71st_AH Rob

Those lights in the hanger will make great targets for bombing. In 1944 there really shouldn't be any lights on this map. They look great though.

The Virpil Ace rudder pedals come with all of the cams and springs required to set up to your personal preference. Indeed if you feel the need for a damper after exploring the built-in options you can install one simply. Back order seems to be athe default these days as noted above. I purchased mine from the US store with no idea how long it would take. After four weeks of no confirmation or estimate of when to expect them, I e-mailed support to ask how much longer and got a response within the hour that they were slammed by the Christmas sale (I purchased mine on first day of the sale) and they expected five weeks. So I anticipated them arriving the week of 20 Feb and they arrived almost two weeks before that. EU store seems a bit more responsive and I think they get stock faster. My only gripe has been UPS but that's another story. Others on the Virpil forum gripe about poor communication, being told 'two weeks' continually but I think this is down to wishful thinking and language issues, I was only told five more weeks and they delivered within that estimate. They expect to get waiting times down to two weeks again this month. Edit: I should mention that the rudders were not well calibrated and the link included in the package took me to an out of date version of the VPC software that would not recognize the rudder. Going to the Virpil US store site software download link got me to the updated version and I was able to calibrate them.

I was looking at the MFG and Virpil to replace my two year old Saitek pedals which replaced my 3 yo Saitek pedals. I was looking for something a bit more durable and wanted the Virpil but was going to settle for the MFG when they went out of stock and Virpil had a sale so cost was similar. The Ace Interceptors arrived today and first thing I did was test them out with the Spitfire, much better and made take-off, landing and aiming much easier. I would highly recommend them. The other advantage over MFG is you don't have to order a second $50 damper, the Ace pedals come with all the adjustments. Pedals are heavy with rubber feet and don't slide around like my old Saiteks. Only drawback is that in NA they ship via UPS which can be painful, they did however negotiate a favourable rate and shipping was reasonable and brokerage was only $11 instead of the min of $60.

My Ace Interceptor pedals arrived today, excellent quality and the first aircraft I tried was the Spitfire. Much easier to take-off, land and aim with than my previous Saitek pedals. Only gripe is in NA they ship via UPS who jerked me about as expected, however they do have a deal with them and the shipping cost was reasonable.

I did a cold war scenario on the Normandy map, the runways are all fine. Even a heavily loaded Sabre with external tanks and bombs can get airborne on almost any runway.

Support got back to me immediately, no delay at all and are very honest. I needed to know an approximate date since I will be away for work and it would be just my luck that they arrive just after I left and we're sent back before I returned

I ordered a set of rudder pedals on the 19th as soon as the sale started and as of yesterday it had been four weeks so I e-mailed support and they told me another five weeks.

Prepare to be really annoyed then. The next update will likely be in the 2024 and Beyond video other than the occasional "Nick loves the Hellcat" when people ask about progress. Oh, welcome to DCS

@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.

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.