burritto

Approaching 10 years for an update then. It must be just round the corner.

This was just one of the issues that badly impacted Storm of War last year, and ultimately led to the team bringing the server to a close. Has there been any progress on this, or will new weapon types with the new modules releasing this year just cause a recurrence?

ATP-56(a) is a useful NATO joint document that covers Air to Air Refuelling. There is a Nov 2000 version readily accessible through a google search. A more modern version (2013) can be found by searching for ATP-3.3.4.2 as the NATO doctrine people changed the way pubs were numbered. You could probably find an even later version if you look for it. The Annexes in Part 2 Chapter 10 (or Chapter 5 in the later version) spell out the capabilities of the different tankers. Some do have bearing capability (and a subset of those reference depending on receivers capability), but the vast majority do not. My experience was through the '90s and I never received a bearing from a tanker through A-A Tacan, even from those types listed on those annexes as having the capability. That may have changed since my time.

I never followed why DCS had the A-A TACAN functioning the way it did. IRL I NEVER had bearing information using the TACAN in A-A mode between any A-A platforms (other fighters or tankers), just range against another platform on the same X or Y and separated by 63 channels from my own. The TACAN plan generally allowed you to have a setup for a 4 ship (2xpairs) to range within each pair and between the two pairs by switching X to Y. For example, 29X, 92Y, 92X, 29Y for numbers 1,2,3,4 in a formation would give everyone the range between pairs (useful on a contra rotating CAP) but by switching your X to Y or vice versa you could range within your own pair quickly.

Plus one to this request. Has this been seen by the devs since the original post? Any chance of progess on it?

This does need to be carefully considered and supported by ED. I know the server I frequent most uses LotATC and others use other third party applications like OverLord Bot. It would be a big ask to server owners to stop using those addons to use a less capable client than is already well used and already understood by the player base. I'd love to be able to use integrated comms in DCS, but not at the expense of these other capabilities. I've not seen any large MP servers using the built in comms before this coming patch, and I'm not sure that should change unless supporting things like LotATC or Overlord Bot will be supported pretty quickly.

You're missing out on the best WW2 MP experience available in DCS but that's your choice. MW50 is available on later missions in the campaign, but at airfields a little further away from the action. Even without MW50 the Kurfurst is very competitive, as is every other aircraft that is available if you play to it's strengths and exploit the weaknesses of the opposition. The server gets upwards of 1000 unique players a month and is often full at peak hours so it's doing just fine at the moment without your custom. If you did want to try the server out I'd recommend looking through the Storm of War website and joining the Discord where you'd be made to feel welcome. Otherwise, the other WW2 servers could always use the support. Growling Sidewinders runs on the channel map, and there the Clash of Wings server that is more newbie focused and offers dot labels, no need for the assets pack and runs on Caucasus.

It would be great to see continued improvement on the flak across the board, including this request. It makes such a huge difference to both SP missions and campaigns, and multiplayer, in getting a believable WW2 environment.

Is there any update on whether the original request in this post gained any traction at all with Ugra? Is there any hope for either the requested field, or other fields on the Normandy map?

I agree with the OP's remarks. It would be good to have more control over the winds. Having suggested wind figures/directions that tied in to the overall weather setting (to cater for say inversions...) would be great, but give the mission designer the option to make changes. For the poster adding links to weather manuals, I spent my career as a military fast jet pilot and have been taught and read enough about it. Could it also be clarified what the ft settings in the windows are? Are they altitude, or height? On the assumption that the wind model is fairly simple they could be altitude, which means that any airfields above sea level could be facing significantly stronger surface winds than set on the 33ft window. For example, some of the southern airfields on Normandy map are 500ft+ above sea level, which could mean a surface wind of around 30kts with the settings above. If the lowered windowed settings are heights, what happens when airfields are significantly above sea level, as occurs on other maps - will there be a negative wind gradient. or a sudden change in wind velocity (in effect some form of shear)? Does the wind direction for the 1600ft window take account of the airfield latitude and the time of day?

Unless the A-8 is different to the A-7, that diagram that iFoxRomeo has posted shows the Geratebank Rechts Circuit Breakers for MG131 and MG151 as independent, does it not? So the behaviour at the moment is NOT correct? And the Outer guns should be P81 rather than P80 as it is at the moment. Or am I reading it wrong?

Thanks for investigating. In that case, would it be possible to get the A8 Manual corrected to reflect this? Specifically, the electrical diagram on Page 32 would need to reflect the CB for MG131 coming from the line for MG151 in the Wing Roots after the circuit breaker for those, rather than directly off the main busbar. Thanks.

Thank you for clarifying things Hiromachi. I think that’s a real shame as it will eventually mean a complete rework on a new module (as far as damage model goes), rather than keeping it in line with the other WW2 modules from the get go. I wonder if the community could help persuade ED to share the code earlier, rather than later? It seems silly to have your coders working with what is now obselete code.

In this comment , it's stated that the F4U won't have the new WW2 damage model on initial release. What kind of damage model will it have, and what is the plan to migrate to the new damage model that the majority (I think just the I16 is lacking) of other warbirds have? This may affect the Corsair's use on MP servers, certainly at initial release. I'm very much looking forward to picking this aircraft up but this would be a showstopper for picking it up at the very start during Early Access.

This has me somewhat worried. On initial release will the Corsair at least have as good a damage model as existed before the new one was implemented? I mostly fly in MP and this would determine whether or not the aircraft gets added to those servers. The new damage model on the warbirds is a great leap forward and it's a shame you're not able to implement it, and then tweak the corsair model as the tech itself gets tweaked.

Has there been any progress on this? I've read a few times that it has been fed into the devs by 9L (I think), but not heard anything since. It would be a nice option to give mission designers and server hosts.

There's a wishlist post here for the option for prewarmed engines as an option for all aircraft. Please add your support to it.

It's great to see some general updates and bug fixes coming in the next Open Beta (hopefully) for this map. Another 6 weeks on from the last request for an update, is there any indication as to whether this may be a possibility? Did they (Ugra) get the email, or is it in their spam folder?

I flew the P51 again for the first time in 2 months and was bitterly disappointed to see this still hasn't been fixed. Especially as there is a solution just above. Come on ED - put some resources into doing some WW2 bug fixing for ALL the warbirds. We don't need more aircraft while the existing stock is so badly supported. Change your priorities please.

The AI are even worse bombers than me! Please ED, give some resources to the WW2 team to be able to squash these bugs.

Thanks again Dietrich. I hope it isn't too long before these reports get picked up by the community mods, and that a bug fix can make it back out the other end of the process rather than just disappearing into the WW2 bug fix black hole.

Thanks for all the effort to get this investigated and reported Dietrich. Please ED, give the WW2 team some resources to squash these bugs.

The Anton left early access 15 months ago and these have never worked properly. Every few months I'll give the cluster munitions another try and every few months I'll be sorely disappointed when zero progress has been made in actually bringing the bird out of EA status. Please ED give some priority to getting all these bugs sorted.

+1.

Seconded to all of that.