xvii-Dietrich

Recently, the last of the map icons were turned off for pilots. The Storm of War server is attempting to be more historical and immersive, so the "god's view" map icons have been removed and replaced with a radar contacts system. Radar can be used for both enemy and friendly contacts. See philstyle's post on how to use the radar : https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4244729&postcount=151 Make use of the briefings, raid messages and SRS to assist your situational awareness. Navigation is now more challenging too, so it will encourage map-reading, compass-navigation, terrain recognition, etc.

Yes. They all work, although some are not particularly well implemented. AI aircraft can drop the AB-250-2 SD-10A and AB-500-1 SD-10A successfully. However, the AB-250-2 SD-2 always fall short. Human piloted aircraft can deploy all of them and they will detonate and destroy things. Our squad has started practicing with them. They are a bit tricky to use, and accuracy is an issue, but they do have an effect and we are getting results. However... currently, the SD-2 bomblets _all_ explode on contact. My understanding is that the real ones would only have some explode, with the others acting like timed, or motion sensitive, mini-mines. I'm only going off wikipedia here, as I don't have a good reference source. So, the SD-10A sub munitions seem okay, but the SD-2 are not so good and need work to be even vaguely accurate to their historical counterparts. However, _if_ the SD-2s were done correctly, they would wreck havoc on enemy airfields.

The drop tank is not currently available. ED have not indicated if it will be implemented or not, although we do know that 300-litre drop tanks were used historically on the A8 (example ref: Grosse, H., Bild 101I-674-7772-13A, Bundesarchiv, link 1, link 2) and, as you point out, it is mentioned in the manual... so it is probably intended. Historical documentation indicates that 21cm launchers were fitted on the A7, A8 and A9. (Ref: FW 190 Baugruppen-Uebersicht BauGr-Kennsahl-81d, pp1-8, Focke-Wulf Flugzeugbau GmbH, June 1944) The DCS store page (ref) mentions: "The Anton could also be loaded with unguided rockets..." That is probably referring to the historical model, but the DCS Fw 190 A-8 is claimed to have "Accurate Fw 190 A-8 model, squadron markings and weapons" Even so, this really only says that the weapons that are implemented are accurate... and not necessarily comprehensive. At this stage, there has been no indication from ED what the final weapon set will be. We can only speculate. The BR21 are implemented (albeit not well) on the D9 Dora (ref) The historical references I could find were 1. for the A1. It can carry a 500kg bomb on an ETC501 rack, 520kg total (Fw190A-1 Bv-Fl "Bedienungsvorschrift" , page II-03, Focke-Wulf Flugzeugbau GmbH, May 1941). 2. for the A-5 & A-6, It can carry a 500kg bomb on an ETC501 rack, 516kg total (Fw190A-5/A-6 "Flugzueg Handbuch" , Teil 0, page 11, Focke-Wulf Flugzeugbau GmbH, Stand Aug-1943, Ausgabe Dec-1943) I would not consider it unlikely that the A8 could not carry the SC500, but I am unable to find a conclusive reference for it. (Anyone?) ED were investigating the F8 at one stage (example), but I've seen nothing to suggest a 500 kg bomb for it. The A8 is independent of the WW2 Assets pack and Normandy map. You do not need those other modules to gain access to any A8 features. Actually, the following dropped weapons are currently (tested 08-Mar-2020, v2.5.6) implemented on the A-8: AB-250-2 SD-10A, AB-250-2 SD-2, AB-500-2 SD-10A SC250

There are no references in any contemporary Japanese sources that refer to this term, or anything similar. The "whistling death" myth only appears in Allied literature. Ref: Sakaida, Henry. Imperial Japanese Navy Aces, 1937-45. Botley, Oxfordshire, UK: Osprey Publishing, 1998. ISBN 1-85532-727-9. That said, if you have any historical Japanese references to the contrary, please let us know.

It can also mean "I Invent Random Certitudes"... basically, people spout something they'd like to be be true, or some arbitrary fact for which they can't be bothered to (or simply can't) find ab even vaguely-reliable reference. So they tack on an "IIRC", and any such nonsense suddenly sounds far more authorative. ;)

Which month? I know that you know, Rob. The point I want to make is to agree with you that WW2 pilots care deeply about eh immersion and accuracy. And, even a year is not good enough... compare late May 1944 to late June 1944, and consider all the ALGs on the Normandy map. For the Channel Map, there is a question over whether it will be 1940 or 1944... and hence the presence of emergency fields or the Atlantik wall. Hopefully the Atlantik wall will be omitted... we can always place statics (such as the Fire Control Bunker, or the SK/Naval Gun Bunker) to make it 1944. That would let us run a 1940 scenario, but it would also make it more credible for the modern jets/helicopters too. In other words too many statics are a bad thing. It is easier to dress-up a map to make a scenario, than to try to strip out features which are baked in, but which were very specific to a particular time.

