xvii-Dietrich

Definitely! Any seaplane would get my vote. And this is a classy one too.

There are several utilities (e.g. JoyToKey) which let you map any joystick/controller button so that it triggers a key press. I have done that so that I can map my cyclic trigger to be a key, so I can do PTT via any system (SRS, TS3, etc.).

Each to their own, I suppose. I personally think the Dora is better all round at the moment in terms of appearance, sound and modelling. But, as @iFoxRomeosays, you can try both for free for the next few days and see for yourself. Either that, or find some YouTube videos or screenshots.

I had just been flying the SA342 on the Syria map and thought to come here to start a thread like this. Wow... you guys are way ahead of me. Nice work! The "invisible FARP" static object can turn all of these into working spawn points, ... EDIT : Sadly, not true. The "invisible FARP" will delete some of the helipads. Seems to knock out the static object on the map. I've placed the portable TACAN beacons at a few. However, is there a way to get some of the other NDBs operational at these sites? Another thing that occurred to me was to make a huge static template with the Invis-FARPS and accessories with appropriate national assets. Anyway, thanks again for compiling all this... it is a terrific resource!

^^ This. Reducing control saturation is critically important. That said, the Gazelle is great, but very different to the others. I have all four currently-available DCS helicopters, and keep going back to the Gazelle. Have been flying it again just today on the Syria map (also highly recommended; definitely better than Persian Gulf).

Am also keen to see this on Steam. I don't mind if it is an extra module or one needs to pay extra. I would just like to use the 3D model in my C-101 and SA342.

Of course, I definitely support Phil's suggestion. One tweak though... Or... to have both. That way the server admins can decide which combination of "pilot eject" and/or "pilot landed" to use.

Server updated: 3 missions added back into rotation (27th June, 28th June and 30th June 1944). Player count increased to 50 players to cope with demand.

Looking at the screenshot, it seems you have the country set to USA. Selecting the correct nation, would give you (usually) appropriate options. However, the presence of the Japanese skins in all nations is a problem. Reported separately.

The glide bomb (by which, I assume you mean the PC1400X "Fritz X") was never used by Ju 88 aircraft.

There are errors in the terrain along the coast lines. These appear as deep depressions just behind the cliffs. They occur in multiple locations. Some example screenshots are attached (see the status bar in the images for the locations... although, these are just a few, there are lots of others).

Very clever idea. I really like this concept, and the suggestions made for its use. The perspective of having a human gunner in a bomber, who is able to call out incoming enemy to the human escort fighters via SRS would be immense. It would also let certain aircraft adopt a reconnaissance role. Also, it would also make for a fantastic view point for cinematics. From the escort fighter's point of view, it intensifies the need to provide escort cover, if they know they are protecting a human player. Also, from the enemy-aircraft perspective, it adds an element of excitement, not knowing if there is a human gunner about to train fire on your aircraft. This seems to be an ingenious way to add a huge amount of gameplay, features, immersion and excitement, without the massive complication of implementing multi-engined bombers, and thus satisfy a lot of the requests we have seen from players.

Incorrect paintschemes for Third Reich. The FW 190 A-8 has a number of Japanese paintschemes which have been set to be available in the Third Reich nation/faction. This means that it is possible for players to select incorrect paintschemes if this option is left option. Or, it forces mission builders to prohibit players to change paintschemes (which then affects all aircraft). While having a large variety of official skins is very good, and definitely to be encouraged, these should be confined specifically to the nations that they represent, or to generic factions (like Red/Blue Coallition, Insurgents, etc.). Preparation: New mission, Normandy map, 1x FW 190 A8, ramp start Run the mission on my own server My procedure: Start the mission. Use the re-arm/refuel option. Change the livery Even though the nation is set to Third Reich, it is possible to select a Japanese paintscheme (INCORRECT) Notes: I have attached a screenshot (note the country flag in the status bar). I have also attached a track file which shows the problem. server-20201226-213124.trk

It is not possible to obtain correct fuselage numbers for the FW 190 A-8 for the first 9 aircraft in the squadron. German fighters from WW2 had numbers that display on the side of the aircraft. These were coloured to indicate the squadron, but they would range from 1 to 9, then 10 onwards. They never had a leading zero. However, in DCS, it is not possible to obtain numbers without the leading zero. This applies to all FW 190 A-8 aircraft where the number can be changed (it does not apply for the baked-on paintschemes). Preparation: New mission, Normandy map, 1x FW 190 A8, ramp start Run the mission on my own server My procedure: Start the mission. Use the re-arm/refuel option. Try various combinations of "1" or "01" or " 1" (space, then one), "-1", etc. In all cases, a leading zero is displayed (INCORRECT) Notes: This is probably a coding issue, because it applies to all FW 190 A-8 skins This problem does not exist on either the FW 190 D-9 or the Bf 109 K-9. I have attached a track file which shows the problem. server-20201226-212743.trk

Wow. That looks stunning. I know there is a looooooooong way to go yet, but it is so nice to see this progress and that it is still in the works. Here's hoping that 2021 will be a successful coding year, and that the final Bo-105 is not too far off. Thanks Fragger for your dedication and persistence. We appreciated it so much.

