tapi

Well, this proposal considers a very long development time for a new aircraft from ED and limited resources of the developer. That is why I tried to limit the number of necessary new planes to an absolute minimum to satisfy approximately (not precisely) even aircraft performance and historically correct scenarios. This approach is inevitably a kind of compromise far from ideal but IMHO usable for reasonable combat scenarios. A) England & France (January-June 1944) Map: The Channel Luftwaffe: Fw 190A-8, Fw 190F-8, Bf 109 G6-Late, AI: Ju 88 A-4 Allies: Spitfire Mk. IXC, P-51D Mustang, P-47D-30 Thunderbolt, Mosquito FB Mk. VI AI: B-17G, A-20G, B) Invasion (June-October 1944) Map: Normandy Luftwaffe: FW 190 A-8, Fw 190F-8, Bf 109 G6-Late, AI: Ju 88 A-4 Allies: Spitfire Mk. IXc, P-51D Mustang, P-47D-30 Thunderbolt, Mosquito FB Mk. VI AI: A-20G C) Late-War Scenario (September 1944 - may 1945) Map: The Netherlands and Rhineland map Luftwaffe: Bf 109K4, Fw 190D-9, Me 262A, Fw 190F-8 Allies: Tempest Mk. V, Spitfire Mk. XIV, P-51D Mustang (with 150-grade fuel), P-47D-40 Thunderbolt (with 150-grade fuel) Notes: - of course, there are some other not mentioned overlaps of a/c types among scenarios - I just tried to intentionally create minimal planeset for every scenario - I consider Mosquito as nearly finished and Me 262 as an in-progress project - 4 new player-controlled planes needs to be created: Bf 109 G6-Late, Fw 190F-8, Tempest Mk.V and Spitfire Mk. XIV (griffon, bubble canopy), (note: to minimize cost and resources it is necessary to choose between Typhoon and Tempest - IMHO for the late war scenario Tempest V is mandatory for allied fighters to counter late war Luftwaffe fighters but Typhoon for other scenarios is not mandatory because there are other allied ground attack planes: Mosquito and P-47. - AI Ju 88 A-4 would need an upgrade for carrying conventional ordnance (not only torpedos) - The Channel map would need a little upgrade to meet better the first half of 1944 appearance (and some performance optimization too) - A new late-war map would be necessary but maybe of the smaller scale than the similar map in the other WWII sim EDIT: for at least late-war scenario allies should have 150-grade fuel to better match performance against Luftwaffe late-war fighters Conclusion: 4 new planes and 1 new map should help to make three historically more or less correct scenarios with more or less contemporary & performance even adversaries that should be playable as offline campaigns or as online server scenarios If we consider following development rate: a map = 3 years, a single-engine a/c = 1 year, then we could be there in 3-4 years (190 F-8 should be done much more easily thanks to existing A- 8 ) :-) P.S. I do not consider eventual impossibility to create the a/c due to the lack of sources/materials/restored examples - which may of course happen... My personal opinion: I would prefer the above-mentioned path of development for the next few years over some shift to early WWII years (e.g. Battle of Britain) or even to the Pacific theatre. Because IMHO it is better to have fewer historically & performance correct scenarios in a relatively complete state than many but not finished scenarios or a single mismatch scenario not ready for reasonable gameplay - I understand DCS as a combat sim and not only as a gallery of independent study level aircrafts. BTW introduction of the new DM undoubtedly confirms that this understanding should be correct :-) Any comments, critics and opinions welcomed PLS no flames only constructive discussions, THX And especially if you agree or if you have a similar view for the future development of DCS WWII please leave a comment to let ED know about the interest among the players. THX EDIT: P.P.S If I should prioritize the above mentioned new items according to their benefit to actual gameplay, here is my list: 1. Bf 109 G-6 (because it makes A and B scenarios immediately playable) 2. The Channel map optimization 3. 150-grade fuel for allied fighters (because that makes C scenario playable though not on an appropriate map) 4. Tempest Mk. V 5. new late-war map 6. Fw 190 F-8 7. Spitfire Mk. XIV

I am receiving notification emails for every post from every topic of the section "Input and output". In the past, I may have subscribed this whole section for a while but now it is certainly not in the list of my active subscriptions (I checked it) buy yet I am receiving notifications of "input and output" from the new forum since it's introduction a few days ago. To forum admin: would you pls cancel this particular bunch of notifications for me? Thank you.

Ah :-( anyway thanks for the info.

These ABWURF BEHÄLTER containers should contain SD1 or SD2 bombs for AB250 and SD4 bombs for AB500. These containers were designed to be "opened" with a small charge in a certain height in order small SD bombs cover some space. Is there some rules about height, speed and angle to drop these containers properly? I tried dropped them from different heights but get no visual activation or detonations...

