DD_Fenrir

Correct. If stored heading alignment is on, leave it well alone and let it do it's thing.

1. The Merlin Seafire (III) is a heavily modified Mk.V, not a IX; it has a single stage Merlin, ergo the nose is shorter than the Mk.IX. It also has a very different performance profile. 2. it would require remodelling of the wing 3D art to allow for (i) wing folding mechanisms and (ii) the revised armament installation details. Undercarriage (iii) is also modified in rake and size. 3. The fuselage requires remodelling to incorporate the arrestor gear. 4. The Seafire III also has the radiator format of the earlier Mk. Spit. 5. Cockpit 3d model will require new build to allow for the new controls for hook and wing fold locks. 6. The internal structure was beefed up slightly to try and make the Spitfire more robust (spoiler: it wasn't enough) for carrier ops. Take all the above Seafire visual/structural element changes and apply the consequential effects to the cooling model, flight model and damage model too. That's not an 'just add a tailhook to the Mk.IX Spitfire'. That's 'Brand New, From the Ground Up Module' territory. Superficially they look similar. That's it.

So you base the entirety of all the potential human personality types to have ever been involved in Naval Combat Aviation against one evidence source? There are some people who use black humour as a coping mechanism; speak to Emergency Service Workers as to whether someone may or may not have made a darkly humourous quip at an inappropriate moment... Besides, I don't have a problem with you having a problem with Jester... it's your right. You think that some of his quips come at inappropriate moments... fair enough, but I don't think one vox recording of a combat sortie can be indicative of all.

I get that some of you find Jester not to your flavour... But remember, if you find him that obnoxious, you have been given an option to silence him. Whilst that might not be ideal, it is the option you have currently - a binary set. Like it or lump it. Knowing Heatblur, and their desire to satisfy as wide a demographic of their customer base as is economically feasible, it would not surprise me if Jester 2 is coming with an option for him to have as biege a personality as could possibly be wished for (though I suspect that even then the most misanthropic amongst you would still complain he was too emotive). In that sense, you will have your robotic little back seat helper as bland as you could possibly hope for. And to those of you who cast shade at Jester sneer and whine indignantly, I'd remind you what a ground breaking feature it was when released - no other DCS module, even ED's own came close to even attempting an AI co-aviator that would adapt and even attempt to emote to given tactical situations and to engage in a realistic and ergonomically restricted way with the systems and tactical environment. And furthermore to do so with a measure of humanity, to try and bring you a sense of immersion, that there wasn't just this soulless automaton working away behind you, to attempt to give you a hint of the reality of working in concert with another human being in your aircraft - arguably an experience more fundamental in the Tomcat than any other aircraft - is to be applauded. Heatblur set their sights high. That there were hiccups, a few bugs to iron out and some getting-the-hang-of-it on the part of users is to be expected but overall Heatblur have worked hard, conscientiously and with open minds to feedback. Just look at the current Strike Eagle back-seater AI (hint: THERE AIN'T ONE) to appreciate just what you got out of the box from Heatblur from DAY 1 of early access. It's on that final note that I will also remind you that the people behind Jester are just that - people. You have a right to critique, to ask for fixes and improvements but some of you forget that these same people have invested a huge amount of time, effort, intellectual energy, physical energy and emotional energy to just this feature of the module, that your $XX.XX only partially compensates for. If you don't like Jester's as he is, fine that is your right. You don't have to be a d*ck about the manner in which you relay that feedback to some VERY hard working folks.

1. The HUD view is disingenuous - the vertical centre of the hud is not pointing down the datum line of the aircraft; you are actually looking somewhat down the nose as this is a carrier aircraft and requires a higher rate of decent, steeper glideslope and therefore higher AOA, all which results in the need for a good view down the nose. 2. The gun is canted 3 degrees above the waterline of the aircraft to assist in air-to-air gunnery; this means you'll need to pull less lead. 3. The cross at the top of the HUD is the armament datum line and the gun stream will cross through this point at a set distance from the aircraft.... what this is however, I cannot recall exactly.

Can recommend the following: Terror in the Starboard Seat by Dave McIntosh | Goodreads Night Flyer (Fighter Pilots) by Lewis Brandon | Goodreads Men Who Flew the Mosquito: Compelling Account of the ‘Wooden Wonders’ Triumphant WW2 Career by Martin W. Bowman | Goodreads The de Havilland Mosquito: Through the Eyes of a Pilot by David Ogilvy | Goodreads Separate Little War: The BANFF Coastal Command Strike Wing Versus the Kreigsmarine and Luftwaffe 1944 - 1945 by Andrew D. Bird | Goodreads

Hawker Typhoon

Whoops, typo, thanks for the correction.

