Art-J

BN and NL wrote multiple times that after the last official statements there would be no further announcements from ED side about the matter until the the problem is sorted between both companies, whenever it might be. So that's that. Whether Ron decides to follow the same advice on RAZBAM side remains to be seen. In the meantime, if you want to participate in community scuttlebutt, there'a already a thread running here... ... or you can grab a bag of popcorn and head for the reddit ghetto to watch some mud slinging over there .

^ Ha! That's indeed what I do when browsing on my PC, but trying to do it on smartphone is much more cumberstone. All good now, however, post has been edited, thanks!

The only problem with it is - for us dark theme forum users it displays as black text over almost-black background, making only the "welcome" sentence visible. Vic, could you please edit the post using unformatted text please?

I just fail to see why you're bringing it all up in Ugra Media section of the forum, a company which has nothing to do with missions or campaigns creation. Also, are you referring to strictly "training" missions (as per DCS nomenclature), or "training", "instant" and single ones together? I'm talking about former only. Since we're off-topic anyway, I get your point about insufficient number of training missions in EA phase (albeit that's usually caused by lack of certain system implemented initially, for example no rockets at P-47 release), but the rest doesn't seem to apply. Training missions for all aircraft in DCS ecosystem are by default provided primarily for stock Caucasus map, so unless you unistalled it, they'll be there allright. RAZBAM putting some extra SA map training missions on top is and will most likely remain an exception, as it's the only 3rd party out there which makes both aircraft and maps. That aforementioned Mossie rocket mission for Channel, which doesn't teach anything new compared to Caucasus one, is an exception as well, you don't need it or the map, as, frankly, it's redundant. If no Caucasus training missions for aircraft were provided at all, then yes that would be a problem, but has it ever happened in DCS? I, just like you, only own a couple of modules I'm interested in and haven't followed others that closely. Still, it's an issue not related to map creators themselves, as missions are not their business anyway. You're here long enough to know that campaigns being released together with new aircraft or a map have been a thing of the past for years now, let alone free ones. "Instant" and single missions are falling out of favour as well. Pity, but that's the way it is. That applies to both ED and 3rd party modules. Maps get released as empty sandboxes nowadays and it's up to community or campaign creators to make some content for them, payware or free. Fortunately, the likes of Reflected and Baltic Dragon take care of the payware part with good products relatively quickly. I'm not forcing you to buy Channel map, I'm just saying there's more content for it available ('cause it's older) for the time being and if there's not enough content available for N2, that's beacuse there's simply not enough interest in it, or it's considered not fleshed-out enough yet (Reflected told us he waits for it to mature more before making more campaigns for it). So, you'll have to wait for community to fill the gaps or create some missions for it yourself. In either case I agree that checking out what SP content is available for a plane or a map before purchase is a valid tactic, just don't expect much.

There's only one Mosquito training mission for Channel map and it's pretty much a copy of Caucasus one (rockets deployment) down to the same types of targets so don't worry, you're not missing anything really. As for the campaign, I don't quite follow your logic. Normandy 2 didn't exist when Reflected created his Mossie campaign, plus, with both maps not overlapping, there are locations and targets on the Channel which are not present on N2, so he probably would've chosen Channel anyway. It's just a different map, EA has nothing to do with it. Still, why not giving the Channel a try with 2-weeks free trial? True, It's a tiny map indeed, but vastly superior to Normandy in visual department in my opinion, more accurate and arguably better performing of the two. Maybe not worth getting for the full price, but with a discount? I'd say it is. Got it finally during a sale last year and I actually prefer it to N2. I believe there are still more Reflected's campaigns for Channel than for N2 (for the time being at least) and that in itself makes if worth getting during one of the promo sales if price drop is right.

I think when WWII version of Marianas comes, it will serve as a sufficient generic stand-in for other PTO regions, like SA and Kola are already used as "faux-Norway" amongst Mosquito fans. We also know some PTO assets ARE being worketd on after all by ED and M3. I just fail to see any sense in the notion that the airplane itself has to "wait" for completion of these to be an attractive product. Guys like me who want strictly the Corsair even if there's nothing to shoot at will buy it first no matter what. Guys who want more complete experience with map and assets will wait and buy it later. In the end, developers revenue will be the same, only coming at a different rate and time.

