DD_Fenrir

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.

https://www.seawings.co.uk/images/colour charts/British Aviation Colours of WWII.pdf

Further information. https://www.rafweb.org/Squadrons/Sqn Markings/Sqn_codes3.htm I've been asking for years for this to be corrected on the Spitfire: And even pointed out this very issue on the Mossie THE DAY THE FIRST WiP SCREENSHOT OF THE EXTERNAL 3D WAS RELEASED: Nice to know one's efforts to assist developers fall on deaf ears, time and time and time and time again.

+ 1 squilluion!

From the limited sources I have found their were some issues with getting the AIM-120 to separate cleanly from the Cat in certain circumstances that didn't trouble the AIM-7. This is and the required avionics additions were slated to cost $1bn to modify all aircraft in the fleet to support. With the Cold War ending, the fact that the Tomcat already had a powerful Fox-3 missile and a need to provide the fleet with a long range bomber to replace the A-6 it made much more sense to use those funds to provide the Tomcat with the ability to self target and self guide precision munitions - hence the LANTIRN pod. Heatblur have made the right choice not including a non-operational missile. If you can't manage with the Phoenix, AIM-120 is not going to bring you any benefit.

Quite. Sounds very much like he thinks that a BVR fight against me in my F-14 involves driving straight at me until he's in RNE range of his own missiles - in which case he's only got his own (considerable) ignorance to blame when I repeatedly blow his naive butt out from under him.

Bear in mind the Spit will want to weather vane into the wind so any crosswind component and she'll want to point her nose at it.

Yeah, as I suspected - the truth is much of the buffet in the Spitty is transmitted through the elevator as the turbulent wash from the stalled inner part of the wing (wash-out ensured the tips were at a lower incidence and helped to retain aileron control when the root was stalled) washed over the tailplane so the majority of the buffet was felt through the elevator axis of the control column, which is, I can vouch for, accurately modelled by DCS - but you only feel it if you have an FFB stick (which I am fortunate enough to own). There are some visual and aural clues but not having flown w/o FFB I'm not sure how useful they are to non-FFB owners. Now the CH stick pots are not renowned for their control resolution, so this maybe part of your problem, particularly in the Spit where mm of stick travel make a difference. I applaud your choice of the Authentikit spitfire stick; though simply for the greater throw and stick displacement per g that it will automatically provide rather than any experience of the product. I hope it provides you with a better experience Finnster, because I have to say, whilst the Spit can be quirky compared to the better harmonised controls of say the Pony, Jug or Fw, once you have a controller you're happy with and the axis curves set right to give you an authentic stick displacement to critical AoA, I find she can be a delight to fly and certainly a very different beast than the 'head-of-a-pin' animal you described earlier. Good luck, let us know how you get on with that Authentikit product; I would be curious to see what both it and your experiences with it are like. Edit - ever considered a buttkicker or a one of those feedback seat cushions? I have never owned one but some guys really like them. Perhaps worth considering vis-a-vis the FFB issue. Got a track or a vid Cats?

Curious as to the particulars of this phrase - it crops up several times in the Reforger campaign. Does it refer to a pre-briefed climb rate particular to that mission or is it slang for a standard power and speed setting?

Or you could make the carrier the second unit of a ship group then should you wish to change the location of your carrier you grab the first ship of your mini-fleet and move that instead. The ME is pretty good actually and far more intuitive than some others. But much like the rest of DCS it is evolving content and sometimes it gets a little behind as new features and functions appear in the base game. At this point you have two options. Whine like an over entitled bitch about how difficult your life is and demand that someone fixes your problem; or get stuck in and use it as opportunity to learn and innovative. Improvise adapt and overcome.

Now that's what I'm talking about. Would you consider offering them to ED as replacements for the defaults Reflected? Those and your P-51 defaults are leagues ahead of the ED ones.

If you like factory fresh finishes, then yes it's certainly a nice clean aeroplane.... but those roundels! Yuk!

HB have told us that the WCS cannot accept re-prioritization from Jester - there's no real life function to this on the AWG-9. What a RIO can do is select specific tracks to not attack. Even then the WCS will auto prioritise what is left with no way for a RIO to adjust except for selecting next target.

Anyone else getting a rather anemic looking 88mm flak shell burst since the last patch? These used to look authentic, dark menacing little clouds of death that would linger, fading slowly whilst their bretheren thumped into existence around you, appearing to stalk and trace your path through the atmosphere. Now they appear as a few spotty grey flecks of smoke and disappear almost instantly. Just me or was this one of the performance concessions made by ED recently?

Yes. I think the confusion come from on spawning in game where the initial position is 2 divisions nose up. The reason being is that the trim tabs have unequal angular travel. 7° below the elevator chord-line (for max nose up trim), 20° above (for max nose down). The gauge however is equidistant between fully nose up and fully nose down, with the needle at the three o'clock/horizontal position exactly between representing neutral trim. Ergo when the trim tab chord-line is aligned with elevator chord-line (i.e. the trim tab appears flush with the elevator) the trim tab indicator will still show about 1/3rd up. This how ED have modeled the datum for neutral elevator trim position; with the tab aligned with the elevator. This is how we spawn in. However this is NOT neutral trim. Most aircraft are designed as closely as practicable to find their trim neutral point - without trim input - at cruise speed and power settings with a less than full fuel load. I would be surprised if the Spitfire was not the same. Even when cruising straight and level, the elevator itself is significantly displaced down from the horizontal stabiliser. When I asked Yo-yo himself as to why, as an aerodynamicist, he thought this was the case, he said to to account for the wings downwash. So it appears to the observer that the Spitfire, during cruise has elevator nose down input; however this is the neutral position of the elevator (or as near to it as airspeed and power settings allow) and to maintain this position the trim tab must be displaced above the elevator chord-line to maintain it's relation to the horizontal stabiliser's chord-line. Ultimately it boils down to the fact that most pilots approaching the Spit were - and still are - unaware of this peculiarity of geometry. They went by the Pilot's Notes and the gauges. Ergo the first and correct assumption is that Trim Neutral is the midpoint between both extremities of the trim gauge. Anything else would be hugely disingenuous if not downright dangerous to a new pilot and as such if any such peculiarity of interpretation of that gauge was required it would have had to have been explained within the Pilot's Notes.

Er.... no. Neutral elevator trim is needle horizontal. In the the experience of my squad those with spring tension joysticks should trim one division nose up; those with FFB sticks one division nose down.

And Matt Wagner just released a video showing jamming effects on the Hornet Radar.