Art-J

Can't quite agree about reluctancy to turn - to me that aspect feels the same as it was before 2.9.4 and still is in remaining "old physics" warbirds ie. one needs to get the plane moving to let inertia swing it around a little. Nothing changed here in my opinion. On a sidenote, it's DCS Mosquito that got reluctant to turn with the new physics, simply because its brakes are made of marshmallows now, almost like the ones in Il-2GB . I do agree, however about general "boaty" behaviour of Mustang dampers currently. My oh my, in left and right turns while taxiing it sways like old American family midsize saloon car :D.

Eh.... Sounds plausible on paper but I just can't see it working in real life to be honest. No matter what ED announces from now on, just another one "I know sth but won't tell" post from Ron or one of his ex-devs on hoggit will be enough to relight speculation sh...storm immediately. You know, the "don't listen to corporate statement, believe the ex-employees blindly" mentality that will always be there, even amongst some of DCS community.

Hear hear! In DCS power loss from supercharger throttling seems to be either not simulated all that deeply, or, more likely, one has to look really hard for a rare and ugly combination of input parameters to make it anywhere close to that "up to 300 BHP" and start noticing some sort of a really meaningful difference in performance. Below are screens taken in Caucasus free flight mission. Test goal - get the engine up to about 46" MAP at about 1500 ft using a) full supercharger and no turbo, and b) lots of turbo and only a little supercharger (so little in fact, that landing light warning came on, note the positions of levers). I'm sure the engine shouldn't like nasty supercharger throttling in the latter case, but from airspeed point of view there was no difference whatsoever (well, maybe +/- 2 kts 'cause it's difficult to keep the -47 flying level and steady). Repeated the test at 8000 ft, aiming at 52" MAP this time, with various combinations of both levers, added interlinked combo, all with same results - no speed difference beyond margin of error. All and all, to me It doesn't seem to be worth it - fiddling with levers separately I mean. I'm not seeing noticeable performance penalty (if any) for flying interlinked all the time. OK, there is one "inconvenience" penalty rather than performance one - turbo lag with resulting MAP getting bipolar disorder at low altitudes . For this reason I sometimes do like flying with split levers, as the throttle alone has more linear and predictable output. Nicer to manage and can be supplemented with boost later I admit. More often, however, I just interlink them and call it a day. The plane will fly equally fast anyway. Granted, level speed is not everything and I suppose there might be some other "drawback" simulation running in the background, but unless one flies Reflected's campaigns or some really long missions, it's probably not a big factor.

OK, finally hopped into Mustang for the second time since 2.9.4 release and just have done some driving around in NTTR takeoff practice mission. Don't know how much fuel we're carrying in that one, but honestly, +/- 6 deg tailwheel steering works exactly as before in my opinion, while in unlocked mode the wheel also swivels pretty tight and smooth as expected. Moreover, brakes sensitivity doesn't feel much higher (if higher at all?) to me and I fired up Kurfy and Dora later just to compare how fast the "brake triangles" on Ctrl-Enter indicator fill up when I use my MFG crosswinds set to full linear output. Result - they seem to be comparable to the Mustang really so even if there was some "sharpening" done to Mustang in 2.9.4 I can't see it to be honest, at least when using analog pedals and not digital button/switch etc. Granted, in all DCS warbirds I'm used to using brakes at the latest stage of landing rollout, at ground speeds below 20 kts so maybe that's why apart from overall "bouncyness" and aforementioned reversed wheels animation, I just can't see anything THAT noticeably different & worse compared to 2.9.3. Replay track attached below. 2.9.4_Must_taxi_test.trk

Well, the pre-purchase newsletter provides some info you're after, but it also says that "full set of features will be announced prior to early access", so there will be more for sure, you'll just have to wait for it.

