xvii-Dietrich

So it seemed! :D But I'm very pleased to see a comprehensive preview video!! :)

@saburo_cz beat me to it... this is the No.1 piece of advice. You get to check your hardware, your controllers, and the feel of the WW2 conventional-style landing gear (and all the issues with ground handling, etc. that this brings). If you can manage standard flights in the TF-51D on the Caucasus map you'll know what to expect when you buy a module. Then, as @raz+or says, get the one that interests you the most. That way you'll have the enthusiasm to stick with it. All DCS aircraft required a lot of dedication to get out of them the depth and nuance that makes DCS so rewarding.

We starting to see some previews coming out from the modern YouTubers: SK, GS, GR, et al.. Nice! But is there any chance of the DCS WW2 YouTubers putting out a video for us? Please? It would really good to see it with the historical perspective and commentary, from some of the guys who really know their WW2 stuff. Suntsag? Philstyle? ... perhaps?

I've just made a quick mission to test it and it works for me. This is for manually putting each weapon on the pylon, or selecting a pre-load from the drop-down menu in the "rearm/refuel" window in the mission. The test mission I made is attached... just an empty I-16 parked on the ramp. A few things you might want to check/report (they might help you find the problem, or help others figure out what is happening, if you let us know). What version of DCS are you using? I am on 2.5.6.49718 (open beta). Which map are you using? It works on Caucasus, but I'm not sure on the others. Which airfield are you using? (I've seen bugged airfields before, e.g. Conches.) Are you starting from ramp? Hot start? Something else? In my test, I was on the ramp, pre-start. Are you sure that the airfield is the same faction as you are? (i.e. Blue airfield, if your I-16 is on the Blue faction.) Unlikely, but is the airfield stocked with weapons? You can check by clicking on it on the F10 map, then click "resources". All the best! I hope you get it sorted out! test-i16-reload_v01.miz

Objects "float" 20-30 cm above the deck. This applies both to deck crew and to at least some of the helicopters (SA342L and UH-1H).

In the last patch or so, SD-2 cluster sub-munitions have stopped falling correctly. Previously, they were deploying appropriately and falling slowly to the ground (taking a couple of minutes from 4000+ metres altitude, and then landing over the space of a further minute or so). Now, after the canister opens, the butterfly wings open, but then instantly disappear. The SD-2 bomblets then fall rapidly to the ground, landing in a tight pattern together. Last tested with DCS Open Beta v2.5.6.49314. Before (correct) and after (incorrect) screenshots attached.

Plenty of pilots on Storm of War (which uses DCS Open Beta). Over 400 pilots so far this month (May 2020, REF). And a rich AI environment too, if you are on during the "quieter hours".

German Luftwaffe markings for the P-47 While doing some background reading on the P-47, I came across numerous photographs and images of P-47s with Luftwaffe markings. Also: There are LW markings for the P-51 and RAF markings for the Anton and Dora by some talented folk. It's cool that they were adopted by ED and made official too (e.g. so we can use them on the MP servers). Anyway, it would be really great if we could have the upcoming P-47 added to the ThirdReich/Germany coalitions and have some German markings for it too! :)

There are a lot of good suggestions in this thread, but the above sums it up for me... Radio operator in a Catalina on long-range maritime patrol, chattering out the morse, and doing trigonometry on the plotting chart to find some calm water in a quiet island bay to land. Bliss.

Cool video. I truly hope the B-105 in DCS will have the option of removing the external-hardpoints, so we can fly it "slick". Apart from aerobatics, it would then also serve for utility, civilian, medivac, SAR, reconnaissance, etc., etc..

Yes, it is small compared to all the other maps. There are three paved airfields on the map: Evreux, Carpiquet and Tangmere (each of which has a maximum runway length of 1650 metres). My squad has routinely operated Hornets, F-5E-3s, L-39s, C-101s out of Carpiquet. We've also operated Harriers off the Tarawa in the Channel itself. I am not aware of any player-flyable aircraft that cannot take off fully loaded (the C-101 is close though!). There are some large-ish dirt fields, e.g. Lessay. I have taken off in a M-2000C from there. We've also operated F-86s off some of the smaller grass fields, such as Goulet. It is good for helicopters, especially as you can place FARPs more or less wherever you want. Cross-channel operations will be your longest ranges for missions. Still not particularly far, but that just means you can take more payload and less drop-tanks. The map does have some deficiencies though, so check the reviews and watch some YouTube videos before diving in. That said, the recent update at the end of last year has addressed a LOT of issues and it is now much, much better than it used to be. In case it helps, there is a map of the French side of the Channel here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=4147675#post4147675 EDIT : There are limited navigation aids. You might need to place extra beacons, ships or tankers to help out. GPS on the Harrier/Hornet/etc. MFDs still works though.

The screenshots and videos of Manston in the upcoming Channel Map show a large concrete runway (REF). This means the Channel Map is April 1944 or later. The airfields on the Continent are announced as: Dunkirk Mardyck, Saint-Omer Longuenesse, Merville Calonne, Abbeville Drucat. (REF1, REF2) Of these, not a single one of them was still operational in April 1944, with the last units departing as of... Dunkirk Mardyck (Stab/JG 51, May 1941) Saint-Omer Longuenesse (10./JG54April 1943) Merville Calonne (V./KG2, August 1943) Abbeville Drucat (II./JG2, December 1941) ... and the fields bombed, mined, obstructed or trenched thereafter. (REF , but if anyone has any better references/information, please reply and let me know.) Would it be possible to: a) find out if any appropriate Luftwaffe airfields on the Continent are planned by ED? b) find out the region the map covers, so the community could research historically-used Luftwaffe airfields and suggest them to ED? Thanks.

