Barrett_g

After the Razbam debacle I decided to “get my money’s worth” and started flying the Harrier again. Last week it was the small knob. After the latest update, it’s the bigger knob. Maybe the previous fix was unfixed and now it’s fixed again? Lol!

Knew I wasn’t crazy! Check out the 1:39 mark! Definitely the small knob before this latest patch…. Not sure if it was the patch of the hotfix… but now it’s the larger knob. Now the question is… how did this knob change when there were no updates to the Harrier?

Guess no one flies this thing anymore…

Or am I miss-remembering…. Or do I need to run a repair on my game install? I could have sworn pre latest update that the volume knob for the sidearm growl was the smaller of the two “stacked” volume knobs. Post update, it seems to be the bigger one.

Maybe we can get chocks some day!

Okay so you can’t just buy the PCB’s, you have to give that file to PCBWay and they’ll make them for you, correct?

I must have overlooked where to get the pcb for the alps switch. Anyone have a link?

Understanding how trim tabs effect the flight surface also helps you understand why the P-47 had elevator reversal above 500+ mph. At those higher speeds, the airflow over the ailerons are so strong, the wing actually flexes. The aileron acts as a trim tab and the wing flex acts as the control surface. Pretty wild when you think about it!

This may be something you intend to do in the future, and the current iteration is just a simple WIP quick release run…. Hell! This mission editor GUI issue may not even be up to Razbam…. It might be an Eagle Dynamics choice. Anyways… I thought I’d share my thoughts on this new feature: If we want to input a pre-loaded target, we click the “Navigation Target Points” icon, and we’re given a huge editable text box. This HUGE box is available so we can type: MX.Y/HXXX/AXX/VXXX The problem is, I can never remember the order or the values. Or what exactly I’m supposed to type. I always end up having to get my phone out and open up the manual to page 501 for a refresher. It would be much more user friendly if the editable text box was smaller and there was a brief description preceding the text box: Set and Mission number M[X].[Y] Terminal Heading (0 to 359) H[XXX] Dive Angle (65 to 89) A[XX] Terminal Velocity (700 to 1200) V[XXXX] Anyways…. Like I said this may already be in work… but if not I think this suggestion would really help! Thanks!

Did they ever add a neutral position for the landing gear? We need that position so we can operate the flaps with the hand pump.

Can we get an explanation of the tunnels? Are they able to be navigated using Combined Arms? If you drop a bomb near one, will it collapse? If so, does this slow down AI ground forces? Sorry, this is the first I have ever heard of tunnels in a map, and I just don’t understand what the tunnels are for and how they affect gameplay.

I think RAF Bisterne Airfield would be a great addition to Normandy 2.0. The 371st Fighter Group operated 3 squadrons of P-47’s, (the 404th, 405th, and the 406th) out of Bisterne Airfield in the spring of 1944. Their first combat mission was April 12, 1944. They flew fighter sweeps, armed reconnaissance, interdiction, and escort of heavy and medium bombers leading up to D-Day. On D-Day, they flew 2 combat missions of 112 sorties, dropping 275 bombs weighing 500 pounds each (over 68 tons) and firing nearly 50,000 rounds of .50-caliber ammunition at enemy targets. The following days after the landings, 371st FG covered the allied troops on the ground as they organized and geared up for further inland assault. On June 21st, the 371st forward deployed to ALG A-6, where they took part in Operation Cobra. ALG A-6 is already modeled in Normandy 2.0. With ALG A-6 already being modeled in N2.0, it would make sense to model RAF Bisterne so that we could use our P-47’s to simulate their pre D-Day missions. RAF Bisterne was located 2 miles south of Ringwood. https://www.hampshireairfields.co.uk/airfields/bis.html

Another vote for Ugra Media. I have no doubt they will continue to fill out and improve Normandy 2.0. They’ve really done a great job despite Eagle Dynamics restrictions on the Channel Map area. It’s a shame Eagle Dynamics has sandbagged the WWII Asset Pack development as well. We’ve got a really good map and we’re still stuck chasing the same B-17’s and Ju-88 Torpedo bombers around. You’d think they could have added a B-24, B-25, or a He-111 by now!

The details on this map definitely warrant some consideration for DCS’ first full fidelity ground based module. A “Sherman Vs Panzer” module would be interesting!

For some reason none of the warbirds have chocks. I’d like to replicate this old training video from WWII:

THAT would be the other suitable scenario. If Eagle Dynamics don’t graciously step back and allow Ugra Media to take over the region, I’d want ED to release a statement that Channel Map 2 is in the works and covers the areas you mentioned. A map as big as Normandy 2 that shares a border. Otherwise, ED stubbornly staking a claim to such a little area and forcing 3rd party developers to release sub-par products is not good optics.

If Eagle Dynamics would graciously step back and allow Ugra Media to model the “Channel Map” area in high detail, it would: +remove a blemish on an otherwise PERFECT WWII map +finally unite the WWII player base with a single definitive map +relinquish Eagle Dynamics responsibilities in updating and bug-proofing the Channel Map in the future- leaving their devs more time to work on core game enhancements +squash a lot of the confusion that we saw when Normandy 2.0 was announced I think it’s win-win for Eagle Dynamics at this point. It’s a good PR move.

The Mosquito campaign has been in work for years. It’s been on hold because ED hadn’t released the official skin map for the Mosquito and Reflected didn’t want to release the campaign with sun-par skins.

My bad. I was thinking of the little airfield in Dunkirk. It was late and I knew it started with a “D.”

So airfields like Biggin Hill, RAF Manston, and Dover aren’t on the map at all? Or are they on the map, but in low detail? If they are on the map I’d like to see screenshots of those airfields, so we know “how low is low detail.” This is the first “2.0” of any map, as well as the first time two entities released DCS products that overlap… and I feel it’s been handled horribly. *The announcement that claimed it was an “upgrade” and fully compatible Vs the F.A.Q. saying it was all new and not compatible… *The whole “L-shaped” map: hi-res/low-res crap. *Why didn’t Ugra upgrade their map further West and let DCS expand their Channel Map further East? Instead they enveloped an area they aren’t even allowed to map fully. *Does DCS plan on a Channel 2.0? If not, why can’t Ugra model the Channel area in full detail? It’s all very frustrating.

There’s an upcoming free WWII Marianas map that might kickstart some WWII interest. There’s also a F4U Corsair and a Hellcat in the works. With the anticipated pivot to the Pacific Theater, what do our currently available P-47’s models need for a realistic Pacific deployment? Pacific Thunderbolts had RF loops, correct? Anything else?

What about a Ju-52 cargo plane? That should work for the time frame…. AND it gives the allied fighters something to shoot at!

Who owns the Eiffel Tower? As in, who would sue Ugra media for the inclusion on the Eiffel Tower? If licensing rights are what’s keeping Ugra from making a realistic rendering of the Eiffel Tower, I hope they at least make it easy for an end user to create a mod that replaces their “less than desirable” model with a realistic model that can: 1) be easily obtainable in the user files section. 2) pass online server checks

Another vote for toning down the green here… it needs to be a darker, maybe browner green.

I’d think any 3D modeler could make a He-111, a Vickers Wellington, and a B-25. Once the 3D model is made just use the already in place A-20G AI and flight model. Obviously you couldn’t do this with fighters that a player would dogfight with…. Each fighter flight model needs to be as close as possible….. But two engine medium bombers don’t have to have precise flight models.