xvii-Dietrich

Not for the timeframes portrayed by either the Channel Map or Normandy. On 01-Jun-1944, the Luftwaffe had no Ju 52s whatsoever assigned to the Western Front (France and Low Countries). Instead, the area was covered by III./TG1 operating SM.72 aircraft and IV./TG4 operating LeO 451 aircraft. Several Geschwader Stab.Gruppen had individual He 111 aircraft (in a transport, not bomber) role and there were some FW 200 C, re-appropriated from bomber units such as KG40. The FW 200 and He 111 were also in various patrol units (e.g. 4./FAGr.5) However, the vulnerability and low capacity of the Ju52 had meant that they were all deployed elsewhere or on internal homeland areas. Yes, the Ju 52 is the iconic Luftwaffe transport, but the appropriate transport counter part for the maps and timeframes we already have in DCS now would be the LeO 451. References Ehrengardt, C.J. "Operation Overlord" http://ww2.dk/air/transport/tg1.htm http://ww2.dk/air/transport/tg4.htm http://ww2.dk/air/kampf/kg40.htm

This bug was originally reported about 18 months ago: https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/228300-unable-to-set-single-digit-tail-numbers It took a year to get it acknowledged and "reported". We now need to wait for the fix. Single-digit numbers work for the Dora (an older module), so the fix already exists... it just needs to be included on the Anton too.

MilTech5 Discord... https://discord.gg/42kpxQRj9z Razbam Discord... https://discord.gg/B5JpXdBfHg

Some more screenshots were posted up last night/this morning over on the MilTech5 Discord. It was reported that this door lock has now been animated.... (a tiny detail, but appreciated, and no doubt time-consuming to implement!. Plus some more cockpit work... @The_Fragger marked this as WIP (Work In Progress)... so things are still in development and more changes can be expected.

Agreed. This sort of thing can be frustrating. ED lovingly make these exquisite 3D models and pour vast quantities of effort into get the flight model just right... and then use the wrong font or the incorrect roundel or a misspelling or something.

We have considered the Channel Map very carefully, but in its current form it is not suitable for Storm of War. The main reasons why we don't use the Channel Map are: 1. A lack of historical scenarios (for the planeset we have) 2. Insufficient airfields (especially on the Axis side) 3. Performance (i.e. player-experienced frames-per-second) We are also committed to developing our existing Normandy campaign. There is a full article about all these reasons here: https://stormofwar.net/2020/11/01/november-2020-why-not-channel-map/ While it is possible to devise one-off scenarios for the Channel Map (e.g. Ramrod 564 - Amiens Prison), these rely on elements such as a single surprise strike. These types are scenarios are interesting, but do not let us sustain a 24/7 multiplayer environment. In the same way that you write that for Normandy there is "a limited time frame and place for a diferent missions types", the Channel Map is even more limited. Related to this are issues such as multiplayer vectors, airfield defence, and other issues, which the Channel Map handles poorly. As I wrote, we have considered the map very carefully, and have written numerous reports (REF1, REF2, REF3. etc.), but it really is not appropriate for historical missions in a multiplayer environment. Regarding airfields (and the "Caen furball"), there are alternatives for both sides. It is possible for the Axis to start further back (Barville, Conches, Évreux), and likewise for the Allies (Tangmere, Ford, Funtington, etc.). There are hot spots (in terms of Flak/AAA) for both sides. Yes, Allied ships at places like Grandcamp put up extremely stiff resistance. This is deliberate. Lone aircraft are indeed likely to get shredded. Attacking those positions requires multiple aircraft and teamwork. But there are easier areas too (such as the advance positions, which are feasible for lone aircraft to assault). It is possible to fly on the server both as a lone-wolf (or a full squadron) and find a suitable challenge.

Even getting the existing skins implemented on the human-flyable version would be really nice!

Having searched through the forums, I cannot find any mention of this, so here's a quick report. At the moment, the FuG16 radio equipment is only partially implemented. The main selector does not give a repeatable frequency (error = ±2kHz) on the same channel, and the Fern-Nah Schalter is not implemented. If you mouse-hover over the selector, it even says "Radio WIP", so I presume the intention is to implement it (and not leave it as a decorative dial only).

There are actually two. There is the Razbam one that @Desert Foxfox posted above. Razbam are doing the coding for this project. Then, there is the MilTech5 Discord... https://discord.gg/42kpxQRj9z MilTech5 is where the Bo 105 3D model/graphics expert is (who is also the overall project lead too). So following both of these will keep you up-to-date. That said, I tend to re-post anything significant from either of them here in this thread. Not everyone uses Discord.

