Art-J

They've been already working on these non-FF jets for many years, though, way before FC3 WWII concept started popping up in wishlists. They just planned to get them out as part of MAC, the concept of which has been recently shelved and replaced with FC4 as per Wag's post on hoggit today. Nothing has changed as far as fidelity is concerned then. On the other hand, apart from community survey for non-FF Mosquito years ago, I've never seen ED considering a non-FF warbird.

Maybe not "telling untruths", but underestimating last minute bugs that can push module or feature release beyond "hoped for" timeline window. Which happened with HB's products multiple times in the past so why would F-4 be exception now? Maybe they'll release in May, maybe they won't - it comes when it comes. In either case we're getting it anyway.

A few people keep 2.8.xx on their PCs because they're not happy with performance they got after 2.9.xx was initially released. For this reason, if you've got enough space on your drive, you might make a backup of your 2.8.4 because you most likely won't be able to revert to it otherwise (using dcs_updater method I mean). Other than that, I'd recommend updating to latest if you want to play any payware content released within last 12 months. Older DCS version is just not compatible with newer stuff

Isn't it just what "Clear All" button in control options menu does though? Never used it, but that's my first guess. Needs to be pressed for each aircraft separately I presume. No idea about CLInput folder, however.

Can't quite agree about reluctancy to turn - to me that aspect feels the same as it was before 2.9.4 and still is in remaining "old physics" warbirds ie. one needs to get the plane moving to let inertia swing it around a little. Nothing changed here in my opinion. On a sidenote, it's DCS Mosquito that got reluctant to turn with the new physics, simply because its brakes are made of marshmallows now, almost like the ones in Il-2GB . I do agree, however about general "boaty" behaviour of Mustang dampers currently. My oh my, in left and right turns while taxiing it sways like old American family midsize saloon car :D.

Eh.... Sounds plausible on paper but I just can't see it working in real life to be honest. No matter what ED announces from now on, just another one "I know sth but won't tell" post from Ron or one of his ex-devs on hoggit will be enough to relight speculation sh...storm immediately. You know, the "don't listen to corporate statement, believe the ex-employees blindly" mentality that will always be there, even amongst some of DCS community.

Hear hear! In DCS power loss from supercharger throttling seems to be either not simulated all that deeply, or, more likely, one has to look really hard for a rare and ugly combination of input parameters to make it anywhere close to that "up to 300 BHP" and start noticing some sort of a really meaningful difference in performance. Below are screens taken in Caucasus free flight mission. Test goal - get the engine up to about 46" MAP at about 1500 ft using a) full supercharger and no turbo, and b) lots of turbo and only a little supercharger (so little in fact, that landing light warning came on, note the positions of levers). I'm sure the engine shouldn't like nasty supercharger throttling in the latter case, but from airspeed point of view there was no difference whatsoever (well, maybe +/- 2 kts 'cause it's difficult to keep the -47 flying level and steady). Repeated the test at 8000 ft, aiming at 52" MAP this time, with various combinations of both levers, added interlinked combo, all with same results - no speed difference beyond margin of error. All and all, to me It doesn't seem to be worth it - fiddling with levers separately I mean. I'm not seeing noticeable performance penalty (if any) for flying interlinked all the time. OK, there is one "inconvenience" penalty rather than performance one - turbo lag with resulting MAP getting bipolar disorder at low altitudes . For this reason I sometimes do like flying with split levers, as the throttle alone has more linear and predictable output. Nicer to manage and can be supplemented with boost later I admit. More often, however, I just interlink them and call it a day. The plane will fly equally fast anyway. Granted, level speed is not everything and I suppose there might be some other "drawback" simulation running in the background, but unless one flies Reflected's campaigns or some really long missions, it's probably not a big factor.

