DD_Fenrir

The usual suspects are the Electric Fuel Pump and the Fuel Tank Pressure switch, but I see you have those covered. The next thing to ask is what RPM are you using trying to get that high? Because at some point to maintain enough Manifold Pressure (AKA Boost in RAF parlance) to generate the necessary climb rate you will have to have higher RPM settings...

You may have some fair points, but all of these have been answered elsewhere time and time and time again; As for F/A-18 radar features/functionality the Hornet is still in EA right? Until they declare the module as complete and state definitively they have the radar finished, it is reasonable to assume that some of this requires polishing. You also claim a lot of things about the real radars capabilities or lack thereof but present no data to prove you're correct. Time and again it comes down to supposition on your part. As for EW, I think everyone round here understands that EW in DCS is a problem child and that, yes, that puts FC3 aircraft at a disadvantage currently. But jamming effects are on the roadmap for inclusion in the FF aircraft. Having siad that, I've never used it as it seemed to have such a negligible effect on the outcome of a fight (burn through was always achieved well before RMax giving plenty of time to make tactical decisions based on the emerging picture).

The MiG-29A data could have come from any number of non-Russian sources; they were widely exported. The MiG-29S could simply be an estimate based on the numbers generated for the -A; weight of fuel and avionics + publicly available figures on the uprated engines applied to what is essentially the same airframe. As for avioinics, I don't think you get just how simplified the FC3 radars are... compare the FC3 F-15 to the DCS Hornet or F-16 radars, the latter are light years more complicated in both modelling, functionality and complexity, despite the F-15s being on a paper a more powerful and capable radar. Yes they obey certain specific -but generic - principles (PD notches etc) but these radar characteristics are widely and publicly known. Pigeon-chess analogy. And you ain't the pigeon...

Oh my gosh, you guys are right!!! All this time! ED must be a part of the western global-nexus that drip feed capitalist propaganda to the masses! How did I not see that before?!?!?

But Nealius, that's not useful data. How many other German aircraft engaging the bombers suffered damage but landed, or crew injury that didn't render the aircraft a loss? Those would still count as percentile hits, no? At some point, you want to calculate the probability of whether the gunner will hit the target; whether that target is brought down or not depends on (a) the number of rounds landed and (b) the Damage Models calculations on the damage those rounds have done. Ergo whether the target is downed or not is kind of irrelevant when discussing calculations for gunner accuracy. You want to do it right you need a controlled test.

I see your Chicken -Egg point ref: night ops, and it is valid. I'd love to see a Mosquito NF.XII/XIII, a Lancaster B Mk.I and a Ju-88C-6/G-1/G-6 as an introduction to night ops, but you really need all three concurrently to make it worthwhile. And would it be worthwhile? Would the investment on EDs part generate enough sales to cover the costs? As pointed out before the WW2 night fighting idiom is a niche calling within our already niche community - no previous sim managed to garner the community hype to see development through, despite some passing interest. And all the development time on these takes away from making the daytime operations more cohesive and reflective of the prototypical experience; I mean, the Hawker Typhoon was the RAFs default Ground Attack aircraft of the period, used in hundreds over France & Belgium - yet no sign of one in DCS, not even a WiP 3D model. Too often we've seen a promising doorway crack open in DCS then ED run off on a tangent to something else shiny and new and leave us with the embryo of a simulated theatre but never flesh it out; the Korean Era aircraft are a case in point; for 6 years we've had the F-86 and MiG-15 but there's been no prototypical map, and certainly no '50s era assets to flash out scenarios with, and there are many of us clamouring for these. But it doesn't have to be that way, and with the WW2 asset pack roadmap and maps, we are starting to see some cohesive cogent vision in providing a fleshed out historical theatre (if with some bumps) to fit(ish) with the flyable planes we have. So, I personally think ED would be much better served spending their development time cementing the WW2 daylight operations environment first. Get that complete (or as complete as possible), then look at the possibilities that the WW2 night-fighting domain could bring.

