xvii-Dietrich

I came across this post, because I had just watched the video by Air Warfare Group on this topic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifObJSD6hPA I know that Fallon has been discussed (countless) times before, but one thing that occurred to me was that the scenario they are discussing is a distant spawn point for RedFor units. Fallon Naval Air Station, Fallon Municipal, and St.George Utah. While modelling the towns would definitely be a lot of work... would it be possible to have just the runway/taxiway and spawn points? As a precedent, in the DCS Normandy Map, there are a few airfields in the UK. These are not modelled in detail, but they do provide and cross-channel landing point for outbound fighter escorts, returning bombers, etc.. There is no need for the extreme detail, but it does provide for a lot of options. Given the massive improvements to the NTTR textures in the Fallon region, I think the addition of at least the runway/spawn points would be a low-cost option, but with a significant increase in the value of this map. Or, if there were mission-editor-placeable runways, then we could place our own.

This arose from a discussion on the DCS WW2 discord. I was surprised to see the Rye Chain Home receive antennas is a staggered S-configuration. Investigation shows that the foundations are located in a rhomboid. Additionally, the transmit antennas seem incorrectly spaced. Comparison to a video by SUNTSAG of an old photograph of the site to the Channel Map layout indicates the errors in the antenna location and infrastructure buildings. Ref: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ksSfGCeFdT0 (esp. 5m10s onwards). Using some screenshots supplied by iFoxRomeo, I did some investigation. Comparison to modern aerial photographs, superimposed to the same landscape scale shows that in DCS: 1. One receive antenna is completely incorrect. 2. The other receive antennas are slightly incorrect. 3. The foundations of the transmit antennas are spaced too far apart. 4. The foundations of the transmit antennas are too big. 5. Infrastructure buildings are incorrect. While I appreciate that not all features of the map will never be 100% accurate, I feel that the mis-configuration of such a significant piece of equipment should be corrected.

My top three are all missing from the poll... :-\ - Karelia - Nordkapp - Central Italy (specifically from Anzio to Gothic line)

Update: Storm of War is back on the Open Beta branch. The recent hot fix seems to have resolved the multiplayer-server-crash bug. We have thus resumed use of the Open Beta for now. See the SoW discord for further details. https://discord.com/invite/4Csg6E7

Since the last patch, dropping any SC or SD-type bomb from the FW 190 A-8 with the mV fuze, fails to detonate. Versions: Date of test: 22 November 2020 DCS: Open Beta v 2.5.6.57949 Module: FW 190 A-8 EA Map: Normandy Preparation: New mission, Normandy map, 1x FW 190 A8, air start Run the mission on my own server My procedure: Start the mission and stabilise the aircraft flight. Select the fuze as Wagerecht mV -- i.e the delayed fuze. The bomb will then fall to the ground. There is a slight puff as it impacts. However, no matter how long you wait, it will not detonate (INCORRECT) When repeating the test without delay (oV), the bomb explodes on impact, as expected. Notes: I note that the incorrect behaviour is independent of what attack type is used (Sturz/Wagerecht are both the same) I have attached a track file which shows the problem. server-20201121-231312.trk

Although we don't have the right WW2 aircraft (yet), this was the area of the Anglo-Iraqi war in 1941. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Iraqi_War

Nice! Well, definitely count me as a "+1" for interest!

Wow. Stunning work @Warlord64 . Did you just reverse engineer that from the in-game skin? I mean, I don't think there is a template or anything is there? I really wish something like this in-game. With fuselage markers to match the tail-number set in the mission editor. That would allow us to place correctly marked units into the multiplayer missions.

We have continued to see crashes and memory leakage on the "DCS Open Beta" server. As a result, we are rolling back to the "DCS Release" server version to continue testing.

Probably no need to make it part of the main landing area. That could be completely invisible. But then, separate additional assets could be used for things like buoys, smoke, etc.. That way it doesn't always have to look like a tender... it could be a inlet or cove or something (I'm thinking ahead to the Marianas and Japanese seaplanes hidden in secluded bays, etc.).

@Hawkeye60 Brilliant mod! Very clever use of the "seaplane tender" mechanism/concept. And the Latécoère 290 is a gem of an aeroplane. I fiddled around with the mod over the weekend and had a lot of fun (see screenshots). Would absolutely love to get any seaplane flyable in DCS... even if it does require landing next to the tender. So I really hope you make some progress with it!! From my interpretation of the mechanism, the tender is an invisible carrier deck at sea level? But I couldn't work out the size. So, I'm not certain if the area is huge (as big as the circles that appear on the Mission Editor) and the "centre" is just for the spawn point? I think the only AI aircraft with torpedo drop capability is the Ju 88 A4. I had a look at the files to see if I could see anything that might indicate how to do the torpedo drops, but there wasn't anything obvious to me.

