Nealius

Adding more data to the pile. A clump of Mk82s, some airbursting due to the first impact, 100% destroyed an entire SA-3 site without actually hitting any units. (The P-19 in the top right was taken out earlier by a HARM). I expect shrapnel to shred the track radar and the nearest launcher. I expect perhaps some damage to the other 3 launchers but not 100% damage. At this point it's like an arcade game. Toss a Mk82 with a DSU-33 within a 150m radius of a SAM site and you can take the entire battery out with ease.

Except it doesn't, particularly on bolters.

Sometimes even slower than that. Vipers and Phantoms do it at 175kts which is ridiculous.

Which all say cowl flaps closed in the pattern yet if you do that you'll overheat your cylinder heads.

The airbase environs circle for ATC comms, etc. is not centered on the runway. The runway itself appears to be a highway strip, however there's no highway connected to it. There is also no parking available.

On MAP view FRG 25 is showing where it should be, within West Germany. However on ALT view the drawn border differs, and shows FRG 25 in East Germany.

I agree, hard limiters are unrealistic AND a game-breaker considering none of the AI are beholden to the same limitations. They get to run at WEP until they run out of fuel with zero consequences while we have a dead engine for going 1" over on MP--on a gauge that's so spastic you can't even tell what MP you're pulling--for 1 second over some hard-coded time limit.

AI decisions/actions aren't recorded. The AI is still "alive" in the replays. Essentially the only thing being replayed is your aircraft.

I don't recall seeing an A6M5 mentioned in the changelog.

The Mk81, while used extensively in Vietnam, was no longer produced afterwards. The USN gray ablative coating didn't come about until 2002, during which Mk81s were no longer in service nor produced. Furthermore, the three yellow stripes are only used on the BLU-110 (Mk83) and BLU-111 (Mk82). No BLU- designation exists for the Mk81 at all. If any ablative coating is to be applied at all, it would be the green color with two yellow stripes indicative of the 1980s-2002 period between Vietnam and the introduction of the gray color, though I cannot find any photographic evidence of a Mk81 with ablative coatings at all.

With the MP needle spastically bouncing around up to 5" on the gauage how do we know precisely where we need WEP?

Bumping this because there's still something not right with the sonic boom effect. It should occur at M1.0 but it often occurs at M0.96 or thereabouts, regardless of module being flown.

Something is still a bit weird. With fog set to 105,000ft (17.3nm) I can't visually ID a runway until 36,456ft (6nm; judged by nav waypoint on the runway).

I've found the cargo bay lighting knob and switches in at the ramp station, but there's no mouse interaction yet. I also mapped the knob and 3-position switch commands in the ramp station controls, but nothing I do will turn on the cargo bay lighting. What am I missing?

Wow, I didn't even think to check the bottom.

TACAN got fixed but it seems like a lot of other stuff got broken. Prior to this update she flew great. Rock steady even with hands off. Now the nose wobbles all over the place like there's turbulence when the mission has no turbulence. When landing it's like the ground sucks her in, with no amount of collective cushioning the touchdown.

Going through the model viewer it appears all the British bombs are modeled with only a single lug.

I had the same problem as OP. Sniper pod was missing, HTS pod was also missing. Litening pod texture was okay, though. In my case there was no mod conflict, there was just some kind of hiccup in the update download process. A slow repair resolved it for me.

I'm on a 20cm extension and have no complaints regarding any "expense of fidelity." It feels comparable to the P-47, P-51, and A-8 on the same hardware.

P-47 stall speed with flaps up is 99kts or thereabouts. Going vertical for a 2000ft altitude gain then nosing over for level flight without losing much more than 100ft in the process at 83kts with flaps up, two bombs, and two bazooka rocket racks is a violation of physics.

My experience with the AI is that the FM is so deplorable that they're not even worth fighting. I've seen P-47s go pure vertical from 200ft to 2000ft, info bar showing 83KCAS, no stall behavior whatsoever, and just accelerate back to normal 200KCAS flight with no loss in altitude.

I had this issue at first and found that it was some interaction between the .50s and the turbulence setting in my mission. When I disabled turbulence the nose wipping stopped.

For one, it's not a turn fighter so stop flying it like one? Get altitude. Dive down on your opponent. Hit him and run. That's the basic play book for just about every warbird in DCS except the Spitfire and maybe the K-4.

This is complete fiction. I have every warbird (except the I-16) and every single one of them, including the Corsair, reacts to torque above stall speed. First you make a claim relative to stall speed and now you've changed that claim to be relative to 120kts. Which is it? Furthermore, we don't have any warbirds with greater than 2,000hp. The P-47 and F4U have engines that are rated to 2,000hp (no more) but the hp you actually get is going to vary greatly depending on altitude and power settings. All the other warbirds we have are in the 1,700 range and that's at WEP. Additionally, the criticisms using that "Taming the beast" video as evidence are blatantly ignoring the context in order to fit their own confirmation biases. First, that's a British clipped wing corsair. Then someone jumps in the standard non-clipped module and attempts to make a comparison but it's an invalid comparison because they're in the wrong aircraft. Second, in the real footage of landing practice you can see that there's no stall strip installed on the starboard wing (19:55), which further invalidates any attempted comparison to what's in that video to the DCS module. Third, the pilot interviews don't specify what timeframe these happened. Most likely it was pre-stall strip installation. Which brings me to the fourth point, the "flipping on it's back" is NOT caused by torque alone! It's caused by a combination of torque and the port wing stalling before the starborad wing, which is the whole reason we have that stall strip in the first place.

What's strg?