AndyJWest

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.

Where did you get 'Razbam has dissolved' from? They are currently involved in an acrimonious dispute with ED, leading to their modules being withdrawn from sale, but as far as I'm aware, they are still in business.

Meanwhile, back in WW2:

So, given the lack of any authorised fix for the 'buttons falling out' issue, the Tomcat is grounded? Given the willingness of the aviation industry to use tapes of various sorts for temporary external fixes, I'm not sure that lectures on the inappropriateness of scotch tape in this context is really justified. Anyway, either Heatblur based it on evidence, or they made it up, and I really can't think of any reason why they'd do the latter.

I'd be surprised if Heatblur didn't have verifiable evidence that tape was sometimes used, at least as a temporary fix. Is it ideal? No. Is it better than the buttons falling out? Yes.

I hope you aren't being serious. That's a photo of a Camel replica.

And a worthy opponent for the Dr.1, obviously.

A nice start, but a few comments: The way the canvas curves inwards between the wing ribs is grossly exaggerated: take a look at photographs. I hope that is WIP. The position of that compass makes no sense, since it would have to be horizontal to work. Take care not to get misled by replicas: they can be substantially different in construction, and simply wrong in minor details. When it comes to flight modelling, there's a flight simmer who owns and flies a DR1 replica powered by a genuine rotary engine, who might possibly be able to help out. I'd have to check with him first before giving further detail.

Depends on weight, wind, altitude, temperature etc. As ballpark figures (per MacDonnell Douglas, which may be a tad optimistic) , at max all-up weight (31,000 lb), sea level, with no wind, at 15°C, you'll need a minimum of 1,400 ft ground roll, and 3,000 ft to clear a 50 ft obstacle. That's assuming you can find a straight flat road that long. It would probably be easier if DCS didn't place centre dividers on so many multi-lane roads. The South Atlantic map has lots of short runways on the mainland, and a couple of what are effectively FARPs on the Falklands (Goose Green, San Carlos) which are just about long enough to be usable (at reduced loadouts) while being short enough to make things interesting.

Landing vertically isn't usually much of a problem. Taking off again with any sensible loadout is. And while it may be possible to find a bit of road suitable for STO on most maps, they aren't always easy to find.

Yup. Per the, ahem, 'manual', roll rate is reduced at high speeds to avoid exceeding structural limits.

Is there any evidence that AzurPoly (which seems to be their actual name) actually want to do business with ED? Developing for DCS is a very different proposition than for MSFS, and they may be perfectly happy doing what they already know best.

It does. And there is another, more subtle benefit: Extending airbrakes, and thus increasing zero-lift drag, 'flattens out' the IAS/drag curve at approach speeds, making an aircraft less sensitive to minor changes in pitch and/or airspeed. This effect is described in the RAF Central Flying School Manual of Flying Volume 1, pages 7-8, 17-18 (Download from UK government website here).

It should be noted that it is entirely possible for an aircraft with a 'flat bottomed' aerofoil profile (e.g. the classic Clark Y) to fly inverted. I've learned over the years to largely ignore explanations of lift that treat it as some sort of magical attribute of aerofoil profiles, or indeed of 'wings'. The simple fact is, if you have relative motion between any solid object and a fluid it is immersed in, and the object is asymmetrical perpendicular to the flow direction, there is liable to be a net force generated at right angles to the flow. Wings are just particular shapes chosen to exploit this as 'lift, while minimising 'drag', a force exerted on the object in the direction of flow.

Needs A FLUD.

Just try again. It was an issue at ED's end, not yours.

Tried that. No effect. EDs servers clearly can't cope with the load. Again...

I'm having the same issue. EDIT: Why the heck has this post been tagged as 'Solution'. Nothing is solved.

It's been that way for years.

Just think of the time, effort, and expenditure that could be saved if aircraft builders didn't have to install wings at all, and just installed an angle instead!

Gimme banana. Piasecki HRP Rescuer. Yeah, I know. No DCS map for it. I still want one.

Given the angle of the display impact line, I'm not surprised you are missing. I'd find a mission where you don't have a crosswind. Or at least bomb into wind. And then concentrate on using the proper technique, which is to place the velocity vector beyond the target, align the impact line with the target, and pickle as the CCIP impact cross walks up over the target. Having said that, cluster bombs have often been problematic in DCS, with issues both with aiming and with fusing. If you are new to CCIP, conventional low-drag iron bombs are easier to get consistent results with.

That has to be about the least helpful request for assistance I've seen.

What an absurd thing to get worked up over...

Had the same thing just happen in an F-14 (monitor, not VR), while lining up to drop a GBU-24 onto the Syrian Presidential Palace in Damascus from 35,000 ft. The palace was blinking in and out of view, while the buildings around it stayed visible. As I got nearer the issue went away, making me wonder whether it is some sort of LOD bug.