SMH

You can disable sticky keys in Windows. You could also change the keybinds to anything you want without a modifier key. https://www.businessinsider.com/how-to-turn-off-sticky-keys-windows-10

The bomber variant is so different I don't think there's much chance. A night fighter however...

Disable FFB and it'll go to about +2, which is still way too far forward. FFB just doesn't work well in many DCS modules. And there's none of them where it doesn't throw off my trim settings. (We really need an X/Y FFB bias option in the Controls Options to adjust the hands-off centering position of the stick.)

Curves affect trim with FFB on, yes. (Maybe force should have a curve setting of its own? And it really needs that bias/offset adjustment I mentioned as well. Both per-plane, just like the current FFB force and effect settings, but also per axis.) But again, I have FFB disabled any time I'm in the Mosquito. I'd like FFB to work, but I understand with so few FFB sticks on the market these days why ED don't support it well. So it's low on my gripe-list. The much higher priority to me is getting that pitch stability and trim setting more reasonable. (Could well be the same issue as a tail heavy C of G causes pitch instability and requires forward trim to counter.) Right now I can't use the module for what it's for as aiming is too difficult, which doesn't seem to match its reputation.

Has been out for 3+ hours now... https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/newsletters/newsletter08102021-5c95066b3a965bd2d39f2ea4f327c78a.html

The bottom needle is a turn rate indicator. It seems to work correctly (not sure about the scale, but it centers when you're not turning and moves towards the direction you are, when you are.) The top needle seems to work correctly too (again, can't speak to the scale, but it definitely goes the correct direction). I can't understand how anyone ever thought that instrument would be better than a ball in a curved tube though.

Welcome to Early Access.

I have a Logitech Wingman 3D FFB. FFB is hit and miss in DCS aircraft for me. Some I can use it, others I have to disable it in. (And that has to be done with the global option, simply turning the forces to zero in the plane's control's setup won't suffice. Even more annoying, you have to restart the whole sim or the default spring forces won't reset when turning FFB off.) It's the first thing I eliminate when I'm having issues, so FFB has nothing to do with anything I'm reporting here. I can't use FFB in the Spit either, it becomes near uncontrollable and certainly can't be aimed with any accuracy. The Mossie feels suspiciously the same, both in its behavior with and without FFB enabled. In all the other DCS warbirds FFB is useable, but even in the best ones like the Mustang it does throw off trim positions from where you'd expect them to be. (A FFB centering force bias feature would be greatly appreciated.) Certain jets make good use of it as well, like the F-5, but its trim is so impacted that it won't trim out when heavy with FFB enabled. There isn't enough trim authority to compensate for the offset my FFB stick is applying. (Which is a shame because the FFB stick lets the aileron limiter work correctly. Your actual stick's center position moves with the trim too which is super cool. And force-trim in the choppers is to die for!) I've verified my stick is calibrated and centers correctly. I'd say to confirm your controls position with the controls indicator but it seems that shows the simulated position, not the true position of your input device. (As I can see my forward trim and almost full notch of right aileron trim on it. The aileron trim is another weird one, by the way, but it's not as serious an issue to fight as the pitch trim.)

If lowering flaps moves the center of lift forward, then yes. And yes, even at the highest airspeeds it trims out to a full +2 notches of nose heavy trim which should only be suitable during full flaps landing. Here's video of a Mossie FB trimmed for cruise with the trim indicator right on the center mark, where you'd expect it to be. (It was about a half notch forward at takeoff.)

Nice stories, but none of that accounts for the tail heavy feeling we're all noticing at all times. Not just when flaps are down for landing and we don't even have the rear fuselage tank to fill yet.

Could we just have fast and slow turn mappings for the trim wheels? Problem solved. (Except everyone will argue that fast is too fast and slow is too slow.) We already have that for controls turned with the mouse wheel. (Hold shift for fast turning speed.) Now back to that tail heavy flight model, which is the real issue. I can't say where the C of G was on real WWII Mosquitos, but I'd be pretty surprised if it's not forward of the center of lift. If it's aft, well, that would explain why it flies the way it does. But why would they do that?

