DD_Fenrir

Well then either one or both of those sources are inaccurate!

Where were the sites? Depending on the longitude of each site, this could be expected.

Sounds like Channel map is utilising the GMT+2 time zone that was in effect by the British during WW2. https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/the-extreme-daylight-savings-time-of-world-war-ii

Can't say I'm desperately impressed with the UK airfields, Biggin and Manston. The runway layouts are about right but otherwise there's too much "this will look cool" regards the placement and types of buildings and not enough research. Also hangar types are again wrong. Manston in 1944: The layout as shown in the development screenshot looks good, however there is one major error: Please refer to this site: https://www.manstonhistory.org.uk/manston-layout-history/ Biggin Hill in 1946: Notes: 1. No large hangars - they were all destroyed during the Battle of Britain, i.e in 1940. They weren't replaced till ~1947/48. The only covered aircraft servicing provision available were the many blister hangars. For a map that supposedly represents the summer of 1944, they should not be there. 2. No large buildings to the East side of the airfield. 3. The many blast pen positions. 4. Notice that most of the buildings on the South Camp are single floor buildings and manly consists of workshops and sheds. For example this image: ...which was taken from this location here: Compare this to: You can see the large building clusters that aren't in evidence on the period map and the too large industrial buildings. This is a problem systematic across the UK airfields already on the map. It stems from 2 issues. 1. Little actual effort has been made to research and model ACTUAL RAF airfield buildings, 2. Someone is using some generic industrial assets and a heap of "this will look cool" instead of (a) asking those of us in the community who would happily assist and provide as much info as possible to get things right (or at least close), and (b) actually listening to them when it is provided. This latter part I have a particular bone of contention with, as plenty of information has been provided by the community in the past but seemingly paid lip service to in the interim, with very few requests for our assistance from the developers that, in hindsight, seem more like a tick box exercise in 'community engagement' than any meaningful attempt to actually garner information to correct issues on the map. For example, information was provided by the community to correct issues at Kenley, Tangmere, Ford, Farnborough, West Malling, Gravesend (and others) before the map was even released in the spring, but little apparent sign of any of that having been taken on board or actioned has been in evidence. It feels like there is an opportunity to faithfully recreate historical fact but it is being dismissed for the sake of convenience and superficiality.

BUG - Mission 4: Shock & Awe The HVT convoy halts just after calling a right turn at the next road junction and just prior to reaching said road junction and does not move thereafter and no messages passed to explain the halt or what is required of Uzi flight to proceed. Screenshots to explain timing and location:

Why?

VF-103 as part of virtual CVW-17. Can ping you a Discord link if you’re interested…

Wow. Of course the fact that someone would take personal offense from a scripted fictional computer character isn't the actual problem here... no....

Christ not this AGAIN…

At what point are you going to accept that this isn't your decision. It's EDs. They have decided that having a Stable Release version to revert to when a major game breaking bug slipped through has saved many of us from having no DCS to play. It's been a while, granted, but it at least shows ED have improved their Beta process. Plus they cannot possibly account for every hardware and software combination out there that can cause issues. This gives them- and us - a buffer. This has been explained to you ad nauseum. The greater question is when are you going to realise your opinion is irrelevant and are actually going to listen to whats being said?

For what it's worth, this fuel pressure issue from jettison tanks is a common feature across aircraft of all nations from this era and is why it is common for SOPs to say to switch to drop tanks only once airbourne and to operate from internal tankage during all taxi/takeoff/landing regimes.

1. Not much info to go on here - and no, the anecdotal stuff you have posted does not represent reliable, qauntified and most impotantly validated datpoints. 2. What map, what altitude, what air pressure values and what ambient air temp were your tests performed at? Variations in these can have a signficant effect on thrust and lift. 3. 4-2-2 is a heavy, draggy load. That said, I have routinely got to 0.9M at similar altitudes in Mil power and using afterburner can get +mach 1 airspeeds with it. This could indicate a fault in your DCS install. Have you tried a repair?

Eh? ED are still apparently solvent and producing content whilst updating their core engine. Seems pretty 'working' to me.

Seriously, just let it go man. This conversation has been had, repeatedly, over and over and over and over again and every time ED say the exact same thing, that the creation of the WW2 assets takes 1,000s of man hours that the cost of aircraft modules cannot cover. Why the hell do you think that you bringing out the whip again and heading for the deceased equine will change anything? You so special?

