Art-J

"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?

By the way, do you own racing wheel & pedals by any chance? Many flight sim folks also play racing sims (myself included). The reason I ask is - one can use racing pedals as a temporary solution for rudder control, in spite of somewhat different kinematics of such device. Not a perfect long-term option, but still better than not having any analog yaw control. I used to do that for quite a while before I got proper flight sim pedals.

All warbirds have "auto rudder" and "takeoff assist" special options available, which are supposed to help players without any rudder controller (or with a crappy one). Both on the ground and in flight. I don't know how effective they really are, though, never used them. Ha! Good luck. You will trial the most b#tchy plane wich requires the most rudder input just to takeoff and land safely in one piece . I'm not even sure if assists will suffice here. In either case, as noted above, it depends a lot on the plane itself. Some warbirds have rudder trim (making pedals not necessary in cruise flight), but some of them do not. Some require rudder even to just to taxi on the ground (Brit ones, because they use rudder to activate pneumatic differential wheel brakes), the others do not. Trialing these planes one by one seems to be the most sensible solution, go for it.

Well, if you uninstalled it, then it should indeed disappear from module manager's "Installed" tab and from main screen icons as well. So it did. If you're properly logged into the game (with the same credentials as used in ED shop), it should pop up after you click "Available DLC" tab (I think? Don't remember at the moment), with a question of whether you want to install it. After you do and installation is complete, the "green dot" switch should also be set to the right, which means now the module is not only installed, but also enabled (as these are two separate things). Example from my module manager is shown below.

I suppose source model doesn't have animated bomb bay doors - thus the external hardpoint "realism shortcut"? Would it be possible to just remove the harpoint then and make bombs drop out of the belly through the closed bay doors? It's not like super detailed collison modelling within the fuselage is needed anyway. Might be a good compromise for both butthurt rivetcounters and guys who don't mind some inaccuracies.

Since adjustable bomb fusing (delay included) was added to warbird modules, there's never been any official documentation or tutorials explaining differences between fuse versions and their correct usage. Trial and error is the way we're stuck with, albeit Mohawk's suggestion above is a great starting point.

Well, I just lean a bit with TrackIR to peak under that dash cover and flip the switches with mouse. Don't you use some sort of a head tracking device? If you can't see the upper lights, then you can't see the upper arming switch either to confirm if it got flipped correctly. I don't remember it that's the one responsible for MGs and inner cannons (they work together on a single electric circuit), but judging from your description maybe it indeed stays down (OFF) for whatever reason?

When Anton was released I recall there used to be a problem with guns becoming inop when relevant electric circuits were enabled by player too quickly one after another. I think that issue was fixed, albeit just out of habit, I personally still tend to enable pairs of guns only after the red light for previous ones is on. Never had a problem with guns ever since. I'd hazard a guess your issues are more related to that ghetto streamdeck setup of yours. As for delayed reloading of stores with unlimited ammo option on - it's more of a general DCS problem, not warbirds one. One just has to accept it's one of "DCSisms" that's never going to be tweaked and deal with it.

^ It doesn't I'm afraid. You're right It was indeed supposed to, some version numbers ago, and maybe did for a while at some point, but not anymore it seems. I've just purged both folders manually after monday updating did nothing to them, as usual. If the procedure was placebo, CMs and devs wouldn't recommend doing it as one of first steps during gfx-related troubleshooting. It's probably not necessary after EVERY patch, though. I tend to do it after the big updates which do contain some advertized gfx-effects related changes (ie. recent introduction of fog, volumetric lights etc.).

A decade ago DCS MiG-21, the very 1st 3rd party FF module, was published. Compared to the latest DCS offerings, it is a bit of a YOLO frankenplane itself, with some fictional loadouts, simplified/fictional systems operation and FM issues existing to this day. It was, however, (and still is) considered "good enough" for ED to include in DCS ecosystem, and is still being sold nowadays for full price. To me that shows two things: 1) Cobra, who was a lead dev at that time, moved to create Heatblur but didn't rest on his laurels from module fidelity point of view and pushed each of their later releases towards higher and higher accuracy - even though clearly he didn't have to and might as well have settled for "MiG-21-grade" modules later on. ED wouldn't stop him. It means that no, 3rd parties never were, and will not be "incentivized" by ED to lower the bar by ED supposedly lowering its own bar. Individual 3rd parties know what they want to do, they know what segment of DCS customers they aim at and they don't need ED's opinion about anything (well, apart from at last basic FM, systems and visual fidelity). Some will push for higher accuracy (with some coding solutions sometimes even surpassing the ED ones), some will settle for lower, but they would be doing it anyway as the bar was never set THAT high in the first place. 2) The "expected" fidelity level of FF modules was never "fixed" and has been somewhat flexible for everyone since the very MiG-21 beginning. For ED and some 3rd party devs "80%-real" will be legally, financially and technically sufficient, for others 50% will do, with the rest being roughly approximated. Both cases fall exactly into the same "best FF representation possible" category, which, by definition, is rather vague and can mean whatever. In the end, I think the greates outcome of all of this F-35 "drama" is - more customers will just have to learn to start using brains for a change, be patient and do RESEARCH before buying a new module, rather than storming the ED-shop on release day as if it was walmart on Black Friday (sorry, "African American Friday"). Exactly like in Afghanistan vs Iraq case, some modules will offer higher and better documented accuracy, while some will offer less documented one. Mind you, I'm not talking about folks who are already very excited about the -35 and will buy it no matter what, because if their favourite kite. I understand it, because I myself will do the same with M3's F4U Corsair when/if it ever comes. For the rest of DCS players, though, It will (and should) be up to each individual customer to judge if the F-35 "simulation value" after release is sufficient for him/her to pay full price for it, or wait for further systems improvements of it, or wait for sale, or not buy it at all. As both community managers hinted, wait and see how it turns out and what it brings to DCS as a whole, even if it means loosing that usual 20-30% preorder discount.

Don't check axis assigments only, but all button & hat switch related ones as well.

Rgr that, thanks for the info. I only have a basic "tourist-level" knowledge of Berlin, so I'll gladly read more of your input on this subject. I guess it shapes up to be one more "Ugra map" then, like Normandy 2, i.e. - with a rather very loose approach to layout- and historic accuracy. Still a welcomed addition though!

Airliners on Tempelhof don't mean much, but that huge Marx-Engels-Lenin billboard seen on one of the buildings doesn't suggest timeframe beyond 1989. These two tenement houses on Alexanderplatz opposite of Rotes Rathaus aren't there today either (albeit I've no idea when they were demolished). So 1980's it might be indeed.

YoYo's skin with similar livery, albeit old, still works and looks quite well in current DCS version. I recommend using it while you're waiting for lee1hy's one. https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/719767/

Keep in mind in some default missions provided with warbird modules, takeoff assist is always forced "ON" no matter what you've got set in special options. In other cases, however - do as PawlaczGMD noted above.