the attached picture:

Naw, not the thread, just the... "contributions"* ... of a certain member**. *gawd, it was hard to find a polite way of describing that! Disclaimer: I do feel that (a) by giving them that appellation it ascribes some false legitimacy to 'em and (b) I have so corrupted the term I now feel dirrrrty ** fortunately there are many things that fall under this descriptor, use whichever you find most appropriate.

Slammers are overrated. Gimme the Phoenie-bomb every day of the week.

Think that about covers it.

Are you using the same Spit variant in each instance (i.e. clipped or full wing)? If not check your bindings. Is wind really same in each?

Seriously? One comment taken wholly out of context? Dave Barenek and Ward Carroll have both (repeatedly I might add) provided proof that later in it’s career the AWG-9/AIM-54/F-14 combination was to be used against fighters. Must try harder.

The only other variants an FB.VI "easily" becomes is a FB.XVIII (Tsetse) or an NF.XIII. In both cases significant external modelling is required. In the case of the NF.XIII, internal cockpit remodelling and system simulation and 3D modelling of the AI Mk.VIII radar operators position would be necessary. The bomber variants require massive cockpit re-modelling both internally and externally, with the addition of a bomb-aimer position and the attendant sight, plus the remodelling of the bomb bays internally and externally. The current powerplant model on the FB.VI would be most easily translated to a single stage Merlin bomber, which would limit you to to a B.IV as it is the only bomber variant so equipped, otherwise you have to completely remodel the external engine 3D. You could tweak the simulation of the Spitfire LF.IXs two-stage Merlin and apply that but... Anything after a B.IV were used almost exclusively at night as a strategic bomber. DCS WW2 operations is (currently) by default weighted to daylight tactical ops. There is little infrastructure or assets to make night ops a meaningful or sustainable endeavour. By all means bring them on, but in the interim a pure Bomber variant Mosquito is kind of pointless.

Anybody else bored of this ludicrous bs yet? Seriously dude, you need some life lessons on what’s actually important.

Thanks Holbeach, gave me a good chuckle reading that this morning!

The same reason you don’t give an S-3 Viking a SEAD mission set or Combat Air Patrol to a Tu-95. Saves redundant developer hours. Want to carpet bomb an airfield with an Allied light bomber? Use the A-20.

The FB.VI is, what in modern parlance would be described as an attack aircraft, not a formation level bomber.

I'll try to dig out the book I got it from and let you know who the quoter was.

As an FFB stick owner, there is definitely some buffet when approaching critical AoA but it's window of experience before reaching the stall is small - there is also a very slight shimmy visible in the cockpit when this occurs, though it is slight and if you are flying by visual feedback alone and concentrating on more pressing matters, like avoiding crossing the gunline of a scissoring 109/190, then it's easy to miss. This all chimes in well with pilot accounts - modern civvy Mustangs, less heavily loaded and flown at lower power settings tend to have a slightly longer and more pronounced buffet region prior to accelerated stall, whereas the more heavily wing loaded wartime Mustangs being flown at higher RPM and MP settings could stall without warning, depending on their loading. Indeed one period anecdote noted that where the P-40 would warn you that you were approaching the stall by buffeting, the first the P-51 let you know was by flipping on it's back. Seems legit behaviour then. Regards elevator pitch response - the trouble is not DCS. The trouble is the scale of desktop joystick controllers in comparison to their prototypes. Most warbird control columns are approaching a metre/3 feet long. This will displace 1.75cm for every degree. A desktop joystick controller of only 25cm will displace 4.4mm in the same angle. Ergo if you try to replicate a flight control input that would require 1mm of movement in the real aircraft you are obliged to make a correction almost 4 x smaller. Add to this issue a chance that some compression maybe required, where you might be attempting to squeeze the greater angular travel of the real stick into less angular throw of a desktop stick and this will only compound the issue. Suddenly, a desired aircraft input movement that might require 2mm of stick motion in the real aeroplane requires less than 0.5mm from you and your desktop stick. Stick extensions help slightly but unless you replicate the throw of the prototype you will still end up with a harder handling experience. Other sims have got around this by enforcing control curves or by using limiters and adjusting these limits/virtual throws by trim; each has it's own problems and is not the perfect choice. DCS's controls interface allows you to choose the best compromise be enacting any and all or even a mix of these if you have the nous to do so.

I am highly skeptical of the "correct as is" announcement. I also find it highly unlikely that a combat aircraft would be allowed a handicap of such nature given the crucial implications that even a split-second can have in high speed warfare. This delay from button activation to actual cannon firing is not something I have EVER come across as noted in any of the literature I have read on the Mosquito; unless ED can provide some evidenced documentation I will continue to push for this as a bug.