I am experiencing "head out of the cockpit" since the time I started to use TrackIR Z-axis for zoom. But not everytime. Most frequently while flying on online servers.

Yes, I know about multi-turn pots, but some gear would be necessary anyway because of the point 1) from the first post, i.e. robust construction cannot be based on a weak pot axis. There is a need for much stronger axis for trim wheel. So, with multi-turn pots I should use 1:1 gear anyway. So why not use the gear ratio that gives me exactly 2 turns (to comply with most common range of warbirds trims) instead?

Your WWII trim wheel looks great! Would you tell us more about them? 1) Are they 1:1 to pots or they are geard to allow more precise movements? (thinking mainly about the big elevator trim wheel) 2) Is there any decent resistance while turning weels? (to prevent unwanted turning by accidentally touching the wheels)? More about the search for perfect trim wheels see this thread pls: How to make realistic WWII era trim wheels?

Yes, good idea from GVL. Vitalij used pots for 3x360 degrees. The range of this trim is good. Point 3 from the initial specification in the first post is OK. But still there is a very low resistance of the wheels so the pilot must be very careful not to unintentionally touch especially the big wheel. So the points 1 and 2 from the first post are still not accomplished.

Download available here: http://dsteam.azurewebsites.net/SSA/beta/publish.htm

That is absolutely wonderful!!! Thank you very much f410! That is exactly what I needed: now I can start the engine with a nice rumble, while taxiing my a/c is nicely shaking as a response to my actual throttle settings but while airborne, rumble shaking is gone and the flight is nicely smooth. :thumbup:

That could be. I always fly with pitot heat ON and I also have Random failures OFF.

I had the same bug with P-47. Throttle back to Idle, climbed over the airfield to drop the speed before landing but the speed stick at cca 300 mph until my plane stalled completely.

Yep, early BoB fighters where already confirmed by ED but probably in a very distant time frame. As for the new Channel map, it is a mix of 1944 airfields (England) and earlier aerodromes (France). So the time scale of the map is somewhat uncertain...

Interesting - 9 full revolutions. Did not know the Cessna's trim has so many revs.

I have no problem with moving the thread. But I think that can do only admin, right?

Good quality metal gears from China: https://www.aliexpress.com/wholesale?catId=0&initiative_id=SB_20200520225256&SearchText=metal+gear+

Very nice and clear picture! Looks like we can expect the jug with the outfit for the best possible performance :thumbup:

@saburo great photos; helps to clear the thing, thx! The question is now this: R. Johnson in his book talks about "new propeller with broader blades" that was retrofitted to their Jugs and that helped a lot in vertical manoeuvres. What do you think, did he talk about the symetrical 13" CE or the asymetrical CE prop?

No no you misunderstood me. I have my effects set each differently, I do not mean the difference between effects. I mean relative strength of the whole set of effects. I use VoiceMeeter. When I move volume slider of output to the ButtKicker, ALL effects are stronger but each is still different according to the strength set in SimShaker for Aviators. The same influence on ALL effects has the volume knob on the buttlicker. So whenever I powered ON my PC and Turned ON ButtKicker I needed to fiddle with volume settings for Buttkicker and/or with volume settings of VoiceMeeter to achieve the desired strength of my set of effects. I wanted to avoid that and instead have a simple way to set the same relative level of effects every time I Power ON my PC... So I did this: 1) set Windows master volume to 75% 2) set volume of HRADWARE OUT in VoiceMeeter to the exact value (in my case -25) 3) set volume knob on Buttkicker to max 4) Set DCS volume to 50% 5) now I tuned volumes for individual Effect Setting for the Aircrafts in DCS. The above steps ensure the same relative volume of effects. The only thing I need now is to set Buttkicker Volume to 100% every time I start PC and sim. But unfortunately having Buttkicker volume set to 100% is obviously not desirable.... Problem si that Buttkicker volume cannot be set precisely, there are only + and - buttons... Precisely can be set only the min or max volume.

Yeah, Tempest is no.1 on my wishlist too :thumbup:

I have the same problem as @fredclan. I use 100% volume on my Buttkicker because I do not know another way how ensure THE SAME LEVEL of effects every time I start PC and Buttkicker. If it is true that Buttkuicker stops while on max volume, would you recommend us PLS the way how to ensure the same level of effects (if possible)? THX

Well, I think ED creates basically only one version for every type. I would not expect we will see some other P-47 variants.

Saitek Trim Wheel tested on DCS P-51

Nice geared trim wheel for C172 Range: from -2,25 to + 2,25 turns, i.e. 4,5 turns

Trim wheel from CD :) Seems to have long-range of the turns