DD_Fenrir

This part I love: immediately followed by: #irony! Oh, and yeah, I know about free speech. I come from the country that invented it. Also decency and manners, though that didn't export so well it would seem.

Harrassment? That's a bit strong. It is a reminder to treat others as you would wish to be treated. I think you need to re-read your post, particularly in light of the answer previously given by IronMike that outlined that the feature requested is not simple; if he - who knows the code far more intimately than you - says this is a very complex implementation then your response insinuates that either a) he is lying, b) he doesn't know what he is talking about or c) that you know Heatblurs programming better than he does. That is not particularly respectful in anyone's book, is it?

If target is flashing it is within Max range of AIM-54. If launched on, the TTI numeric (numbers to the lower right of the contact) will flash once the missile is 'Pitbull'

Wow. Tell me Jammer, how much do you enjoy someone who is ignorant of the nature and details of your work telling you how easy it must be? Perhaps in light of the above you could show some (a) manners, (b) respect and © a shred of consideration towards a senior developer that takes the time to interface with the community?

Hey Finnster, please see this post: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=260949 It may help you.

6 months and still no feedback...

The increased levels of Tetraethyllead acted as an anti-knock agent; when it burns it produces not only lead but also carbon dioxide and water. The small amounts of water and carbon dioxide could potentially act as a partial cooling agent whilst the lead quenches the pyrolysed radicals and thus kills the radical chain reaction that would sustain a cool flame, which causes the "knock" or "detonation".

It has been explained that K-4 data is as yet unavailable but given the commonality between the types that the use of the data is logical. It's one thing inferring Yo-yo's extrapolations are inaccurate but another thing entirely to prove it; I see you are very keen to accuse him of mistakes in this regard (which is the easy/lazy route) but you make no effort to provide any counterpoint calculations of your own to actually demonstrably prove your argument holds any water. Given the latter, who is more legitimate - Yo-yo, with proven years in the field of advanced aeronautics and with results that are trusted by actual Air Forces to assist in the training of their aircrews, or you, with credentials unknown, unverified supplying sweet fanny Adams in the way of any comparitive data? Hmm. Let me think.....:

Yo-Yo has. It's posted on these forums somewhere, but I got more important stuff to do than be your lackey, so if you want it, YOU go find it.

Less feels, more data.

*BUMP* Hi ED. Was wondering if this could be given any thought, especially considering that the P-47 has racks by default and an option to remove. It'd be nice to have this for the Pony too. Thanks.

Heavy armour is very resistant to blast damage in real life and DCS reflects this; near misses will deal very little damage (if any) to tanks. Softer targets such as trucks, troops and AAA be damaged or destroyed by a close indirect bomb detonation however.

AIM-120C was introduced into service in 1996. Phoenix left service with the Tomcat in 2006. That's a 10 year crossover in service. Plus Hughes (then Ratheon) was responsible for the development of both missiles - there's a better than even chance that the two missiles share a large amount of similarities. With the ability to reject countermeasures being essentially a filtering operation, which is primarily defined by software programming, it is ergo likely that the two share some fundamentally similar software and hence CCM characteristics. Can this be proven unequivocally - no, but it is logical deduction based on limited information available and a sound enginnering guesstimate for HB to work from. Yours is based on the following: it's older missile + a healthy dose of "I hates Phoenix"+ conjecture = must be worse than AMRAAM. Your hanging on to the idea that they've enabled a speculated CCM performance upgrade to the missiles only exposes your own bias; what Ironmike is referring to is the ability of the software in missile to be upgraded; that this was a possibility before the Phoenix left service and thus would have benefited from updates to the AIM-120 during it's life and that this process would have continued had the Phoenix gone beyond 2006. My god you are so desperate to find some sort of conspiracy here. What the hell is your problem?

1. Bear in mind that with MW50 in the tank the CoG will be towards it's aft most limit. This will tend to make the aircraft tail heavy. 2. The 109, like the Spitfire suffers from high AoA power-on nose lift; what this means is when you're turning tight (and thus generating significant AoA) a proportion of the thrust the prop is generating is being vectored to lift the nose; this feels as if the aircraft is "self-tightening" the turn; as speed drops this will become even more pronounced. 3. As amazingme suggests, use the elevator trim - a benefit of the trimmable stab is that it actually increases the authority of your control surfaces; if you have any curves set to your joystick input it will also give you better control resolution around the critical AoA region. 4. Don't let the airframe get too slow - the power-on pitch up can overwhelm you elevator authority and the tremendous torque the rudder authority at high AoA low speed regime. Use what speed you have and the stability imparted by the slats to generate shooting opportunities but as soon as the speed starts getting down to ~250kph unload and use the excellent acceleration to get speed and altitude back quickly; disengage briefly then re-engage when you have some more energy and repeat. Try not to get in sustained slow speed turn-fights; whilst there are some guys who can do this well in the 109 I suspect they use flaps, which commits you to a blinkered knife-fight. That's ok if you are sure it's just a 1-v-1 but if there is a chance any of his buddies might turn up, not a great idea. 250kph sounds fast but it really isn't - it's 155mph. As primarily a Spitfire guy, even I don't really want to be sustained turnfighting below 150mph, and I prefer 160, so as a 109 you definitely don't want to be down below that.

