Aernov

P-47 Radio controller master switch and canopy handle.trk 1) Manually closing/opening the canopy via right canopy lock lever actuates VHF master mode switch to REM position temporarily, then it jumps to R position and stays there until canopy lock handle is clicked again (then it momentarily jumps to REM and returns to R again) or until it is placed manually to T position with left click (right clicking the switch after it was actuated by canopy lock handle doesn't set it to REM). I tested it in P-47D-40, not sure this is present in earlier models. P-47 Radio controller T lock lever issue.trk 2) The small lever that, when placed in aft position, should prevent master switch from staying in Transmit position unless it is actively held there by the pilot, in addition to it's normal function, prevents selection of REMote mode completely and can't be moved aft if the mode switch is set to REM mode. 3) Controller unit in P-47 has no button/switch labels (channel letters, mode switch position names etc.).

Looks like this has been marked as reported on may 24th: One month away from report turning five years old.

Still isn't modeled, same with gear lever safety catch operation (the catch itself is there at least).

I personally would prefer if these simplification options (automatic trigger safety, automatic gear lever guard, disabling influence of plane's fuselage on missile's ability to lock etc.) were removed completely.

This (and hydraulic system state in general) was reported in june 4, 2020, and marked as WiP.

OK, no transparency for customers, again, got it.

Would be nice to get an explanation on this. The deed is done, yet nothing to share. I hope this won't be treated like ongoing ED-Razbam conflict - a year with no news (which can be interpreted as no progress).

I'd buy it in an instant even if it is a separate full price module.

Pitot heating is INOP currently (in my experience at least), I always turn heating on before takeoff, and still getting freezing, with indicated speed increasing with altitude increase and decreasing when descending (as if Pitot tube flash froze while pressurized at some speed, and now if plane climbs and static port pressure drops relative to whatever was in Pitot at the moment of freezing, indicated speed goes up and vice versa). It was reported years ago, track was submitted 3,5+ years ago, and I linked another one (it was too big for this forum) in last november.

DCS WW2 side is interesting to me because of high fidelity of the aircraft. If ED starts making FC-level planes, the fidelity advantage of DCS in WW2 air sim games sphere is gone, at least for me. And there is a third-party developer focused on WW2 - OctopusG, who made I-16 and in the process (I hope) of making La-7, and maybe ground assets for Eastern front (I doubt that T-34-85 that we saw in 2025 video is made by ED since they shifted to PTO). As for F-35's impact for WW2 side of DCS - best case scenario is no impact. Let's hope that the last member of WW2 development team wasn't assigned to F-35 systems and flight characteristics divining team or something.

Another one to the pile: visible moving part of the artificial horizon (I don't know it's proper name) is offset to the left noticeably farther than it is on the photos: Speaking of artificial horizon, is something being done about it's lack of self-correction and excessive drift at normal suction levels?

Just got this exact behavior during mission test (Channel map, winter, -1° C, 29.72 in Hg). I have a track, but it is 25+ Mb, so here's Google drive link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1SmYbLR42unsW82KysSVcQ-L7MC3K3hP9/view?usp=sharing Track file was already submitted 3,5 years ago. So, will we live long enough to see P-47 fixed?

Has manual emitter selection been fixed yet?

Expanding eastwards and northwards to Germany seems to be the way to keep the map relevant (aside from singleplayer campaigns for it). But, ED got Pacific theater now, and ocean with small islands is easier for map making than Europe.

In my experience current performance is close to real perf. charts (for atmospheric pressures close to 29.92), and ship landings are easily performed in wet schedule without flow starting with appropriate weights (as indicated in VREST VL page). It was wildly overpowered some years ago, then engine got tuned to almost-real life baseline performance and no further adjustments were made AFAIK. There was a problem with underperformance at low atmo pressures, maybe this is what you are getting at high altitude fields.