DD_Fenrir

First thing to note is that, unlike any other modern era fighter aircraft, in the F-14a/b the HUD is not a primary flight instrument. And it really shouldn’t be used as such. The first point to realise is that when you’re looking out through the front windscreen is that it is not aligned vertically with the aircraft datum, it is actually depressed partially so the pilot view is through it is down as well as forward. The second is to note that whilst you can indeed trim the hud pitch ladder to get the pitch ladder horizon to coincide with the actual horizon, that 1. as soon as you move the aircraft in it’s pitch axis you will find that the pitch ladder horizon displaces, because unlike your Hornet, Viper or Eagle, it’s neither stabilised nor calibrated to do so. 2. Also if you do trim the hud, your aircraft datum (the w symbol) will no longer be accurate in reference to the pitch ladder, so if you use it as a reference for the pitch angle of your climb, it will be incorrectly telling you that you are climbing shallower than you are.

Karon, with the greatest respect, I have been a proponent of "Phoenix = not a golden BB" philospohy myself for some time. That said given that our mil-sim air wing operates the AIM-54 on - as close as we can gather to - actual AIM-54 timelines, that is, >30Kft, 0.9-1.0M, hot targets, 20°-30° manual loft launching at between 50nm and 35nm. Without changing an iota of how we operate, the Pk is dropping - we track or weapons envelope employments to gather robust data on this and it is showing a downward trend. We could stand a PK of around 40-45%. That's reasonable; the enemy gets a vote after all and sometimes the AWG-9 does AWG-9 things. But something HAS changed, and the Pk overall is dropping. Repeatedly our missiles are getting trashed in the endgame - whilst still kinematically viable - because *reasons*; two of us launched a total of 8 Phoenixes at a Backfire raid that was climbing through 20Kft at 45nm (still launching ~32K @ 0.9M with manual loft) the other day. ONE hit. ONE. One went stupid after a track file loss (fair enough) and the other 6 were all somehow notched and passed within 100ft of their target. By BACKFIRES. This is not a hard manoevering target but a large bomber that doesn't manouvre well. It is ridiculous, on that we agree, I just think it's ridiculous that the missile still performs so badly even when launched under optimal conditions.

AIM-54 has changed again. In vCVW-17 since the last patch we are seeing a drop in overall Pk to a ~25% level vs ~45% at the end of last year. Notch resistance seems to have plummetted plus terminal energy is down. This is bloody frustrating. Our BVR timelines are all over the place. Can someone please justify these changes and at the very least ensure that patch notes reflect any adjustments to the AIM-54 physics.

Self entitled, over indulged, petulant “Gimme!” types gonna “Gimme!”, I guess. Quit foaming at the mouth. It’s undignified.

Would it? With which aircraft would it be historical? Answer: I-16. And only the I-16. And even then the sub-type is inappropriate. The only way you get a historical match-up with the Luftwaffe types we have is to have only the La-7 and make a German-Polish border map set in 1945.

Please find a .pdf report attached outlining the sites history of how it came to look as it did by 1944 and where the issues are in it's representation in the DCS: Normandy 2 Map. DCS Normandy 2 - RAF Kenley Bug Report.pdf

Biggin Hill was a sector station - this meant it had an Ops Room (the big map table where they pushed the wooden blocks indicating air raids and friendly air units around) and was the primary control authority for the squadrons based at the stations within within it's sector, these being West Malling and Lympne. Biggin was on the frontline as a Fighter Airfield right up until early 1944, with many notable fighter squadrons rotating through it from 1939 till the months before D-Day. The squadrons based there claimed 1000+ enemy aircraft destroyed. Manston was one of the secondary fields (no Ops Room) in the Hornchurch sector. Used by Fighter Command during the Battle of Britain it was attacked so frequently and so heavily that units were withdrawn to bases inland, as it being so close to the sea the fighters based there struggled to get to height before the enemy raids arrived, meaning the squadrons often got bounced, or missed the interception altogether. As the air war became less defensive, Manston started seeing lots of units rotate through, particularly on a temporary basis as fighter squadrons might forward deploy from the bases inland to extend their range somewhat in order to be able to escort bombers to targets in Belgium and Holland. Later, it became a regular home to Hawker Typhoon squadrons and during the V-1 campaign the first squadrons of Gloster Meteors were based there.

Surprise surprise; XB telling people how they should be playing/building their game. Tell me, when are you gonna realise you have no authority as a gatekeeper in this community?

Valves. No solid state transistors in WW2. Any electronics of that period relies on thermionic valve (aka tube) technology, and these take time from power on to warm the filament up to operating temperature.

Frankly it’s semantics - RPM is governed by the pitch of the blades whether it’s controlled automatically or manually.

RPM and fuel efficiency are directly proportional. More RPM = more fuel usage. More RPM also = greater stress on the engine. Anytime you wish to save gas, or the motor reduce RPM. Buut remember that there are limits to how far open the throttle can be at lower RPMs; go too low with the RPM and don't reduce your throttle with it and you'll suffer from detonation or 'knock' which will also kill the motor.

