Redglyph

I received the book a few days ago, it's a treasure trove of information. From what I've seen so far, it's clear, precise and accurate. Very nice job! We don't have a Ju 87 in DCS yet, but if they ever sell extra copies, I recommend it.

It could be additional drag. They reduced the problem with "multiple ejector and open-ended exhaust stubs". So was there a compression issue? Yes, I bet they'd rather have them at night, no matter what

That seems to confirm my preferred theory. I'm sure it can get pretty hot, but the "wing protection" idea seems a bit ludicrous, with the other pipes just centimetres away. I've read that those exhaust dampers were a problem for the engine performance, on the early models. I'll try to find a reference on that. EDIT: it's in a book, "De Havilland Mosquito (Crowood Aviation Series)" by Martin Bowman, The Crowood Press, 2005. See for example here: https://military.wikia.org/wiki/De_Havilland_Mosquito (search for "flame dampers")

Apparently, those last two pipes were merged (as shown on SMH's photograph) to avoid the gas heat from damaging the wooden structure of the wing. But I could not find a valid reference to confirm that. It seems to make some sense, though I'm not entirely convinced it'd change anything. Perhaps it could be an issue when running idle, but it could also be designed that way because there was not much room for a 6th pipe at the back of the engine assembly.

If you're familiar with the Youtube channel Military Aviation History, by Christoph Bergs, you know how passionate and accurate he is about planes, especially related to WWII. I just saw that he started a crowdfunding campaign, together with Bernhard Kast (Military History Visualized), for a book on the German Stuka, titled Stuka - The Doctrine of the German Dive-Bomber. Obviously, it's a history book and not a novel. Here's the link for anyone interested in this project: https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/stuka-the-doctrine-of-the-german-dive-bomber. There are a couple videos on his channel about it (along with a recent video on the aircraft).

I've just finished this book. I'm not sure what to say. To its credit, this book may be interesting just for the description of the operations on a carrier. But the plot is below average, not really credible and the story has no rhythm. Moreover, the author has a poor command of English and makes a lot of mistakes, he is obviously not meant to write books. The need to make the US show its superiority over another country (this old Vietnam complex) and the childish arch-enemy duel complete this sad picture. The take away just doesn't justify the time spent reading this, so I can't recommend it. Instead, read "Viper Pilot: A Memoir of Air Combat" from Dan Hampton, even if that guy has a little superiority complex, he has a very good narration, very educational. And the story, which is real, is much more gripping.

I've heard from another player who bought the A-10C v2 that the same bugs have been kept in the new module (I'm glad I didn't buy it). So it's clear ED is making a point of not fixing it, without even saying why.

I'm not surprised, after all this time and having the patch in their hand, I think the only explanation is that they're making a point of keeping the bugs in. Not sure why. It's always been clear to me they're more interested in developing than stabilizing what is already there. Sad, I really liked this plane.

If I remember well, some of the words were very strangely pronounced too, so I suppose it's worth redoing the audio anyway. It's nice the engine now sounds much more convincing, that's the most important after all.

No idea, I suppose not. I'm not buying the A-10C II. Seeing how they have disregarded this problem for years when they had a fix they could integrate in minutes to solve it, I'm pretty sure the same bugs are in the 2nd version, so it's a no-go for me.

Come on, let's be realistic, they don't care a bit about that. I've checked other routers, not cheap ones, and that's not a usual functionality. Except for very expensive hardware like the one we use at work, which also manages VPN and where you can specify access policies. Anyway, none of that solves the problem on the PC itself. When a company imposes their own client to download gigantic amount of software and data, it should definitely have bandwidth control.

Not here unfortunately, the router is imposed by the Internet Provider.

Ah, I must have been confusing it with something else. Weird. Thanks for confirming! Thanks for the pointers! I had already tried such a tool without much success, but I can have a look again. That should really be handled by the router, but it's not the case here.

Hello, Many of the links of the updater thread are now broken and I can't find this info: is it possible to limit the download bandwidth of the updater? It's a huge amount of data (90 GB just for the base) and we are in lockdown, I can hardly use the whole bandwidth for hours since that prevents others from having remote sessions and calls, or even browsing. I'm pretty sure I saw this option long ago but I don't find it back, and there isn't any command-line help apparently. Thanks!