You've probably already figured by now where your own controller settings are stored - in individual files and folders according to path explained by LeCuvier three posts above. Note - it's one separate diff.lua file per each device per each aircraft. If you don't feel comfortable with fiddling with file renaming and stuff, I'd recommend using in-game profile save & load interface to import your old settings to new computer. Fire up DCS, go to controls options, you will notice in upper right corner "Load profile" button. The rest is simple: a) Choose your aircraft; b) Highlight device column by left clicking it (for example - joystick); c) Click aforementioned "Load profile" button; d) In subsequent menu navigate to your old .diff.lua file for highlighted device (joystick in this case), click OK to load it; e) Done - your old joystick settings stored in diff.lua file of said aircraft have been imported to your new DCS install on new computer. f) Repeat these steps for throttle, keyboard, pedals, tracking device etc. g) Choose next aircraft and repeat again. Will take a few minutes, but certainly less than re-binding the whole shebang from scratch.

I'm a bit puzzled by these brake-related posts. Granted, after the updates I only did one mission with full taxi, takeoff, landing and taxi back to apron in payware version of Mustang, but haven't noticed any brake sensitivity differences compared to "old times" and I use full linear setting on my MFG crosswind toe brakes (have been thinking about dialing in some curves for years, but too lazy to do it it seems ). Not saying there aren't any differences, 'cause you're not the only person reporting the issue but I haven't experienced anything THAT noticeable. Are you sure you haven't tweaked the curves "wrong way" and made them more sensitive? Or maybe the game has them fudged - what happens if you go full linear for a test?

I would think tail strut failure is currently strongly dependent on weight of the airplane - testing in latest version of the game I don't seem to experience failures with 50% fuel load only, even though my landings are anything but butter smooth. However, yesterday I played stock Caucasus takeoff and landing practice missions twice each. In takeoff one, just taxiing along Kutaisi runway at moderate speed is guaranteed to cause inevitable metallic bang and tail strut failure event registered in mission briefing, every single time. On the other hand, In both landing missions, after a bit rough and bumpy touchdowns, I did fast and loooong rollouts on purpose and no failures happened. I thought that maybe the landing mission was set with lower fuel load, but I've just checked in the editor and it's 67% in both cases. Why am I getting failures in the former but not in the latter then? I'm puzzled, It doesn't make much sense.

Use whatever stick you want as long as you can add extension to it (to cover your "as real as poss" part). As peach noted above the plane is very pitch-responsive in DCS, so an extension, or pitch axis curve (in case of shorter sticks), or both, come in handy. As for the throttle quadrant anything which gives you 4 long throw axes will do. A tip - prop lever in DCS Jug is simulated in a peculiar way and does nothing in lower 3/4 of its movement range, only to be hyper-sensitive in remaining part. Thus - long throw physical axis helps a ton in managing RPM more precisely. I use extended TM Warthog stick and DIY-side-by-side-connected TM Warthog and TM TCA throttle quadrants.

What about space on system partition? I don't know if DCS uses that one for temporary files extraction during update process, but wouldn't be surprises if it did. On the other hand 130 GB requirement sounds excessive though, if for temp files only.

Yeah, that's indeed how it was supposed to be after VEAO collapse, but during the whole last week shebang one of the Raz devs hinted that ED doesn't actually have full source code of the Eagle for whatever reason. It might be BS info for all we know, but without further clarification on that hint, one can see why it makes some people nervous given the history of Hawk module. As for the EA meaning purchasing unfinished product for full price, I'd like to remind that F-15E never got to its planned full price, so one could also argue that since it's sold 20% off, it can be abandoned with 80% functionality as well and that would be a "fair" deal. Granted, we can only hope this saga will have a happier ending.

NL, it's Channel Manston on the video, isn't it? I'd recommend testing on Normandy 2 version of it, as it seems to be somewhat more rough&bumpy than its Channel counterpart. I suspect If devs manage to tweak tailwheel in the future to be "N2-Manston-compatible", then it will be OK everywhere else. With that being said, yesterday I tried to do a full taxi-takeoff-landing-rollout cycle on N2 Manston indeed and for the first time I was surprised NOT to suffer tailwheel strut failure (despite "usual" bounciness). I did it all with 50% fuel load, however, no ordnance. So, returning from mission, lightweight, won't be a problem I guess, but first one has to taxi and takeoff with full fuel, ammo, bombs & rockets for said mission aaaaand this is where keeping the strut from collapsing is a challenge now.

