Art-J

One could argue that these "other sims" probably don't calculate even half of the stuff that works "under the hood" of DCS F-4E for example. There's no free lunch and I'm not sure I'd prefer improved atmospheric effects for a price of reduced aircraft systems fidelity. I don't think we're there yet to "have it all" with hardware currently available on the market.

Maybe it's a similar issue to the one PawlaczGMD had with his Moza?

^ They won't appear until you take a seat in the cockpit and use snapview key command for the first time (RAlt+Num0 ? Or sth like that, I don't remember, you'll have to google around). Then, the relevant aircraft section should appear in snapviews.lua file. For example, the Phantom section will begin with line: SnapViews["F-4E-45MC"] = {. Mind you, we're talking about snapviews.lua file located in your Saved Games/DCS/Config/View folder, not the one in actual game folder.

Mustang, Thunderbolt, Mossie. 4 still to go, unless either of them got it by accident without relevant patchnote but I don't think that happened.

"Nothing" as in - animation problem (they produce thrust but without flame animation), or they don't produce thrust either?

A little diversion was justified simply because your Spit assesment was not correct. "Our" Spit is roughly based on MH434 anyway, following the spec it featured all the way till the end of war and is more representative of majority of old workhorse LF Mk IXs serving in 1944 compared to new or Packard-converted ones. Back to your question re. Soviet planes, however. They're justified for the same reason Yak-52 and Christen Eagle are. Someone thought they were cool and wanted to fly them in DCS. That's all that matters. Octopus-G lead dev is a Russian guy (IIRC) who loves Russian warbirds, wanted to recreate and fly them in DCS game engine and couldn't care less if they fit any map or period scenario. Neither he should care as these are clearly his passion projects. Moreover, if the '23 Christmas teaser was correct, he will create Po-2 next. Whether it makes sense in DCS ecosystem and will sell well is irrelevant. You can't tell the guy to develop other, Normandy-fitting aircraft is he's just not interested in them. He makes what he likes and will simply not develop anything else. It's either have whatever something or have nothing situation. Same applies to Hurricane in my opinion. If we don't have it, to me that only means there are no devs interested in making one and that's that. Not fitting Normandy scenario very well probably is a factor, but a secondary one.

I think he means each trainer plane in DCS would be more fun and useful if it featured an equivalent of L-39 Kursant campaign from the get go. Campaign which by the means of strict waypoint and action triggers brute-forces you to learn basic airmanship skills and maintaint their consistency. I kind of agree with that. I've been playing sims from 1990's, but I'll honestly admit I still can't do consistent and proper landing patterns or ground attack profiles in any of them, everything I do is based on feel and eyeballing rather than following established procedures. Eyeballing still works allright but surely doesn't make me a good virtual pilot. Bought the Kursant campaign long ago to motivate myself to improve but still can't find enough spare time to learn my -39 thoroughly and complete the campaign . But that's another problem altogether.

It's been reported for a while, so we can only wait and bump it every now and then.

These symptoms used to indicate game flight model (or "simplified" as it's called nowadays) being turned ON in game or mission options, but if trimming works on 109, then something else is amiss I suppose.

Truth to be told, 3D modelling & skinning, albeit non-trivial skill in itself, is not unique within flight sim community. Many guys can do it. It's coding of systems and flght models that becomes the biggest stumbling block for modders and commercial 3rd parties alike. This is where skilled workforce is quite rare (and usually willing to follow much more profitable projects than combat flight sims for creepy nerds and anoraks like us). Many endeavours didn't go past pretty renders stage, but, there's nothing wrong in whishing these guys good luck and hoping they can pull it off. The more cold war aircraft in DCS the better.

Unlikely. It's an old problem, discussed here (you can try experimenting with modding files as advised):

I seem to recall there used to be a bug long ago with pitot heating being inop on P-47 but I don't remember if it was eventually fixed or not.

Performance? Probably, by editing relevant .lua files in coremods folder. Here's example of modding done on AI MiG-15: Detection angles, ranges and tactics? Highly unlikely. These must be hardcoded, otherwise we wouldn't have to wait for ED tweaks to AI flight and ground units behaviour, which they started improving last year.

I think it's not a bug really. Just checked Polish "Technical Description of Weapons System" manual for MiG-21 Bis and section 4.7.1. of it, with general information about operation of system responsible for launching unguided rockets, says in point 5 and 6 that only two pods at a time can launch, up to 16 rockets in salvo each. Inner stations have priority and after pods are empty system automatically switches to outer ones. Sounds like what you've noticed in your recent testing. Neither DCS manual nor training missions for the MiG have been thoroughly updated in a looong time (while weapon system modelling has been tweaked numerous times to make its operation more accurate). It's quite possible that launching from all pods was possible when module was new (I don't remember to be honest), then maybe it was changed in the code, but not in the manual. At least that's my theory.

Apparently MSAA has been problematic for months. More on the subject here: Have you tried other anti-aliasing methods?