bongodriver

In this particular screen grab I'd say the camera has come down to natural eye line because the pilot has dipped his head momentarily, let's face it, if the eye point became any lower than the screen grab shows then forward visibility will be even more compromised.

Well all I can see is that there is an even bigger black bar obstructing the bottom of the sight apperture in the real thing, anybody got a low res drawing and a strong opinion to prove it wrong?

Second time I've been quoted on that one, I wasn't being serious, there is more than a hint of irony to the question as someone suggested that Spitfire pilots only flew them well because someone was holding a gun to their heads and telling them not to crash........utter nonsense.

No, the NACA report really did mean 3/4", this is test was done on a MkV and yes that stick deflection just cannot be constant throughout the full speed range.

We certainly should not be getting a MkIX with a MkV FM

I see what you did there.....:thumbup:

So Spitfire pilots were more scared of crashing their aircraft than being killed by the enemy?

I agree, the room in the 190 cockpit is very limited in terms of vertical height, but I can't help thinking that as the pilots head moved around.....like they do, it was possible that at certain times the 'bar' could have just slightly obstructed the bottom portion of the sight aperture, and this would have been more apparent when the viewpoint was highest....like when the pilot was at a stretch to look over the nose for that deflection shot.

I was told by Sammy Sampson of the BBMF that the MkV Spitfire was the only Mark ever fitted with the 'bob weight' to counter the neutral stability.

Which it did, hence why the Spit was regarded well for giving good warning of imminent stall from buffet.

Ok so we are not talking about the same thing, my point still stands, if the eye point moves up then due to perspective the bar also moves up if the observer is looking through the sight aperture which remains fixed, the gun cross is not relevant to the point I am making.

are you saying that no matter what sits beyond the gunsight, if it is collimated then all obstructions become invisible......like a magic portal?

it doesn't sound like the Spitfire that totally green rookies found 'easy to fly', this is another one of those debates that rages on like the 109 bar, but in this case I have faith in Yo-yo and his access to experienced Spitfire pilots for feedback.

collimation is not what I'm talking about, if the pilots eyepoint is raised then the angle to look through the sight is downward effectively bringing everything beyond the sight up in perspective.

3/4" is about the slack in my joystick before the FF motors bite, should be ok, just don't forget to model the superb turning performance.

Hold on.....if you move the seat 'up' then you would be looking at a downward angle through the sight and therefore see more of the bar.

You know, with a major community collaboration all this is possible, even the people who don't get the SDK could still contribute if they have the ability to create 3d objects and textures they could submit it to users that do, would need an appointed quality control manager though.

Is that a question or a statement?

Now......about that long nose.........:clown_2:

Nice avatar Screamadelica.....a Sisters fan?

Guys......lets just be thankful the 2 sides both had something to put on the table to bring about this super aircraft, it's an American aircraft powered by a British engine.

Yeah, what I said but more what he said :thumbup:, I feel educated now, thanks Horseback :smartass:

Good question Furbs, while the other 3rd party developers seem to be simply creating content for world ,there seems to be something different with DCS WWII, in fact I haven't figured out if DCS WWII is actually a standalone product.

True, but I don't think the Brits had any hand in the actual design, North American achieved something very impressive with the design and production of that airframe working simply to a Specification from the Brits.

you got there before me, I totally agree CoD probably shot itself in the foot putting on too much make up, though I only experienced bad framerates on initial release, the subsequent patches fixed fps issues for me and largely those patches simply took out some eye candy.