Dear AvioDev, I just wanted to reply and let you know how much we appreciated you guys adding liveries to the CJTF factions. This was really great and for the last two weekends, we've been putting them to good use. Thanks also for responding and letting us know. We are really grateful for your ongoing commitment to the C-101... it is a fantastic module!

The question of multicrew came up on the Razam discord today. And the following was posted by the Bo 105 coder. There are no details beyond that, but it is superb to know that it is on its way!

Not necessarily....

Back at the end of June, the coder (= RAZBAM_Nibbylot) said he would be away for 2 months or so over the summer. Ref: https://forums.eagle.ru/topic/91082-bo-105-pah1a1-progress-news/?do=findComment&comment=4718959 So I guess he'll be starting to get back into it around now... but I don't know. It's just a guess. In any case, it may well take a bit to get back up to speed again, touch base with the progress that The_Fragger has made on the graphics, etc., etc.. Hopefully we'll get some sort of status on that soon.

Today, @The_Fragger posted some more screenshots on Discord. Lots of corners in the cockpit now being textured up... including some of the equipment that you don't normally look at. Obviously this is all work in progress, but progress is good. :- ) He also posted up a short video showing the animation work of the door handle and door opening. Also good stuff, and it is nice to see animation work also coming along nicely.

It's an interesting idea, but there are a few things that come to mind. It is very easy with all "Would you like...?" surveys to click "Yes!". I mean, we all want more things, more features, more options. However, it always comes at a cost. Not just the price of the modules in question, but the cost to the development portfolio. So every "Yes!" needs to come with a "What would you give up?" supplementary question. Give up the Me 262? Give up the FW 190 F-8? Give up the Hellcat? Give up the Zero? Give up the AH64D? Sure, some of these might be different ED teams, but there is a cost nonetheless... perhaps to a module that we haven't even thought of yet. The next thing is replay value. I mean, once people have done it once, would they do it again? I see a lot of people clamouring to do the Ramrod 564 (Amiens Prison) mission. But are they _really_ going to fly the whole sortie? And, even if so, would they do it a second time? Or every weekend? Or each night? Going to the night fighting, it is a fantastic and interesting challenge, but does it have this replay value? Or, once complete, would it go into the virtual hanger, along with a handful of other bought-on-a-whim-to-try-it modules? Of course, the counter argument is then... does it matter? The module was already sold. Well... not if it was in the free trial programme. And then if not many fly it, then there are fewer screenshots, YT videos, etc. to continue to promote it. The old _"fighters make movies"_ saying... but what about night fighters? It is a bit like those who want a flyable B-17G. Great idea, but how many people are going to fly those missions (other than just to try it). I sometimes suggest to the B-17G wannabe-pilots to set up a realistic B-17G AI-flight, and then go and fly formation with them in a TF-51D with drop-tanks for the whole mission. It's a long straight-line, a moment when you press a button, and then a long straight-line back again. With the DCS maps, I think this sort of thing is better served by the existing B-17 on a civil aviation simulator. Just roll a die to see if you were short down or not. That said, I think the night-fighter scenario is a vastly more interesting one. [[[ Side note: I have been trying to think of a way to simulate the nightfighting with the aircraft we have. Perhaps a B17G flight, which you intercept using a combination of AWACS and a MiG-17 with its primitive radar. Sure... this is highly unrealistic, but it would help prove at least some of the concepts (callouts, weak radar, night-time intercept, etc.). I am open to suggestions if there are better ideas. ]]] And there are other things that make night fighting a good idea. It would get night-ops generally fixed or working (Freya, Würzburg-Riese, AFN-2 homing, runway lighting, cockpit illumination in the D9, better searchlights, improved Flak AI, German-language callouts, etc.) - you can tell this is a LW perspective, but you get the idea. And the same applies for both sides. In any case, for me, I'm really torn on this. It is a definite maybe. It really depends on how it is presented and how the assets could be used beyond that single nightfighting intercept scenario. If it is just that, and it comes at the cost of the Me 262 project, well, I guess I'd say no. If, however, it came with a flyable Ju 88, for which I could switch out the Schräger Musik and fly it as long-range recon or intruder as well as a night fighter, then probably yes. PS: Sorry for the text wall.