Lau

Hi, I do not run all the mods at the same time, but just the ones I am using during that period of time. The Launcher will not save that new selection and always reverts to a selection that seems to be saved internally. Thanks,

Noticed that Headcorn is actually located at Lashenden. Not sure which airfield Ugra had intended to recreate but either the name or the location should be changed. Thanks,

Hi @Volator When I calculate Drag & Weight I am only looking for the big picture to enter the perf charts for some initial flight planning. Flying by the numbers is not always possible unless on a dedicated training flight and on a day close to standard athmosphere albeit a virtual one. This will already give you some discrepancies from your initial calculations. Also the numbers used by HB are not exactly the same but very close to the FM perf and then DCS has its interpretation of Drag through formulas. With the above in mind here is a sample for a SEAD config giving a total Weight of little over 54k lbs and 67 DI (I did not include the ALE-40, should have…). With regards to the ALE-40 if not carrying AIM, add the ALE-40 DI and with AIM on the AERO3B, I would use the AIM DI + 1.4 DI for the ALE-40 since it is protruding a little more than the AIM. From flight to flight your numbers will become more accurate as you narrow the actual SIM performance numbers. Best, Lau

Ok: 1st Pass: -3 mts warmup -wait until aligned with target before starting the TV feed to make sure I do not dammage the system. -Lock and fire AGM65, so far so good. 2nd Pass: -Start TV Feed on 2nd AGM65 but instead, I simulate a G/A as if too close to the target (read avoid AA), before meneuvering I try trigger half action (or full acton) to stop the video feed to no avail, maneuver with the TV Feed ON and go around for another pass, but the AGM65 is not longer aible to Lock targets as if something broke. 3rd Pass: -I try a TGT/MSL Rej to change to the next available AGM65 and sure thing I get a new one (3rd), activate the TV Feed once stabilised on the target, but this one too is unable to Lock Targets. I've got no mods installed and running lastest build which I repaired after installing as usual. Voila, F4E AGM65 BUGl.trk

Thanks for reporting this, experienced the same result

Thanks for response; B variant only has one field of view, manual used to state it should be caged with trigger half action to avoid damaging video unit, caging is currently not working. Tested first missile that locked and fired OK, took 8 G without caging and thereafter missile became INOP in the way if could not lock anymore. TGT / MSL REJ did not work either after attempting to switch to the next available missile.

Manual states that AGM 65 should be caged back before maneuvers, did not manage to do so with half action trigger. Thanks,

Not convinced about the final teleport rotation at the end of the yellow shirts taxi directions returning to the assigned parking area, why point the aircraft in the wrong direction before having to teleport it the opposite way?. On previous version AI planes used to turn just in front of their assigned parking and then reverse simulating a push back. Hooking a push back vehicle at this stage or even allowing AI to work as they used to would be a better solution in my opinion. Else the teleport function if stock is a good idea, the SC should also be able to delete any airplane stock on the deck to avoid traffic jam and compromising the mission. Thanks,

Thank you Slippa for cheering up my day, we are blessed with this community.

Funny Chistoso Gracioso I believe you speak spanish if not pls disregard

Awesome report thanks a lot ! this new DCS pilot, bought the spitfire just to find out about the artificial horizon being broken with no support from ED for over a decade, not the way to do business.

Part of the below message also apply to justify the general discontent that I share with other EDs customers.

Awesome thanks

@3000 Black Jets of Allah It would be nice if we can work on an example just to figure out if we can get to the same numbers that worked for you. - What payload configuration Weights & Drag Indexes did you use during your test flight ? - What performances did you calculate (t/o, clb, crz, descent, landing) ? - What result did you get while flying in the simulator ? Spot on seems too good to me since the numbers are not exactly the same from the manual to the sim, so just curious. I would like to then test your numbers in the simulator to see if I can get to the same result. Considering that HB is doing its best to be as close as possible to the numbers in the manual, my initial question was trying to find a way to get the actual numbers simulated in the sim, to avoid the discrepancy in between the manual and the sim. It is also not easy to ID all the weapons and pylons between the manual and the sim since they do not use the exact same names. I found that weights are not exactly the same either sim vs manual. I have gathered the best way I could all the weights and drag indexes and my next steps is to actually test them in the sim, this is why I would like to work on examples of calculations with you, so we can then test them in the sim to see how reliable and accurate these numbers are. My guess would be that if the numbers from the sim and the manual are different, that the game does not exactly simulate the testing environment of the real aircraft, we are bound to some discrepancies. "Spot on" seems therefore a bit excessive considering so many variables. This is the reason I would like to work directly from the numbers in the sim as opposed to those from the real airplane. It would be very nice if HB could provide us with this data. That being said if HB did manage to get spot on to the real plane numbers, then I would be more than glad to use the data from the real manual page 255. Thanks,

