71st_AH Rob

If I recall, it was specifically for 'Tiger Meet' in 1968(?) Maybe Giant Tiger got it from them? Interestingly, Tiger Meet and Giant Tiger were both founded in 1961, coincidence?

Operation Dragoon August 1944 south of France.

Many of them aren't done and it would be easier to use for a longer time period of they were not there to begin with. Take all of the 9th AAF ALGs in Sussex for example. Also, most of the Luftwaffe fields Normandy used post July 44 were just grass fields like ALGs and are not represented.

Exactly. ALGs should not be built like airfields on the Caucuses map. What would be best is the terrain is suitable for takeoff and landing of WWII aircraft and if we used it like a FARP. You need a template for each ALG with ammo, fuel and command vehs and a repair tent. Use the terrain removal tool to remove trees as required. Should be less work for Ugra than the current method of building an airport for each.

Wartime USAAF SOPs indicate that grade 1100 oil is recommended for operating when ground temps are between -7°c and 27°c and the 'safe' max oil temp wold be 85°c. Grade 1200 oil is recommended for ground temps above 4°c and max 'safe' operating temp is 95°c. So oil technology makes a difference and it was improving during the war and after. In all cases it notes that oil pressure is more important.

BUGS Parking spots 1 to 9 can not have aircraft or helicopters of any type placed at them. Parking spot 20 is missing. Historical inaccuracies Kenley only had 12 double blast pens; There were eight additional dispersed parking spaces along the perimeter track on the East side that are missing; There were eight additional dispersed parking spaces along the perimeter track on the North-West side that are missing; There were eight additional dispersed parking spaces with sprung shelters along the perimeter track on the South side that are missing;

No real activity there during the time period the map covers. It would be useful as a transport base if we get a Ju-52(AI) and as a logistics base when we get the dynamic campaign or for multiplayer servers. No fighter or bomber squadrons were stationed there from 1942 to the end of the war.

Missions come with the aircraft not the map though. So it's incumbent upon the aircraft module makers to create hot and cold start missions etc for their aircraft and they get to choose the maps, not the map module makers or us. So to get missions for this map you need to post your complaints in the aircraft module forum and hope the aircraft module makers listen and add missions for the South Atlantic Map.

Or better yet, just clear the areas where the ALGs were and give us a template with all the assets to drop in when we want a mission to run with it, sort of like a FARP for Helicopters. That way we can add it if the date is correct or leave it off if the date is earlier. The permanent bases like RAF Debden (4th FG) would be great additions since they existed as far back as the BoB anyway.

The easiest way would be to give us a map with no ALGs, but with the ground flat enough to land on and then give us a static template for each ALG and use it like a FARP. If the trees were left on the map and could be removed in the editor it would be even better.

The seat height of the Sabre is adjustable and on the ground is raised by default, lowering after takeoff if I remember correctly unless you disable in the special options tab for the a/c. Not at my computer and I keep it disabled since I fly with TrackIR. Maybe this would help?

The e wing kept the .303 gun bays but did not have the gun ports in the leading edge, nor the ejection ports for spent casings. In all other ways they were the same as the c wing and could mount 2 x 20mm Hispano in each wing or 1 x 20mm Hispano and 1 x .50 cal the same as the c wing. IWM Duxford released a timely video on the subject that I just saw this evening ~11:00 in they talk about a Vc with two 20mm Hispano in each wing.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnnie_Johnson_(RAF_officer)#/media/File%3AWing_Commander_James_E_'johnny'_Johnson_at_Bazenville_Landing_Ground%2C_Normandy%2C_31_July_1944_TR2145.jpg This is almost certainly taken on the same day, I can't remember what the article was about that this photo shoot was staged for but you can see that it is most definitely a Mk IX. There is nothing definitive that can distinguish it as a c or e wing however, the term e wing had not been adopted yet when this picture was taken, the e was about the armament. If you look closely enough at the yellow leading edge on the starboard wing there are two dark marks which could be gun ports for the .303s. As for the inner ports, the plugs are clearly red and flat which would denote a port that had a live weapon not an empty bay. If it was an empty bay they would just reuse the rounded rubber plug that would have been in the the outer bays before. The universal wing (c wing) could accommodate two 20mm Hispano and either four .303, or four 20mm Hispano or two 20mm Hispano and two .50 cal. I have read in several places that 2TAF converted all of its Spitfire squadrons to e type armament by the end of July 44. I have not seen any primary sources however. I think the devil will be in the logistics and research will reveal.50 cal ammo allocation to 2TAF squadrons. I believe that these famous photos show Johnson in late July '44 with his Mk IX equipped with 2 x Hispano and 2 x .50cal. If it was four Hispano you would see them protruding, if it was two Hispano and four .303 there would be no need to move the cannon to the outside bays and put a red plug on the empty ports.

