stuart666

Yeah, I really must get more into the afv side. Tanks have always been my main interest. Thanks for pointing that out. You are very kind, Im glad its of use to someone! Ive actually built a similar set for Channel map, but never released it. Its got all the aa in places where sources indicate it roughly was. The biggest problem with that is all the luftwaffe records were destroyed during the war, so we have only rought guides of where they were quarter (such as Paris, or Arras). You have to apply a lot of occums razor where they would likely have bene devolved to. Far easier has been the beach defences, which still exist in places, and there are plenty of records ofw here guns were. Similarly the V1 sites. In most case ive just put in the ramps, but as far as I can tell, everything for channel is in there. You just need to fill out the individual site you are bombing. So what im planning on doing is this. Ill release the channel templates at some point, which are already done. then ill continue with the Normandy 2 ones. At the moment the vast majority of the radars are done. There are still gaps in the AA, which will I think suffice for most scenarios (Paris is well covered). Due to the lack of a 105mm gun, ive used the Soviet Ks19 100mm gun, along with the radar guidence. At 20000 feet, I dont think most people will notice the difference. Similarly Ive used the American 37mm to fill in for the 37mm flak. Ive also used bofors because, believe it or not, the Germany navy used them as well. So what remains on Normandy2? Im going to put in as much of the beach defences as I can. Im trying to fill out from Dieppe down (If you want th enorthern half, use the channel map with my template). Im at ouestram, so plenty still to do there. Dont know if I will do the V1 sites on Normandy. Its lots of work to do, and It nearly broke my will putting them all in on channel map. So anyway, back to work!

So I suggest you go back and read again what I said, because I think you missed most of it. I minimised Marianas as far as map building, because its small, and because most of the ground work has already been laid. I did however point out that EVEN SO, there would still be massive amounts to do as far as modelmaking, and making the assets for it. Japanese artillery, we have absolutely none of that for example. Ifthey make a zero, which presumably is coming, they then presumably have to build carriers to stage it from. And then you have to build the escorts. And then you have to build the weapons to hang on the aircraft. Then you have to build the companion aircraft on both sides. Its not the map thats the problem, its the assets to build the theatre (much of whcih is still missing from the European maps) that is the real undertaking. Im not saying 'its not too much effort'. Im saying that the Mariana's map, whilst it wont take so long to complete compared to say, Normandy, is the corner of the iceberg. And one I fear is going to drag attention away from a theatre that, without mcuh effort, could be largely completed to everyones satisfaction. Im not railing against ED saying that. I just regret that this is the decision they have made, thats all. Im sure they have good reasons for it.

Yeah that makes sense. By the end of the war there were some lancaster squadrons that flew only by day, so its conceivable on those they were deleted.

And I sympathize, they dont want to leave the corsair out in the cold. But stop and think about it. They are backdating Mariana's. presumably not TOO much effort involved in that. They still have to make Japanese assets like hangars, flags, vehicles, AA guns, presumably even warships. Considering a fairly modest effort would likely give us a theatre where most of the WW2 aircraft could fly without stretching credulity, this looks, to my mind at least, a very curious decision. Its not that im not a pacific fan. I just think it would be good to get one theatre firmly established with all the kit and area it needs to thrive, before moving onto another theatre. Not picking a fight with ED on this I should say, its just a shame that when resources are seemingly as tight as they are, they are spreading them even thinner. I dont get that personally, but then it hardly matters that I do. Yes, the LA7. If they did a map say, the 1939 Polish/Soviet border, they could employ both the I16 and the LA7 in different periods. That wouldnt be resource heavy. You could, just about, justify the 109K flying there as well. As things stand, where is it going to fly? Its hardly going to fit in Caucasus, I think its a year later than that.

Its a beautiful model. At the risk of asking a stupid question, are you including a version with flame dampers?