Whether you like it or not, DCS WW2 is simulation of daytime aerial combat from that era; there is little to no infrastructure to support the simulation of night bomber/interception operations. That's strike one against the Lancaster. Whilst the Lancaster did see limited daytime use there are many, many more aircraft that use in daytime operations in the ~1944 period in the ETO that would be infinitely more useful if added to the DCS assets: Hawker Typhoon Douglas C-47 Focke-Wulf Fw 190F Messerschmitt Bf 109G6/14 North American P-51B Mustang Republic P-47D-22/23 Thunderbolt Lockheed P-38J North American B-25C/J Mitchell Martin B-26B/C Marauder Consolidated B-24J Liberator Bristol Beaufighter TF Mk.X All of these were used almost exclusively in daylight operations in large or significant numbers, much more so than the Lancaster. There's Strike 2. Would a Lancaster be nice? Sure. But if some sense of historical relevance in regard to the almost exclusive daytime operations focus of DCS WW2 is used in the development roadmap of WW2 Assets to be added, then rationally all of these aircraft take priority.

This is a tricky subject as there seems to be very very little data to actual model from; I have not seen one single document from any air force that specifically analyzes the effectiveness of the air-to-air gunner in WW2. The truth I feel is that they could more effective than sometimes given credit; many a Hurricane or Spitfire pilot rolling in behind a German bomber confidently thinking "you've got one gun, but I have eight!" had their balloon of assuredness well and truly popped by a well trained gunner with armed with only a single 7.92mm. Bob Tuck had his aircraft hit by a Bf110 rear gunner; Peter Townsend's Hurricane was shot down attacking a Do-17 from the rear. Ginger Lacey was obliged to bailed out after being hit by return fire from a Heinkel He 111. So too Paul Richey during the Battle of France. Needless to say, the Luftwaffe during the Defence of the Reich Campaign didn't refine the Head-on attack technique or develop Sturmböcke for no reason; the firepower of the B-17s was at the very least respected and apparently enough to drive the Jadgwaffe to some fairly serious thinking. That being said, I believe the OP is correct. I suspect at longer ranges, high angle off and high speeds the gunners are too accurate, particularly at the "average" skill level. The trouble is proving it. It might be interesting to run an analysis of the aerial gunnery hit rates in sims for human controlled gunners against aerial targets to provide some kind of benchmark; admittedly they do not suffer some of the vestibular and 'G' effects that would a real gunner, but for level bombers these are minimised. Also the sim gunner, unless in VR, has little/no depth perception, though out to 2-300 yards this would probably be of little value in real life. Have them work through several scenarios of aerial targets attacking from various aspects and various speeds and see what their hit percentages are; then see whose are best and use any apparent stratification to begin to work out a model, based on target parameters and gunner skill level. This, I feel, is the only way that this problem could be adequately addressed.

You mean "violate". The fact you spout this nonsense shows you aren't interested in truth, discourse or any form of cogent, logical or reasoned application of intelligence to solving an issue. You're here to simply elicit a reaction. Trolling of this nature indicates you've run out of any data to support your argument. So, ultimately, all this posturing, mud-slinging and acerbic jibe making ends up being little more than a considerably undignified effort on your part to win an argument whose aim is based solely on assuaging your over-sensitive ego; "I get shot down a lot and I don't like it." Awww. Poor little Teknetium. We'll make all the other kids play nice with you, we promise. Furthermore it also excellently highlights the fact that you haven't been trying to operate with AMRAAMS in the recent patches - which in and of itself, is not that relevant, except surely if you're going to attempt to resolve an issue of this nature, the scientific method would be to experience the issue from both sides to truly understand the limitations or advantages each has before making an analysis and coming to a considered, rational opinion. So all told, welcome to my ignore list. Your brand of peurile worthless input is no longer a factor in my life.