That's a Mk IXe and it is tape over the .50 cal gun port, not the same as the blank on the second empty cannon/.50 cal port on a Mk IXc.

That is some great and very detailed work. I agree with almost everything and it is the same as my research when it overlaps except the above. I believe that by the time we are looking at, the gunsight should be the Ferranti Gyroscopic Gun Sight G.G.S. Mk.IID. By the end of may nearly all if not all operational squadrons equipped with the Mk IX should have been converted to the new sight. Here you can see a Mk IX on either the 4th or 5th of June receiving it's invasion stripes, it is equipped with the G.G.S. Mk.IID. As for our DCS Mk IX, it appears to be based on a survivor that has had lots of replacement parts or it is a Mk V that was converted at the factory when it went for a major over-hall into a Mk IX or when it served in another airforce post 1946 or by a private owner out of necessity.

Well then the override check box won't do anything for you then if it is more complex than changing the settings that are in the same tab in the players settings that this check box is on. Controlling these settings in the mission editor is literally opening a menu and selecting a bunch of very obvious items, either on or off and sometimes there is a drop down menu. I don't care what people do with a mission I make in single player. It literally takes longer to open the mission and save it again than to make the changes that this check box controls. What I don't want is the ability for players to override the server settings by default, turning on labels, full map icons, unlimited ammunition etc.

You are not understanding the problem. If you download a mission you are and always have been free to change the settings. There is no need for the check box. And it does become the mission designers problem because players hold them unreasonably to account for the mission that they broke by using mods or making changes that the mission designers could not anticipate leading to frustration from posts slagging the mission and wasted time by the designer trying to recreate and fix a non-existent bug. You can already, no need for the check box. That's the point, in MP we can't dictate anymore. I can build a server and set the exactly as I intend and the majority of the players want and someone can join and override the settings, for example they could just turn on labels and no one else would be the wiser unless they noticed how much better they are doing. How would you feel if you played by the rules and kept getting shot down by someone you couldn't even see who was cheating by having labels on? It is quite the non sequitur , ED has put in place measures to prevent players using shaders, VoiceAttack and other useful apps but lets a player turn on labels.

I know one guy who will be making those beautiful RCAF /CAF skins for the 104. Where are you @jocko417?

At least put a couple of orange pylons and some caution tape around it.

Which types of trains? The ambient trains are not synchronized but the mission editor placed ones were last time I checked.

No. I am sure if you do a quick search (on my phone so it is painful) you will find that they have emphatically stated that the map is feature complete and there are no plans to add more airfields. I think the map tools for this map have been overtaken by newer ones used for maps like N2, so they are reluctant to invest in more work on it. I hope they do the same thing and replace this one with C2, much larger and compatible perhaps with N2. But I'm not holding my breath.

I have been thinking about the same thing. I believe you can just copy over your saved game folder, it will contain your settings and logbook. Incidentally, I have exactly the same computer but have not decided on upgrading yet, I am waiting for the 14th gen Intel chipsets to drop to make a decision.

Odd, I find that the WWII AI generally work fine. There are a few issues with a couple of commands that they totally ignore, but most commands that are appropriate for WWII they do well except for 'Cover Me' which makes them attack the nearest en ac instead.

Canopy open for one and closed for the other?

If there are any unofficial ones I would love to know as well. I am hopeful that someone with time and skill will get fed up and make one.