I hope that the next aircraft will be... FW 190 F-8 Over a year ago, Nineline wrote: Ref: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3774154&postcount=180 (25-Jan-2019) Hopefully now that the A-8 is out of early access, there will be some progress (and progress reports) on the F-8 to "match the upcoming P-47D".

It was called Würger by Focke-Wulf, as all aircraft from that company were traditionally named after birds. The term "Butcherbird" is simply the English common name for the same species of bird (genus Laniidae). Though, if you have a reference for the term originating from RAF reports, I'd would be very curious to see it. References: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrike https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/W%C3%BCrger https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focke-Wulf_Fw_190#cite_note-1

What do you mean by GMT? Actual mean time in Greenwich on 6th June 1944 (= UTC+2)? British Standard (Winter) Time in 1944 (= UTC +1)? Or UTC? As the UK changed its time zone during the war, and that the invasion occurred during "daylight savings" time, makes GMT rather ambiguous. From the link you gave, I presume it is 03:57 UTC. But there is then the additional complication of what timezone is being used in DCS.

Yes you can dig them up in my country, they are all over place. Btw i said that they fail more frequent then instant fuses, if this is was frequent at all didn't say anything about that. I think that @razo+r was asking for sources that we could read and thus verify the claim. This would allow determination of whether these were delay fuze failures, to which ordnance they apply, what the target/ground area was and (potentially) from which altitude they were dropped. I would certainly like something more academic than "they are all over place", which seems a bit of a hyperbole. https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4311484&postcount=5 https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4242466&postcount=4 plus the references included in each

Understood. Thanks for that link too. That's a nice reference, which will give me some reading/researching to do. Much appreciated.

I've been wondering what sort of speed the DH98 will be able to do at sea level. The reason for this, is that I've been starting to think about mission building for it and was trying to plan cross-channel timings, etc.. There are some speeds quoted in various places (see references below), but it is never clear what altitude (or variant or load) to which these apply. Only one indicates altitude: 380mph at 13,000ft. @Bozon What was the reference for that? Do you know if this was fully-loaded or empty? Does anyone else have any information for a sea-level speed for the DH98 variant that we will be getting in DCS? Thanks. References (that I've found) http://www.211squadron.org/de_havilland_mosquito.html https://www.flugzeuginfo.net/acdata_php/acdata_dh98_en.php https://www.dehavillandmuseum.co.uk/aircraft/de-havilland-dh98-mosquito-fb-mk-vi/

I have been systematically reading the new DCS manual over the last week or so. Again this morning I've been back in it (this is no one-day-task!). Yet again, I have been so impressed — and so grateful — that I wanted to post something to say "Thank you, ED". (And this thread seems appropriate.) I do not know who the people were who wrote that manual. There is no name, no credit, nothing like what I'd find at the back of the usual aircraft module manuals. I suspect it is a team of people, covering different sections, writing, proof-reading, translation, graphics, formatting, editing, technical input, captions, composition, cross-references, overview, management, etc., etc., etc.. So, to all those who were in any way involved... THANK YOU!! I admire the professional quality of the work, the thoroughness and the sheer effort it must have taken to produce it. For those of us who make heavy use of the Mission Editor, this tome is vital, showing technique, corners, rationale and detail that would otherwise be missed or misunderstood. I know that there is a torrent of writing from all of us users on the forums and perhaps this post might get overlooked. But I truly hope that at least one of those manual-writers stumbles upon these words and then knows that, for at least one user, all of his or her effort has made such a difference.

Here are some references. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SC50_bomb https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SC250_bomb And this one psoted by @CHSubZero is particularly good, assuming you can read German. http://michaelhiske.de/Wehrmacht/Luft/Luft/LDV_4200/SERIE_D/INDEX_D.HTM See also this thread, and the references included therein... https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4242466&postcount=4 At the moment (based on the Lua files), there appears to be no in-game difference between the sub-classes for a given SC type. This might change when the new damage model (DM) is implemented.

Not sure if this is intentional or not, but the fictional Japanese paintschemes/markings seem to be available for all nations, just just Japan. This was not previously the case. While it is, of course, possible to ignore those you don't want, it does not stop others selecting them on multiplayer servers, to the detriment of those servers trying to retain an historical setting.

I've also been trying modules during the free month. I checked the M2000C and was very pleasantly surprised. I have thus now bought it. Thanks Razbam! :) I also tried the A-10C. While it's okay, I think the AV8B is more fun for me. The AV8B is faster, more flexible, has more character, V/STOL-capability and can do ship-borne operations. I've had the AV8B for a while - it was one of the first jets I got. So, yes, I made a good choice back then.

There is a church just west of Argentan town. Gorgeous 3D model of the building itself, but the placement means that it clips the tree-line and does not align to any of the roads/tracks. (Exact coordinates are in the status bar at the bottom of the screenshot.)

I would absolutely love a WW2 level bomber. With a proper level-bomber bomb sight. The Ju 88 would be perfect. But any level bomber would do. Unfortunately, as @SMH points out, the DH98 will be the fighter-bomber, not level bomber variant. :sad_2:

Not always. In the space industry, left-hand thread (counter-clockwise to close) is used on oxygen lines and right-handed thread is used on all other lines (fuel, oil, supply, water, etc.). This is to avoid inadvertent cross-use of components which can have catastrophic failure. This protocol is also used in other applications, e.g. the oxygen lines in oxygen-acetylene welding equipment. However, medical oxygen is right-hand thread. So it depends. I do not know about the oxygen valve in the FW aircraft, but given that we are talking oxygen here, I would urge caution before assuming a particular sense. That said, I think the photographs provided by @gulredrel are pretty convincing.