DD_Fenrir

To be honest the entire layout of Deanland is ahistorical in Normandy 2.0, it should look not dissimilar from the other ALGs like Chailey or High Halden:

@MAESTR0 Headcorn airfield is incorrectly named - the airfield you have shown has the layout and positioning of the Advanced Landing Ground known during WW2 as RAF Lashenden. It is in the modern day known as Headcorn airfield, however, during WW2 RAF Headcorn was actually some 3 miles to Northeast:

@MAESTR0 Regarding the palaces, thank you and the team for their inclusion and the clearly meticulous attention to detail to model them so comprehensively. However… Yet again and somehow incomprehensibly the airfields - those areas of the terrain any player will spend most of their time in sim closest to - do not share this same level of attention. There are multiple issues with both the airbases shown, issues I find frankly incomprehensible, since clearly some level of research has been done to determine a reasonably accurate layout. Yet, as before and as has been pointed out by me repeatedly on numerous other airfields, some fundamental errors repeatedly appear because someone either hasn’t gone far enough with their research, or simply can’t be bothered and has made up something that they think will look cool. This, despite exhaustive research by members of the community, who have spent many many hours finding, collating and presenting evidence here in efforts to assist your team in getting it right. And that is all we want; an WW2 environment that is as dedicated to authenticity as the aircraft we fly in it. And it should not be that hard. You have most of the assets required to get the majority of the airfields to a reasonably accurate standard of representation. What befuddles me is that someone spends time hand placing and inventing all these building arrangements when that same amount of time (or even less) could be used to place accurate buildings in authentic locations. I have offered you and your team my time and expertise to consult on this matter of airfield authenticity - completely free of charge I might add - and indeed have presented my findings with potential issues countless times and am repeatedly ignored. As it stands this map is a cartoon, a pastiche of history, which is a pity, because it could be a viable attempt at historical simulation.

@NineLine @BIGNEWY Asking again: Could someone at ED please shed some light on the OPs original question. Would like to know what the future holds for my investment in this map; I am increasingly wondering why I bothered to buy it with Normandy 2 now covering the area and starting to see more common airfields. Is there a plan? Will it be backdated? Or expanded further East to provide greater variety for those of us who brought in to it?

Not necessarilly. Sure I could give you the exact target coordinates, you fly to the basket, drop the bombs then back home for tea and medals, and yeah, you'd be right. But next time we don't have the exact coordinates, we have a general area we know the target is in. The enemy have a medium range SAM that is going to deny or at least restrict medium-high altitude delivery; low level SHORAD so you can't just scoot in low and visually acquire, and cloud cover to restrict the ability to search with a targeting pod at longer ranges. The challenge now is no longer weapons employment but instead in finding the targets and finding a good attack window which minimises your exposure to the threats. That sounds fun to me.

Then you are doing it wrong. Without a video or track file example it is going to be very hard to give you critiques and advice, but immediately it sounds like you are attempting to land at too high an airspeed, or alternatively, dropping in from too high an altitude with too high descent rate.

One would suspect that they have a schedule of planned additions and amendments that has been laid out well before we even knew the map was even a twinkle in Orbx's eye. This project plan will have been laid out to provide as efficient and economical workflows as possible to ensure best use of the teams time; it is likely that they will be adhering to this, expanding the airfield provision and adding scenery detail to meet this timeline, before revisiting the areas of concern for revision, like your aforementioned original airfield textures. They have said they would, just be patient.

Just from that screenshot I can tell you're too coming in too high and your gildeslope is way too steep; the ball is there, it works, it's just off the scale at the top. This is also why landed at very high sink rate and broke the gear. You need to come in lower at a shallower gildeslope angle.

Christ. It's ironic, don't you think? All these emotional over-exagerrated expressions, insults and superlatives to criticize Jester being too cartoonish, emotional or incompetant. Amazing how many of the rest of us get on with using him - quite succesfully by the way - whilst being cogent of his limitations. And I'm talking Jester 1.0; we're doing ok whilst not even benefitting from the improved coding of J2.0. Of course it's SOOOO easy to program an AI that's integrated into a virtual avionic system and aircraft; surprised you haven't done it better yourself yet. And to attempt make him a vaguely human character rather than a DCS equivalent of a talking teasmaid... simplicity itself. But of course, I'm sure you could do that on that on back of a knapkin in your lunchbreak... Suggestion - take your own advice and dial back the emotion; try to show some respect to some of the hardest working devs in DCS and learn the difference between feedback and criticism. Right now, you're being a douche.

Here we go again. SharpeXB assuming because he doesn't need it no-one else does. What is so breath-taking is that you are so staunchley self-obsessed that even when presented with another persons alternative perspective your automatic response is to counter it, no apparent effort taken at all to adopt that perspective, even momentarily, to establish any legitmacy to their counter argument. And god forbid you could actually acknowledge any reasonable concessions to the other persons position. Cos after all, you're always right...

Thanks for coming in to a completely unrelated thread and pushing an irrelevant agenda no-one in here is looking to discuss. Well done you. Bravo.