Attached is what was posted today (09-Nov-2020) on discord.

The Freya radar tower will explode when destroyed, as if it was packed with ammunition or explosives (which it should not be). Tested using Combined Arms. Version: Open Beta 2.5.6.57264

The British Tetrarch tank has German gunsight instead of a British one. Tested using Combined Arms. Version: Open Beta 2.5.6.57264 EDIT : Moderators... please move to the bug section if appropriate. Thanks.

Many people only think of the Me-262 in terms of a 1-v-1 fighter-v-fighter matchup. With the current planeset, it might seem that there is no balance. However, the first plane of a genre to arrive in DCS will always be alone. Tempests (and teamwork) will make for a superb challenge against the Me-262. Furthermore, there are many other scenarios which are asymmetric, but remain compelling. Even the Me-262 A2-a variant has twice the bomb capacity of any other current WW2 German aircraft in DCS. It would be superb in an unarmed recon scenario. And, of course, high-altitude B-17 intercepts. As others have already written, good SP and MP missions are very much possible with this aircraft. More so than many modern jets. Although not my first choice for a WW2 fighter, it is still high on that list, and definitely not a waste, and I will very much welcome it when it arrives!

Thanks, Ramsay. Much appreciated.

^ This. Plus getting the bugs ironed out. I am hoping that with the new damage model, it will be possible for ED to go back and address the bombs and especially the bugs with the advertised cluster munitions for the A8. These are important not just for that aircraft, but for the F8. However, I do fear that the F8/G8 has been abandonned now and the next project will be the DH98 or something. :cry_2:

Certainly the glamour-fighters are popular. However, to paraphrase from the helicopter community... "most DCS helicopter pilots will have all DCS helicopters". And, although smaller, the "trainer/acrobatics" community will do the same. I have got all trainer aircraft (L39,Yak52,TF51D,C101,Hawk) and will get others too. But I really like trainers and light-attack-aircraft. And those others that I know of similar mind, have done the same. :) Depends what you're looking for, sure. It probably won't be for everyone. I didn't buy the F-16 or JF-17 because they offered nothing new over the F/A18 and AV8B. But I know lots of people would scream sacrilege at me for that! On the other hand, I have both the FW190D9 and FW190A8... even though others think "meh, the A8 is worse version of the same plane, why bother?". For those who really appreciate the training aircraft for what they offer, there will be enough of a difference from the others to warrant the purchase. If not, the free mod is still there.

Yes, totally agreed. Bringing any logistics flying to WW2 would be superb. If transport pilots could usefully contribute to the "war effort", then it would provide not only a role for more broad-minded DCS pilots, but also a bridge to the civil-aviation pilots.

It's always interesting to research aircraft and do some reading before getting a new module. I noticed this... ... so the MB339 we get, will be A/PAN version. Apart from Wikipedia, can anyone recommend a good reference, flight manual, book or anything else with some details that I can read. I'd really like to disentangled some of the differences between the versions. I've done a lot of internet searching, but most things just turn up copies of the WIkipedia page or RC models (cool, but not quite what I'm looking for). :helpsmilie:

The poll question doesn't compute: Pretend to buy? Or actually buy? Weird. I have all the DCS helicopters and by far I enjoy the SA342 the most. I'll probably be getting the OH-58 given how good the SA342 is (although, as with any new module, I'll always check the reviews first).

I was not aware of the distinction... thanks for pointing that out. That's led me to some interesting reading. (Which is why I love aviation forums... always getting to learn something new!) Anyway.... I've been trying to find a good reference which shows the differences. Do you know of anything? Most just list the type and the different country/weapon configuration. I was sort of after some good side-by-side pictures (difficult, I know, but I figured I'd ask). Even if they are not totally identical, I still think an RNZAF paintscheme would be better than, say, something totally fictional.

Thanks for the pointer! I did a bit of searching and found a few other ideas too. https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/search/?tags=MB-339 However, getting them "official" (esp. the historical ones) means that they can be used in multiplayer scenarios without requiring players to download skins/mods, and that would be cool.

Agreed! An RNZAF paintscheme would be really nice. (Especially if the tail-numbers are not hard-baked on, and could be changed via the mission editor.) I'm thinking of using it over the upcoming Marianas map. Those RNZAF markings would be perfect for some Pacific Island scenarios.

These sorts of aircraft made by 3rd-parties, are often "labours-of-love". They get built because the developers are proud and passionate about that particular airframe type. The original MB3-39 was announced way back in June 2016 (REF). The fact that IndiaFoxtEcho are still at it over four years later, indicates they are really dedicated to their work. We've seen this before with other devoted projects. Aviodev's C-101 springs to mind... that aircraft is still being being constantly improved and refined. In any case, I am convinced that even in the unlikely event that the MB-339 has issues on release, it is not going to get abandoned as the developers move on to their next project.