AndyJWest

See this thread. It appears that the WW2 airstrip should be longer.

Could have been worse. Like the time Open Office refused to print anything on a Tuesday. Link

Some British carriers had hangers which weren't quite tall enough to accommodate standard F4Us with the wings folded, so the aircraft were modified to make them fit. I doubt it had much noticeable effect on performance.

Yup, like Dragon1-1 says, anything other than a simple lever (with a direct mechanical linkage) would add complexity. Remember, the basic design goes back to the late 1950s/early 1960s, with the Hawker P.1127 and Kestrel. They presumably found something that worked, and stuck with it. Given how much extra capability VSTOL adds to an aircraft, its remarkable how few changes they had to make to cockpit configuration to facilitate it. Other than the nozzle lever and STO stop, the only other 'special' control I can think of is the water switch - everything else is integrated into stick and rudder, used in the conventional sense. Simple is good.

Will a Hornet actually do 350 kt with speedbrake, gear and flaps all deployed? If they actually were. At 350 kt, you are 100 kt over maximum gear and flaps deployment speed, so they may not have come out at all. I'd check your throttle via the Windows controllers thingy, and if that doesn't show anything obvious, just carry on until it happens again. If it does, check to see what is actually happening in-cockpit, and save the track.

Was the throttle stuck, or could you move it to idle?

Would make sense, given that for catapult launch external tanks need to be either completely full or completely empty to prevent the fuel from slopping around.

'Should...should...should...' Why would either party act on what you think they 'should' do? If it was as simple as customers 'calling on' them to do things, we could have 'called on' them to settle the dispute months ago.

Don't think that was it, but it looks like it will do the job. Many thanks.

Yup. The difference in wind speed from sea level to deck height would make any mathematical solution trickier, if one was trying to be exact. In practice, negligible in regard to getting the wind down the deck though. I'm fairly sure I saw a tool of some sort for doing the calculation graphically somewhere on the forum. Anyone know where it is? If not, I could probably knock one up that at least gave a ballpark estimate for the optimum heading relative to the wind direction.

Wind speed and direction can vary with altitude.

If you go to the LSO station (LAlt-F9 is the default I think), the wind speed and angle (relative to the angled deck) are displayed. Wind 3 degrees to starboard of the angle, at 27 kt: As for the maths to work it out, it's a classic 'solution of a triangle' problem. If I can get my brain in gear, I'll figure out which particular case applies. Alternately, you can draw the relevant vectors to scale, and solve it that way.

I'm fairly certain that DCS uses true north rather than magnetic north as the wind direction datum. Ships heading will be magnetic. This can complicate things. Nope. If the ship is moving, you need the natural wind coming from the port side to get the resultant straight down the angle. And yes, math, or experimentation, is required since the correct heading depends on both the wind speed and the speed of the ship.

From the first post in this thread: "We dont want to state any time window for release as the mod is still far off and we want to get it right without having to skip steps to meet a set date". If someone is working in their own spare time on something you will get for free, "when it's ready" is an entirely appropriate response, in my opinion. And very likely the only answer they can give, in such circumstances, since work, personal life etc may have to take priority.

At a guess, depending on your definition of 'fixing', anything from 'some' to 'much, much more than it would be sensible to do'. At minimum, one could 'simply' turn the rain off entirely when the viewpoint was under cover. That requires the sim to check regularly whether any static object was directly above it: not something the sim normally needs to know, so inevitably adding to CPU usage, even if only marginally. At the other end of the scale, it would probably be theoretically possible to model the rain-masking effects of static objects much more realistically, by determining whether rain (which may not be moving vertically downward, due to wind) intersects any object, and cutting off the 'drops' graphic accordingly, so hangers etc (within a reasonable distance) would each have their own rain shadow. The resources needed (CPU and GPU) to do this would no doubt affect performance, to the detriment of FPS etc, and it would require a great deal of coding. If I were ED, I'd maybe look at adding the first option to a 'to do' list somewhere. And then tackle the higher priority stuff first. The second option would go on a 'no, not ever, never' list. I once commented, in relation to another sim, that "failure to model the entire universe is not a bug". The same applies here. DCS is an air combat simulator, and the number of things it neither models nor actually needs to in order to function effectively as one is uncountable. Sure, it would be nice if it didn't rain in hangers, but it's hardly game-breaking. And it certainly wouldn't belong anywhere near the top of most DCS users bugs-needing-fixing list, I suspect, if it should even be considered a bug at all.

I checked: DCS does model the effect of negative G on the fuel system. Sustained negative G leads to the left and right forward tanks draining, leading to 'low fuel' and/or 'engine' warnings. This takes considerably longer than the 10s prohibition (which again may not necessarily be fuel related), though I didn't actually time it.

Interesting. Note that you need to own a physical Stream Deck device to 'unlock' this. Reddit thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/elgato/comments/1kqq3b1/beta_megathread_virtual_stream_deck_onscreen/ I'm not sure how useful it will be in a DCS context, since you'll have to use the mouse to click the virtual 'buttons' (or place the virtual Stream Deck on a touchscreen monitor maybe?). There may be situations where it makes sense though. I'll maybe experiment a bit. I'd be interested to see what other people do with it.

The official documentation (can't link here, per forum rules) says that more than 10s of negative G is prohibited. This limit need not necessarily be fuel related, since engine lubrication etc may also be a factor. Not sure whether any specific failure is modelled, but I suspect not.

Any chance of a hint as to how much time we have for pointless speculation before the notes come out?

And the least likely version to draw the ire of the Russian authorities.

Yup. Early access will come later (at some unspecified time, and in some unspecified state).

It goes back a lot further than that. I've seen claims that Oleg Maddox, the creator of the original IL-2 series started it, by answering 'two weeks' whenever anyone asked him when new features were going to be added to the sim. I doubt that even that was original.

To get the wind over the deck directly down the angle for landing, you need to do some maths (I think I've seen a tool for this somewhere), or determine the course by trial and error, using the LSOs Display. The optimum BRC will depend on the wind speed and angle, and the speed of the boat. 27 kts, 3 degrees off from the angle. 31 kts, straight down the angle.

What specifically is wrong with the existing cockpit?

Which may well be a negotiating tactic. Or an attempt at one. As of now, I've seen no official statement that negotiations between ED and Razbam have stopped. Which may actually be relevant to your original question, since I suspect that other developers are unlikely to want to start work on anything that might directly compete with Razbam modules until the situation is resolved. And come to that, ED probably wouldn't be keen either, while they say they are still seeking a settlement. A Mirage III would be nice, but now probably isn't the best time to ask for it.