iFoxRomeo

This bug also shows up when you simply de-fuel from 100% to 0%. Then you hear and see the fuel indicator drop, after 1-2s you hear a short 2nd defuel sound. But when you refuel again, you hear and see the fuel pumped into the tank till it is full. The 2nd refuel sound for MW50 doesn't stop. k4_endless mw50refuel.trk

"W" on a switch relieves your feet until chocks are available

True. ED was not obliged to take over the KS campaign. But they did take over the campaign. And the 262 was and is part of it. Check your bakers page. If you still have a module available. There you will see the 262. If ED decides to NOT make the 262 then they should simply position themselves. But as it is now, they don't say they're doing it, but they are also not saying that they are not doing it. So what's the status and are they going to keep their promise, or are they not? And "planned" is a hollow phrase. Everything is eventually planned if you run out of popular modules at some point in the future. The company that made the F/A-18C and F-16C should not be able to make the "simple" 262? Really? DCS is a game, a very sophisticated one, but still a game for entertainment. It is not rocket-science level, is it? (Yes Nineline, ED developers are not cookie cutters, and that's why I'm very confident, that the 262 is far from being the hardest task for them. A jet without the quirks of a high power prop, yet a simple aircraft without complicated avionics, so actually the Jet Team of ED could make the 262 and not the WWII team) I like DCS, and most of my PC-playtime goes to DCS. But there are enough areas that show me that it is still a pc-game. The US had their 262s, the Russians hat their 262s as well. I wonder why ED doesn't ask ZAGI for data about the 262. There is probably way more data for the 262 than for a P-47 out there, as the allies captured some 262 after the war to thoroughly examine it. Remember the CFD stuff for the P-47? ED does CTD for the missiles as they won't get the data from the manufacturers for obvious reasons. Not possible for the 262? The F/A-18 was made modular, so that it's components could be adjusted to represent a F-16. The same seems to apply now for the Hind and Apache. Now what prevents ED from taking the modules - engine, wings, airframe - making the adjustments necessary to get a 262? The avionics don't really differ from a K4. Heck even the Mk108 is already available in game. The story of the "prone-to-catch-fire" engines is exaggerated, because it was a totally new technology, and pilots where not used to it. How many radial engines got destroyed till pilots got used to their specific handling? The Yak-15 used a RD-10 engine which was a copy of the Jumo 004. It was used for prop to jet pilot conversion training, so that the pilots got to learn how to handle a jet engine. Again, ZAGI comes into my mind? What prevents ED from making educated guesses in those parts that are not available by data, like they do it for all the modules we have now? E.g. there is not a single flyable K4 or D9 available, but yet ED made them both, even without CFD. How many F-86 or MiG-15 did they have access to when they made them? I think it's the best PC sim we can get for money for a home PC, but please don't blow up ED's "usual standard" to rocket-science. It's a great piece of software, but we should keep our expectations on the ground considering what is possible on a PC regarding time-money-pc_performance. Fox

Is this something you were thinking of?late activation.miz The TF51 can't be joined unless the Hummer is in the vicinity of the Tower. It will drive to the tower once the mission starts, and then drive away again. As long as the hummer is inside the tower zone, you can join the 51, once it leaves you will stay inside the 51, but you can't rejoin. Order the hummer back to the tower and the 51 is available again. Hope that helps to understand the mechanics Fox

