Mogster

Reading Buckingham’s book about Market Garden at the moment. It’s a serious tome, plenty of primary source research and comparison which is nice. None of the 3 airborne Market operations seem to have had much if any air support at all, even though at Arnhem in particular, although also Nijmegen, it could have made a serious difference. The concern from senior commanders seems to have been a lack of confidence in pilot target selection, especially in a likely fluid battle environment. The XXX corps Garden advance did have air support, at least initially, but they had been working closely with RAF 2nd TAF for months so a relationship already existed.

I’d be very interested in a simplified avionics “Lock On” F35. I’m not sure if there’s even enough information in the public domain to make something vaguely credible though? Fast jets are just so much better in DCS. Even a “Lock On” F-35B and QE carrier would be fantastic.

Raised an eyebrow at the Stuka. It would be fantastic if we ever get DCS BoF and BoB, and of course it’s of huge importance on the Eastern front, Med also.

Can we have a clean display panel on the ARC-210 please. That dirt build up would drive me crazy if that was my daily driver aircraft in rl….

I think M odern tankers like the A330 MRTT can use fuel themselves from their additional tanks giving them massive range if used as a transport. It makes sense they wouldn’t drag that weight around if it’s not needed.

It’s essentially a Lufbery defensive circle is it not? Almost as old as combat aviation.

I agree completely. However, if ED make the -3 then we’ll have to suffer endless “was the Hellcat really this bad…” “dude… where’s my water injection…” Threads

Agree. Most online players can’t resist a turning fight. I always think early/mid war scenarios are the most interesting and balanced. F4F v Zero Spitfire Mk 1 v 109E I-16 V 109E Spitfire Mk V v 190 A4 The demand will always be for late war hot rods though.

Mr Octopus’s I-16 is a lovely thing, It’s just a pity it doesn’t have period opposition.

Yes. Long term I think this is one of the advantages of a whole world map.

Aye Brimstone is basically a development of the Hellfire isn’t it? A Hellfire that’s compatible with fixed wing. Hellfire is much smaller than Maverick, Maverick has a 100lbs warhead, Brimstone only 15lbs or so. Maverick is heavy overkill for most of its recent uses although so are Hellfire/Brimstone tbh. Brimstone are made near my house, but that’s by the by

In other games DLSS seems to improve performance but at the expense of IQ. With 2D Assetto Corsa Competizione I have DLSS turned off as it blurs the instruments in annoying fashion. If 25% more fps means you can run a game that otherwise would be shelved then it seems a worthwhile trade off, but if you have decent fps without it then I can’t see why you’d accept the loss in IQ. YMMV of corse.

Wasn’t the AH-64 announced in the 2021 New Year video and went into open Beta March 2022? I seem to remember it was pencilled in for Q4 2021 and people got angsty though…

I’m the sort of person that would buy a DCS Cessna 172. That said it does surprise me we’re seeing a flagship non combat module from ED. I’d have expected it from a 3rd party dev, but not ED.

Maybe an update on the world map development?

I had seen the same mentioned on the net but wasn’t sure if it was just rumours.

I think a fully featured Su-25 would be popular? As you say the options for Western fixed wing modern combat planes are now limited. Plenty of helicopters though.

Agree, but that’s really 3rd party stuff though. On his ACS podcast interview a few months ago Matt W confirmed ED have module(s) on the burner. It’s notable that there’s nothing announced from ED currently, either WW2 or more contemporary.

I thought the hangars were mainly to provide a secure area for maintenance? With a full load of aircraft everything that works tends to be parked on deck? No?

DCS WW2 Berlin? Almost all the WW2 aircraft we have ( + the La7) wouldn’t be out of place on a late war defence of the Reich map. As we seem to be looking East I’d love a DCS P39.

On the ACS podcast the AH-64 guy (can’t remember the name, sorry) has remarked how a room full of commercial type sim rigs and software would be useful for large squadron co-ordination exercises. Apparently it’s not the sort of thing they get to do in rl often and the sims they have aren’t directed towards multi unit missions being more systems orientated. He seems to like the idea that several aircrew could just go in the room and fly together easily, and at quite a reasonable cost.

Ridley Scott is supposed to be working on a BoB film, although it seems to have been talked about for around 10 years…

Aye it wouldn’t be the first time, or the second, or third…

Unless you’re currently limited I’d imagine there won’t be a lot of difference.

I don’t think the P-61 was particularly bad, just very average, like the He 219. According to interviews with vet’s the NVGs didn’t work well and so were rarely used. By the time they could see the target aircraft in the NVGs to ID they were almost crashing into it. The squadrons had next to no training in how to use or maintain the NVGs, which is a re-occurring theme. Most aircraft that crews felt at least safe in seem to have been viewed with affection. RAF crews spoke in glowing terms of the Stirling even, it was tough and could turn tightly in search light beams apparently, never mind it’s poor ceiling and horrible behaviour on the runway… The P-61 was America’s famous high tech bird, the crews wanted it when they were surrounded by all things English and defended its honour like one of their own. The crews made the very best of what they had and the USAAF worked hard to convince the kids they didn’t want Limey kit… It seems there were never many P-61s in the ETO, most of the Bs went to the PTO. The night time ETO skies were dominated by experienced RAF crews. P-61 crews mostly flew night interdiction where their lack of speed wasn’t as big an issue. The radar sets were cutting edge but needed training and experience to use, the RAF had the experts. Range was poor due to a lack of internal fuel. The P-61 would have been more flexible with external fuel tanks but they only used them very late in WW2. The Pax River fighter conference found the P61 could turn tightly but was described as clumsy in combat with poor low speed roll response and a very long take off run for a WW2 aircraft. The P61 was not a short field aircraft, and accelerated slowly. Climb rate was notably poor above 20k, no turbochargers. The Pax River testers also disliked the P-61s cluttered cockpit and poor visibility, the glass caused awkward reflections at night. Cruise speed for best range (you haven’t got much gas) was 230mph, that’s similar to the B25. For reference all Mosquitoes would cruise at well over 300mph. Turn rate is a strange one, large aircraft with broad wings can turn tightly. An unloaded Wellington could probably turn tighter in a sustained turn than a Spitfire. Any change of direction and the larger aircraft would be toast. I agree the P-61 is a fascinating aircraft. I did read that there’s a new book being written as a lot of stuff surrounding the P-61s development has remained classified till recently. It should be a good read.