Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by xvii-Dietrich

  1. 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
  2. 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.
  3. MilTech5 Discord... https://discord.gg/42kpxQRj9z Razbam Discord... https://discord.gg/B5JpXdBfHg
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. Even getting the existing skins implemented on the human-flyable version would be really nice!
  8. 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).
  9. 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.
  10. 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!
  11. 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!
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. Nice! Thanks @6S.Dukefor the update. Things are getting closer and closer... really looking forward to this. .
  16. Oooo.... nice! This looks super cool. Thanks for the screenshot. Really appreciated.
  17. I hope we get Netherlands liveries for the upcoming AH-64. Several people have already mentioned the classic: However, there is an old display livery, which I think is particularly suitable for Eagle Dynamics, given the (almost!) "Fighter Collection" logo on the side of it! However, I really, hope that we also get a military (non-display) version in DCS. The standard Dutch military livery: drab grey-green with the Dutch insignia. ^^ This is the one I really want to see in DCS on the upcoming player-flyable Apache, appropriately assigned to the Netherlands faction.
  18. And well over a year ago here... Rosieres-en-Santerre would be my choice. We did a lot of research on that one... posted in the thread I quoted above... but that was back when we were still expecting the 190F-8.
  19. Bombs in DCS are somewhat arbitrary. There are some where aircraft are damaged by their own bomb blasts. Yet others have visual effects which are totally over the top, and yet the target remains undamaged (REF). This is also tied into the delayed fuse issue (REF). The ED team have hinted on Discord that they might look into the fuse issue, in which case we just need to wait-and-see if that results in improvements for the bomb damage too.
  20. Good initiative, @DD_Fenrir . The lack of historically-appropriate Luftwaffe airfields on the Channel Map has been a long-standing problem (ref). Getting something like this researched and added would add greatly to the credibility of DCS WW2, in addition to supporting this map directly.
  21. Re: "It's main task as a fighter ... " It had more than just a fighter role... for example reconnaissance and ground-attack. It is often assumed that it is a fighter as, with 75+ years of hindsight, it is viewed as being best as a fighter. Many will criticise the Luftwaffe doctrine of requiring all aircraft to be used in a multirole capability (hence bombs on 109s, 190s and, of in this case, the 262). Nevertheless, it had other roles and its front-line deployment during the Normandy campaign was in a bomber wing (KG51), not a fighter group. So, for an "authentic feeling mission", this would also include these non-fighter missions too. As other have pointed out, simulating the aircraft in all its operational uses — as well as possible operational uses— is a factor in the inclusion of any module within DCS. The holistic view of the aircraft, whether bomber, fighter, photo-recon, airshow star, experimental test-plane or any other facet of this revolutionary design should be borne in mind. And "the right opponents" should include the ground assets, targets, terrain, logistics and weather that all proved adversarial to the 262, in addition to the Allied airforces that flew despite it.
  22. Superlative set of posts, @DD_Fenrir . The level of detail is most commendable. Well done. You are probably aware of it already, but if not, then I would recommend the following reference for LW bases and units: http://www.ww2.dk/Airfields - France.pdf . Unfortunately, the Channel Map has no relevant LW airfields, but the document does allow the identification of those that were used and thus derive feasible vectors for interception. In addition to the airfields themselves, it also has mention of the Flak.Abt (AAA-detachments), for example in an around Amiens. While it does not contain the exact locations of these batteries (which no doubt moved anyway), it does have their unit names, which may assist with additional research.
  23. " Whilst some other aircraft also require warm up, the Anton is the one aircraft with these significantly long warm up times. " The P-47 while slightly longer than some of the others, is still commensurately shorter. Regarding the Oil Dilute switch issues, this is something that needs to be reported to ED (and then nag them to get it fixed). At this stage, the "hot-start / pre-warmed" option is only implemented on the Anton.
  24. From the Storm of War FAQ... " ED recently updated the aircraft engine temperature management which means that it can take from 5 to 10 minutes to warm up the Anton. Whilst some other aircraft also require warm up, the Anton is the one aircraft with these significantly long warm up times. Given that ground crews had the task of pre-warming aircraft at front line airfields, we have chosen to start these aircraft in a hot state. Unfortunately DCS does not allow for pre-warmed aircraft with their engines shut off. In order to approximate this condition, the aircraft spawn with empty fuel tanks. The engines will shut off before the player is able to taxy forward, requiring a refuel and full start sequence. This reduced the pre-taxy time from a minimum of 5 minutes down to about one minute. " Ref: https://stormofwar.net/dcs/
  • Create New...