rkk01

Was flying a training intruder mission on NTTR and my AI wingman landed and turned straight onto the first taxiway...! No rollout, just touchdown and turn right. Does the AI FM not have ANY momentum or other physics modelling??? I was speechless ETA - I was already pretty mad at my No 2, as the only damage to my own aircraft was from the other Anton

Interesting re the D9 replicas... I’ve seen videos of the Anton replicas flying but didn’t know that there were also a few Doras around As far as adversaries are concerned, I fear that this is where the WW2 setting will come unstuck. If the reference material criteria are set at such a high bar, then even something as fundamental as a Ju 88 becomes very difficult... Maybe that the reason for the pivot towards the Pacific? Well referenced US prototypes and a reasonable case to get by with just a single Japanese model, whereas Europe starts to look tricky for either BoB or the existing late war timeframe By way of comparison, the modern 4th gen jet models must have to rely on extensive assumptions, work arounds and downright guesswork for radar, RWR, EW / ECM, and missile parameters... I’m sure that the same mix of hard fact and sensible assumption would also apply to WW2 modules

There’s been lots of debate on the forums about which WW2 modules next, what’s required regarding documentation and the need for flight test data / real pilot experience... (same applies in main DCS 2.7 and 3rd party forums - more focused on security etc) So - where’s the honest position here? The 262 vs F6F and Zero debates are the best examples Clearly, recreating and extinct aircraft (eg Whirlwind) or very rare aircraft (Typhoon, most Axis types) gets tricky. BUT - we do have the D9 and K4, both with no surviving airworthy examples, so is this a recent development??? Some have argued that it fits Nick Grey’s personal likes and TFC collection examples... pretty sure this is simplistic, but the sim is going to be massively compromised if devs have these limitations applied What adds or detracts the most in terms of realism??? - every fuel and engine system fully modelled, according to test and evaluation data and with the latest CFD model, or, - a lack of suitable peer adversaries to fly against (because they’re not modelled for incomplete data) or, - AI that works by different rules of aerodynamics / physics, defies even programmable logic and has sensors and shooting abilities that knows your exact position at all times??? Not a post to promote argument, as I respect alternative viewpoints. I don’t want arcade FMs, either in flyable modules, or in the current AI But I would love to fly a Ju 88 strike, pilot a 262, work the taxi rank or fly a cross channel raid in a Whirlwind

I’m kind of dubious of the whole flying examples / documentation thing... we have 3 Luftwaffe modules, supposedly to full DCS standard... but no flying examples for any

Well, that worked a treat... (although I did forget to set unlimited ammo) I have a few training mission scenarios set up on NTTR - Luftwaffe operating out of Tonopah, Allies from Beatty First run in, SC500 dropped with two P47s, 6 trucks and several buildings damaged or destroyed - blast damage certainly works for that bomb Very accurate fire from a 50cal quad inflicted some heavy engine damage, but I limped across the hills for a diversionary landing at Pahute Mesa

Solomons / Guadalcanal / Henderson Field would be an excellent future setting...

Was hoping we’d start to get some snippets on the Mossie rework... Q2 is ticking by

That’s great advice, thank you... ... especially the “unlimited ammo” tick - don’t know why that never occurred to me

Yes, followed the link initially a few pics but not much words, especially compared to the post here...

Picked up the Viggen in the sale Certainly quick - tried it out low level in some of the Lebanese / Syrian valleys... seems to have a real sense of mass and momentum rather just velocity Probably ought to work through the tutorials though... first flight was switch through the obvious electrical power and fuel switches, start up and taxi out... switching the hud on would have been helpful also need to look at g limits - pulling up from Mach 1.x at wave height into a vertical climb did something very bad to the airframe

Anyone use the cluster munitions bomb? not getting the desired effect on soft targets at the mo... poor accuracy probably the main issue, but I thought using a CBU might compensate

I must be missing something here I see a few images and minimal text... where is all the additional info from (not the speculation, the reported route map info)

To clarify, my “post Cold War campaigns” was to reference a recent(ish) timeframe... So Mirage, C101 and Viggen for fixed wing and the Gazelle. Anyone’s guess when the Typhoon or Mirage F1 will arrive

European aircraft are badly under represented in DCS, especially as the RAF, FAA and European NATO allies have been actively engaged in all of the major post Cold War air campaigns...

“Observer” really jumped out at me from this post: https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/260567-less-famous-mosquito-stories/?do=findComment&comment=4646069 I’ve really only been thinking of the second crew member as Navigator How cool would it be to have an Observer calling out contacts as the pilot concentrates on the flying...

Most interesting word... ”Observer” I think we’ve all been overly focused on the Navigator role...

It’s probably worth saying that the TF-51 Mustang is free with the core DCS download. If you haven’t already tried it, this will give you the chance to test your warbird flying skills on the Caucasus map. No guns, but will give you an idea if the warbirds are what you want... they are a steep learning curve I think that the P-47 and FW 190 A8 are the quickest to get to grips with. Probably worth avoiding the Spitfire and 109

How does that compare to other modules?? I’ve heard various reports regarding the F-14, M2000C and Viggen as fastest jets in DCS (clean, low level)

I voted yes... would be ace but I also love the idea of making the A4 and official module (without ditching all the community effort...) I don’t know the detailed variant history for the A4, but presumably some careful development could give a Vietnam era front line aircraft, Argentinian low- level strike aircraft for S Atlantic and an aggressor for NTTR

Raise a D9 refresh thread in the wish list??

I don’t know what’s not to like... The usual suspects explaining what the C in DCS stand for is as tiring as usual, but doesn’t really apply here... Think of it another way - it could be a route in to some interesting military aircraft and low level ops: C-130, UH-60, S-64/CF-54, PBY, plus a lot more

I know the poll is for twins, but the next German aircraft should be known to all... FW 190 F8 I think for German twins, the timeline would need to be wound back to 40-42, which would bring in the He 111, Do 17 and Me 110... Of course we’d also need an Emil / Friedrich, Hurricane and Spit 1a or Vb

Perhaps the best approach would be to develop a modular series of Ju 88 variants... Re the Uhu, yes I’ve read Brown’s book and account of it being underpowered and not as good as the Mossie... a pretty tough comparison in itself.

Tricky... stated 1944-45 timeframe would not be good for flying around in a 110... Ju-88 A4 would be good and probably needs to be in the game... That said, the most interesting aircraft above has to be the Uhu - small, but sufficient number produced, technically advanced, claimed successful Challenge would be how to use it in the daylight dominated DCS World arena

Sounds like we need FIDO