DD_Fenrir

That's their prototypical layouts - the runways are short as they are only half paved, the intention being the asphalt areas are for starting your take-off run from or making your initial touchdown whilst landing. You are supposed to run on to the grass to complete your take-off roll or landing roll-out, the concrete is there to absorb the rigours of touchdown and supports the static weight of aircraft for run-up, mag tests and the initial portion of the run, but once rolling the grass is perfectly able to support the weight of the airplane.

With the release of the DCS 2.7.7.14727 Open Beta I am finding that once trimmed for cruise flight ~250mph IAS, that I am suffering a form of almost control lock with aft stick only inputs - in actuality it presents more like a significant deadzone in the aft stick only direction, with the elevators unresponsive to aft stick input until a significant displacement occurs at which point it breaks and we get a sudden nose up input; it's peculiar as the aircraft is still responsive & sensitive to stick forward inputs, but not aft. This only occurs once trimmed. If I ignore the trim and hand fly the aircraft, it does not occur but is unpleasant to maintain as stick forces are naturally quite significant in order to supress the noses desire to rise. Hardware: MS Sidewindeer FFB2 Pitch input curve: Custom - 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 44, 100 This behaviour also occurs to a squad mate with an identical stick setup. Is anyone with spring centred stick (or even an alternative FFB) seeing this behaviour also?

@NineLine Please pass my thanks to the team for the inclusion of the towed artillery types, this will really help provide the fighter-bomber types we have in DCS with missions where frontline target destruction or attrition is achievable and has useful potential knock-on effects for mission design. At the risk of sounding ungrateful, are there any plans to make these units towable by an appropriate gun-tractor in the future?

It's a minefield ain't it? Just one suggestion from me - the roundels that ship with EDs spitty template are incorrectly proportioned, I'd strongly recommend redrawing them to get them correct:

Easy on the prima-Donna princess. It’s coming, just that - guess what - it’s a feature that requires changes to the core code and as such could cause cascading issues across the whole slew of ground attack weapons if enacted without care or in a hurry. Whilst FB.VI Mossies often made their attacks at treetop height with delayed fuses it is by no means their only method of delivery; indeed when attacking V-1 launch sites a pop up to 3,000-5,000ft followed by a shallow dive and bomb release @ 1,500ft with instantaneous fuses was the standard deliver technique. This form of attack is entirely achievable in DCS and can be quite accurate with practice but requires a careful monitoring of your flight profile and altimeter to ensure you don’t get sucked into the target and release too low and too late and frag yourself.

Fascinating, thanks for sharing.

As a P-38 aficionado I am not particularly enamoured of FlyingIrons external 3D model; the chin intake modelling looks just plain wrong. Actual: FlyingIron:

I don’t entirely disagree with some aspects of this suggestion - it would be nice if deck crew were a core feature; however, the latest newsletter gives further insight to the depth of complexity required to develop even this aspect and the budget for these developments has to come from somewhere. The reference to AAA titles is disingenuous; those titles sell in their millions, quantities that combat flight sim developers only dream about - ergo R&D budgets have to be split across fewer customers. This brings us back to my original statement - they charge what they need to to remain viable as a business.

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.