I suspect not; the catapult launching gear on the two was very different, with the A-4 using a bridle arrangement that connected to points in the main gear wells, presumably on the main wing spar, whereas the F-14 has the nose-gear launch bar and hold back device. The Cat shuttle itself appears very different in both these cases, so I would suspect that the A-4s would have been allocated to those older carriers equipped with the facility to bridle launch, whilst the more modern carriers had the F-14s but couldn't support the A-4s. I could stand to be corrected on these suppositions however.

If his powers of tactical acumen and evaluation were that good I'd expect a profoundly more mature position from him in the reasoned argument stakes here. Currently, given the evidence suggestions his position is beyond rationality. And it's not like, at base, I disagree with him. Would DCS benefit from Full Fidelity Eastern Superpower aircraft to peer the Western types it has? Of course! That is no argument. I'd love to fight more capable Chinese/Russian types such as MiG-29M or SU27SM and Su-30. But it's not gonna happen. The very thing that delineates DCS FF modules from War Thunder, that defines DCS even, is that the FM and systems are not generic, balance driven, flights of imagination but simulated models based on accurate hard data processed via a physics engine designed to satisfy military grade customers. If that data is unavailable, it doesn't happen. The Russian Government has vetoed the dissemination of that data. Case closed. Finito. Done. THERE IS NO ARGUMENT.

Then set up your own PvP server with NATO types limited to chronologically valid types and missile selections and play there exclusively. Or or are you demanding ED break laws that could have their employers imprisoned in the name of your personal gratification?

The question I keep finding myself asking is why you bother? You're clearly unhappy with the platform and I think you'd be much happier playing War Thunder. I know I'd find it a great deal more pleasant - and I suspect many others too - round here if we weren't repeatedly obliged to read dross of this ilk.

To reliably get hits you need to launch at much higher altitude. My rule of thumb is 25nm at 25,000ft, 20nm @ 20,000ft, 15nm @ 15,000ft etc. In TOO mode this equates to the TD box being 9 degrees below the horizon. Don't expect a hard kill - ARMs are designed specifically to go off near not on the target and to essentially shotgun spatter the antenna dish with shrapnel. DCS does replicate this to some extent - it is possible to damage a unit sufficiently that it is no longer combat effective and this happens with radar units also; many times I have removed a SAM sites ability to employ its radar without outright blowing up the vehicle entire.

Do you have a hard detent on your throttle? If not it could be that your throttle axis has a slight jitter and is making spurious pulses into burner causing the cans to light intermittently.

1. It was on the roadmap for the WW2 Assets Pack, whether still is... another question. It was used in daylight ops over Normandy, hence it's inclusion but that aside WW2 night-fighting is just not a thing right now. 2. "Having bomber streams come in at night would open up a whole other mission type for axis players" Er, not really. Wild Sau tactics maybe prototypical but that's a very limiting, not to mention difficult and low chance of success (and ergo unsatisfying) mission for the essentially day fighter axis plane set. If there were Axis night fighter types in the roadmap that could leverage ED's radar technology, then yeah, I'd be with you, but that's a very niche area of interest in the already niche high fidelity study combat flight sim environment, and I just doubt we'll see it happen. 3. "and not to mention would compliment the incoming 'Mossie' quite well." Again, our Mossie is a day fighter-bomber/night intruder; ED have announced no plans for a Night Fighter variant equipped with radar. Ergo I don't see it complimenting a Lancaster in night ops at all. Given that there'd be no similarly equipped Luftwaffe types even if an NF variant was available, it would be kind of moot. So, share your enthusiasm for a Lancaster, sure, but don't think your arguments currently stand up to close scrutiny.