Hey, just noticed your reply was not expecting one anymore, so good to read that at least one other person is considering weights and drag indexes while performing flight planning in DCS with the HB F4E. I also used the real F4E manual and found some discrepancies so it will be interesting to compare my results with yours and also talk about how you are using drag calculations within your flight planning. I will come back to you in the near future on this topic to see if we can find an accurate and reliable way to use the information at hand for accurate flight planning within DCS. Could you please in the future "quote" the message you are raplying to or use @username to make sure we do not miss your replies. On the other hand, I am as guilty as you since I do not have the habit to follow my own threads. Thanks a lot,

Below quotes also apply to this topic Thanks,

There are sims where this passion is not gone to waste for the simple reason that developers have drawn a limit to how far they are prepared to push their work. Once that limit is established they have opened to the community the possibility to develop maps, 3D objects with damage model and in no time, all this free work became available to the community. When I came across the research work of the person you mentioned, I could also not help but to reflect about that, where is this zone limit? Is it too early to offer Ugra all this passion and potential free work? Will that come later down the road? By the look of things, not even ED has the answer to these simple questions. Also and from a business perspective; is Ugra selling enough maps to justify the time investment to handcraft all these historical details? Again we need the big picture to understand but, the lest “no thank you” cannot be excused since a minimum of customer service should be maintained at all times and for every product sold on the ED front store. I have only reported one bug on the Normandy 2.0 related to the magnetic variation being wrong compared to the real WW2 overlay map of 1944. The bug was fixed internally without anyone acknowledging my message, moved to “fixed” by BN after I reported it to be fixed. There is hardly any soul down there working on the WW2 front apart from the occasional 9L message after several months of a bug report, acknowledging and moving the status to “reported” or “investigating” and then, well hardly any return on our investment and a road map that is certainly out of track. I have never seen any reply from Ugra other than a couple of lines on the change log updates incredibly spaced into time. The Normandy 2.0 map is in early access, I do not know for you but, to me there is not enough development activity, perhaps justified by low sales since the WW2 warbirds and asset pack has also been in an abandoned state for a long time. Referring back to customers support: To me the only reason BN was around that they to move my bug report to “fixed” is because he was just monitoring all my messages to see if he could squeeze another warning. 60 points for fighting my way to get a refund on the F15E and 10 points for writing another sims name, yet, I see 9L freely writing them in he’s messages. The last time 9L could not help it but to delete a couple of our messages before moving the bug report related to the warbirds artificial horizon problem to “reported”, they call this “cleaning”. What I am saying is not black and white, we need moderation and can see how passionate we all are, starting by the fact that we do not all have the same age, but moderation on the ED forum has been so heavy handed that it became obvious that it was more intended at protecting EDs failures in order to protect its current business, a business model based on promises and trust from its customers base. It is sad to see that many of us are currently disappointed, yet we are prepared to be patient and see things move in the right direction with important and timely changelog updates. It is scary to me that after almost 1000€ of investments from one customer, they show us that they are short on cash to deliver. More products come out and we are stock with BN and 9L for the customer support side (ED products and Ugra). Why is the company not hiring more staff at all levels to back up the company expansion? No wonder we are told BN and 9L are super busy, but that is not what I would have expected from a company with the level of ambitions promoted through EDs marketing campaigns. I have an unlimited passion for airplanes but, I must say that I feel reassured to see videos on you tube pointing the problems we are facing as customers with ED, this with the only hope that a positive outcome will come out of them; courtesy is a matter concerning all parties and it can be of no surprise to ED that in the current state of things matters escalate within the community. Thanks,

You are mostly right, hence the reason why there have been so little movement on the WW2 dev front, which is certainly not cool for those of us that equally enjoy flying modern and history driven warbirds not to say that WW2 warbirds and asset pack are also products sold on the ED front store, they therefore deserve to be developed and supported in the same way all the other ED products are. There has been some severe delay on the WW2 front, it is now ample time for ED to catch up. Thanks,

WW2 warbirds and asset pack news, well that calls for a little celebration, however small any news can be, they are welcome, something I hope the dev team will expand moving forward. Thanks,