LOL! Good one! You can change that behavior in the Special menu so, for a workaround, you can change it to seat straps (I assume there's a keybind for that?) or if you use TrackIR, as you appear to, you can just move your head naturally.

This is a feature, not a bug. Great to see unstable gauges like real world ones so often are. Fly straight and level and the fuel gauges will settle down.

Or just a stable flight model that it's possible to trim out. Feels like it's tail heavy. (So does the Spitfire. They're the only two that have this issue.)

Yes but we also need it to actually work. I currently can't use it on the Spitfire as it becomes completely uncontrollable with FFB enabled. Most DCS warbirds tolerate it, and it's wonderful in the TF/P-51, but even in that plane it throws off the trim position considerably. Would it be possible to add a FFB bias feature to adjust the centering position for each aircraft? (Like, I'd use it in the F-5 except I can no longer dial in enough nose up trim to keep it level when heavy.) Also, can we please make a hotkey for enabling/disabling FFB? It's crazy to have to exit the mission/server to do it. Then, if you're turning FFB off, you need to restart the whole sim so that the default spring forces reset correctly!

The port side drop tank of either size is set too far back in the wing. So much so that its filler cap gets covered by the leading edge. When viewed from above you can clearly see the starboard tank extending farther in front of the wing than the port.

LOL!

I've always wondered this about the Spit and now Mossie too. And yes, the AH seems even more unstable in the Mossie when of course they should be the same. (Not sure which one is right. Hard to imagine wasting space on the panel for an instrument this useless though.)

This one is Geoffrey DeHavilland's bug, not ED's. (I assume it's this way as it was originally designed to be a level bomber and the gunsight was put in as an afterthought.)

I don't think the trim is overly sensitive so much as it's just unstable. Feels like the tail is heavy so it won't trim out to any stable angle. Once it starts to drift out of trim it just progressively gets worse. It also needs a bunch of right aileron trim, almost a full "notch". Not sure if that's accurate or not.

Yeah was disappointed to see the old reflections. Now they have to re-do them. Why not do things once on new modules? Can we also have shifting reflections on HUD/sight glass too please? (In all aircraft.) Probably want to put it on the surface of the lens too.

Yeah. As a two seat trainer MC sync should be the highest priority.

Just AI or flyable? Even just AI would be greatly appreciated, but of course flying one is the dream. And we need an equivalent on the German side. Ju-52 being the obvious choice. But the C-47 would fit in scenarios right up until the '80s and even modern times for smaller militaries. And if they think nobody wants to fly transports (we do! bombers too!) then they can give us an AC-47 loadout for it. How awesome would that be? (Unfortunately no equivalent for the Ju-52 though at least it does have a defensive dorsal gun turret.) Oh and of course functioning paratroops to drop from them. Field capture is currently uncommon in DCS WWII I think mostly due to this. Yeah, the current parachute animations for the pilot bailouts aren't great and are inconsistent across modules. Even the better ones feel like static animations with no physics. But still way better than nothing. I wouldn't hold off adding paratroops just because of lack of chute physics. That'll come. (I hope anyway!!! ) I get the feeling they're working on something regarding this. Maybe even troops that can get on and off aircraft in a visible animated way instead of just being imaginary as they are now. (Would explain why we're seeing downed pilot locations on the F10 map lately.)

I would imagine some of that was the drag they caused as well. I know the FB variant was a bit slower than the bomber due to the flat windscreen vs. the split one on the bomber. I'd think the night fighters would have all had them. No?

Oh, interesting. So would the props be slightly forward on the bomber compared to the fighter/bomber? (Also interesting that the earlier bomber variant actually had a better engine with two-stage supercharger. Seems backwards, though I can understand it having a greater need for high altitude performance vs. the mud mover variant.) Thanks!