Nealius

I own all the warbirds except the I-16 with god knows how many hundreds of hours accumilated among them and I did not find the Corsair to be exceedingly easy in takeoff or landing. On the takeoff roll it behaves somewhere between the Spitfire and the Mustang. Not quite as squirelly as the Spit, but not as stable as the Mustang. Landing was about on par with the Jug. However the tire friction physics seem to still be wip, as they're sticker compared to all the ED warbirds, which tend to slide laterally as if they're on ice during takeoff/landing rolls. Once airborne you need to jump on the rudder trim and get that ball centered promptly or the torque will spin you into the trees, as it did the person who took off just before me in the server.

I started her up more-or-less the same way as I did the P-47 and had no issues: 1. Cowl flaps open 2. Fuel selector on main tank 3. Prop pitch full fine (aft) 4. Throttle cracked open about 2cm/1in 5. Battery on 6. Fuel pump on 7. Primer 5 seconds 8. Mags to both (full port) 9. Hold starter, after the prop made 3 or 4 full revolutions I set mixture to auto-rich (middle position) And she was purring after that.

Typical (emphasis on "typical") click logic in DCS is that left click is down/left, right click is up/right. However a few modules like the A-10C and I think a few switches in the Tomcat and Viggen depart from this logic.

The IR search light does work under NVGs. The red illumination doesn't project more than a couple of feet without NVGs.

Ah, would that wear/tear/condition system generate different levels of wear-and-tear between the live flight and the replay?

Bug caused by the flood lights. Turn down/off flood lights and it will go away.

The shaking is caused by desync between the sim and the position update, with the position update overriding what the sim wants to make the aircraft do. I've noticed engaging the autopilot will almost always cause it, though I've seen high-G (7-8G) maneuvers briefly cause it as well until the sim/position info agree with each other again. It seems to happen with the Phantom moreso than with any other module. Close second would be the Mi-24 and Mi-8.

The only sure way to have statics and avoid handler/director issues is to use uncontrolled AI spawning on the slots. The drawbacks to this are that you have little to no control over where they spawn, you get jets spawned where there should be helo parking, you can't add cranes or tugs, and the spawn slot sizing issues online causes "delayed to start" issues with Tomcat clients. Who then, once spawned in, have their fuel weight doubled from an unsquashable bug that's been around for the better part of 5 years now, severely degrading their flight performance.

We've only got 62nm with which to utilize a carrier group, which is disappointing.

Given the original mission parameters of low cloud cover, I'm curious, does our Hornet currently model the GBU-24's unguided CCIP-esque delivery profile that uses the FPM as a pipper?

NOSE for an LGB should dud the bomb. The nose fuse well is taken up by the battery for the guidance system. NSTL or TAIL has worked with 100% reliability for me.

Recent news seems to indicate that the release will only include the Essex and 8 IJA ground units with the release. What exactly are we supposed to do air-to-air combat with in this thing if there's no AI IJA/IJN assets being released with it?

I'm surprised anyone is using dynamic weather as it's no longer officially supported since we got the volumentric clouds. Even before that support was de facto nonexistent on account of having zero method to generate or read localized weather reports, and no way to generate clouds without extensive lua edits that also caused 30kt surface winds. As a weather model it's fundamentally broken.

I set mission wind to 180 "to." Will test with other wind directions. My question is, though, how is wind changing mid-mission? To my knowledge there is no way to change wind direction/speed mid-mission.

People are overthinking the math on the angle of wind. "No crosswind" means natural wind straight down the angled deck's axis. That's it. As long as the carrier is moving there will be axial winds going from right-to-left. This is normal, and is not meant to be canceled out by any fancy math like that calculator on github (or even the airboss script). In fact at lower natural wind speeds those calculators will totally f--k up your groove turn. There are axial wind (crosswind relative the angled deck) allowances up to 7kts, but under normal operations natural wind goes straight down the angled deck[1][2][3] As to the rest, here you can see the headings on the Airboss displays appear to be True, not Magnetic. Wind is showing as "to" instead of "from," like in the mission editor wind settings. I suspect this is an error as Western convention for wind is always "from" regardless of aviation or simple civil meteorology. If the mission wind changes and it is not reflected in the briefing, then note the "wind bearing," find the reciprocal, add 9. That is the bearing you must set the carrier for recoveries. The "crosswind" display appears to be crosswind relative to BRC, not to the angled deck, though I need to test again to be sure. Depending on natural wind speed you will have a crosswind indicated on that display due to the axial winds caused by the ship's movement, but those should be less than 7kts. [1] CNATRA P-1211 [2] The Burble Effect: Superstructure and Flight Deck Effects on Carrier Air Wake [3] Aircraft Carrier Operating Procedures For DCS World 2.5 (which uses CNATRA and NATOPS sources)

Natural wind direction would be 298. US Navy procedure is to put wind straight down the angled deck, so BRC would be (natural wind direction)+9. Therefore 307 would be the correct BRC. Advanced math not required.

In the map select "MAP" mode and look for rectangular shaped restricted airspace and that's where they usually are. There's one about equadistant between Fulda airfield and Giebelstadt airfield.

Yes, but does that mean that DDR only had SA-3s and SA-5s? Were there no SA-2s or other systems in the DDR?

The thickness I can deal with, the tallness though is an issue, particularly on grass strips that should be cut much, much shorter.

I imagined that would be the case, especially for SA-2s, but all I can find are SA-3 style setups with the four pads fanning out from a central track radar position.

Looking through all the SAM site infrastructure I can't really identify what type of SAM system they are supposed to represent. The West German side only appears to have a single type of setup: Two raised berms for radar and 3 launch pads connected to each radar berm. It looks similar to a Hawk site to me, but the Hawk system has four radars yet we only get two raised berms? The East German side seems to have two types. One is fairly obviously SA-5, but the rest appear to be SA-3 in design. But again we only get one raised berm for the radar when there should be two. Where are the SA-2 sites? AAA/Fire Cans? Surely there were other SAMs and AAA sites particularly in East Germany.

Why do we even have spawnable points on gliderports/grass areas anyway? Those shouldn't be available for anything other than WW2 props and it isn't a WW2 map.

Each blade of grass is about as thick as my thigh too.

Did no one test this or think this through? Having them scale smaller as the user zooms in and/or giving the layer transparency so the user can actually see what's under it is common sense...

Did you get signal charlie?