There is evidence of this on the Allies side; IIRC 20mm naval AA guns caused some havoc amongst friendly units and ground forces during amphibious ops in the Italian theatre because they had no self detonating ammunition and rounds that were fired at enemy aircraft but missed fell to surface and detonated among friendlies; apparently this is why later in the war the 40mm bofors becomes the preferred light AAA weapon as it's self detonating ammunition limits (though, note, cannot entirely eliminate) this problem.

Just the ratio old bean; as to position and size, I have no doubt that you’ve been looking at Lancasters with a far more discerning eye than I of late and are of significantly greater authority to judge!

Hey Scoobyon, Just so you are aware, that overwing type B roundel that you are using is a postwar pattern. The WW2 type B should have the folllwing ratio diameters: Ratio 2:5 Blue 56" Red 22" http://woodair.net/Aviation/roundels/RAF_Roundels.htm

Jesus. Talk about melodrama.... Some of you seriously need to sit back and realise that IT'S. JUST. A. GAME. A very realistic one, I grant you, but some compromises have to be accepted to run on a home PC. The sooner you realise that, accept it, and get just out there and smell the virtual pines, and focus on what DCS does well instead of griping about trees the happier you will be. Are there somne things wrong with DCS? Sure. But there's a helluva lot of right.

What map and what mission? What control are you using to communicate with ground crew? Note that the canopy must be open to communicate to ground crew that you want ground electrical power and ground air supply connected; if you close the canopy you can only ask them to disconnect it.

As the title, if any aircraft is connected to Catapult 1 no F-14 can taxi up to and get directions to connect to catapult 2. I know this is a legacy of the og undersized Stennis model, where two F-14s wouldn't fit side by side without wing overlap and the risk of collsion on launch but given that this legacy issue is now a non-factor can we please amend the logic to consign this now needless restriction to the waste bin? As the CO of a multiplayer Tomcat squadron, this is providing needless nuisance in getting our Air Wing off the deck in a timely manner. Many thanks.

You Dead if you rely on TWS and Jester. Why not go STT on the near target? It's a simple enough flick through the Jester Menu, should take less than 5 sec. Limitation of the AWG-9. It's literally a hardware restriction, a rotary switch in the RIO pit. Guess what ranges it is preset to....? 15nm actually. On a good day you sometimes get 18... You're attributing operating restrictions of the AWG-9 and it's limited abilty to track beaming targets in Pulse Dopplar modes to a fault in Jester. The greater question is why you are putting yourself in AIM-120 WEZ and attempting to lock beaming targets. If the guys cranking - which is why the AWG-9 is struggling to find him - then it means it's likely he's already launched at you. So why are you still flying dumb into the missile and not defending?

Sure. Let's add a database of historic solar activity for the DCS weather system to reference against. That should should take less than 5 minutes.

I've read a great number of books from WW2 pilots of various Air Forces perspectives across many theatres and there's some general themes, some of which you may find surprising. 1. The weather may be bad but that would not necessarily scrub a mission - if cloud base was so low or if visibility was so bad at your home airfield that it was deemed unsafe to land 99% of missions would be scrubbed and you wouldn't take-off in the first place. That said, look to RAMROD 564 (Operation Jericho) where operational expediency overruled the blizzard conditions and it was assumed that the Wings Mosquitos would divert to RAF Ford for recovery. This was briefed. 2. Divert fields seem to have been a briefed item for bomber types but not so much for fighters. Fighters being more manoeuvrable and flexible in regards to the runway & visibility minima they can accept may have been deemed able to wing-it a bit more in this regard. 3. In fighters, an individual pilot's local knowledge, navigation skill and airmanship was leveraged far more than in modern aviation. The modern Safety First doctrines were just further down the priority list back then, and were based on a the experiences learned from WW2. If you got back to where your field was only to find it socked in then you had the following options: a) Crawl around at low level trying to catch glimpses of the ground - and maybe the airfield or a known landmark - in order to orient yourself for a very sketchy tight pattern and approach to your home airfield (see 'First Light' by Geoff Wellum, 'Sigh for Merlin' by Alex Henshaw or 'Spitfire: A Test Pilot's Story' by Jeffrey Quill), b) Know where the nearest airfields are and self divert to see if conditions are any better there, c) Climb out of the muck and if available contact the Ground Control agency to see if they can give you a steer to the nearest airfield with some vaguely landable climate! This of course relies on you having sufficient fuel; if you're already at Emergency Fuel status then a) and b) are your only recourse, unless you go with option d)... d) Get to a safe bail-out altitude and leave the plane.

Hey! Wind your neck in chum. People are taking time out of their day to try and help you. We understand your frustration but taking it out on those actively trying to help you is quickly gonna get you isolated. Rule #1 is VERY MUCH in effect.