xvii-Dietrich

From an air-spawn start, the only thing you need is: Main Rocket Switch ON Bomb release You might want to check that first. Use F2 external view to verify you have the rockets installed. Air start, then main rocket swtich on (the left one, not the right one!), and then bomb release. However... If you've done a manual/ground start and guns fire, but not rockets, it might be that the "Drop ordnance & additional armament cb" is off. This circuit breaker (cb) is the forward-most breaker in the forward breaker bank. It is labelled "Abwurf-Waffe".

The "old times" German unit was 1at = 10 mWS (REF1, REF2). That is a unit of pressure. Dimensionally (REF3), this is F.L-2 = M.L-1.T2. 1kg/cm2, dimensionally, is M.L-2. This is not the same as M.L-1.T2. I concede that it is commonly used incorrectly. I agree with you completely on this point.

I am seeing the terms mass and force being mixed up, as well as the difference between quantities and units. "ata" is a German abbreviation which stands for "Atmosphäre, absolute". It is a quantity (not unit) describing absolute pressure (= force per unit area). Note, pressure is force (not mass) per unit area. In comparison, the "atü" ("Atmosphäre, über") is a quantity describing relative pressure compared to, for example, the surrounding amosphere. The "at" (Atmosphäre) is a unit (not quantity) of pressure. It is currently defined as 9.80665 N/cm�² = 0.980665 bar. However, the original definition of "at" (at, not ata) was 1 at = 10 mWS (mWS = Meter Wassersäule). In other words, it the absolute pressure of a 10-metre column of water. Technically, it is 10 mWS is 1 kp (kilopond) per square centimetre. Whenever someone uses kg/cm�² to describe pressure, it is not technically correct (as it is using mass per area, not force per area). It is based on the assumption that 1kg = 9.8N, which might be true at rest on the Earth's surface, but would not apply, for example, on the Lunar surface. The unit "at" (and thus quantity, "ata") was deprecated in Germany from 1978 in favour of the strict SI unit, namely, Pa (Pascal) = N/m�². Ref: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Druck_(Physik) Sorry for being a pedanticist.

A few things to check: Check the game version (lower right of main DCS menu screen) it should be 2.5.6.47224 or later. In the mission editor, when you place the aircraft, check that the country is appropriate. Germany, Third Reich, etc. would work fine, of course, but many others work too. Then, for the "Task" (immediately below the country select), make sure it is also appropriate. Things like "CAP" or "CAS" will not work. Instead select something "Anti-ship strike" or "Ground attack". My guess is that an incorrect task is what is stopping you. Once you've done those, then the Ju 88 A-4 will become an option in the Type drop down menu.

I have been testing this today. I do not think the AI gunners are too good at all. If you get onto their "six" and close in slowly, presenting a steady target to aim at, you will get chewed up. However, if you have a good approach speed, do not maintain a steady az/el for their gunners and clear out to then make a second pass, they are moderately easy. I have shot down six Ju88s today using a P-51... and I don't normally fly the P-51. But to echo the original post, the new Ju 88 model is stunning. Really, really nice work. And to watch them do torpedo runs is sublime. I just wish I could fly one. Maybe one day?

Tested this again with the new version (v2.5.6.47224). Using the same testing conditions indicated in the first post of this thread. No rockets loaded = 551 km/h Rockets loaded, then jettisoned = 551 km/h Rockets loaded, one fired, other jettisoned = 530 km/h (and asymmetry noticeable) Rockets loaded, none fired = 511 km/h Rockets loaded, both fired = 511 km/h When a rocket has been fired, it is no longer possible to jettison the tube (I regard this as a separate, and significant, bug). When a rocket has been fired, there is no change in the dynamics, even though the tube is empty (I would expect some difference, even if small, this is a minor problem in the scheme of things).

Kate Perederko (Chief Operating Officer Eagle Dynamics) wrote: "Mariana Islands - Mid Term" This was clarified with: "Mid term - we have the list of tasks and we think that it might be delivered in less than 9 months." The post was made on reddit about a month ago. Ref: So, taken as written, that would mean Marianas = by end of 2020. However, that announcement was before the CoVid-19 lockdown, and it is also commonplace for delays to occur in the software industry anyway. So, I would more likely expect Marianas to arrive sometime in 2021. And, if by "complete" you mean "out of early access", then add another year or so.

Although this was originally rejected as a "NO BUG", it has nevertheless been addressed. I'm not sure when the fix was applied, but it it is certainly much better now in DCS v2.5.6.