I think any new format needs some time before having people voting in such poll, there is always the initial resistance to change that will bias the results. Re-do the poll in one month or so. Not sure why the change was necessary, but it's always good to update every once in a while. The view of the subforums is much clearer than before, and I'm not concerned about the theme which is indeed a bit sad at the moment, I'm sure it can be customized with time, that's just cosmetics. It's nice to have the 'like' back, they were removed from the old forums at some point. Multi-quotes are nice for the one who uses it. Otherwise, it can quickly become a mess of quotes of multi-quoted posts... one post per response isn't bad either, easier to follow sub-threads. What I'm really struggling with, is finding back the useful subscriptions I had, and how they're working now, because it's never easy to follow topics in such a massive forum. I suppose it's just the matter of getting to know this new version. That, and the way the post window is jumping up and down when we're writing into it, perhaps a reasonable default height would improve this? It's a bit small atm.

Thanks for the info! I suppose it's possible to merge the fix with the new Lua file. But if the switches are still half a mess, I suppose the intent is to keep them that way, or it's not a priority and they'll do something about that in a few years, who knows. Either way, it's doing the patch all over again and maintaining it after each update, hoping it won't be necessary in the end. I've tried once and I know where it's leading... For now I'll focus on the other aircraft then.

If anyone knows whether the same bug is in the new A-10C II too, could you please let me know? I assume they took the same cockpit Lua file and that it's there too.

Thanks for trying :)

Thanks, but I think there is a misunderstanding. This bug had already been reported more than 4 years ago, and the fix provided (via Derelor, who also pinged it several times in the dev's bug tracking). So this bug must have been visible to the devs for a very long time. What I would like to understand is why they refused to integrate the patch, does ED prefer to keep it that way, or do they fear that changing now would cause an issue? And more importantly, do they want to keep back-compatibility with these incoherencies of the cockpit-mouse interactions with the new A-10C II? It was a surprise when I bought the 1st, I prefer not to have the same surprise if I buy the 2nd version (especially given the bad experience by trying to fix it). Not having any feedback despite asking repeatedly for 4 years is just rude, and I don't mean to me, but to all the users who have to update and re-install the patch manually every time.

More than one month, and no reply from the team. A bit disappointed but not surprised, on my side I have reservations on the new A-10C then, since I have no idea whether those problems are taken into account. It's likely not the case but who knows...

Similar to what I got. It's strange that we still get the sound in one view, but not in another one.

I'm excited to see the new features in store for the A-10C II! Seeing there is a talk of that in the news, and also a mention of those bug squashing sessions you have at ED, it's the perfect time to ask if there is any chance you fix the cockpit switch interactions which are inconsistent and confusing on this otherwise wonderful module. Either on the new model, or on both, which would be fair. Since I've provided the fix 4.5 years ago and it takes a few minutes to integrate, I'm perplexed as to why you've always refused to do it. I'm talking about this, to clarify: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/2268038/ The Warthog is a great asset to DCS, and it also have a great choice of campaigns. Seeing a new, improved version coming up is really nice :) I really enjoyed the current version, except for this major issue, that's why I decided to ask this question one more time, even though I had given up on that (perhaps also because I'm stubborn). God speed with the current developments!

+1 on that, those are great to improve the skills on A-10C, very thorough and interesting. It's definitely not for casual flying. (Don't confuse them with the more recent BFM campaigns from the same author, they have nothing in common.) Those, and the other great campaigns for the A-10C really make this module one of the best entry choice, IMHO I would even say the best by far. The fact it's being revamped could be a reason to hold off until it's released, though (that, and the terribly buggy mouse mapping of the cockpit switches...).

That's pretty much all wrong. ED did make a poll and a recent change to have correct setup for the most used hardware. The default is changed to some extent, now (regarding the sensible part) when you have to remove POV, throttle, ailerons and so on on all devices because DCS deems appropriate to preset that on a rudder pedal, there's clearly an issue that can be quickly fixed by what seems to have been implemented already (just not taken into account for some reason). Once again, if for you it's not necessary, it may well be for other users (which seems to be the case here), so please don't be so selfish by saying it's not necessary, and let ED reply instead of second-guessing them.

I think that problem has nothing to do with this one, I'm confused?