OK, finally hopped into Mustang for the second time since 2.9.4 release and just have done some driving around in NTTR takeoff practice mission. Don't know how much fuel we're carrying in that one, but honestly, +/- 6 deg tailwheel steering works exactly as before in my opinion, while in unlocked mode the wheel also swivels pretty tight and smooth as expected. Moreover, brakes sensitivity doesn't feel much higher (if higher at all?) to me and I fired up Kurfy and Dora later just to compare how fast the "brake triangles" on Ctrl-Enter indicator fill up when I use my MFG crosswinds set to full linear output. Result - they seem to be comparable to the Mustang really so even if there was some "sharpening" done to Mustang in 2.9.4 I can't see it to be honest, at least when using analog pedals and not digital button/switch etc. Granted, in all DCS warbirds I'm used to using brakes at the latest stage of landing rollout, at ground speeds below 20 kts so maybe that's why apart from overall "bouncyness" and aforementioned reversed wheels animation, I just can't see anything THAT noticeably different & worse compared to 2.9.3. Replay track attached below. 2.9.4_Must_taxi_test.trk

Well, the pre-purchase newsletter provides some info you're after, but it also says that "full set of features will be announced prior to early access", so there will be more for sure, you'll just have to wait for it.

You've probably already figured by now where your own controller settings are stored - in individual files and folders according to path explained by LeCuvier three posts above. Note - it's one separate diff.lua file per each device per each aircraft. If you don't feel comfortable with fiddling with file renaming and stuff, I'd recommend using in-game profile save & load interface to import your old settings to new computer. Fire up DCS, go to controls options, you will notice in upper right corner "Load profile" button. The rest is simple: a) Choose your aircraft; b) Highlight device column by left clicking it (for example - joystick); c) Click aforementioned "Load profile" button; d) In subsequent menu navigate to your old .diff.lua file for highlighted device (joystick in this case), click OK to load it; e) Done - your old joystick settings stored in diff.lua file of said aircraft have been imported to your new DCS install on new computer. f) Repeat these steps for throttle, keyboard, pedals, tracking device etc. g) Choose next aircraft and repeat again. Will take a few minutes, but certainly less than re-binding the whole shebang from scratch.

I'm a bit puzzled by these brake-related posts. Granted, after the updates I only did one mission with full taxi, takeoff, landing and taxi back to apron in payware version of Mustang, but haven't noticed any brake sensitivity differences compared to "old times" and I use full linear setting on my MFG crosswind toe brakes (have been thinking about dialing in some curves for years, but too lazy to do it it seems ). Not saying there aren't any differences, 'cause you're not the only person reporting the issue but I haven't experienced anything THAT noticeable. Are you sure you haven't tweaked the curves "wrong way" and made them more sensitive? Or maybe the game has them fudged - what happens if you go full linear for a test?

I would think tail strut failure is currently strongly dependent on weight of the airplane - testing in latest version of the game I don't seem to experience failures with 50% fuel load only, even though my landings are anything but butter smooth. However, yesterday I played stock Caucasus takeoff and landing practice missions twice each. In takeoff one, just taxiing along Kutaisi runway at moderate speed is guaranteed to cause inevitable metallic bang and tail strut failure event registered in mission briefing, every single time. On the other hand, In both landing missions, after a bit rough and bumpy touchdowns, I did fast and loooong rollouts on purpose and no failures happened. I thought that maybe the landing mission was set with lower fuel load, but I've just checked in the editor and it's 67% in both cases. Why am I getting failures in the former but not in the latter then? I'm puzzled, It doesn't make much sense.

Use whatever stick you want as long as you can add extension to it (to cover your "as real as poss" part). As peach noted above the plane is very pitch-responsive in DCS, so an extension, or pitch axis curve (in case of shorter sticks), or both, come in handy. As for the throttle quadrant anything which gives you 4 long throw axes will do. A tip - prop lever in DCS Jug is simulated in a peculiar way and does nothing in lower 3/4 of its movement range, only to be hyper-sensitive in remaining part. Thus - long throw physical axis helps a ton in managing RPM more precisely. I use extended TM Warthog stick and DIY-side-by-side-connected TM Warthog and TM TCA throttle quadrants.

What about space on system partition? I don't know if DCS uses that one for temporary files extraction during update process, but wouldn't be surprises if it did. On the other hand 130 GB requirement sounds excessive though, if for temp files only.

Yeah, that's indeed how it was supposed to be after VEAO collapse, but during the whole last week shebang one of the Raz devs hinted that ED doesn't actually have full source code of the Eagle for whatever reason. It might be BS info for all we know, but without further clarification on that hint, one can see why it makes some people nervous given the history of Hawk module. As for the EA meaning purchasing unfinished product for full price, I'd like to remind that F-15E never got to its planned full price, so one could also argue that since it's sold 20% off, it can be abandoned with 80% functionality as well and that would be a "fair" deal. Granted, we can only hope this saga will have a happier ending.