71st_AH Rob

@JupiterJoe You are correct, cloud movement is now realistically dependent on the wind speed and direction. IF the mission designer did not specify wind direction and speed in the editor the clouds will remain motionless. The rest of this thread is irrelevant as it is about clouds that did not move with the wind since that was not a feature a year ago and was only recently implemented. The dangers of necroing an old thread...I wish we could archive these to avoid confusion.

How is this related to the weather system?

That would be great for single player and for MP it should be up to the server, like F10 map options so the mission option menu would be the best place for it.

This has been the real problem since the beginning. We don't have a real dedicated server, just a cut down client that doesn't display graphics. It only works on Windows 10 or 11 so you either run it on a Win 10 machine in your basement like I do or you pay premium hosting fees. Add on to that the ballooning size of the installation and it really is going to be unaffordable. It is in EDs best interest to provide a proper,easy to access and use solution. Ideally a proper Windows and a Linux server that customers can deploy either on the server in the basement or on a hosting service. The ultimate solution would also see ED setting up its own hosting service on its own hardware, hosting "Official" servers and turn key "customer" servers, particularly when we hopefully get to the point where you can fly from map to map. Why would it be in EDs interest to invest resources in a free true dserver application? Well when it is too expensive and too unwieldy for customers to run an expensive server for a game, it's online presence will die and the free advertising that goes along with this will be gone too. The only online presence you will have will be two to four people playing a coop on a peer to peer network with all the warts showing. I think it would be a great investment in the future of DCS for ED to develop a proper low overhead dserver.

The Pilots Notes for the Spitfire Mk IX, XI and XVI 3rd edition, covering aircraft with Merlin engines 61, 63, 66, 70 and 266. On page 9 Para 7, states that only early aircraft had the thermostat. So what constitutes an "early aircraft"? Well the early Mk IX were fitted with the Merlin 61 or 63 presumably. The 66 was fitted to the LF Mk IX that we have in 1943, the 70 to the HF Mk IX and the 266 was the Packard Merlin that was for the Mustang but was different enough that it got it's own designation and when fitted to a Mk IX instead of a Mustang it was renamed a MK XIV. Our LF MK IXc is an early Merlin 66 aircraft by the look of it and there may have been some that were equipped with a thermostat but most likely ours didn't, ours does look like a MK Vc that was converted though so anything is possible. The other interesting part of this paragraph is the note the the radiator flaps open at 115c. In Part III of the manual, para 51 on pg 30 the Min take off temp is 60c so any thermostat would likely be at least that temp, however in Part II para 37 "Testing the engine and services while warming up" : So it is most likely that you would be well above 60c before you finished taxing to the runway anyway. Also interesting is the engine limitations on pg 30, Part III, para 51 the max take off temp to 1000 ft is 135c which would lead one to believe that the engine heated up quite quickly. Since most IC engines are happy around 90c -105c and the radiator flaps open at 115c I think the main problem was overheating not over cooling. So what do we know? Fact: Automatic radiator flaps opened at 115c Fact: Not all MK IX had thermostats Fact: the thermostat if fitted to a Merlin 61,63, 66 or 70 wold be 80c Fact: at MAX Continuous temp limit was 105c with 115c permitted for short periods What can we deduce? Deduction: Automatic radiator flaps likely closed somewhere close to, but under 115c, maybe between 90c and 105c? Deduction: they stopped fitting the thermostat to the MK IX because it was not needed as the engine warmed rapidly and keeping it cool was the primary concern Deduction: Thermostats were not fitted to the Merlin 66 equipped MK IXc Conclusion: our spitfire should not suffer from over cooling and the operating temp should probably not drop much below 90c or Supermarine and Rolls Royce would have taken steps to change the design to ensure that it did not, i.e. add a thermostat to the system.

When was the last time you saw a pre-order for a 3rd party module since VEAO went bankrupt?

But that would be a poll for another forum, this forum is Western Europe 1944-1945

Did you reset the Lua? Mandatory after DCS updates.

Well, then you are posting in the wrong place, this is the Western Europe 1944-45 forum and this thread is about finishing of a coherent plane set for the maps we currently have. In iL2 I've flown a Sopwith Camel against a Bf-109E-7 and shot it down.

You are correct but what units were equipped with them and more importantly where were they? III./JG4 was equipped with the K-4 on 17 Sep 44 and was at Bad Lippspringe on defence of the Reich duties as were all of the 109K-4 units that followed. III./JG4 never had enough K-4s to equip the whole group and flew, like most units a mix of G-6, G-10 and G-14s alongside the K-4 until they were disbanded in early 45. Crucially, there was no longer any combat on the two maps we have by that date and those units equipped with the K-4 were generally engaged with defending against the 8th AF until Bodenplatte when there was a shift.

The wings went through several evolutions from wings without fences on the earlier A model to addition of wing fences to removal of fences and replacement with leading edge slats on the E and F model, then they removed the slats reinstalled the fences and added six inches by the F block 30 and retuned the fence then extended the wings twelve inches and added slats by the F-40. Not at my computer but a quick with references but a quick google: https://images.app.goo.gl/27Jfo1bGdwmUgeUi9

The Bf-109F was introduced during the BoB and finished production in 1942. The Bf-109G6 was produced from Feb 43 to Aug 44 and is a perfect match chronologically for our 1943 Spitfire LF Mk. IXc. Incidentally ours looks like it was a Mk Vc that was factory converted to Mk IX spec sometime in early 43.