I am trying to put in to good use WW2 air navigation maps covering England, France, Belgium, Netherlands and Germany, this is in my point of view the map that we need, a map covering important parts of all these countries at the same time as opposed to individual countries. I personally do not see the interest of having a detailed Eiffel Tower, Versailles and so on, yes we need them to be represented but just as a VFR landmark for navigation purposes and in low poly, current maps are very poorly detailed in that perspective, yet you will find a very detailed telephone booth cabin, wanna make a phone call? That brings me to my next point : By using real WW2 maps as a reference for navigation the problem that pops up immediately is the lack of VFR landmarks across the DCS maps, VFR was the predominant method of navigation in WW2, the easiest method of navigation in real life, yet the very poor details of our current maps in that perspective do not allow us to simulate this important aspect of WW2 air navigation. DCS concentrates in short hops from an airport directly in to battle and return if you are lucky, even during these short hops you can feel the lack of realism of DCS maps with regards to the air navigation ground details. Maps are simply not realistic with regards to air navigation, not necessarily talking in comparison to the real WW2 maps but more about the required level of detail for VFR navigation (read: information from the 3D world vs information on the in game navigation map F10). While I understand that there were no satellite pictures of the earth in the 40s, I find it would be a game changer for me if at least details represented in DCS WW2 maps could match their real counterpart with regards to villages, towns, cities shape, forests locations and names. These details should be clearly indicated in a HD on board map that we could use for VFR navigation via the F10 function. Recognize a lake, a hill, a town shape with its bridges and so forth, these are the details I am after when approaching a VFR waypoint. Yes you have DR, but visual clues would be very much welcomed. Even if the DCS map does not exactly match the reality, I am more after the tools to simulate air navigation than the 100% realism compared to the real map, to that extent, I would be ok for the map designer to include unrealistic details provided they are of use to air navigation in game and in low poly so they can be added across larger maps. These details are of course of no use if pilots are not made aware of where they are located, unless of course each one of us build its own data base on the go as we fly. Still the need to merge all these information in a useful VFR landmarks map would certainly be of good use to the community. A bit like it is done for the helipads in other maps. Ugra provided us a nice touch and hint of their good will by offering a real WW2 map overlay on Normandy 2.0, this overlay is more misleading at the moment than anything since the current virtual world does not match in many regards the details from the real map, here I am just talking about major details like town locations, names, shapes and other important visual clues for air navigation in the area simulated by the map. Now and as I wrote, I am well aware of the fact that ED has recognized that most players log in to DCS to fight and have not necessarily the will to spend too much time flying from one place to the other, most of these players can see their position in the F10 map like a GPS anyway. My observations are however based on small training navigation exercises over the Normandy 2.0 map from Ugra in the UK, looking for that small village where I need to provide CAS to the troops on the ground within a time frame or reorient myself after having evaded an attack from fighters, very challenging in the current state of the map with that unified green ground color and autogen ground details. What I am trying to say is that the map looks pretty much the same all around. Now I know what you are thinking, bigger maps mean more detailed airports, cities and to a certain extent with the current development method you are right, even though I do not consider the current Normandy 2.0 airports to be very detailed for that matter, it’s not the high poly hangars, it’s the overall atmosphere, I could do with less detail on the airports, cities and an option to pay for a more detailed approach separately provided, we could have bigger maps as previously stated. I would really enjoy longer navigations like it is possible in other sims, that and real weather conditions, say today’s weather forecast depicted in the sim. I am also well aware that these are just words in the air during times where WW2 development has been in an abandon state for so long, however ED has made me see things in a positive way after the couple of lines included for WW2 warbirds and assets in the latest update. ED is gifted by the incredible support of a community that has shown time after time how patient we can be, despite the legit rant because our passion does not makes us fools, most of us have many of the other modules and see the global picture and as such, expect global support from ED across all the products sold on their store, more importantly we are here to remind them of their commitment and the fact that abandoning WW2 warbirds and asset pack development will undoubtedly also have consequences on their sales across other expensive products. WW2 warbirds and asset pack are part of aviation history and we enjoy it as much as flying on any other modern and expensive module that we have purchased to satisfy our passion, something that we also often did as just one more sign of our support to ED. ED give us confidence in your WW2 products and you will see the servers being populated symmetrically to your product updates, confidently moving from early access to a released state in a timely manner seems the only way forward. Thanks,

What a nice surprise to read WW2 updates on the last changelog, please keep them coming ED and thanks for listening to your customers Interesting topic I will read through. At the moment what is holding me back from joining WW2 servers is the broken artificial horizons on all warbirds, I was thrilled to join the 4YA server and their extensive use of clouds, unfortunately, I noticed that the artificial horizons are of no use in their current development state. In an era where there was no stealth, clouds where extensively used to sneak throught the enemy lines or simply to escape. The problem has been reported for over a decade, recently acknowledged by ED and reported to the dev team as high priority for all warbirds, I hope that we will soon have the good surprise to see this long standing issue fixed in a not too distant changelog. artificial-horizon bug report Thanks,

Water is big problem; it is generally polluted in my area despite what authorities say. When you try to buy water, it comes with nano plastic particles. Many people take this matter very seriously and buy equipment to purify it, I haven’t reach that stage but I know I should. Perhaps I will move next to a water fall in Norway before

There is perhaps a DIY quick solution to that blocked nose, 2.86g of salt (only natural sea salt no iodine) mixed in 300 ml of tap water (hope it is of good quality where you live ) heated to 35 C°. You then need a way to inject that in your nose up to the sinuses. Inject it while looking down and rotate your face to one site so the fluid does not fall strait a way. While you keep the fluid gently massage all sinuses areas, take a chart there are many cavities. I do sessions of 150 ml, you do not need to use it all, just enough to have the feeling you cleaned all areas well enough. It is good practice to blow your nose mid way and start over. It works for me and it is natural, hope you will get the same benefit.

Hope you enjoy it as much as I did

Got it, was not using the right link, why make things easy when you can make them complicated Thanks Slippa