Lol, no, depending on the target requirements we can comfortably run a self escort strike. With a section of Tomcats you can run a one pass haul ass LGB strike on a single target and still carry 2x Phoenix which gives you, as a section excellent BVR capability. Even with a tunnel of 4x Paveway we still can carry a single Phoenix and 2x AIM-9 - whilst I wouldn’t want to go looking for ACM in that configuration, if someone wants to try and bring it, then we’re quite capable of giving them a rough handling. Can we carry as much as a Mudhen? No. Has it some impressive BVR credentials? Sure. But the F-14 ain’t exactly a slouch either.

A sentiment I don't necessarily disagree with. However... Try building a business model on that and getting the necessary backers for the investments required to get it started. Then as a 3rd party developer, getting ED to Quality Approve your model. ED have standards. My suspicion being that 'this is our best guess' doesn't cut much mustard when submitting an FM and 3D cockpit model for review. You guys have a lot to learn about the commercial realities of software development. Anyway, if Mag3 does not provide an AI A6M with (or not long after - let's say 6 months) the release of the F4U, I'll buy you both a M3 Corsair module. That's how confident I am. They've been dropping enough hints for long enough.

This one? I would say there's a good chance that, being on their official Facebook product page, having seen it intimated across many, many months of development, and a 3D mesh model of the A6m on their official website, it's a fairly bad secret.

Well, if you do some basic searching round these forums you'll understand why. 1. Data fidelity - the old sim you reference could get away with guestimates, suppositions and 'near enough' because it's game-engine wasn't of high enough fidelity that it would matter. 20 years on and we as a customer base expect (if not demand) that our study level, one-off aircraft models be far more detailed and precise simulations of reality than those of 20 years ago. 2. YOU NEED HIGH FIDELITY ENOUGH DATA TO WORK WITH - until fairly recently there was not the data set available for a great number of IJN/IJA aircraft to actually recreate them. Wind tunnel data? Nada. Contemporary pilots to interview to understand the nuance of the flight characteristics? Likewise. Christ, even the creators of that old sim you refer to said they had problems identifying the correct locations that individual instruments should be placed within the cockpit and even ended up with empty holes in the dash because they didn't know what was supposed to go in that hole. 20 years later, and whilst the word on the grapevine is that the situation has improved somewhat, there is still a language barrier, because much of the research is in Japanese and it is not commonly translated. Add to this that the crossover between Group A 'those in the best position to create modules' (which is a small percentage of people) and Group B native 'Japanese historians and archivists with an obsessive interest in WW2 Japanese Aircraft who can also speak fluent English' (also not a massive percentage of society) and you may start to grasp why the crossover is small. Certain other WW2 flight sim developers intimated that the research data is not easy to acquire, let alone in the detail levels that are demanded by customers these days. Christ, even ED couldn't source even P-47 wind tunnel data and were obliged to use CFD modelling to provide anything even close to realistic drag data; this a time consuming and therefore expensive process, btw, so in line with the other problems, instantly bloats the upfront costs a developer needs to account for and therefore the risk against a project. Thus it is a dissuading factor. TLDR: Why don't they just make WW2 Japanese airplanes?!?! Cos it's a LOT OF WORK. However, against all this we know we are getting an AI A6M from Magnitude 3 to accompany the F4U. There is hope that there is sufficient data out there to allow for this to eventually become a flyable module. They are also hinting at a Ki-84. Time will tell.

Proabably due to parking area size restrictions. There's a few bases on the Syria map that are helicopter bases; much shorter runways and limited ramp space; I suspect Rosa Pina may be one of these and the capacity and size of the spawn spots is consequently reduced.

As an F-14 guy all I can say is, take a ticket and join the back of the line…

Hi ED, Was wondering if it would be possible for a user to override the pilot skin of any module/skin with a custom one of their own? How I envisage a possible enabling of the function: 1. In the DCS Saved Games > Liveries folder, under each aircraft sub folder there could be a 'Custom_Pilot' folder, in which the user puts their unique pilot skin texture, applicable for that specific airframe. 2. An option box is added to the livery/loadout menu in the DCS Mission Editor to 'Enable custom pilot texture override'. 3. An entry in the description.lua points to the 'Custom_Pilot' location to override the default should the option box be ticked in the ME. Is this plausible? Could it be expanded to allow for visibility of different skins for backseaters/co-pilots in multiplayer?

