Art-J

I think there has to be a better way found (software-wise) to make both sides happy. If any thread starter wants / needs that thread (or any posts of his) hidden, he, and admins/mods, should always have option to do so. That being said it should also be possible to filter other members' posts somehow so that they don't get wiped out with a single command as well. Granted, that would require extra programming time on ED staff, which simply might not be available, so for the time being, it's just more convenient (and fair to fellow users) to stop posting if someone decides to take a break for whatever reason. DCS players and forum users come and go all the time, it doesn't mean their posts need to disappear too.

You mean the big one with winter season, new airbases and landmarks? I think so too, but we already got it on Oct 22th and that's the one I was referring to .

All fine and dandy, but you have to be realistic about two problems: a) How many casual DCS customers are willing to pay full price again for underdog plane they're already a bit bored with, especially when superior -29 is now available for the red side? b) Why would devs spend their limited financial and manpower resources on rebuilding old product when they can spend the same resources on more interesting and profitable new product? Unless it's more of a non-profit passion project of course. Small number of hardcore cold war entusiasts will never bring the same return of investment. I love the -21, anything post-mid-1970s is too "modern" for me, but even I don't think major rewrite of 21 will ever happen. Yes, devs wrote in newsletter they planned to improve the module considerably, but they wrote it 3 years ago and we don't know what their current plan is.

Thanks for clarification, I should've rephrased my post. He was thread creator and with the way current forum software works, he couldn't delete it while keeping other participants posts visible. Whether we like it or not, that's how it is, but we've already had this conversation last time it happened.

Silver Dragon deleted (or hid) his roadmap thread and all his other posts, then left the forum. It's up to him if he wishes to come back and restore his content.

Taxiing in some way is not an issue discussed in this thread. Yes, It's doable, as long as there is no wind set in the mission (or it's very low speed wind) and you use high power to make tight turns. Thus, the module is still very much usable and enjoyable, albeit in limited circumstances. That being said, player should not HAVE to turn wind off, or use inaccurate brake and rudder applications, to overcome problems of apparent lack of groundlooping plus excessive weathervaning in the ground handling part of simulation. These are the problems pointed in this thread and they apply to both paved and unpaved surfaces.

You've got simplified flight model option turned on (or whatever it's called nowadays). Mosquito is known to be incompatible with it (ie. the mission will load, but the plane won't be able to fly properly)

Must've been quite a bit of time to do all these. Thanks very much for the effort I've hit a performace "unplayability" wall with Corsair and Marianas WWII on my aging hardware. Will take a look at your test results to see if I can try to improve things a bit without sacrificing too much eyecandy.

I don't know, unfortunately. Trial and error "torture testing" seems to be the only way, checking for that ominous metalic rumble sound which is the only dead giveaway of engine receiving some amount of cumulative bearings damage, at least in ED modules. I haven't tried yet if it's present in Corsair as well and I don't own I-16 module.

Maybe the old long-standing "2700 RPM bug" got replaced by 2500 RPM bug (or whatever new "trigger" for failure might be)? Looks like It's going to be tricky to narrow down again.

Thanks! I've been opening the cover with mouse for so long that I forgot to check which remaining options work in current versions and which don't.

I suppose I'm replying to a bot, but for the sake of correcting wrong answer above, so that new players are not mislead, OP is talking about the cover of front row of CBs, which is very much implemented, animated and functional... as long as one uses mouse to flip it. EDIT - mouse or some key / button combos as pointed by LeCuvier below.

Hear, hear! Would be a good solution of the problem I think. Competitor does it (setting for 'cold' start with pre-warmed engine that is), I suspect it could be done in DCS as well, similar to INS pre-alignment etc. options in modern aircraft modules.

Unlike the Hellcat, Corsair didn't feature a hook which could slide out of the fuselage, it was part of tail wheel assembly and could only pivot up and down. Thus, with gear up it is physically impossible to lower the hook because tailwheel doors are closed (plus, I think wheel strut might be in the way, I'd have to check the drawings to confirm).

^ Indeed. However, although Skatezilla's app is more advanced and has many more functions, it's also a bit messy and counterintuitive to configure properly for the very first time. Especially for new players who are usually the ones asking about DCS version rollback. I think Pyke's more simple tool above might be an intersting alternative for them.