Er... maybe you misread the post title. Feel free to create a new thread outlining your particular wishes there.

You have a short memory it appears. It has been explained to you already not just by me but also by HB reps as to the artistic reasoning that has driven the choices in sounds. Their product, their art, their choice. I don’t understand why this such a difficult concept for you to grasp.

I can also recommend: Tumult in the Clouds by James Goodson American Aces by Edward H Simms Yeager by Charles E Yeager Malta: the Thorn in Rommel’s Side by Laddie Lucas Flying Start by Hugh Dundas One Man’s Window by Dennis Barham Night Flyer by Brandon Lewis

1. Trim - having any aircraft well trimmed for the phase of flight you are in will benefit your ability to maintain airspeed/distance regarding your lead. It'll mean less deviations from the proper course and altitude; given that with each deviation you travel further than your lead for any given distance, meaning more airspeed required by you (and thus greater power required to compensate) you'd be surprised how much a well trimmed aircraft helps in this regard. 2. Lead your Lead - if opportunity allows, always take the inside of your Leads turn - you'll need less power to stay there and it's a lot easier to stay in position; staying on the outside requires extra power you may not have and a moments misjudgement of the correct angle of bank or power requirement can very quickly leave you "sucked" (the state where you're lagging behind the position you should be) and struggling to catch-up. When you are first attempting to initially join your Lead, don't forget to use geometry to close the distance wherever possible; if he's in a turn, don't just put your nose on him and follow him around, fly a direct intercept path to where he is going to be. You'll be amazed how quickly you can affect a re-join with as little as +10 knots overtaking speed if you apply the proper lead and fly the geomtry rather than chasing his tail at +20 or +30 knots. 3a. Reference Points - The abilty to discriminate displacement trends, and correctly identify whether it is a power correction that is required or nose position correction (or both) cannot really be taught - you need to know/have specific reference points you are looking to maintain on your lead; there should be at least two that in combination help you figure out when you are in the correct positions, laterally, vertically and longitudinally. From these you can work out whether you are too close, too far away, too far forward, too far aft, a combination of these or transitioning between them, relatively quickly. But practise is required. 3b. Little and More Often - the sooner you are able to identify a displacement trend the smaller your corrective inputs will require to be, and the less you will deviate. Thus I refer back to point 1. Smaller diplacements means smoother flying = less work to maintain formation. Eventually these become instinctive, but it takes time and, again, practise is required.

The mountain he references is a standalone hillock, well south of the mountain range, and also south of the Inguri River - it's around this landmark the Marines and the frontline are arrayed. You're supposed to head south on the Western side of this hill, getting low as you do so, turning back to the Northeast as you come around it's southern end. Use PAL, the Hind is low, if you leave the radar in PD and expect Jester to find him, you're gonna be SOL. If you lock something up at very low level, ignore Jesters declaration that it's a friendly - he's getting IFF indications from friendlies at a higher alitude and much longer range that happen to be on the same bearing as the Hind. IIRC the Hind is some 8-10nm from you and not a million miles away from an SA-8 site so go in quick and smash him with a Sidewinder or Guns - AIM-7s are very unreliable against very low flying helicopters - ask me how I know...

As usual, a lot of histrionics from over entitled drama queens who haven't committed any actual investment (save some over-wrought emotions). I keep hoping they'll finally generate the self-awareness to realise the effect that that their impatient petulant whinging actually has on bringing the F4U closer to release. Here's a little clue: NONE

Kickstarter backers participated at entirely their own risk. Luthier promised to deliver DCS aircraft modules with out finding out even if there was sufficient data to allow them to be modelled to the standard DCS demands. He gambled and you brought in on that gamble. The fact he lost and yet ED picked up and decided to honour even part of that debt makes you a darn sight more fortunate than a lot of other Kickstarter backers who backed other projects and saw no return on their <ahem> “investment”. I’d say be happy you got something, even if it wasn’t all that was promised by a party whose credentials have been found to be lacking.

Or we keep a very wary eye on the airspeed and cycle them back in before we damage them. Takes skill. Sometimes we get it wrong but sometimes it's the only way to survive a merge with a well flown Hornet/Mig-29/Su-27. Whatever it takes. No allegedly about it. In almost every interview about BFMing the F-14 he references his use of the 'Big Boys' during BFM. How popular his made him with the crew chief's of his squadron is open to debate.

My bad, didn’t see which sub-forum we were in, apologies.

It would seem you fundamentally misunderstand how DCS Liveries work in the multiplayer environment. No livery is transmitted or received over the net traffic - there is no bandwidth budget spent at all on coloured pixels. All that is compared is the description.lua. If one on your machine matches that associated to a skin being used by a fellow server user, it will load apply the texture file from the livery bank on your machine.

Funny how different people interpret the same thing differently - I always used the vertical green marker at the bottom as the reference, counting the red ticks in reverse, i.e. 10, 20, 30, 45 and 60 degrees from the centre out. Works both ways though so I'll remember your way when it's approproate. Thanks!