Lixma 06

The reticle projected onto the REVI glass is constrained in a circular area. Shouldn't the reticle be visible out to the edges of the glass?

You can probably find combat reports of any type of aircraft out performing any other type in certain situations. The trouble is it's almost entirely subjective. These are not carefully controlled flight tests - they are the clipped accounts of men who were fighting for their lives. How good was the enemy pilot? What was the condition of his aircraft? How much fuel/ordnance was he carrying? What was the enemy's initial energy state? What was yours? etc.....etc.... You cannot build a flight model out of memories. WingsOfAtlantis's post not only cherry picks quotations and takes them out of context, he also conveniently omits the vast amount of available pilot reports and test data that paint a completely different picture to the one he's promoting. Here's an example.... WOA would have you believe a Fw-190 could out-turn a Hurricane based on a single report. Well here's a whole raft of combat reports claiming the P-51 could easily out-turn the Fw-190. http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/combat-reports.html Therefore both the P-51 and Fw-190 could turn inside the Hurricane! Who knew? But, the biggest red flag is this.... So - not only do you have to ignore a huge amount of contrary data, both contemporaneous and modern, you need to accept WOA's revolutionary understanding of flight physics. Step aside Kelly Johnson, Kurt Tank, Reginald Mitchell.....this is a new era! Sadly after many years this amazing scientific revolution has been unable to gain much traction..... https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/mw-50-bf-109s-vs-fw-190-a.32158/#post-880392

MAC is arguably a bigger development task right now - converting DCS modules, shrinking maps, creating a new interface etc.

e: also the left wing underside is a different colour to the rest. don't know if that's intentional

OK.

Shouldn't there be an increasing amount of air-frame buffeting as the aircraft approaches the speeds at which stuff begins falling off? I've noticed that despite the huge speeds during a dive the ride remains very smooth. I honestly have no idea whether realistically there should be some sort of buffeting/vibration at these 'terminal' velocities, hence the question.

Yeah, it's more out of academic interest rather than any practical (combat) value. I've been speed testing the 51 under various throttle, RPM, oil, and radiator settings but I was never sure whether 'un-listed' MP/RPM combinations were actually harming the engine.

So a Spitfire can't turn with a Hurricane - but a Fw-190 weighing an extra ton with almost double the wing loading can? Is this the thesis here?

If I were to run at, say, 2550rpm 41" (appx. halfway between m.cruise and m.continuous) would that be safe to run without causing damage? Or doesn't it work like that?

Eject (or crash) - hit Escape - Briefing - Fly. It doesn't reset the mission but you will re-spawn in the correct place.

+1 ED please consider it.

1070ti

I've DDU'd it twice now - same thing. I'll give .91 a try, though - thanks for the heads-up. e: and .91 is pants, too. Ah well, no biggie. 417.71 seems to be the breaking point - I'll stick with these for a while.

When the usage hits 100% the frame rate drops under 60 (synced) which is bad. I run my setup with lots of spare overhead so this doesn't happen, but these latest drivers have just robbed a chunk of it. My GPU is now working 20% harder for zero benefit.

This is offline - and the 'use these options for all missions' thingy is (and always has been) un-checked.

It might be user error on my part but when I enable labels I can only get either 'Full' or 'Off'. Changing the setting to 'Abbreviated' or 'Dot' does nothing.

My GPU usage has jumped from 60% to 80% in my benchmark mission. I've rolled back to 417.35 and everything is good again. Anyone else seeing this?

Yes, the view limits are not taking into account a real head wearing a real helmet.

And a bump for this too. The gauges are ridiculously hard to read....I'm assuming they are on the to-do list? I don't believe for a second we got into 1943 without somebody tweeting Supermarine about it.

I'm using keys, though. The only available axis I have springs back to the centre.

Bump for this - it's a nightmare trying to dial in just a small amount of rudder trim - the plane ends up swinging left to right. The elevator trim is OK so why not the rudder?

Will the D-9 get similar lighting upgrade?

The current 'Head Movement by G-forces' option is OK but some adjustability would be nice. At around 5:40 in the video you can see the bouncing and vibration from hitting the runway - very immersive! Also, the turbulence effects in the video look terrific. +1000 from me.

I only caught this because a stray 50.cal pinged me during a mission. It knocked out my oil gauge but the mission debriefing disagreed, saying it was the coolant indicator that failed. It seems the two gauges have their wires crossed somewhere. In the mission editor I arrange a failure of the oil gauge, but in-game it's the coolant gauge that breaks. The post-mission debriefing nevertheless insists that it was the oil gauge that malfunctioned. FW-190D oil-gaugeD.miz