This subject has been brought up quite a few times before, I recall starting a thread about it long ago. Dilute switch has never worked in Thunderbolt module, at least not in the same way as old implementation in Mustang and Spit (where it would indeed start dropping the pressure on cold engine right away). That being said, one has to keep in mind such an implementation was not quite realistic in the first place, as dumping gas into cold oil doesn't dilute the latter all that well really. In real life the switch was used shortly before last engine shut down, the only time when hot oil could mix with gas properly. Such mixture would do its job on the first cold start next day. So, currently the function either isn't implemented at all, or it's implemented in more realistic manner (also in Mustang and Spit nowadays), but since we can't save tech state from mission to mission, there's no way to test it (unless someone wants to play with excessive use of time acceleration ). Old implementation might not be accurate, but it sure was useful in cold missions. The acceptable realism vs gameplay compromise I'd say. The only way to warm up Twin Wasp quicker today is to close the cooler shutter and ride that pressure at 120 PSI until temp goes up to 40-few. That should be safe'ish enough for takeoff.

Truth to be told, that "25-seconds research" of historic and restored Mossie photos on google reveals that 'reversed' order on port side of the Mosquito was a thing (probably because of limited space between wing and roundel for a two letter code?) and even appears to be much more common than 'standard' one. There's nothing to 'fix' then, unless we want to implement dynamic roundel and letter types & sizes & positions, but that already puts us in anything-but-easy-fix territory. Other DCS warbirds? You might have a point, but I'd argue if it was such an easy thing to implement, it would've been done already.

You haven't thought it through very well then. When you're here as long as many of us and explore DCS further, you'll find out that there are FAR many MORE important things for combat flight sim to get improved by dev team, before tiny (in the grand scheme of things) aspects like stars on the night sky should be looked at. Players do have a better or worse idea of what you're talking about, but most of us would just rather see limited resources spent elsewhere first, especially given the slow pace of development of environmental part of DCS. Take a look how many single- and multiplayer missions / campaigns, free or payware, are set at night. It's a low number, as in real life, and so will it be positioned on priority list.

Maybe your historic filter got reset to enabled after latest update?

Thanks for that list and links. That's exactly what these of us less in-the-know need

I wouldn't dwell too much on Spitfire parameters as a base for Mossie tweaks. The former doesn't have tyre spring and damper properties simulation of the latter implemented, plus we don't know how the difference between rubber stack of Mossie gear is simulated vs gas/oleo gear in all other DCS warbirds. Not to mention lines which might be coding leftovers not used in simulation at all.

I think if majority of average PC users really cared about privacy or OS bloat or ads invasion or software ownership that much, the whole internet and hardware industry wouldn't be in such intrusive state as it is now. But it is, which means to me that most of average Joes probably don't care and will accept any Win11 shenanigans without thinking about it too much. I live in EU, so will most likely hold on to my aging 9700k + RTX3070 build with Win 10 till next year, but then, when time for major upgrade arrives anyway, I'll read more about this Mint thingy, as I can see this one seems to be mentioned here most often (when talking about non-gaming activities). Would love to see Vulkan DCS released by that time as well, but I'm not holding my breath for it.

It might be obvious, but I'd also make sure to create a separate shortcut directly to dcs.exe of that "preserved" install (bypassing dcs_updater.exe completely) just to avoid any risk of updating it to the latest version by simple mistake.

He might have his trademark obnoxious attitude when posting on ED forum, but he didn't pull that steam graph out of his 'backside'. Whatever happens in server market is irrelevant for casual gamers. It's the first time I saw your graph and it was kind of interesting in itself but it is of no use for me, because it's related to industry I'm not involved in nor do I care about it (as an ordinary lazy PC gamer who's waaay past my student years to tinker with the hardware and software above bare minimum nowadays). You guys are partially blinded by your enthusiasts attitude (which itself is great, because dirty casuals like me have to have some nerds like you to ask for friendly advice or help on this forum) but I think you're overestimating the force of the Linux tidal wave that's coming. I get it, It surely IS coming, and next time I upgrade my old PC I might even try to re-learn the ancient art of making a bootable drive with two systems on it, then learn this Linux thing at last, but damn, my teeth already ache from thinking about it . There's ton of Win 11 drama content on youtube now, because clickbaits sell, but time will show how many casuals will really switch to Linux as their primary OS in the near future rather than only think or talk about it.

I'd say it's even harder to shoot down the enemy when there's no enemy around to be found. That's the point Sharpe was obviously making, not what happens after the merge, whenever and wherever it finally happens. What's the actual point of this thread anyway? Did you really start it to provide feedback on sketchy DCS scoring system (which is problematic for 'red' and 'blue' players equally), or to start an off-topic drama about WWII history? Discuss the former here, to help new players figure out how the system does (or doesn't) work but take the latter to chit-chat section.