The Werfer-Granate 21 (WfrGr21 / BR21) have no effect on the aerodynamics of the FW 190 A-8 "Anton". This applies to both the loaded and spent rockets. Conditions To test, I used the following conditions (mission file attached). 21-Jun-1944 12:00, 20 deg C, no cloud. Aircraft starts air-spawned, with 50% fuel, full guns, WfrGr21 on wings, remove centre pylon. Normandy map, same location for each over water ( XV68 ), facing east, at 1000m alt. Gentle dive to sea level (10-20m), then hold until speed reduces to stable values Results Once in sustained, level flight, I use the status bar to read off the speed (screenshot attached). On the deck, I can sustain in level-flight 550 km/h with the loaded rockets. If I fire the rockets, the sustained level-flight speed with empty tubes is 550 km/h. If I drop the rocket pods (i.e. jettison, without firing), it remains 550 km/h. If I fire the rockets, and then use the jettison switch, the rocket tubes remain (related bug), but the speed remains 550 km/h. Conclusion The WfrGr21 rockets have no effect on the aerodynamics, and hence speed, of the aircraft. It is irrelevant if they are not-fitted, fitted, fired or jettisoned. . test-sow-lowalt-speed_v02.miz

I've just tried it with the FW 190 A-8 on the Caucasus map. Same problem there too.

Problem In the DCS warehouse system, the external fuel for the FW 190 A8 is not accounted for correctly. What this means is that a drop tank fuel does not go into the warehouse on return, nor does it take from the warehouse fuel when it is fitted to the aircraft. It is always assumed to be full. How to replicate Put an FW 190 A8 on an airfield, fitted with 100% fuel and 1 300L droptank. Set that airfield in the mission editor to have 1 drop tank, 1 FW 190 A8, and, say, 1t of gasoline. Note, there are three "300L tanks"... it is the 3rd one, which is used by the FW 190 A8. See attached image. Turn off the "unlimited supply" so that the quantities are accounted for. Start the mission and select the A8. Use F10 map and click on the airfield icon, then select resources. The fuel state will show 0.6t gasoline. That means that 0.4t went into the aircraft. That's good. Now, select the Rearm-refuel option. Set the fuel to 5%, but leave the drop tank on. Wait until this is done (use time acceleration to make this bearable!) Once done, switch on the external drop tank fuel pump. Again wait. Fuel will transfer from the external tank to the internal rear tank. You can select the rear-tank-fuel indicator to watch this transfer happen. Once done, Rearm-refuel again. The internal fuel will show 53% or so. Again drain this to 5%, but this time remove the external tank. Accept and wait. Rearm and refuel again, but with 5% and drop tank. And wait. A new full drop tank will be fitted. Even though you put an empty one back into the warehouse, the new one will NOT take fuel from the warehouse, but will simply be fitted to the aircraft completely full. You can do this last couple of steps repeatedly to create fuel from nothing in the warehouse. The mission I used to do this test is attached. Why is this important? In the latter stages of the war, fuel and trained pilots was more critical to the Luftwaffe than aircraft numbers or performance. While we cannot affect pilot training, we can affect fuel. In order to create missions that reflect this historical situation, having restricted fuel supplies at airfields is very important. When this mechanism does not work in DCS, this scenario breaks down. Also... I suspect this issue might affect all external fuel tanks in DCS. I tried the same thing with a Ka50 and in no time could create tons of fuel from nothing, just by equipping the tanks, defuelling-de-equipping them, and repeating. Thank you. test-fw190a8-fuel-tanks_v01.miz

My personal opinion in order of ease of learning: P-51, A8, D9, K4. (I don't have the others). The A8 seems to have more forgiving ground handling, is rugged and flies nicely. The D9 is prone to accelerated wing stalls. The K4 is difficult to take-off/land and is a bit more complicated to start-up/shutdown. I still struggle with the K4. One suggestion... the German aircraft can take some heavy loads. Avoid that when first learning. Take the lighter bomb (if any) and get the hang of it first, before loading up with full-weapons/full-fuel.