Yes, the server has already been updated to the new patch. As a result, we now have barrage balloons.

There was a major update of the statistics software today (--> v54). Mostly big behind-the-scenes changes, to cope with efficiency-issues and data flow administration. However, we've updated the main server monitor page, and have re-worked the squadrons-algorithm. Thus, there are loads of new squads being picked up by the system (some example shown below). If your squad is still not auto-detected, just drop us a note here on the ED forums, or via the SoW discord. You can also request to have your squad's logo added, change the title or provided us a link to your website, if you wish. Squads must have at least 2+ flying members to show on the lists. References... https://stormofwar.info/ - main statistics page (and server monitor) https://stormofwar.info/squadrons.php - active squadrons in the current campaign https://discord.com/invite/4Csg6E7 - SoW discord Some of the new squads... https://stormofwar.info/gr.php - [GR] https://stormofwar.info/22gct.php - 22 GCT https://stormofwar.info/51stvfw.php - 51st VFW https://stormofwar.info/dfa.php - =DFA= https://stormofwar.info/ugly.php - ugly https://stormofwar.info/blackbears1.php - BlackBears https://stormofwar.info/finger1.php - Finger 1 https://stormofwar.info/frm.php - FrM https://stormofwar.info/jg1.php - Jagdgeschwader 1 https://stormofwar.info/jg300.php - Jagdgeschwader 300

I agree with what has already been written. Given the existing Supercarrier module, having a flyable transport plane for operating on/off the super carrier would be superb. Especially if it could be used to actually re-supply the carrier stocks with items.

Oh wow! Really cool. Looking forward to this.

I agree with @zappa. Especially the bit about trying out the free TF-51D that comes with DCS. Otherwise, I would only add that if you are interested in multiplayer, then you should consider getting Normandy + WW2 assets pack.

Indeed. There are some very detailed posts about it (with references) by @Retnek and @Veteran66 earlier in this thread. But the point is that the bombs do arm (and thus, at some point, explode). The FW190A8 manual (the DCS one, provided with the module) is very vague on this, and so we cannot be sure which fuse-model has been implemented. My second .trk test was a "worst-case-scenario", to try to demonstrate that presently in the DCS Open Beta the bombs do not arm. At all.

@OldfoxThere are mission briefings for all SoW missions here: https://stormofwar.net/dcsmissions/ Additionally, there is a built-in-radar system that will vector you to enemy aircraft. The in-game comms menu (Radio -> F10 -> etc.) will also give you vectors to nearby friendly aircraft, allowing you to link up with them (whether they are other fighters or bombers awaiting escort). To get the most out of the server, the use of SRS is recommended. That will greatly help with situational awareness, but also with immersion into the WW2 atmosphere. You can also try asking on the (very active) SoW Discord server... there are a lot of helpful people there who can get you started operationally in the SoW environment.

Reading the table provided by @Veteran66, there are a variety of different possible minimum-release heights (Mindestabwurfhöhen). The documentation that comes with the DCS FW 190 A8 gives no indication of the fuse-types being used. However, regardless of which type is being used, the longest fuse arm time is 14s (EAIZ 38) which equates to approximately 800-900 metres above ground. Additionally, the fuse delay information in that table, combined with the detailed documentation on fuse types provided by @Retnek, indicates that the maximum delay for a standard bomb fuse is (coincidentally) 14 seconds. I note from the post by @NineLine who wrote: So, regardless if it is 0,08 or 14 seconds, the bomb should still explode. I have repeated the test that I did in the original post in this thread, however, this time I have used a drop altitude of 2000m (which is well above the worst-case for minimum-release height). Additionally, I have placed a vehicle near the impact point for observing the bomb hitting the ground and then waiting for any explosion. I waited for 1 minute, which is well in excess of the longest delay from this reference sources. The bomb still fails to explode. Please find attached the .trk file and an image showing where the bomb will land (if you use F7 to get vehicle view you can look at the impact point (approximately at the crossing point of the two runways). I have repeated this particular test 3 times to check that it was not a one-off mishap (although I've done the test many other times at different altitudes since the bug first appeared). I have also checked with dropping ordnance using oV setting and that works. Please see the original post in this thread for more details on the nature of the bug. server-20201212-204308.trk

Beautiful models, @The_Fragger. Thanks for posting them up for us!!

This is superb, thank you so much, @Warlord64