^ In real life pilots could feel the load and knew how close they were to this rated 6G limit, especially after bobweight was added in elevator control channel. We virtual pilots have no such feedback. As I said previously, turn on the info bar (Ctrl-Y if I recall correctly) and watch how many Gs you're doing while pulling out of a dive.

To add to what razo+r said, if you're mainly SP user and don't mind using custom mods, grab bandit648's weather mod. Some of the presets included in that one allow you to lower the base to sea level. Thickness can also be increased multiple times compared to stock clouds. You'll find it here:

^ Nope, only both Mustangs and Thunderbolt got it in April 10th update.

They are working, otherwise you wouldn't see people discussing them on the forum and vids on YT showing how they look. That being said, prop and jet wash are unfinished WIP (as per patch notes),so might not always work, plus, we don't know if blast effects work correctly on all maps and with all types of ordnance. Which combination have you tested? Your DCS version number, if that's the one you see in bottom right corner of menu screen, is indeed the latest one.

Oh, you're not the only one. ED rearranged forum recently in few places and it's taking a while to get used to the damn thing again .

I believe cranking them down to minimum is supposed to re-enable the auto mode. As for the pdf manual, it's an outdated hodgepodge of often confusing or contradicting data so I wouldn't put too much attention to procedures written in it. I stopped tinkering with manual radiator mode long ago. In typical combat scenarios it wasn't really needed with old cooling system simulation and isn't needed (in my opinion) with the new one.

Nah, can't agree about dropping the ball. Essex class is done by a 3rd party, which seems to be struggling with development pace in recent few years, so it may or may not come to DCS at all. Even if it comes, it may or may not have any extra features beyond very basic plane launching capability and it may or may not be maintained / improved / fixed properly further after release by said 3rd party. I'm not surprised then that ED wants to have their own PTO plane and their own full size fleet carrier for creating '43-'44 scenarios. Yorktown class is "2nd best" and the most logical choice then because, with all due respect to light and escort carrier sailors, nobody except history geeks cares about these. It's the big vessels that are in spotlight.

What do you mean? Threads to discuss the latest newsletters? These are located in newsletter section of the forum now:

New Mustang and Thunderbolt gear and brakes feel almost the same to me in the grand scheme of things, only a bit more spongy and bouncy, which is felt during engine starts, runups and shutdowns. I actually like that. Both planes react to torque and propwash in more noticeable way. Other than that, while taxiing, taking off, landing, I haven't experienced any differences or issues similar to Mossie tail strut. One could even celebrate the fact that main wheel rotation speed on Mustang got fixed (adjusted to linear movement of the whole plane) after 13 years of being a tad too low. Yay . So, when Spit and German birds receive the same treatment, I'd say there's no need to worry. I'm actually looking forward to these changes. Haven't flown Mossie after latest update, however, so I don't know if there were any improvements done to it.

Yes, and it was clearly explained in patch notes that brought new model back in December. Mossie first as a tech demo, the others to follow. Yesterday we got it in Mustangs and Thunderbolt. There's no going back, only tweaking. I haven't tested the Mossie yesterday on Normandy Manston, though, to see if tailwheel strut is still as fragile as in previous version.

Was indeed implemented for a while, then either got removed, or, more likely, broken. Gotta do it manually again.

Does the P-47 workaround "fix" of defueling and disarming the plane first work in case of Mossie as well? Seriously though, it shouldn't happen in either case.

Pic quality is crappy indeed, maybe it's just old and was shot during Gulf War (hence the sandy background?). I'm not THAT knowledgeable I admit. Can't advise about the scheme I'm afraid, haven't tried this particular mod. I'm sure, however, when AviaStorm release their full fidelity Tornado, all iconic schemes will be there allright . EDIT: have you tried asking on VSN discord channel? They seem to be more active over there so someone will know if such scheme was made for the mod.