Im kind of worried with DCS incorporating he pacific. I am concerned we are going to see WW2 split in resources with that area, when we already seems (rightly or wrongly) to take second place to modern era weapons. Splitting the subgenre into two regions, when they have largely dissimilar weapons, to me doesnt make very much sense. I can remember Il2 making its somewhat abortive foray into the pacific. It was fun, but it arguably diluted much else they could have been doing, such as AI intercept radar they were working on. I would agree though, the best thing would be to expand Channel map to the east. If we got in Holland and maybe a bit of Germany, all the weapons we now have would be perfectly viable on the map for 1944/45. For me, whats really needed are more assets. If we had a Spitfire V and Me109F, and an AI Blenheim, we could cover the vast majority of the circus operations in 1941 and 1942. A glass nose A20 would allow us to cover the Ramrods all the way up to 1944. Building the flak defences, what ive really noticed we could do are a 37mm flak gun, and a small Wurzburg for gun laying. 105mm flak. For Normandy, im fairly amazed we have absolutely no coastwatcher radars, even though they were attached to every major gun battery along the coast. I dont think its the maps that are the issue. Some extra miles (which im sure isnt a cheap undertaking) would fix that relatively easily. Its the detail assets, thats the problem.

The Hudson to me would make more sense. They used that thing for damn near everything, light bomber, maritime patrol, transport for special operations. Lysander? I love it as much as everyone does. But after you picked up the first half dozen agents, what do you do with it? You cant play it online because its going to get trashed, and has damn all weapons anyway.

Son9 wasnt compatible with Zsu57, for whatever reason, at least according to David Isby.

I was reading an Osprey account of the raid on the gestapo duch population registry in the hague, and noticed something interesting. After they demolished the building (a former art gallery), another flight used HE and incendiary bombs on the rubble to destroy any o the surviving paperwork. TBH, in most circumstances they wouldnt be very useable (except perhaps against very soft targets or fuel tanks). But there was a great variety of British incendiary bombs in WW2 that could conceivably be carried by the MkVI, ranging from the 40lb bombs carried in a case, to 500lb ones that were listed as being only to be used 'in special circumstances'. Well it would be pretty to look at anyway....

If its of any interest, Im going to attempt to rework the Normandy template for Normandy2. Currently im working on the radar net, should do the flak later. No promises when it gets done, its a lot of work. Ive never been entirely convinced spawning the flak guns via trigger was a good idea for frame rate reasons. I always conceived it as an aid to making scenarios. Basically you lay your scenario out with target, then lay the template (or start with the scenario and lay your scenario over it), and delete all the gun batteries you arent going to meet out. Still, if you can make it work with any kind of acceptable framerate, then good for you. As for transports, the only solution I can conceive of is to get a C47 livery in German and use that. There was at least one dutch DC2 painted in a Luftwaffe scheme, so its not completely ahistorical. Of course we could really do with a Ju52.

Needs someone to calculate the RHA of the pilots ego.

And even then it had unstarts, or compresser stalls as I guess they probably were. There is a remarkable bit in the Ben Rich book talking about how they had dangerous unstarts in flight, so they finally figured out that, rather than fix the problem, they just automatically dropped the opposite engine thrust by a similar amount, and then the pilot could press autostart the unstarted engine. Didnt always work though... https://www.historynet.com/unstart-over-murmansk/

Its the naval aviator Moustache, bullets just bounce right off.

That may be it then.

Thats cool, I wasnt very clear. Well of course so would I. But is that enough reason to develop it based on a handful of people. Sadly not. And its a real shame, because you could fly some truly interesting, worldbeating in some cases, aircraft off the Ark. Buccaneer, Sea Vixen. I think a Sea Hawk would be massively popular as well. But is the return going to be worth the fiscal cost of development. Sadly, probably not.