@Coyote ... thanks for posting that list with the gazetteer. I really hope that ED consider doing a similar competition for the P-47D and DH-98 when they come out! :)

Excellent vidos. Nice and clear, easy to understand and well presented. It is always interesting to see these sorts of careful analyses. I'd just watched another video earlier today, which looked at thrust and the different types of drag ( ) which, although for different aircraft, touched on a related topic. It was good to see these ideas applied to the L-39, which I do know. PS: Use the YouTube input button, or use the following code (write YOUTUBE, not Y--TUBE ... I had to do that to stop it rendering the video, lol) [Y--TUBE][url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVuPg7hX3Cg[/url][/Y--TUBE]

Awesome video (again) ED. Really nice to see helicopters get a feature. The use of them on the carrier looks great and seeing them fly over tropical forests sets the mind racing. With the new Ka50 (and upcoming OH58, Mi24 and Bo105) there's a rotor world to look forward to. :) Then, there's the 190 A8 paintschemes. And all the other updates too. This newsletter was definitely and inspiring one for me.

I totally agree with this and would strongly recommend it to anyone who wants to fly helicopters in DCS. If you are finding it oversensitive, then reduce the linear response (i.e. the Y saturation), but do not inject a curve. Physically, the helicopter will be at different pitch angles as a function of the lateral velocity, so a curve is changing the response as a function of that velocity... thus making it a) unrealistic and b) a lot harder for you to establish any muscle memory (especially given the other lack of cues, as a result of being limited to a simulator). I "went linear" back when I had a little Thrustmaster Hotas-X and since then with a CH-product fighterstick and now with a PFT-Puma. Same thing on all of them. Setting a linear response is best.

I would definitely support supply ships... not just for sailing with a fleet, but also for providing additional targets that are not your hyper-defended destroyers. Additionally, flying helicopters to/from those ships would add to the overall "ecosystem" and make the supercarrier a much richer environment for the carrier-jets as well as the helicopter crews.

Er... are you saying that delayed fuzes are not in DCS? But I was using delayed fuzes in the FW190 D9 last night (i.e. mit Verzögerung). That worked totally fine. Wouldn't that mechanism also be usable for the DH98? So is that what you mean, or are you referring to something else?

I agree with that completely. It does not need to be "sharp" munitions. Some options would include: Smoke rockets, as you suggest, and as are implemented on various other aircraft (like the UH-1H or Mi-8 ) Signal flares (such as on the Bf109 or L-39). Smoke grenades (like those planned for the upcoming OH-58 Kiowa). Something that could be detected with a trigger would let artillery spotting, search (for search and rescue) or calling in CAS. We have used Huey's to "smoke mark" for F-5s in multiplayer missions before. Being able to do that with the Yak52 would be awesome. Oh, and some more service liveries/paintschemes too... that one you posted is absolutely gorgeous!

I strayed into this thread totally by accident. But I must say, I am very impressed by that manual... over 300 pages, superb layout/style, well written and very detailed. It was a delight to flip through it, even though I don't have the M2000 (although, that said, I'm now very tempted to get it!)

Yes, agreed. But I'm not sure why you single out the Ar-196 as being "heavily armed". Are you referring to the 20mm cannon? Most of the battleship- or cruiser-launched floatplanes were primarily for reconnaissance, naval-artillery spotting or liaison. That said, most of them had some guns for self-defence and the option of carrying bombs. I'm not aware of any being used for bombing though... does anyone have a examples/references? Some of the classic floatplanes launched from capital ships in the Pacific include: OS2U-3 Kingfisher SOC-1 Seagull SC1 Seahawk Mitshubishi F1M Pete Aichi E13A1 Jake All of these would be fantastic additions for the Marianas WW2 map. (Although I would still love to see an Ar-196). Oh, and here is a link for the Nakajima A6M2N although, as was stated in the previous post, it was not launched from capital ships. It did operate off a seaplane carrier, though. One thing that might be useful for the Marianas WW2 map (as an interim) is having floatplanes as static objects. Certainly having some which could be placed in the mission editor alongside docks, pulled up on beaches or floating in bays would make for great targets for aircraft such as the F4U Corsair. However, getting some flyable seaplane in DCS would be amazing.

