71st_AH Rob

Any chance you could add the MiG-15bis to the appropriate files while you are updating the WWII a/c?

If you open the base mission in the editor it breaks the mission. My ongoing Spitfire Channel campaign was working prior to the last update as long as I left it alone. Also, I think that you have moved some of the setup parameters into other files outside of the init folder and this is causing me a headache.

Again, I urge you to do your research. Above you can see a photo of the 361st FG, 8th AF purportedly on D-Day, although I can find no evidence that they flew any missions on that day and it is likely the 7th of June when they flew support missions for the invasion, they strafed trains and veh traffic reinforcing the defenders on the beach.. Regardless you can be assured that it is in June 1944 because of the invasion stripes that were ordered painted on the 4th of June and removed from the upper surfaces at the end of the month so it must have been taken between the 5th of June and the beginning of July. you can see clearly a D model in the center of the photo. Here is a photo of the same group taken on the 8th of July, half of the a/c are Ds. There was a stockpile of D models in England. There are two main reasons why they were not more common over the Normandy invasion: They did not need to replace the B/C models since they were not being lost at the rate they anticipated and The pilots were attached to their B/C models and in fact many preferred them because: They were Faster; They were more manoeuvrable; and They were more accurate because they were more stable. There were disadvantages as well of course, all these things are a trade off. They only had four MG as opposed to six in the D model; The MG were more prone to jam when fired under high G; and the D had greater range due to the wing redesign and therefore more combat time over Berlin which was the real reason the USAAF wanted them. The K-4 without MW50 for outperforms any 109G with MW50 that was available at the time. So, again, I think that the server is more than fair in the interest of appeasing the Luftwaffe player in allowing some to have MW50. Hopefully we get a time appropriate Bf-109G soon so the K-4 can be removed.

Well then, I suggest you check your facts then. As @Mr_sukebe says, it is their server, their rules and I think that they are being more than sporting making concessions in allowing MW50 for the K-4 as is. Some quick facts: Precisely 0 K-4, with or without MW50 flew over the Normandy or Channel maps. Almost 20% of the P-51s in service in Europe at the time of the invasion were D models. In all of France and Belgium, not just Normandy, on 6 June there were less than 125 Single Engine day fighters about 2/3 were Fw-190A models the remainder were obsolete Bf-109Gs that were relegated to intercept bombers. Yes after 6 June, Bf-109 équipes Gruppe were rushed to France as a stop gap but the Fw-190A-8 remained the best fighters available to the Luftwaffe for the duration of the battle. Yes, there were Spitfire Mk.V still in service in England at the time, none participate in the invasion because they are allocated to trg squadrons and squadrons on rest or in-reserve status, they would not fly them on operations. The Mk V had been replaced in front line squadrons by the Mk IX in 1943. They had so many of them available that they had started to ship them to the Soviets to replace the Mk Vs they had given them earlier. You would be far more likely to see a Mk XIV over Normandy than a Mk V. By the way, do you know when III/JG52 got the K-4? It was one of the first in Nov 44, while in Warzyn on the Eastern front. Most units didn't receive any until Jan 45.

Do you know when D-Day happened? And maybe you should check the dates on the K-4 deployment.

I didn't look at the West side of the map yet but it seems that they cut around 20km off of the East side of the map which causes similar problems. I am not sure what they meant when they announced that they were extending the map 250km to the east.

Since SoW shut down we tried all the WWII servers and generally just can't be bothered.

Yet they do. My squad is now considerably smaller and maybe six fly DCS WWII now. The rest fly the other popular WWII flight sim. Interestingly, I think all of the hold outs are American, the British and Canadian members purchased it. Another dozen or so left for other squads that don't fly DCS or only fly modern. You are right though, it is not about the $15 that the Asset Pack costs, it is about the customers perception of fairness and the Assets Pack "feels" like a big FU from ED to the WWII community reinforced by the glacial pace of development, particularly when contrasted with the volume of updates every month and news about the Hornet and F-16.

Yes, but there isn't one in the Asset Pack

You can do something like this now, run the DServer on another computer on your LAN and load complex missions on that computer, join as you would any multiplayer mission. For a simple mission with very little AI you would not see much of a difference, however, a mission with lots of AI and very dense objects and complex scripts will run much better than if you run it in single player. Essentially in MP the host computer is doing all of the AI calculations, executing scripts and all common calculations freeing the computing power of the client computer to render your environment, flight model etc which should give the CPU the ability to max the GPU. The better your server computer the better the performance. On a LAN the connections speed can't be beat except by running the DServer on the same computer. In theory you could run it in parallel and it would utilize a different core of your CPU. You would sacrifice some RAM but set your page file to 4x the size of your RAM and it would help. I have never tried this as I already have a server in my basement.

I hope that they don't add any more assets to the WWII Assets pack and don't make any more paid Assets Packs for anything. I think that all assets should be added to the base game to avoid the problems brought forward above.

Which airfield?

Although I have not found the exact paragraph that you quote above, the manual that you linked is for the Royal Australian Navy A-4 fleet. The RAN operated a mixed bag of A-4 blocks and in all instances that I can find to Nosewheel Steering it specifies that it applies to the A-4F In fact on page 6-10 it states: TAXIING 1. Maintain directional control using nosewheel steering (A-4F) and brakes (A-4E) as required. Which would indicate that the A-4E in RAN were not upgraded to have NW Steering and would have used differential breaking instead.

I think this was reported four or five years ago but I can't be bothered to find the post, it was extremely taxing when we had OB updates weekly that tended to introduce new weapons almost every patch. And a post by Grimes indicating that this has been going on since FC3 added the warehouse system. So I guess I do care enough to look up the old posts but only a couple of them. But now I'm frustrated again about it.

I think this would be a great addition to the map and with the addition of Woodchurch, Ashford and Kingsnorth would complete all of the 9th AF ALGs that are within the Channel Map boundries with the advantage that the last three were also used by the RAF and RCAF before and after the USAAF.

+1

+1

Or perhaps, they will completely overlap in space but not in time. ED has indicated a desire to see the Battle of Britain in the future. Maybe the Channel Map will evolve to cover the time period of 1940 - 1942 and Normandy will handle 1943-1944, there were many major changes to existing and a significant increase in the number of new airfields in 1943 with the arrival of the 8th and 9th Air forces and the growth of the RAF, both existing squadrons and the influx of Article XV squadrons.

As a mod i can see that working but ED would never make it a single player a/c. In fact I am surprised that no mod group has taken on the project of making a flyable mod for the B-17 included in the assets pack.

Exactly, this is why the T-34 should not be added to the current WWII assets pack but should be part of the base game. It really has no place in the current WWII environment and does belong in all sorts of scenarios post WWII. From Korea right up to Operation Allied Force.

Through the re-arming screen would be the best place I think. Of course as a mission designer, I want to have the option to lock the frequencies like skins and tail-number since it may be important to the mission to be on a particular frequency.

This is very true, but maybe they would have the capacity to build AI aircraft for the simulator?

Try this mod

I think you have that backwards, the Tiger was developed as a response to the shock of encountering the T-34 during Barbarossa. It would be an excellent addition but I don't think it should be added to the WWII assets pack. It is still in service in a few countries and saw extensive use by third world armies during the Cold War. It should be added to the base game. It would not be much use to us in the current WWII environment, although we have an I-16 and a Ju-88A-4 and if you squint enough, or fly in VR, you can use the Caucasus map for a theatre but the Persian Gulf or Syria would be great.