When I asked for references, I meant for you to provide the sources or links that you got for your information. And the reason for asking was that your information seems either rather mixed up or incorrect. As it was at odds with what I am finding with internet searches led me to inquire. Also, I was more after academic, technical or encyclopaedic references, that I could follow-up on, not television dramas. As for technical descriptions of passive radar... Passive radar is the determination of a range and direction where the receiver is not in control of the transmission. Thus it is a form of parasitic radar, which can exploit other transmissions. There was passive radar used during WWII, such as the Klein Heidelberg Parasit radar. However, this is not an IFF system, but is making use of (enemy) radar transmission received by a (friendly) "passive" receiver. References: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/3f72/e108f04c70d0b9c86962cdcd39b4ebf03ca6.pdf https://www.cdvandt.org/k-h.htm https://www.geschichtsspuren.de/artikel/luftverteidigung/64-entwicklung-der-funkmesstechnik.html I am guessing that your idea of IFF is more related to modern aircraft "squawk" transponders? Something like this perhaps? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transponder_(aeronautics) But IFF, aviation transponders, (active) radar and passive radar are all different technical implentations. Looking at something like the FuG 25a, this is replying to a set code that is being sent in conjunction with the radar. That is not passive, but active (interrogation) transmission. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erstling_IFF_transceiver I'm not sure about the Allied systems, hence my interest in asking. Also, at this stage, all interrogations seem to be the "IF" out of "IFF". In other words, you are expected a code from a friend (not instrument data). An absence of a code (or signature signal) implies a foe. See the Erstling reference above. Otherwise, see the things that @71st_AH Rob has written above. (Thanks, Rob, for that clarification!) Both otherwise, picking up on what both @Cunctator and @71st_AH Rob have written, my impression is that although the IFF transponder is located in the aircraft and needs to be switched on, the real implementation of it would be at the F10 map / Combined Arms level.

Maybe. It will depend a lot on how the damage model is done, and how the engine damage is implemented. In principle, failures, fires, faults and all sorts of other technical bother should be present, let alone resilience to bullets. But that's not guaranteed. (c.f. the DCS implementation of the 190 A8 engine, for instance.) I do suspect that it will be difficult to incorporate into any multiplayer scenario, but then that applies to other aircraft too (e.g. the I-16).

Just had a fairly epic chase on the SoW server. It was a grey, sultry mission. I was bombing a target with a FW 190 A-8 near La Platiere, when 1 (possibly 2) P-51s turned up. I dropped ordnance (no hits) and decided it was better to clear out... the Anton is not so fast, so once you attract trouble, it is difficult to get rid of it. So I dived down to the deck, picked up a river, flew along that for a bit, then did a hard turn out towards the west. Checked 6, and saw a P-51 on my tail. Ack! So, I hugged the ground, and skimmed over the tree tops as he gave pursuit. Nearing the western coast, I could not see him. Figuring he might assume I was headed for Lessay and thus he'd ambush me on landing, I did a hard left and headed south. Checking the FREYA radar report, I saw he'd turned to follow. I could not see him, but I'd no idea if he still had me in sight. Then I started a long trek east-southeast, following river valleys, occasionally shifting direction a bit. Crossed Sourdeval, although I was starting to lose confidence in my navigation. Checked 6 a few times. Sometimes I saw him, sometimes not. I was starting to wonder whose fuel would run out first. And even if it was his, would I then have enough myself to figure out where I was and get to a friendly airstrip. Gradually creeping nearer. I just simply could not shake him. Eventually, the bullets flew and suddenly: pilot kill. After such a long chase, it was over instantly. I typed him a salute in chat... S! ...and logged off exhausted. Well done, whoever that was. Your tenacity and persistence was most admirable.

Most of what follows doesn't make sense. Do you have any references for any of it?

UTC is fixed. It never has a "daylight saving" or "summer time" change. Zulu time is UTC. GMT can get a bit mixed up. Sometimes it is used to refer to UK winter time (UTC+0), or UTC, or UK time more generally (which can be UTC or UTC+1 or, historically, UTC+2).

^ Well said, Sir. Very well said indeed. Some more suggestions... Open up the mission editor and look at the different aircraft you are interested in (although remember some are only AI). Use the "load out" tab to see what sorts of munitions they carry. Do you want guns? Lots of missiles? A single massive bomb? Rockets? For warbirds: FW 190 A-8 Anton... more forgiving to newcomers, robust, tons of firepower. For jets: F-5E-3 is good. M-2000C is also fairly straightforward for a new starter if you want something more modern. Oh, and if you do go for something complex (e.g. A-10C, AV-8B or F/A-18C), then take it slow. Learn to fly first, and then concentrate on navigation, then radio-comms and then one weapon at a time. Finally, try air-to-air refuelling and carrier landings. If you try everything at once, you'll quickly get overwhelmed, frustrated and disinterested. But, once you've mastered all that, you'll be mentally-ready for helicopters. ;)