Around the end of each year NaviGraph run a survey on the state of the flight sim community. Here is their announcement from the last survey. Results are posted as open-source for each year and the results have just been posted for the most recent survey. 2019 Results : https://download.navigraph.com/docs/flightsim-community-survey-by-navigraph-2019-final.pdf (By the way, here are the results for the previous survey, 2018, and a link to the DCS discussion thereof: LINK).

F-8 Either as part of this module or as a completely separate one. (I don't mind either way. I'm only interested in the F-8, so haven't bought the A-8.)

Personal dream: _any_ seaplane or amphibious helicopter Meanwhile, in the real world... Fixed-wing theory: either an F4 Phantom, or some FF Russian-modern for an Adm.Kuznetsov-class Rotary theory: MH60-Seahawk for the supercarrier, or maybe AH64-Apache or AH1-Cobra WW2 theory: Me-262 Conspiracy theory: ED have not actually decided what they will do next. The F16/FA18/Mi24/DH98/P47 projects should be done by the end of the 2020 and they are still uncertain where the next major development line will be. So, they announce an "eagerly awaited aircraft" and watch as the forum acquires a 200+ page thread of community wistful speculation, which gives them their answer, which they can then announce. After all, it is an announcement, not a delivery, right? ;)

Easy... Ju 88 We have a very nice looking Ju 88 AI model now (REF video), so getting that converted to flyable would be my top priority. A C-6 Zerstörer would be most flexible and appropriate for the time period of Normandy 1944, and would suit both the heavy-fighter and bomber pilots. But the A-4 / A-17 that is being used for the AI model would be excellent, and might now be better, given that the Channel Map is being developed. But basically _any_ Ju 88. The Axis side needs a bomber / ground attack aircraft. ED ran an official what-if survey a while back about what aircraft to develop in DCS. Ref: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=205750 The Ju 88 was my top priority then and remains so today. As a realistic alternative, getting the FW 190 F-8 developed would also be really good. There was a hint of it at one stage (REF), but things have gone quiet since then. Otherwise, any Axis bomber or seaplane. We only ever seem to get fighters, so getting something a bit more utilitarian would help diversify the DCS WW2 ecosystem.

Agreed. This is something that no other DCS unit does at the moment. It would surely be a unique selling point and something that would suit naval aviation ecosystem of DCS nicely. Definitely! Having the option to remove the external hardpoints and weaponry would be extremely useful. Give it some plain (non-combat) paintschemes and it suddenly is not just a general service helicopter, but it is providing additional civilian traffic for missions.

A couple of strategically placed vehicles (trucks, tankers, humvees, etc.) on the taxiways might solve the problem. They are really easy to steer around if you are just taxiing normally, but would be difficult to avoid if you were trying to take off. Regarding which runway to use, a marker board would be a useful asset (a portable arrow sign (two sided) which could be used by mission builders to give some hints as to which way to taxi. Using windsocks also helps. As does marking the direction in the briefing.

I'd definitely buy a C-2 or E-2. Both would really suit the super-carrier module and would add a lot to the carrier ecosystem. The cargo/transport idea would be a must. Imagine the role of the C-2 where the only way to get missile stocks onto the carrier is by bringing them in by air. That would a) give the C-2 an essential role and b) make the fighters care about providing escort for them and c) give a pretty juicy target to enemy fighters.

The thing that immediately sprang to mind was the team-kill. I think things would get pretty acrimonious if, just as you are settling down for a nice evening of flight on your favourite server, you get strafed and pilot-killed by some random teamkiller who then promptly logs off and goes to the next Hard-Core server.

Delighted for the Bo-105 news. So good to see MilTech5 and Razbam working together to make that module a reality.

Good call. It might be useful if this was an asset, rather than "baked into the map". The reason for this is that it could then be used at Ventnor (Isle of Wight), etc. on the Normandy map. It would also mean that it could be left off for a post-war scenario. Of course, this also depends a bit on the era of the Channel Map. At this stage it is not clear if it will be Battle of Britain era or post-Normandy. While this will have the most impact on the European side of the channel (in terms of the Atlantik Wall fortifications), it would also affect what was installed on the British coast.