A conceptual ideal? Maybe. A logistical reality? Er.... No. Economically this doesn't make sense. ED have however shown their willingness to update older cockpits - A-10C, Ka-50, P-51, the FC3 aircraft... it takes time however, and the costs in both man-hours and hence dollars managed carefully against income. I'm with Rudel. Are some pits better than others? Sure. Not surprising given the age of some and the rate of technology change/understanding. Does it bother me? So little as to be negligible. Plus, if past practice is indicative of future behavior, we'll see updates to the F-86, Huey, etc, in time. As for ED being solely responsible for developing holding and distributing libraries of sounds/textures? No. That's a greater headache and greater cost and a minefield of legal pitfalls when drawing up contracts with a 3rd party. Do they give ED a further percentage of their sales revenue or pay ED for access to these items prior to release? What if they don't have the capital to do the latter and the former is the only route. What if the module tanks? What if the third party are unscrupulous and use the assets to generate content for other platforms that ED see no revenue from? All sorts of landmines. Keep it simple. Each Developer is responsible for the assets that they use and it is expected that these meet EDs quality control criteria.

I'm with Zhukov - that P-39 = Russian tank buster fallacy has been thoroughly demolished in the past 15 years. The Russki's used the P-39 and it's cannon for in general air to air. If they ever even strafed a panzer then it was a chance encounter by an opportunist Soviet pilot and certainly not by specific aircraft doctrinal decree.

Very much a "it depends" answer here. Altitude plays a BIG part. Even using a rule of thumb of TAS=IAS+(IAS x 2% x 'Alt in ft' / 1000), with an IAS of 200mph at 5,000ft you're doing 220mph, at 10,000ft 240 mph and at 20,000ft 280mph. In 0 wind then you could travel 80 miles further by flying 15,000ft higher! Then you have the question: how are you making that speed? Lets take the Spit as an example. At 10,000ft max continuous - 2650RPM and +7lb boost - I can make ~265mph IAS but will use ~80 gallons an hour. This gives you an endurance of 1 hour and 4 min, without combat. Ferry range of ~340 miles. By sacrificing 15 mph I can drop power settings to 2200RPM and +4lb boost and use only 61 gallons per hour. This gives you an endurance of 1 hour and 24 min, without combat. Ferry range of ~403 miles. By sacrificing 45 mph I can drop power settings to 2000RPM and +0lb boost and use only 45 gallons per hour. This gives you an endurance of 1 hour and 53 min, without combat. Ferry range of ~497 miles. Of course this all relies on still air any wind will affect these calculations appreciably.

Here we go... It's already been explained to you: Where's your data to prove that it's guidance shouldn't be similar...?

No. The upgrades to the systems that allowed JDAM to be used were concurrent with the RIO cockpit display upgrades; PTIDS et al. Much of the information on these systems is still classified and whilst Heatblur have considered this as option they say the lack of information prohibits its development. So F-14B (U) or F-14D and the JDAM functionality are a no go. Currently.

Ha! I find them just too useful as missile magnets to leave 'em bumbling around - besides, who knows what they'd get up to without adult supervision!

I thought it an excellent campaign: atmospheric, exciting and tense and not the usual experience. Having the first half of the missions RoE restricted brought suspense and unease, and I enjoyed them far more than I would have expected - if someone had said prior "you won't fire a shot for the first 4 missions" I might have been a bit non-plussed but I'm glad to have been pleasantly surprised. That said, it did feel a little short; it felt like it was over before it had a chance to get some momentum, and get invested properly. Another 2 or 3 combat missions would have perhaps helped embed the player into the scenario before side-swiping them with the denouement! And I concur that a little more comms with the wingman might help put you "in the squadron" and add some personalities to the campaign; it would certainly help add some life to that otherwise mildly incompetent drone hanging off your wing!

Yes. Been like this since release for me with a Microsoft Sidewinder 2 FB. It also affects other modules - if I jump in a Spitfire after having flown the F-14 first (with functional FFB in the Cat) then all FFB effects disappear in the Spitfire. Restarting DCS solves the issue temporarily - until I fly an F-14 second or a Spitfire after an F-14.

Because they haven't read the relevant forum post or missed the single social media announcement.