Mogster

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…

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.

ED have repeatedly cited real world politics as the reason for not including tge often requested China Sea map. It seems humans have been fighting over Crimea since the start of recorded history. The current conflict is just a continuation.

In nearly all DCS missions currently the weather is hardly a factor. It’s nearly always noon, broken clouds, no wind… Weather is hugely important in real world civilian and combat aviation and it needs to be better represented in DCS. Having real world dynamic historical weather available would mean mission designers could still choose the conditions they wanted.

Is that for the production La-5FN or some factory test aircraft though? Russia had frequent quality control problems. Serial production aircraft were often poorer performing than factory prototypes. Untreated wooden construction meant aircraft would deteriorate quickly in squadron use. It’s part of the reason front line pilots liked the P39 so much. Some discussion here. https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/la-5-la-5f-la-5fn-la-7-la-7b-20.53351/

Are the panels part of the damage model? Could hits or object contact remove them exposing the internals? Unless that’s the case I don’t really understand why they’d model so much of the internal structure.

For DCS that’s a vast map area. Approx 1000x2000mi There is lots of ocean though and no major cities. I have doubts about performance over the PNG mountain jungle though. Lots of trees…

It’s a fascinating aircraft, it would be great to have an original Devastator in a museum. Hendon has a Fairey Battle, Pensacola should have a Devastator but they were all used up. From a sim point of view it seems there’s very little to go on. No accessible good condition original airframes, very few interior photos from in service examples.

Good luck with the Devastator. Unless you count the known airframes 2 miles down under the Coral Sea the things are pretty much extinct.

The G-91 was announced by the dev’s themselves a year ago?

I wonder if we’ll get the JP233 sub munition dispenser with the Tornado? Would be almost rude not to…

Matt W did say ED are working on a “secret helicopter” in his ACS podcast interview a few months ago. If the 3rd party projects are being revealed then will the ED projects be also?

Yes I did notice his involvement. As you say I assume ED will continue reviewing these projects before commercial 3rd party release as happens currently.

Yes. I think it’s better to be honest and if development is at a very early stage then that should be made clear. It seems that most of the 3rd party efforts are part time projects between a few people and completion can take several years. There seems to have been a move towards only announcing projects that are reasonably close to release so that has raised expectations. If this policy has now changed again then the community needs to be aware to manage expectations if nothing else.

The “tumbleweed” regarding DCS WW2 content is quite noticeable. It’s been a year since the EA launch of the Mosquito. I expected at least a WW2 announcement from ED to keep the ball rolling.

Yes. NP suggest not using hub ports (as most hardware vendors tend to do) but it’s always worked fine for me. YMMV.

Moar maps??? Razbam are working on a Tucano. However from Razbam Ron’s ACS podcast I got the impression it’s part of a private contract and that has caused problems.

I thought too many of the AH-6 systems were classified to make a credible DCS module.

No, in the podcast he refers to it as the “secret helicopter”… I’d imagine its some flavour of AH-1

Matt W did say on his last ACS podcast that ED are working on another helicopter.

Jeez it’s a new content waterfall... A weekly newsletter without a new map and flyable aircraft announcement is going to feel like a serious disappointment

Maybe this is obvious but it’s worth being aware of the heat output of these current high end GPU and CPUs. I went from an I7 and 1080 to an I9 and 3080 and the heat output change is very noticeable, these components generate a prodigious amount of heat, your PC will become a fan heater. If your gaming rig is in a small room then unless it’s the depths of winter your going to have to make additional arrangements, extra ventilation, you may be even looking ar AC. You won’t need to worry about heating lol, not at all…

Everyone had the Ka 50 back in the day, there was nothing else.