Morat

Having a real life Navigator join me on my first proper hop was actually really useful but yes - it would be great if you could see each other moving around like you can in the F-14.

I noticed this too. Pressed \ and nothing. Checked the bind - it was set to \ so I don't know what's up on this one.

No, no effect for me either in VR. We'll be the ones with the stoop after crouching to look down the sight!

Yes, early days!

It's worth it though

Yes, that seems so - but if you have pedals with toe brakes it's super simple with the tiniest amount of practice. When I jumped on a WW2 server to try the Mossie out I found I'd mistakenly bound brakes to my discord PTT. Oops!

Forgive me, I was talking tosh

It's MASSIVELY easier than the Spit! I don't even have split throttles, just a bit of differential braking does the trick. I map the brake lever axis (under Stick in the controls) to the left toe brake on my Saitek pedals. With a gentle pressure on the toe brake and decent deflection on the rudder bar you can do really nice smooth turn on the ground without a groundloop. You just need a little bit of throttle and a bit of a roll forwards, RPM in fine. AND you can actually see over the nose!! fantastic

No argument here, it's a stunning module - especially in VR. The cockpit is amazing!

It's bad enough to cut the engine on the downward side of a roll, which I don't remember being mentioned by anyone who flew the real a/c.

THANK YOU!!!

That would be ideal for a Warthog throttle, I could use the friction axis for RPM and the throttles for boost

Yes, there's a huge set of chronological issues, but it's my Day Dream not yours But so far ED have been happy to count WW2 as one time frame even when they really shouldn't - so I was doing the same. No one would be happier than me if ED were to introduce modules that would flesh out different time periods within WW2. For ease, consider different modules for Battle of Britain, Pearl Harbour, Africa/Libyan campaign, Normandy, and the End. However, that's REALLY ambitious!

Can we have a custom Varnished Teak skin? Pretty please?

IF I were allowed to daydeam for a while... What could be a better way to make the dynamic campaign system really rock than to have day and night roles in WW2? It's less important for the modern jets, of course, as they're mainly all weather day/night birds but imagine a campaign that ran for a week or two, 24/7! Then we could have Mossies hitting targets during the day, escorted by P-51s and intercepted by Doras and A8 and then Lancs attacking targets by night with Mossie NF in the stream trying to defeat attacks by Ju88 and 110s. Going the other way, there'd be HE-100 and JU-88 raiders being intercepted by Spits during the day and Mosquito NF during the night. Of course, if you add in B-17s during the day, the US market would explode all over itself But the serious point is, it's not impossible to imagine a dynamic WW2 scenario that could run over several days. It would need some more a/c types (He-111, JU-88 day/night and Mosquito NF) but it's not inconceivable even if it would take more than a couple of weeks

I think I'll have to experiment and see if I can get a video of the behaviour. Thing is, you don't have to be manouvering very hard to put the target above your nose if you're at a relatively low altitude. Even 30 degrees of bank can mean you're moving the target above your wingline (which I guess is the crucial aspect for the pod), especially if you're turning towards the pod. The odd thing, for me, is that the pod tracks just fine as you enter the turn. It's when you roll out that it loses track. At least, that's my impression before testing. If we have any RL Hog pilots, I'd be fascinated to hear their view!

Has anyone else noticed this behaviour from the Lightning pod? Sometimes when turn into a target, the t-pod loses lock and wobbles off to one side as I roll back to wings level. It then stabilises on the wrong piece of real estate and I have to re-aquire the target before I can make it go boom. Is this correct? It seemed to arrive with 2.7 Cheers, Morat

VR has it's issues for a Hog Pilot. I often note down targets on F10 and put them into the CDU as waypoints, which is a ballache in VR. I haven't quite got it set up so I can reliably stretch all the way round to get the cockpit lighting switches without stretching my neck out of shape. But... with a G2 and 109% SS (the max I can use with a 3080) it kicks 2D in the nuts. The perspective in 2D is all wrong, when you get into VR the 3D effect brings the cockpit around you in a way that I've never seen on a monitor. Also, despite the relatively small sweet spot in the G2, the resolution in the centre is amazing. There's no question whether you'll be able to read the gauges or see the HUD/HMCS properly - it's fantasti. I love it

Heh, the mounts will cost more than the throttles once I pay shipping! Still worth it overall. Where did you get that front piece - or did you print it yourself?

For the price, that looks tempting! Can you use two of the USB "Add on" quadrants instead of adding one to the yoke/throttle setup? I plan on using my trust Warthog for the Joystick. Checking Amazon questions/answers - it seems you can plug in at least three throttle quadrants at once. I think we have a winner. The Honeycomb looks amazing but far too expensive for me!! Thanks folks

With the Pre-order open, I'm wondering what to use for a throttle for the Mosquito. I'm hoping to fly VR with the minimum of fumbling. I currently use a TM Warthog, which has been great for Jets and Single engined warbirds but I'm looking for something that can handle Boost and RPM for a twin engine job. This seems obvious but doesn't attract the usual good reviews that I'd expect from CH https://www.amazon.co.uk/CH-Products-300-133-Throttle-Quadrant/dp/B0002A59Z4?th=1 Has anyone been dabbling with twin prop planes and have a recommendation? Thanks, Morat

Sad either way

Fair enough. There must be another reason they said no to a Tempest.

God, if they DO do multicrew it'll be epic! Maths? Well, I've got Excel which probably puts me ahead of the poor chaps who had to do it all with a slide rule

Yes, me too! But ED seem to only do modules for aircraft that have a flying example. I'm not saying that's a hard and fast rule but I guess it would be difficult to verify the model against "just" CFD.