Ripcord03

entirely possible, but I would think even a slight power loss would occur if a bird went through the intake fan... but then again, I've never flown a real life A-10C or hit a bird for that matter...

uh, well i guess i need to brush up on my french lol... maybe someone will edit the default cockpit texture and put up a nice english version while we wait for the final release :D (Those french classes i took in high school are finally worth something)

I'd say bird strike, i had that happen on the F99th server one day right after takeoff, got spooled up, less than 1000m after takeoff my left engine caught fire and i had to turn around and land.

so in otherwords, its wise to deactivate modules if you are low on activation's and plan on swapping hardware?

well, if you hop on with Dogs of War, there are a lot of great guys that are more than willing to help people learn the mustang. Engine management is fairly simple once you understand the basics, never let it overheat, and how open/closing the dampers affects speed and heat. I agree with Kahn in the fact that the Unique Handling is probably the hardest aspect to learn, I still encounter issues in multiplayer turn fighting with wingstalls/wingovers due to the torque roll effect. Dogfighting strategy is also a hard concept, the hardest part is understanding Advantage, and Energy state (Referred to commonly as 'E' or Potential 'E'), you also have to understand dogfighting is a fluid concept, as Potential E is constantly changing, and E also directly correlates to Engine management. Altitude will always give you more Potential Energy, but just because you have more Potential E doesn't necessarily give you Advantage if you don't understand how to mange your energy. In a Dogfight, one of the biggest aspects, and often a determining factor in the winner of the fight is the Merge. In a Co-Altitude, Head-On merge between 2 P-51D's going 300mph at max continuous, both pilots have the same Potential and True Energy. From there it becomes who knows how to manage energy better, and can also predict the other pilots maneuvering and take advantage of the Energy State.

I want to go to las vegass!

its been there since 1.2, nothing new, and not uncommon IRL when props aren't secured into a headwind, i doubt its a bug.

I can't attest to other planes too much, but none of the WWII plane's have panels that open during repair, but i believe the F86F does, and the KA-50 might, its been a while since i have flown either of those 2 modules and repaired though.

I'm sorry but if he really wants to argue on the sake of historical accuracy and realism, then Respawns, and being able to get another aircraft immediately after dying or getting shot down is also not accurate and should be removed. same with 180 second repairs. Also, we should then be forced to fly realistic distances and times to the combat area. But wait, I dont hear him complaining about that? It seems he only wants to change stuff that doesnt fit his "version" of the game and how it should be played according to him. Frederich and OutOnTheOP have continuously proven him wrong on multiple threads, with his own evidence no less. Not trying to personally attack you crumpp, but the way you have been phrasing your arguement continues to insinuate that if we dont do it your way, then its wrong or "gamey" or "exploiting" something. And thats just not the case. I'm never against improving what DCS currently has, but claiming that adjusting fuel load to match the mission is an exploit simply isnt true. I'm always for historical accuracy, but you also have to look at the bigger picture, Realism vs Fun Factor, sorry, but I dont have the time or energy to fly 3+ hours just to get to an Area of Operation in what is believe it or not a GAME, yes i said it, DCS is a GAME. If I wanted to sit around for 3+ hours doing nothing before seeing combat/doing anything, I would have stayed in the army. Conversely, could the fuel system be improved, or altered to accommodate the more Realism Dedicated folks, yes, and im all for it, but i think ED has bigger things to worry about than the fuel slider, Like patching the memory leaks, getting the Spitfire ready for release, getting 2.0 ready for a full release etc. To me, this is nothing more than a drop in the water compared to the bigger issues that need fixed. I apologize if anything i said is taken as a personal attack, its not meant to be, but it seems all the WWII threads seem to go the same route anymore, arguing over changing something that isn't broken when there are bigger issues that need to be fixed. Plus I would like to see a 1944 Europe/Normandy Map at some point in my lifetime lol.

that is correct, it has existed for quite a while, i believe it was present in the standalone DCS: A-10C also if i remember correctly.

Ditto. I voted #2 as well.

whats funny is how crump only starts complaining about this after net_man owned him in DoW, and netman took 40% fuel on takeoff.... there is absolutely nothing stopping you from adjusting your fuel load too crump. I see this as nothing more than an attempt to nerf the P51 yet again. Routinely in DoW when we take off as a squad we all take the same loadouts, generally ~40% fuel and rockets/bombs depending on the mission, when im planning on loitering or providing air cover, i take around 45%, which is more than plenty considering most of the missions on DoW take around a 10-15 min flight to the target area. which with 40% gives us around 30-40 mins of combat before RTB, and almost everytime, ammo is the limiting factor, with me returning to base with 3 kills, and 20% fuel, and no ammo. And its no different in the 190, where i will never takeoff with the rear tank full because is nerfs its handling. Please dont try to force an unnecessary change to the game just because you made a mistake in a dogfight and lost to someone who happened to change their fuel load to match the mission requirements. Sorry to say it, but the majority of the time, the main cause of a WWII dogfight loss is because someone made a mistake in their fighting. I know one of my biggest mistakes i make is following a 109 in a climb, when i dont have the energy for it. I have yet to see fuel being used as an "exploit". I have flown against the 51 in game even when they took less fuel, and still beaten them, it comes down to who's the better pilot everytime, regardless of fuel. "Never interrupt your enemy when they are about to make a mistake" Back on subject, OutOnTheOP made excellent points as to why this shouldn't happen, just like he did when crump complained about how the .50's should jam more due to heat. I don't know a single player in the WWII servers that doesnt check his fuel load before taking off. I have yet to lose a plane due to lack of fuel, I also have yet to find someone who only takes 10mins of fuel and is deliberately attempting to "exploit" the game. Everyone I have flown with takes the fuel required for the mission. Whether it be in any of the WWII birds, the F15, or the A10C, or any other Module. Plain and simple.