To have an era relevant dedicated bomber variant would mean a B.Mk.XVI - these were used almost exclusively at night on raids against German cities from bases in the north and east of England. We have no map that accurately reflects this AO and little in the way of assets to accurately represent the night combat conditions. The B.Mk.IV was used a great deal in daylight ops but even by mid 1943 it was realised that it's performance advantages against the Luftwaffe fighters was diminishing and they were withdrawn, the FB.VI units taking over the low level daylight light strike and interdiction role thereafter. Ergo having an unarmed aircraft that could be run down by the in game opposing types is probably asking a bit much of DCS Mosquito drivers.

The WCS prioritises targets automatically; if two F-14s are approaching the same target group from a similar bearing, it's highly likely that the WCS in each Tomcat will prioritise the targets identically. Not much you can do in this regard. However, as I understand it, a real RIO has the ability to override the WCS prioritisation and manually assign prioritisation. Jester cannot do this (yet) though I think Ironmike suggested they might see what can be done in this regard. Personally, Jester wheel TWS commands "Manual prioritisation Left to Right" and "Manual prioritisation Right to Left" would be a great start, allowing two separate F-14 drivers to sort on a hostile group and be able to launch on separate targets; however, whether this is achievable is up to HB.

Good shots of the old Flying Control Building (and a nod as to when the later example appeared):

In reference to my speculation of the location of the Sergeant's Mess at Biggin Hill (North side of A233 opposite the collection of Barack Block Type 'B') it's layout closely resembles that at Duxford, specifically the one identified as Building 106: http://www.ukairfields.org.uk/duxford.html

And a view of some of the buildings immediately south of it: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.3291653,0.0247734,3a,22.1y,191.01h,91.5t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1surYZBabHyKXW2vcXdt7rxA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en-GB

The guardroom: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.3291469,0.0246325,3a,24.9y,207.68h,88.39t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sia3Abh4-fgfjj3397kEUkw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en-GB

It should be noted that the Barrack Block Type B, long can be found here on google street view: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.3296032,0.0263579,3a,75y,181.38h,91.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2KCm_cbs76K_B8NfjuPLDQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en-GB And that the one noted as having a single wing similarly: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.3297528,0.0265215,3a,90y,103.81h,91.75t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5nZnt0nwIWTxQhXT-thbeA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en-GB Here the north blast entrance to what I have tentatively ID'd as the Decontamination Block (or Ops Room?) and the North side of what I have suggested could be the airmans dining hall. https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.3292795,0.0255412,3a,75y,172.39h,90.58t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sT1dWpzUgnCEIinCdOJm3mQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en-GB

The newer annotated version of the site map plus has been uploaded to the edited post here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4491668&postcount=8 with the zoomed in view of North Camp Area attached to this post, with other buildings positively identified and some tentatively suggested.

This site is for Duxford but many RAF buildings were built to common designs and given that they share a very similar chronological history, it is likely that nearly identical buildings appeared at Biggin Hill. http://www.ukairfields.org.uk/duxford.html Furthermore, I believe I have been able to identify many buildings on the Google earth "1940" period image that closely correspond to the layouts and formats of some of those identified in the Duxford sites. I will provide a clearer annotated map of the airfield shortly with a zoomed in view of North Camp area detailing some of those similar buildings.

Typical Allied dive bombing tactics of WW2 - and you'll need to dive bomb as the only bomb fuses currently available are instantaneous - involved rolling in from 6,000 to 10,000ft in a 45-60 degree dive and releasing somewhere between 2,000 to 4,000 ft. Sounds impossible? Actually with practice you can land bombs reasonably consistently using this method, provided you do three things: 1. Be as consistent as you can with your dive angle - if you make one pass at 36 degrees, the next at 60, and a third at 80 you will struggle with knowing when to pickle the bombs during the pullout because the ballistic arc and time of flight of the bombs will differ in all three cases. If you can make the trajectory of your dive consistent you will start to see your craters falling in specific offset ref the target and can start to adjust your bomb release point to compensate. 2. Rudder rudder rudder RUDDER! Trim is of the essence here; as you dive you build airspeed; as you build airspeed your directional trim changes, requiring increasing left rudder to compensate. If you do not do this the bombs do not fall the direction you are pointing and you miss the target to the left usually. 3. Make your attack run either into or out of wind. It is far easier to make adjustment for longitudinal wind by either delaying or preempting the drop point than trying to make lateral aiming point corrections for wind whilst in the dive.

Hi Finnster - depending on your gaming hardware you'll probably find this post of assistance: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=260949 Hope it helps.