But the reason to add power could also be that he doesn't want to come to a stop because he knows that he'll use the brake for the turn while taxiing on grass. If you fly a (coordinated)turn you also anticipate the additional power necessary to stay at your altitude and speed while performing the turn, right? And just before leveling off you reduce the power, to prevent acceleration. He also kept some power while taxiing at some positions. It is hard to tell the reasons for a resulting action without knowing the intention and actions of the pilot and other factors like friction changes of the underground. There could also be a slight slope that would cause the P-51 to come to a stop while taxiing so slowly and turn without additional thrust. Just not visible enough on a GoPro fisheye. I could make a video with opposite ruder use while using the brake to turn and not showing my toebrakes. Without knowing my intentions and actions one could come to the conclusion that right rudder input causes a left turn. This would work with a P-51 of Bf109, etc. but never with a Spitfire. There you have to use the rudder for differential braking. If the rudder was the main means for turning, then you should turn sufficiently without the brake(as you should use it only when necessary), and stop the turn, but we can can hear the constant use of the brake and its "pffff" in the previous video. You can't turn a Spitfire without using the pedals, because the rudder and wheelbrakes are mechanically connected to the pedals, so it is hard to tell from a video what is the primary reason(rudder or brake) of the force that causes the aircraft to turn. So to come to the conclusion(of Kermit's video) that he added power to turn with the rudder is not necessarily the correct conclusion. It is a possibilty, but with enough uncertainties to not use it as a proof of your claim("he added power for the rudder to turn"). This way you automatically apply differential braking unless you completely release the brake lever. Can you taxy and turn without ever touching the brake lever? Fox

That was the situation when the very first DCS warbird P-51D was released. And back then people flew in a blue P-51D vs. red P-51D. Perfect game balance btw... You are right that you can demand and play the way you want it. No question about it. But Zius is also right that DCS is about the aircraft first, environment and opposition comes second. Often enough you complained about the lack of correct representation in the DCS maps. And that is perfectly legt. But the reality of DCS is still far away from timeperiod and location correct representation in these aspects. When did the A-10 fly combat missions in the Caucasus, Strait of Hormus, Normandy, Channel or Mariannas area? Syria is the first of the maps that represents a correct area of operations for the A-10, though I'm not sure the A-10 we have is the period correct version. And this applies for the majority of the modules. Your request for time and place correct aircraft and opposition is good, but obviously that is not ED's priority. p.s A computer game will give you wrong impressions about the realities of war. p.p.s. If ED starts the PTO the outlook for more period correct assets for the ETO will get even worse. We are still waiting for the C-47 for example. And if even the other sim's developers with presumably less detailed FMs are hesitant to create a PTO because the database is thin, how should that work out for DCS?

Could those who experience the presumed LTE post a track with an LTE event?

For Fw190 G-8: ADDITIONAL C3 injection, conversion kit necessary because the normal fuelpump in not capable to deliver enough fuel at 1,65ATA C3 fuel was used by the Fw190 in general. "simple" boost increase by adjusting the boost regulator for 1st and 2nd stage. No conversion kit necessary

Negative ghostrider. The D9 is an original ED module and was announced long before RRG came up with the KS project. Fox

How about posting the sources that suggest this behaviour?

There is the real K4 and there is the DCS K4. The real one was projected to switch off MW50 at 7,5km when equipped with the DB605DB/ASB You are right that it behaves differently in DCS. I think the DCS K4's supercharger is too effective at high altitude, but I can only base this on the charts from kurfurst.org. Unfortunately there is no chart that shows the course of the (DB)supercharger's pressure at altitude Fox

I don't have the manual of the K4, but the MW manual of the G-14 is quite clear about that and does not refer to the actual ATA drop, but altitude instead.

Depends how you define high altitude. Above FTH there is next to zero performance gain with MW50. So ~20-22kft for the D9 and ~26-28kft for the K4 is the point where the Pilot should disengage MW50 as it is a waste of MW above that altitude. Above FTH GM-1 would be usefull as it increases the amount of oxygen for the engine. But afaik neither the D9 nor the K4 used GM-1 Fox

Ich schliesse beim zoomen meistens ein Auge, dann belastet es nicht so sehr. Aber Seitwärts über das Seitenfenster zu hover hat bei mir glücklicherweise bisher nicht zu Problemen geführt

Hmm... then what is this for you if not any kind of promise?