72" isnt new to me, I noticed that if you hit WEP, at the right altitude you can hit 72" no problem lol. I have had the 75" issue though, generally resulting after being hit by enemy fire. what's really weird is hitting 75" with my governor still functioning normally.

I'd love to see a flyable B-17, honestly, anything new WWII wise would be awesome. Personally there is only 2 fighters I really want to fly from WWII, the P-38L, and an F6F or F4U. Bomber/Attack wise, B-17 is one of my favorites of all time, and I think it would bring in even more people. Also wouldn't mind seeing a B25 and maybe some german bombers/attack planes also like the He-111, the Bf-110C or G and the Ju-88 or Ju-87. Personally I flew Aces High for the longest time, and Warbirds before that, and I still have friends who stick to aces high because currently the $15/mo gets them the ability to fly a bunch of WWII aircraft, and try as I might to get them to try DCS, they refuse because the WWII side just isnt as developed yet. (I cancelled my Aces High Subscription a few months ago after i learned how to not crash the WWII birds on takeoff lol).

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/1552349/ Download is up.

Update, Had it finished for a while, was just busy making a few small tweaks and Adjustments. Heres a few more screenshots for ya until I get the download approved in the User Files.

Ok, so im not 100% sure if this is a known issue, or the status on it, but after flying a few missions at night, when trying navigate with a formation if you drop out of 0.2nm of a P51D with their lights on, the lights simply disappear. I've attached a couple screens with labels on to show exactly what i mean. Distance <0.2nm: Distance >0.2nm (in this case 0.3nm): My Game settings: Everything is as high as it can go graphics wise. Model Visibility set to small. Time was set to Midnight with Clear Skies, no wind or clouds. I've Confirmed that this issues exists on P-51 for the distances above. The only other models I've tested with is the A-10C and that one is slightly better with the draw distance ending 1.2nm instead of .2 nm. which is like i said better, but I'm not sure how accurate that is considering i can see airliners with nav and collision lights at cruise altitude from my back porch on the plains of the Midwest US. P.S. : This isnt game breaking or critical, but it would be nice to at least make the nav lights draw a little farther out especially in the 51, as otherwise its hard when trying to identify friendly flights when rejoining after a fight or after takeoff at night. P.S.S: While I was trying to get screen grabs, I Also upped a 109, and a 190. The extremely small draw distance seems to be limited only to the 51, with the 109 and 190 visibility set at roughly 1nm before they disappear.

another thing to mention related to model visibility is the Draw distance of the Nav and Collision lights at night, flew a couple missions with the DoW guys, and then some more in single player at night, and i can see the "Model" way before the lights. The lighting doesnt seem to "draw" or show up until im with in 1/4 nm, which on a really dark sky with no clouds just isnt right when i can stand on my porch at night and see airliners nav and collision lights when they are flying at cruise alt...

good to know, ill keep that in mind next time i work on a video

interesting, i still prefer using shadowplay to record my tracks and the H.264 compression is decent, and doesnt seem to miss much or drop to many frames. I have used many tools in the past including fraps, I own both Action! Pro and the X.Split Profession License, and I still find myself coming back and using Shadowplay for everything. IMO it looks better and records better, but everyone has their own preference. (also off topic side note, every time i see "RAT" i think of "Remote Access Trojan" lol...)

well, im not a noob, but im not exactly an ace either, Im in Iowa, you can usually catch me on the Dogs of War, ACG, Fighting 99th or 104th Servers depending on what im flying, I generally fly the P51, F86, or A10C, but i have all modules minus the MiGs and L39

104th's server doesnt always show up in the browser, i dont have the IP off hand, but generally if you cant see it, hop on their TS and get the server IP there and try to join via IP. If that doesnt work, the server is probably down.

Hollywood, did you forget your favorite tester :P Only Modules I dont have are the MiG's, The Mi-8, and the L39 ;p

fair enough, i just think it would be fun to add that to the possible payload for eventual ground attack missions, because as it stands right now the only real capable ground attack airframe for WWII is the pony, due to the amount of ordinance it can carry, would be cool to see both the 151/20 and the 21mm rockets added. (just my opinion lol)

So, yes I did a search, but all threads relating to the topic are over a year old.... So I was wondering, are we ever going to see the M151/20 Gunpods on the Bf109K4? I mean they are in all DCS documentation for the K4 as being an option, but they are yet to be added in game. Plus if you search around there is plenty of info about the K4 using M151/20 (mostly on bomber intercept, even if not a lot of pilots liked them due to the Performance Decrease when it comes to maneuverability)... Personally, I'd like to see these become an option, especially with the supposedly upcoming normandy map (ground attack combining 20mm and 30mm would be awesome) and with the release of the spitfire coming too... Just my two cents... any other 109 pilots out here want to weigh in?