DD_Fenrir

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.

Make any modules for DCS lately? A small mistake was made in the code and the brightness control inadvertently connected to an erroneous switch. You have absolutely no idea how easy it is to make this kind of mistake. And how difficult sometimes it can be to ID the root cause. As far as HB were concerned the AoA indexers brightness values were concurrent with those of the other systems - hence why 'they made the statement that it checks out; christ, even their SME - who's flown a damn sight more REAL Tomcats than you ever will - said 'it ain't that bad' and pointed out that in some lighting conditions, guess what, the 133,000 lux received from the sun at earth level MIGHT JUST overwhelm the pissy little 30W (or whatever it is) bulb in the cockpit of your jet. The fact that this escapes you I find astonishing. The fact you choose to ignore an SME I find even more so. The fact you are so quick to berate HB and demand apologies or insinuate incompetence when literally the whole rest of the module, their work ethic and their willingness to communicate with us the community on these forums is of such a high standard many use it as a benchmark of how other developers should produce and manage theirs, well... frankly I find it and you offensive. Get some perspective and grow the hell up.

Ironic, considering the tone and manner of the vast majority of ANY of your posts regarding the Tomcat in DCS. Again... Pot. Kettle. And a VERY dark tone..... I think you'll find that the majority of F-14 drivers, along with HB when this issue first appeared all collectively went "oh shi...." under their breaths; the users because we don't want to have that kind of ludicrous advantage; and HB because it essentially wrecked the weapon system of the Tomcat and now they've got to interface with ED to assist/chase up/test on the API edits that would be required to fix it. "oh well bugs" comes from a pragmatic philosophy of "what can I do about"? None but ED with some secondary testing from HB could do anything constructive to fix it, so in the meantime the server operators ban Phoenixes (if they're aware of the issue) and F-14 drivers put up with Sparrows or take the AIM-54 engagements off-line. This philosophy comes from a considered, objective, reasonable analysis of the facts at hand, something you have repeatedly shown you find difficult to do. What were you expecting? We're supposed to grab our pitchforks, flaming torches and follow your half-baked crusade chanting "it's a consparicy!" line? Please. Hypocrites I find often are offended by the fruits of what they sow. And as if to reinforce the point, if your manner when posting ANYTHING in the form of critque had the calm, measured tone and delivery of a reasonable, rational adult voicing a point of concern in a polite, considerate and respectful manner then maybe you'd have a point but at this stage I'm just gonna say: what the hell did you expect?

Yes Bephanten. Unfortunately the FFB axis does not compensate for changes to the displacement curvature. I too own an FFB stick. For Takeoff I find I am using 1 division nose down trim (according to the in cockpit Elevator Trim gauge) but then as I adopt a cruise this moves to two divisions nose down. As speed drops for landing approach I go to 2 divisions nose up. Alas this is a known issue with using any axis curvature setting and an FFB stick in DCS. I'd rather have the increased control resolution where it counts and deal with the trim issues as they are manageable, if mildly inconvenient.

As title suggests this is a bug as the airfield at Merville-Calonne in DCS currently looks like it's been refernced from it's 1960s layout: https://forgottenairfields.com/airfields/france/nord_pas_de_calais/merville/merville_IGNF_01-06-1963.jpg It should look more like is this: https://forgottenairfields.com/airfields/france/nord_pas_de_calais/merville/merville_IGN_13-10-1950.jpg

I can add that the main hangar at the centre of the airfield was a J-Type: https://www.abct.org.uk/airfield-buildings/hangar-types/#:~:text=Type J and Type K&text=Built from 1939%2C Type J,roof of thin steel plates.

I'll buy it - and I do not regard myself as a 109 driver. Those of us who have a vested interest in wanting to see and partake in historically authentic scenarios will invest because we (a) welcome the chance to own and fly a carefully crafted module and see how it compares to its' s DCS contemporaries and real life accounts, (b) have the opportunity to recreate historically faithful scenarios or even actual missions using as many of the prototypically correct units as is possible and finally (b) to support ED by reimbursing them for their work and to prompt them to continue on their efforts in creating WW2 era modules and content

Thanks Tharos, suspected as such but wanted to be sure.

There are a great deal of very specific features that are currently and will be missing from this map even on completion; whilst there is some incredible detail in some areas there is simply not the resources to model every town to the level of specificity you are expecting, both in terms of development time or map play-ability - the latter relies on the majority of building/structure assets being generic or common in order to reduce load on RAM, CPU and GPU. It is a compromise between getting a few of the very distinguishable features in to help set the scene without murdering performance. The pier perhaps would be a good one to include but I'm not sure ANY piers are currently modeled anywhere on the UK side of the map - I haven't gone looking for them TBH. The clock tower, sun deck and the Sea Bathing hospital I would suspect are beyond the scope of the developers. The point being if you include these elements at Margate, where do you stop? There are countless towns with very unique landmarks not currently represented. To include them all would be a huge undertaking and ultimately could render the amp unplayable without vast amounts of RAM or Processing Power.

I don't disagree with the majority of what you say, however, regards the 109G, I don't wish to malign your opinion of it - that is your right and you're welcome to it - but you do understand how important a variant it is regards the current planeset and WW2 maps we have? It would help cement our current collection into a more cohesive 1944-45 timeframe as the definitive 109 variant for early-mid/late 1944. Sure, a 109F with a Spitfire Mk V would be a very interesting match-up, and a good one for the channel Map to boot but we are, I suspect, years away from that particular match-up being available in DCS. Similarly the Battle of Britain. The 109G could be produced in relatively faster timeframe as it shares much common data with the Kurfurst.