The British F4's were originally intended for air defence of the UK and the Fleet. I think Air Defence over West Germany was originally fulfilled by Lightnings, just as it was over Akrotyri. Bear in mind, we only bought something like 12 F4J's, it was purely to help fill out the requirement of deploying a flight down to the Falklands (which themselves would have been non F4J's). From the article in Flypast, the RAF F4J's were just doing air defence of the UK. They may well have done dogfighting in that time, and I read they certainly did (Including once remarkably with a Spitfire..) against over NATO nations over the UK, but it doesnt mean it makes sense to activate slats which would have made them wholly dissimilar to the rest of the RAF Phantom fleet. It was bad enough having different engines. Hey, just repeating what I read. Im sure the RAF had their reasons, but along with other detail changes, the F4J had the slats locked out. From what they said, they received incomplete documentation (Or at least poorly photocopied) and it was an absolute pain at times getting parts. They did like them though, they were rather faster than the Spey powered Phantoms.

RAF were using these Phantoms for air defence of the UK, so dogfighting really didnt come into it. They seem to have wanted something with decent performance, relatively decent range (Im looking at you EE Lightning...) and the ability to carry Skyflash for Bomber plinking. I was surprised myself, but it was mentioned in a recent article in Flypast magazine IIRC.

Im surprised nobody has mentioned missile ships. Both Norway and the USSR had small fast attack antiship missile boats. They were very fast, could attack other ships from a great range, and, to the great satisfaction of pilots, had limited air defences meaning you can beat up on them and probably survive. Also, dont forget antiship missiles batteries. The whole area was a military fortress, and any Carrier approaching Kola, if it comes too close to the coast, risks these things being fired off. And of course, they are another useful target to beat up on. Much as I love submarines, I cant see any utility in them except as targets tied up to the quay. You need an asw model, functional ASW torpedo's, RBU's, a workable asw model, and functional asw helo's and aircraft. Whilst I would like all that, considering how long it takes to get the engine updated, not to mention the dynamic campaign, I think that probably ought to be considered the next decades update. Id pay for a crewable Nimrod of course....

The British did some other strange things to the F4J, like locking out the slats. Perhaps it was for maintenance reasons, to create a similarity with the rest of the F4 fleet. Would like that variant of course, but I guess for Heatblur its the law of diminishing returns. You put more in, than you create value. After all,how many non Brits out there want a UK specific F4J or K?

That was certainly part of it. But from what ive read, Gatlings are inherently prone to dispersion, Im presuming due to the vibration. What vibration the cannon has, would seem predominantly to be fore and aft.

I remember a book I read some years ago on NATO air weapons, and the conclusion was that for AA work, a cannon is better (particularly the 27mm mauser), but for A/G work, a gatling gun was judged to be better because it had greater dispersion. This was particularly true of the podded gun (which I think was also an M61 wasnt it?) that the F4 carried on the centreline. Ive no particular view about whether the F14 has enough dispersion or not (I cant seem to hit a damn thing with it, so you can judge that how you like...) just that generally you should expect wider dispersion than, say, the twin cannons in the F5, because its a nature of the beast. Its a higher rate of fire, and a wider dispersion generally.

Flyable Ju88. Would make a nice counterpart to the Mosquito. As for an all new one, it would probably be the Me109G6, just because its far more likely an opponent for Normandy than the K4 (love it though I do).

If they are going after the foot enthusiast, they really should have an option to give the pilot high heels.

Has anyone had a similar situation, where (using VR) it freezes for about 4 or 5 seconds, and then unlocks again without crashing? Always seemed to happen when I was looping through a cloudbase. Several months ago ED boasted of a performance boost for VR, and it seems about maybe a month and a half ago, it lost it. Ive been chasing lower settings on the F14 ever since, which is obviously the most hogworthy of all the DLC, because its so good.

First off, put it in ACM mode. It doubles the fire rate of the gun. Secondly, I find putting on declutter display really helps. There is a lot in the hud that is a distraction from the only bit that really matters, the gun cross. If you declutter, I find generally im more accurate in shooting.