I suspect a mix up in terminology. As a rule: 1. ETO = European Theatre of Operations = Channel and Northwest Europe 2. MTO = Mediterranean Theatre of Operations = North Africa, Italy, Greece and Southern France 3. PTO = Pacific Theatre of Operations = Pacific Islands, New Guinea, New Britain, Austrilasia, Phillipines, Okinanwa 4. CBI = China, Burma & India = the aforementioned + SE Asia 5. EF = Eastern Front = Third Reich vs. Soviet Great Patriotic War actions across Eastern Europe I think Silver Dragon is including EF under ETO, which the majority of us Westerners do not.

Try this: https://www.quercusbooks.co.uk/titles/robert-lyman/the-jail-busters/9781784290177/ I have a few books that cover the subject, best balanced by far. There is also: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Walls-Came-Tumbling-Down/dp/0285625195 But the veracity of this is made deeply questionable by statement about the Mosquito's dogfighting their way out of the target with the Navigators steering and firing the guns... 'Nuff said. It also reads like a boys own adventure novel, with the story telling suspiciously florid at points where the details of conversations and chance meetings seem too detailed or forced, as if they have been embillished or even fabricated. There's also this: https://servicecomm.co.uk/catalogue.php?product=874&productID=the-amiens-raid-secrets-revealed However, despite some great research on the RAF involvement and a creditable analysis and follow-on conjecture of the bombing (which aircraft dropped what and where the bombs ended up), he very much has an axe to grind against the British Intelligence services and this leads him to some rather spurious conclusions based on compounded suppositions.

Be wary of making that assumption; different engine can result in different mounting and that can result in CoG shift which can impact handling significantly. It can also result in a different thrust line, plus distance of the prop from the CoG altering the way gyroscopic forces act in relation to it. Also the way the airflow - including the propwash - interacts with the nose can have unpredictable effects with airflow down the fuselage, over the wing roots and how it eventually interacts with the tail, horizontal and vertical. Sometimes changing an engine type on an aircraft has negligible effect; at other times handling characteristics have even been improved. But sometimes they've been considerably affected for the worse.

But you do. You don’t just make a sminky 3D model, texture wrap it in some hi-res bump mapped 4k bitmaps and have a fully functional module. The systems modelling is all lua code, lines and lines of syntax and ones & zeros, most of which works, some of it doesn’t and some of it which might work but we don’t know yet cos we’re trying something we’ve never done before. Now, if you think that a developer are going to start posting screenshots of their programming just to satisfy impatient petulant and over-entitled potential customers, I think you need to wake up from your little “I want I want I want” fever dream and smell the coffee.

Meh: a WW2 map with zero appropriate aircraft and valid for one day out of a war that lasted 2,194. Philippines, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, all much better candidates for the aircraft we are soon to get with far more scope for campaigning.

Not official modules; I’m talking about unofficial aircraft or assets that are made by community members and available for free as modifications to the game. Sometimes an individual mod can cause game functionality to break in specific cases; other times it can be down to a specific combination of two or more of these mods as they rarely get tested together. It could explain why you alone seem to be suffering this bug, which is why we ask.

Mods?

Normandy - the Spitfire, P-47D-30 (early), Mossie, Fw 190A-8 and P-51D are all prototypical but the USAAF birds don’t really represent the most common variants, with the P-51D-25 having capabilities and equipment features beyond those that the D-5 variants that were entering service at the time of invasion should not really have (HVAR capability, tail warning radar, K-14 gunsight) though performance wise they’d be appropriate. Ideally we’d have P-51B and razorback P-47Ds. A Bf 109G-6/14 would help, along with a Typhoon, Mitchell III, a P-38J and B-26D. Ground units wise, the basics are mostly covered (except for shipping) but in reality there were hundreds of models and sub-models of trucks, tanks and artillery that could feature.

The sheer lunacy of reading this statement in a Combat Flight Sim forum... ! Love this community

Do you have head tracking software enabled - I get this sometimes when my TIR is running and I forget to switch it off when moving to the Rift-S.

To your first question, yes, in multiplayer you can have two breathers in one airframe, one pilot, one navigator. To your second point regarding GEE, no the Mosquito in DCS is not equipped with the GEE receivers, primarily because it would be useless ballast without the radio net existing in the map to provide the signals for the GEE set to process and currently these are not present on the two ETO maps and ED have not indicated that there are any plans to add this functionality.

He's called a Navigator; clues in the name... Try flying a 450 mile route Nap of the Earth at 250mph with multiple heading changes to mitigate the chance of interception and avoiding areas of known heavy flak concentrations, whilst adjusting for unforecast changes to wind strength and direction and recalculating the airspeed required to be over the target at the time you were briefed. Try making a GEE fix whilst you're dodging high tension wires, trees and industrial chimneys.... I'm serious, try it in DCS, I guarantee you'll have a very genuine and sudden appreciation for what a Navigator actually does in the FB.VI. No Icon On F10 map in real life.