No! Comparing the hard limits of TrackIR with VR shows that you don't understand the problem. You might not be affected by discomfort and nausea by a hard cockpit limit, but there are enough people that are affected. Separating the increasing number of VR users from "Flat" users is not a good idea. I agree with you that this topic is extremely exaggerated by a few loud people. Fox

This is just an example to demonstrate what I meant. How it would/should look like in a potential final version is a totally different topic. Does this version look better to you? (Youtube still processing HD version) Fox

Navigator only in this version

On your "personal section" at the bottom is a dropdown selection called "Licensing". There the Backers page is hidden. No, the Mossie is not part of it. But check the page nonetheless.

I really dislike the IL2 implementation of hard cockpit limits. For me it is annoying, causes discomfort and I always think my tracking system stopped working, because the virtual head stops unexpectedly, too early -> bad for my immersion. I do not move my head out of the cockpit in on purpose. But I understand that people do it. A) On purpose to get an advantage B) Unintentionally Now to adress these problems it might help to do two things: 1. Add a blurr/pixelize effect (but not blackout) to the eye/eyes that leave the boundaries of the cockpit. Server-side enforceable option, and for SP client-side option. 2. Add a hard cockpit boundary similar like the one in IL2. But NOT Server-side enforceable option, only as client-side option. This way all sides would get what they think are best for them and no one could "cheat" anymore by checking 6 outside of the cockpit if the server admin decides so. Example for pixelization: The pixelization starts, when the eye hits the glass and moves further out. Fox

Meine Güte, warum meinst du den A400 und seinen Einsatz verteidigen oder seine Probleme relativieren zu müssen? Bist du involviert in dem Ganzen? Rhetorische Frage. Ja dieser Satz ist schlecht formuliert, weil er zulässt, dass man das verstehen kann, was du eben darin verstanden hast. Daran brauchst du dich aber nicht festbeissen. Gleich in dem Post danach, habe ich versucht klarzustellen, welche Flüge ich meinte. Ist das wirklich so unverständlich, auch jetzt nachdem ich mehrfach geschrieben habe, was ich gemeint hatte? Personaltransport INNERHALB Malis. Nur davon rede ich. Egal. Ich hab genug.

Ich habe geschrieben, dass die dt. A400 nicht regelmäßig in Mali (für Personentransport) innerhalb Malis eingesetzt werden. Ich habe nicht behauptet, dass keine A400 Flüge von Ausserhalb nach Mali und vice versa stattfinden. Siehe: Habe ich, sogar mit Link zum AG Artikel, den du ursprünglich verlinkt hattest. Wo ich noch hinzugefügt hatte, dass es immer noch so ist, du aber das negiert hast. Und jetzt stimmts also doch was ich geschrieben hatte?! Von "gar nicht eingesetzt" hatte ich auch gar nicht geschrieben. Also lieber den wertvollen A400(konzipiert für Krieg und Krise, also mit Beschuss und so) aufgrund nicht ausreichend vorhandener Schutzausstattung (für die es -so wie ich das beurteile- keine Hinweise gibt, dass sie notwendig wäre) NICHT einsetzen und lieber die Soldaten in zivilen Maschinen mit zivilen Besatzungen(nicht für Krieg und Krise konzipiert und nicht dafür ausgebildet) 950km quer durch ein Kriesengebiet fliegen lassen... Okay. Es gab schon schlechtere Ideen, aber diese ist vorne mit dabei... Und nur damit das klar ist, das ist ja nicht deine Idee gewesen(hoffe ich).

Okay, doch noch n Nachschlag, falls du damit was anfangen kannst. https://ted.europa.eu/udl?uri=TED:NOTICE:297859-2020:TEXT:EN:HTML&tabId=1

Ich lass es ab hier gut sein. Ich werde hier sicherlich keine Primärquellen nennen, würdest du ohnehin nicht glauben. Falls du Soldaten kennst, die in Gao waren/sind, frag die mal.