What date is set in the mission editor, and which country are you attempting to assign them to?

Point 1: I would assume that the missile has to be aware of it's own barometric altitude, it has too many important ramifications on energy available vs intercept geometry to be ignored. How it measures that though... Whether that is loosely via some kind of Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) and makes estimate based on the launch altitude it was told by the launch platform, or a barometric device imbedded in the missile body... I don't know. This could be enough - you have a logic switch that drives different guidance behaviour when under a set baro alt. This of course does not account for mountainous terrain so the missile could still potentially be driven into terrain, if this was the only method available to drive different guidance logic based on altitude.... Pont 2: It's an active missile: the radar will have to have some filtering to ignore ground clutter. Now that ground clutter needs to recognised in order for filtering to occur and if it's able to recognise it then it has the potential to discriminate and classify it, so that if the signal to noise ration reaches a certain level it recognises it is at a lower AGL altitude and this can be used to switch to a different guidance logic. So it seems the feasibility is not that complicated... assuming @GGTharos is correct, and he has history of being a reliable authority on these topics, it is something that warrants further investigation.

Don’t forget that ordering Jester to STT lock Enemy Ahead absolutely depends on him having previously run an IFF check on that contact and identified it as hostile; if it’s unknown you must use the alternative menu option that’s asks to lock unknown, or specific contact.

Wrong way round. The glass in the example represents the bullet proof windshield with the light beam representing the rays of light reflected from the propeller and cowlings entering the cockpit from the right. Any refraction through the thin glass of the gunsight would be marginal.

Whilst I don't disagree generally, Biggs, despite the excellent evidence there's an issue: refraction. In reality the light passing through that slab of armoured glass gets deviated by it and as you can see by the above example, the image beyond the glass get's lowered. Thus all aircraft with highly sloped bullet proof windscreens should see this effect. Unfortunately this cannot be replicated in game. The 3D model is as accurate as can be, the dimensionality without refraction is correct - everything is where it's supposed to be. But to replicate the effect of refraction would require either some fudging or a massive work around (and potentially a compromise to prototypicality elsewhere), a fundamental re-write of the graphics engine code to allow for ray tracing (huge expense in GPU processing), or drawing another render window through the windscreen frame (again, huge expense in GPU processing). In the distant future, this technology might be feasible but in DCS, near term, no. It's unfortunate, but bear in mind it effects all the WW2 aircraft, just not perhaps to quite the same extent as the dear old Spitty.

Source? Source? Suggest you file a bug report with supporting .trk file + evidence of how long it should take a bullet hit to the Spitfire's coolant system to evacuate it's contents in the appropriate forum, then, since you apparently are an expert on such things. Spark plug fouling is in game. And the one thing we poor, silly, tactically and technically deficient (sic) Allies had in advantage of the mighty, superior, master race Reich, was a robust supply chain which meant we could change out all the spark plugs before this became an issue, because, you know, logistics and materiel.... You and I make very different take aways from that book. I see that creating a reliable (note, not faultless) high performance aero-engine during the 1940's - whatever your allegiance - was fraught with obstacles, hurdles and even traps and that the level of reliability and performance achieved by either side in their best engines was astounding; however, the Nazi ethos and politick applied to aero-nautical engineering was the primary reason for the German failures, along with critical exotic material shortages. All of which have little or nothing to do with a computer game where you climb into a factory fresh, perfectly constructed and maintained airframe every time you spawn. Which brings us back to the original point of contention; why shouldn't those who favour flying Allied wish to have a prototypically, and chronologically relevant Allied jet fighter in DCS should the Axis get a prototypically, and chronologically relevant jet fighter? In the interests of multiplayer gameplay, in servers which lean towards a more dogfight oriented, this is almost required. Otherwise you'd end up with a cadre of rather sorry individuals who delight in zooming around in near uncatchable aircraft, blasting unsuspecting or unwary players and then landing, rearming, refuelling. Rinse wash repeat. But then I guess that's what some people actually want. Not to be tested. Not to confront an opponent on near equal terms, where the decision is based on tactical guile and their appreciation of the small advantages/disadvantages they may have over their opponent, where the victor is the one who can out fly and out think his opponent because he is actually the better pilot. No they'd rather win by having such a vast advantage in some factor that no other stands a chance, that only downright stupidity or some outrageous bad luck could put them at risk. That's not sport. That's not entertainment. That's stroking your own ego.

That’s exactly the OPs point; the fuselages should not be so reflective but equally the wings shouldn’t look like they’re painted in a Matt light grey primer…. This has been a problem for 5+ years