@MAESTR0 one question I have about the Normandy reboot is about spawn points. On the current Normandy map some airfields have only a few spawn points while in reality the airfield hosted a RAF Fighter Wing or a USAAF Fighter Group of around 75 a/c. While we can use static a/c and set player a/c to take off from ground to give a sense of being on an operational airfield the 16 or 20 positions at Ford or Tangmere just don't cut it. Can we expect the remodeled and new additional airfields to have a realistic number of spawn points?

I hope not. The best solution would be a placeable objet that mission designer can place and set the frequencies so it is not predictable. Ideally you could make a template for your missions and once set up would be quick to edit. It would also be a legitimate target that would impede en opérations. If it is hard baked into the map I hope we at least can set frequency power and direction.

What I'd like to see is the AGLs excluded and only the permanent airfields that were there in say 1942 includes. Make the locations of the ALGs suitable for landing and include templates of those ALGs with tents, sprung shelter and vehs as needed for the correct historical layout. These would operate more like a FARP does now and you would need a control van for ATC, a tanker for refueling, an ammo truck to rearm, a repair truck to conduct repairs. You could even enable them in combined arms so someone could drive the tanker up to your a/c to refuel it. In fact you could do that with all airfields on the map.

Well, it's only a private project as long as they don't have a contract in place with ED to produce one. There may be good reasons that they are not under contract with ED to produce a Zero, ED may be working on one themselves, they may be in negotiations with another third party to produce one or maybe they are waiting to see how the corsair does.

I agree with all the above about RPM, mixture and harmonization, however, while I am usually one of the first to attempt to educate people complaining about the lack of ability to set 'convergence' and make all the valid points above; different standard harmonization patterns were available. I would like to see the option in the mission editor to select from preset patterns for ground attack or air to air so the mission designer can set it up as he intends.

Nothing, delayed until tomorrow...

Yes but we can't even get one line of code changed years after it was identified to get correct belt composition for the Mustang. And that isn't even a whole line but two digits in that line.

In fact, the electronic fuel pump should be the only fuel pump, the 'wobble' pump is a legacy of Merlin 61 and 63 production line. There appears to be an overlap when the Merlin 66 was introduced in March of 43 and it is not required for the start up procedure. According to the Pilot Notes for a Merlin 66 LF. Mk IX, you turn the pump on until the fuel pressure light goes out, then turn it off and start the engine. Turning it back on as needed only after the cut out switch is in the forward position to prevent flooding. In practice I just turn it on prior to taxiing and forget it.

Except for of course 9th AF had 3 P-51 squadrons and 18 P-47 squadrons in that area. ADGB had Spitfire XIV squadrons and a bunch of Spit IX squadrons in that area; Nos. 33, 64, 74, 80, 127, 130, 229, 234, 274, 303, 345 350, 402 (R.C.A.F.), 501, 611. No. 137 flying the Typhoon. Nos. 418 (R.C.A.F.), 605 flying the Mosquito IV in the Intruder role, with Nos. 96, 125, 219, 456 (R.A.A.F.) flying the Mosquito in the NF role. And there was Nos. 275, 277, 278 (A.S.R.) flying variously Spitfire and Walrus. 2TAF had three Mosquito FB IV squadrons at Gravesend,

Hopefully not, at least not during 1939 - 1945.

So a question and a consideration. I know that ED is working on making the Dedicated Server a bit more friendly, especially with all the new maps announced I hope that they make this a priority and make rapid progress. As it stands, if Normandy 2 were to release today, I would have no choice but to have all three maps installed on my server which will need a new larger SSD. This also makes a hosting service untenable unless you are doing well with donations. A better solution from my perspective would be to actually replace Normandy V1.0 and then I only require two maps of the same area. So now to the question; will the ability to select maps for the Dedicated Server be initiated before this map is released? And following up, if I can select to only host the Normandy v2.0 map to save space, will players who only have Normandy v1.0 still be able to join or will comparability only work if I have both maps on my server?

The problem with Heathrow is with the map firmly planted in the summer of 1944 as Ugra have stated, Heathrow Wasa grass field in 1943 and was a construction site from the time the snow melted in 1944 until 1946 when it starts to look like an airfield. So, are we going to have an unusable construction site in place of one of our limited number of airfields? I don't mind if they include a large construction site where you can't spawn an aircraft and take off, but if redirecting the resources would get us Croydon say, or one of the many airfields that actually were operational, it would be an easy sacrifice to make.

Unofficial mods come and go, most never getting past the initial model stage. It requires thousands of hours of dedicated work that an unpaid mod team just doesn't have usually. As for the I-16 a professional 3rd party is free to make any project that ED approves, but they must have sufficient information and an interest, presumably an anticipated market to make it at least break even. Who knows what their next aircraft will be?