Mogster

Transferring the MAV page to the highlighted button 14 does work but a new user wouldn’t know this. They’ll probably quit in frustration after a few mission re-loads and not return.

It would be good to know how the real aircraft was loaded. You’d imagine the main tanks would be loaded first, or would you always take a full fuel load? just in case. Short filling then ditching in the Channel would seem stupid.

Looks to have gone tits-up unfortunately.

RV Jones book “the very secret war” has some detail about WW2 radio navigation, radar and countermeasures. For WW2 night fighting you really need vectors by ground stations. Night fighters would be vectored onto a target then use their own radar in the general area it seems. One mystery is why the Luftwaffe failed to attack landing RAF and USAAF heavy bombers more often when the occasional dawn/dusk attacks of this type were quite successful. One suggestion is that the Germany high command preferred the propaganda value of allied aircraft being brought down over German held territory rather than on English soil.

Compared to the F4U (and other WW2 fighters like the Spitfire and P51 tbh) the F6F has always been viewed as utilitarian. The F6F was dropped very quickly after WW2 while the F4U was retained sending a message that the F4U was superior. Grey has as far as I’m aware flown a large sample of WW2 and later aircraft so he’s choosing from first hand experience. To me the fact he likes the F6F so much is interesting, Eric Brown liked the F6F also while famously having little good to say about the F4U. I look forward to flying both the F4U and F6F in DCS.

Dusk EF display. Incredible manoeuvrability, huge AB flames.

Wonder if ED will see an FA-18 sales boost?

The detail is incredible, even down to the animated suspension and flexible hoses on the brake system. It’s a far cry from the wheels just bouncing up and down around the axles as they did in sims only a few years back. Then people ask why these modules take so long to develop

+1

Nick Grey is supposed to be very fond of the Hellcat.

The number of airfields increases and there were significant changes to existing airfields, grass to paved mainly and runways extended. British and German cities (sometime) you have the visible results of bombing. By 1944 you have visible technology such as radar installations, crossbow sites, U-Boat pens. Also the Atlantic wall fortifications. Then there are POW facilities and possibly even concentration camps. Some of this stuff is beyond the scope of the existing maps, but some of it isn’t. I’m sure there’s much much more that people with greater knowledge of the subject than I could suggest.

I can imagine that the Normandy and Channel maps will eventually cover similar areas but in different timeframes. The differences between a summer 1940 map and a 1944 one are quite extensive. I don’t know if that’s what’s intended but it would make sense.

I thought the dorsal fin was added because the cut down rear fuselage to accommodate the bubble canopy led to a decrease in low speed directional stability. A reduced keel effect. At some point it was added OEM from the factory, mod kits were also produced so squadrons could retrofit earlier aircraft. A similar device was fitted to some P51s. Like clipped wings on later Spitfires it seems to have been personal choice if pilots preferred the effect or not, the fin was fairly easily removed/fitted. There are pics of P47s with different shapes/profiles of fin also suggesting pilots experimented with different types, squadrons maybe making their own. I’d imagine what helped less experienced pilots in the landing pattern wouldn’t necessarily impress veterans wanting that extra manoeuvrability in a dogfight.

https://warbirdaviation.co.uk/Profiles/republic-p-47d-thunderbolt-nellie-g-thun-ultimate-fighters/ The additional dorsal fins seem to vary from aircraft to aircraft. G-THUN at Duxford doesn’t have one at all.

Definitely. It’s hard to believe it’s missing.

From an ACS podcast from a few months ago there was interest from the team in making the T-45 an official module, possibly to sell with super carrier?

I can see what makes a global map attractive though. Include everything and you can’t be accused of including politically sensitive areas by preference… For DCS it’s still difficult as users are going to want historical maps for historical scenarios. The MSFS map great as it is wouldn’t be much use for 40s Europe, 50s Korea, 70s Vietnam etc etc.

ED do have another helicopter in the works following the AH64, Matt W mentioned it in his recent appearance on the ACS podcast. I’d be more surprised if it wasn’t some flavour of Cobra.

They say on the above pod cast that the Sea Harrier is currently shelved because of difficulty in finding unclassified data for the Blue Fiox radar. They say work is continuing on a flyable GR3.

https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/air-combat-sim/id1498316156?i=1000558701629

From a real world human factors standpoint that makes a lot of sense.

Completely agree with the OP. The included training missions are probably most new users gateway into DCS and create that first impression. After buying a new, expensive, module it’s not unreasonable to find a set of working, fun, training missions. Razbam has a great set of training missions for the Harrier and Mirage, very comprehensive. The current state of the A10C II training missions makes me despair.

The real irony being that from pilot’s accounts Blue Fox was so bad it was almost useless… It’s capabilities make it sound like a WW2 era system, If it was modelled as was in 1982 people would go crazy wanting re-funds

I picked up the ASUS ROG 35” G-Sync FALD a year or so ago a Black Friday deal. Its an awesome monitor, but very expensive at RRP. It runs quite hot also.