Which manual?

Mosquito Bomber/Fighter-Bomber Units 1942–45 - Osprey Publishing

The NF.IIs were used as intruders in late 1943 as their AI Mk.IV radars had been superseded by the Mk.VII, Mk.VIII and Mk.VIIIa in use over the UK; whilst these latter marks were regarded (as your post alludes) as too valuable to lose over enemy territory, by this time the Mk.IV was not. Whilst superseded, the Mk.IV was still useful and ergo better than nothing if tasked with hunting the Nachtjagdgeschwader in their own back yard.

In 1943 to mid-1944 this is true, but increasingly in the latter stages of 1944 the radar equipped night fighters are used offensively as bomber support, flying around and ahead of the bomber stream or evening camping out near known Luftwaffe Night fighter airfields & holding beacons to harry the Nachtjagdgeschwader mercilessly. This obliged many NF Mosquito Radar Operators to suddenly brush up on their navigation skills, something they hitherto had not had to pay too much attention to, what with the many nav beacons and aid of Ground Control over and around the UK. Check out Night Flyer by Brandon Lewis (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Night-flyer-Lewis-Brandon/dp/0450011216) for corroboration should you need it.

For general information:

Well, if you can afford a custom, force-feedback, prototypically dimensioned controller for every individual warbird, then well done you. You present a utopian ideal for every simmer here, not a realistic - and more crucially useful - appraisal of what can be accomplished by an average user with an average hardware setup, which is ultimately what this thread is about. Arrogance, conceit, and condescension are hallmarked by offering unrealistic solutions based on too high expectations from others, whilst telling them they are wrong, you are right and that you know better because reasons. You appear condescending because you offer little concession to others arguments, as right as some of the facts they present maybe, whilst continually staking your claim on the "correct", with little in the way of credentials to justify your rightness to boot. Ultimately, most - but not all - of what you say is true. To TRULY get the ultimate experience from DCS you'd need a 1:1 scale replica of the control column of the given module you want to fly, augmented with a force feedback system designed to give both the exact loads and damping that the real airframe does (of the latter, no such thing exists, AFAIK). That's a pipe dream, available only to those with so much money to spare you wonder why they don't just go get pilot trained on the real thing. Given you've admitted to owning, by your own standards, a sub-optimal gaming hardware setup , you also now appear something of a hypocrite. Maybe it's a lost in translation thing, but in the delivery of your opinions you do not present yourself as you seem to be wished to be perceived.

Oh, so sorry to offend my liege, please, your honour, grace us, the great ignorant unwashed, with the golden glow of your wisdom. Please, enlighten us wretched souls.

True. Depends... not a blanket correct statement. Wrong. Twitchiness is a direct correlation between stick angle and stick physical stick displacement. The longer your control column the greater displacement you get for each angle of travel. It's simple geometry. The stick in a real warbird could have a control column with a moment of a metre; this will displace 1.75cm for every degree. A desktop joystick controller of only 25cm will displace 4.4mm in the same angle. Ergo if you try to replicate a flight control input that would require 1mm of movement in the real aircraft you are obliged to make a correction almost 4 x smaller. If you are using a desktop mounted joystick without extensions and a linear 1:1 profile you are making the task of controlling your virtual aircraft HARDER than it is in real life. On aircraft like the Mustang and P-47 with very linear elevator response across the speed range, you are correct; you rob Peter to pay Paul, sacrificing fine control at towards the limits for more refined control around your trim neutral position. As such I recommend using as little curvature as you can cope with because it will rob you of precision when riding the critical AoA during a dogfight. On aircraft like the Spitfire and Mosquito however, things are very different. Only a tiny portion of the entire elevator throw is actual useful in-flight; they are in some respect, over elevatored, you never use anywhere near the full travel of the elevator during flight unless you want to break the aeroplane. My control curves do what they can to replicate prototypical (and useful) stick displacements whilst still providing access to the full elevator throw for on the ground or ultra-slow speed manoeuvres. So drop the condescension mate. Whilst I share some of your opinions on FFB sticks and their more accurate portrayal of stick forces during flight, you are barking up the wrong tree - the issue isn't spring tension or FFB stick; it's the massive mis-match between the geometry of the prototype control columns and the average PC sim game controller hardware. @Basco1 I don't know what your experience of FFB has come from, but I find it hugely useful; varying stick tension with airload, the buffet associated with the turbulent airflow as you approach critical AoA, these are feedback devices that real pilots rely on and, yes, whilst a couple of 12V motors and some electronics will only ever be something of a pastiche to the real loads that can be sensed, I personally find something, however artificial, better than nothing, particularly in DCS.