Mustang didn't need any period assets in 2012 to sell well, Sabre didn't need any either in 2015'ish to sell well. We don't really know how "ready" that carrier and Japanese tanks are (after all, Corsair external model was already "ready" once before they decided to start redoing it again). If the plane doesn't come with something extra at the same date, I'm buying it anyway 'cause it's just going to be the best simulated Corsair to date. DCS stopped being flight sim for combat-enthusiasts-only years ago. If it does, good, the more the better.

I can confirm It works in D-9 allright, but that's on my single screen setup. Maybe your multi is causing some issues indeed. In either case, maybe you're just pulling a bit too hard after 3-point liftoff. The last thing you should do then is being disctracted by that extra input window. With or without it, save a replay track and post it here so that we can have a look.

^ Good question. Never had a chance of seeing ARN6 in person, but, as a sidenote, during museum visit I did flip the switches on Russian ARK-5 receiver, which was supposedly derived from its American counterpart. I remember the disc in ARK unit was indeed just fixed to selector handle so it didn't need any electrical power to rotate. I would be surprised if ARN was different.

Try guns on palm trees of Marianas map, that will move them allright .

It's been explained elsewhere in one of similar threads on this very subject that warbirds damage and AI behaviour has not been programmed with missiles in mind so such combo just isn't going to work correctly now or in forseeable future. I suppose only period-correct WGr 21 and R4M can yield more plausible results but haven't tried them myself.

Sounds like Il-2GB habit / muscel memory to me . Do your try DCS warbirds after having more previous experience with GB ones? If so, taxiing technique here has always been exactly opposite to GB one. "Their" warbirds have super strong propwash & rudder effect mixed with super weak brakes that need to be stomped on to squeeze anything out of them. "Our" warbirds on the other hand have pretty much non-existent propwash & rudder effect below takeoff speeds (so don't even bother to use them to taxi) but have always had very strong brakes which require smooth and reduced input to avoid nose-overs. Frankly, I don't think that changed at all in 2.9.4, but almost all my flying in DCS is about warbirds, so maybe I'm just more used to them. @SMH Thanks for the detailed videos, although to be honest, the one with Mustang clearly shows tyre sinking to me. Granted, no proper deformation animation, but it's better than nothing I guess.... Also, In my opinion that skid sound comes from one of the mains locking up. I've yet to experience strictly tailwheel skidding in 2.9.4 if it got unlocked properly. I'm surprised to see correct wheel stopping and correct one rotating in tight turns in your vid. Have you used TF-51 there? So it's the payware one that has animations reversed I reckon? Hopefully they'll got it sorted in both variants, together with damping issues.

You're right about bad manners and too blunt response, but let's be honest - OPs theory is full of so many holes that he somewhat deserves the flak he receives. If some aspects of his opinin are just flawed, nobody's going to pat him on his back and give him "participation award" but shoot with reality check instead. Moreover the subscription concept was already discussed ad nauseam in so many threads (which even included ED responses as well).... If OP decided it would be faster to redact and type his wall of text instead of just using search function then I can see how some might perceived him as not exactly the sharpest knive in the drawer.

They've been already working on these non-FF jets for many years, though, way before FC3 WWII concept started popping up in wishlists. They just planned to get them out as part of MAC, the concept of which has been recently shelved and replaced with FC4 as per Wag's post on hoggit today. Nothing has changed as far as fidelity is concerned then. On the other hand, apart from community survey for non-FF Mosquito years ago, I've never seen ED considering a non-FF warbird.

Maybe not "telling untruths", but underestimating last minute bugs that can push module or feature release beyond "hoped for" timeline window. Which happened with HB's products multiple times in the past so why would F-4 be exception now? Maybe they'll release in May, maybe they won't - it comes when it comes. In either case we're getting it anyway.

A few people keep 2.8.xx on their PCs because they're not happy with performance they got after 2.9.xx was initially released. For this reason, if you've got enough space on your drive, you might make a backup of your 2.8.4 because you most likely won't be able to revert to it otherwise (using dcs_updater method I mean). Other than that, I'd recommend updating to latest if you want to play any payware content released within last 12 months. Older DCS version is just not compatible with newer stuff

Isn't it just what "Clear All" button in control options menu does though? Never used it, but that's my first guess. Needs to be pressed for each aircraft separately I presume. No idea about CLInput folder, however.

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?

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.