There are two main historical references in the thread: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=3631003 The first is the Änderungsanweisung Bf110 Nr.230, which shows the mounting angle for the rocket tube (8 deg) with respect to the wing chord (2.5 deg). Although this for the Bf-110, it is effectively identical to the FW 190 (based on measuring it from photographs... but if someone has a schematic, please post it). This is thus a relative angle of 5.5 degrees with respect to the wing chord. Ref: https://forums.eagle.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=187958&d=1529452861 In level flight (or at least shallow dive) the rocket launch pitch angle with respect to the aircraft's velocity vector is 6.5. (You can test this with the F2-external view in DCS). The second reference is the Geschoßbahn (trajectory) plot (Skizze 2 E.Kdo/11.1943) and the accompanying table. Ref: https://www.deutscheluftwaffe.com/archiv/Dokumente/ABC/b/Bordwaffen/21%20cm%20Wurfgranate/Text/Angriff%20mit%2021%20cm%20Granaten.jpg The sketch is for attacking bombers (also useful!), but the principle is exactly the same for attacking ground targets, which have a Eigengeschwindigkeit (closing velocity) of the velocity of the attacking aircraft. The table shows the fuze time (ZL) and the closing velocity. For a shallow dive in the 190, this will probably be 550 km/h. So that gives an Erhöhungswinkel of 6,8 at 500 km/h. If you use the same interpolation as the 4 second fuze (close enough), that's 0,1 sec per 50 km/h over 500 km/h. So, in our A8 example, that would be 6,9 deg. The rocket tube is 8 deg up from the chord, and an additional pitch angle of 1 deg... so about 9 deg. The difference is 9 - 6,9 = 2.1 (close enough to 2 deg). Thus if you aim 2 degrees up, you will hit a stationary target at just under detonation range. Note that the left rocket will fire first. There is also convergence, with slight cross-over at the explosion point. I tend to approach at 1 deg high, then dip onto 2 degrees aligned to fire. This keeps the approach manageable. That is my interpretation of the historical tactics, and if anyone can supplement it with contemporary records, please do so, as I'd be most interested to read it. That said, using this method is VERY accurate. I can put a rocket exactly where I want it, every time. I have far more success with the rockets than with the cannons or bombs in the A8 against ground targets.

Checked this for the Dora and some historical material was found. Here's an example reference: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3631003&postcount=4 (although view the whole thread if you're interested).

According to the Weapons.lua, the three 250kg bombs are: SC 250 Type 1 L2 SC 250 Type 3 J SD 250 Stg The Type 1 and Type 3 refer to different constructions, basically single-forged or triple-piece construction, respectively. I do not know what the Stg refers to. Anyone? Likewise there are three 500kg bombs. SC 500 J SC 500 L2 SD 500 A There is no indication of Type 1, 2 or 3 for the SC 500s. SC = Sprengbombe Cylindrisch SD = Sprengbombe Dickwandig The SC is a general purpose high-explosive bomb. The SD had a thicker casing (hence Dickwandig = thick walled), which gave it greater fragmentation capability (as @Cunctator mentioned). However, although that was its original purpose, the SD was also used with a delayed fuze as a penetration bomb. The SC50 is a small 50kg total mass. But there are four of them, rather than a single bomb. So, the 50, 250 and 500 refer to the total mass of the bomb in kg. The warhead sizes (from the Weapons.lua) are 25, 134, 260 kg respectively. However... As far as I can tell, there is zero difference for a given mass between the SC/SD A/J/L2 variants in either the in-game performance, or the parameters in the Weapons.lua. Hopefully this is something that will change when the new WW2 damage model is introduced. Cluster munitions The AB (= Abwurfbehälter) weapons are the cluster munitions. These have a total mass of 250 or 500 kg. The SD-2 or SD-10A are the submunitions. There is a good overview of them here.

Well spotted, @saburo_cz This recent patch has been terrific... best DCS update in ages. And, as you point out, there is more to come. Excellent!

Just wanted to add confirmation on this. Additionally, it manifests itself if you fire a single rocket. After this, the jettison does correctly ditch the un-spent rocket. But the spent tube remains. See attached screenshot and .trk track file. test-br21-jettison.trk

I have been trying to set historically-correct tail numbers on the FW190 A8, but it is not possible. These should be single-digit from 1 to 9, and then 10, 11, ... etc.. However, currently it is 01 to 09. Numbers 10-99 work as they should. I have tried setting "01", "1", "[sPACE]1", "x1", "A1"... all result in 01. However, on the FW 190 D9, "01" gives "1", as it should. See the example screenshot-montage. This applies to all A8 paintschemes which have settable numbers (I am aware that some paintschemes are "hard-baked").

The glass- and iron-sights are not aligned. In the azimuth direction (yaw axis), they are are aligned, but there is an elevation (pitch axis) offset of about 1 degree. In the attached screenshot, I am sighting along the iron-sight and the lateral crosshair of the glass-sight is high. DCS version 2.5.6.45317