Skewgear

Obviously the OP was trolling (very well, judging by all the bites) and this entire thread is years old... but as it's been resurrected, it's worth noting that every single piece of advice in the above post is wrong and most will kill your Spitfire's engine. Don't leave the supercharger in auto. Select MS after your pre-take-off power checks (you do carry those out, don't you...). When you've climbed to the point where full throttle no longer gives you +8lbs boost, throttle back to +6 and select FS. The boost will jump to +10lbs or so. If you leave the switch in FS from takeoff you jump in an instant from ~7lbs to maximum boost, +18lbs. This stresses the engine and contributes to 'mystery' failures later during the flight. 2850rpm is climb/combat RPM, not max continuous. 2650rpm is the setting in the pilot's notes for max continuous. For landing select 3000rpm, not 2500. You want max power available from the propeller for a go-around which is why you select fully fine pitch. It also helps decelerate the aeroplane with the throttle very low or closed. You can fly with any sensible combination of boost and RPM at any speed. 200mph has no significance. +4lbs/1850rpm is a sensible boost limit to observe at the lowest RPM. When increasing power to combat settings, select RPM first, then boost. Doing it the other way around as suggested above overboosts the engine and causes it to fail. Disable auto rudder. It makes things worse. (in fairness 100mph over the threshold is right)

You've ignored the bold text in my previous post because it doesn't say what you want it to say. I'm being nice to you because these forums are full of angry weirdos shouting at each other while missing the point and I think it's important to not do that, but you haven't understood that the SFM produces the same flight envelope as the various later incarnations of the flight model, per the very same link you posted. These later models are designed for greater fidelity from the player/client point of view when it comes to things such as accelerated stalls, snap rolls and other things on the edge of the flight envelope that you'll only ever notice from being in the cockpit at the controls. The SFM was the player flight model for many years and produces the same flight parameters (lift, drag, stall speed, max AOA etc) as the later flight models. In effect you're fighting against the same thing, whether it judders in ground effect or not.

@NineLine could this ammo belt layout be included in the Fw190A? While they're tweaking the canopy per other posts

After reading the first and second sentences as indicated, I read the third, fourth, and then the fifth from the same page: DCS AI fly a lightly slimmed-down version of the SFM. They don't have the full modelling of certain reactions to turbulence or the full ground physics modelling. Incidentally, short-period oscillations refers to very short-duration motions (a second or so) resulting from gusts, microbursts etc. Not really relevant for AI, as should be obvious. https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2017/august/pilot/technique-aircraft-control

The AI uses the same flight model as players but flies it 100% perfectly. So it will do things that 99% of human players won't do, or be able to do. In addition the Fw190A is the worst dogfighter of the lot, Mosquito aside. Best flown in straight, fast lines.

Interesting thread, which I'm late to. From the multiplayer point of view, it's not that complex. What makes a server thrive is the community around it - and player numbers in the list. In DCS success breeds success: the more players on your server, the more will come and join it. Currently there are three active multiplayer WW2 DCS servers. One is mostly empty except for when the squadron who set it up is on it and/or running an event; another is a dogfight oriented server that's relatively busy sometimes; and the best of them is Project Overlord, naturally. Lots of people over the years have complained that PO isn't to their taste, and have demanded that we do x/y/z or rebuild it as a carbon copy of My Favourite Jet Dynamic Campaign Base Capture Training Expert Milsim Casual Hardcore Server. We've ignored all that and will cheerfully continue building our own thing for the future. Any multiplayer game is about the people you're playing with and the challenge the game poses. Players want to be pushed to make decisions and then make them succeed, and they want to do that while challenging other humans. I know the PO formula doesn't always do that - but what it does do is create multiplayer squadrons of like minded people who are happy to fly with and against each other. I cannot create squadrons. All I can do is help create a MP server that's rewarding for squadrons to fly on, within the PO vision of a historically accurate server. Mostly we've succeeded at that. A vocal minority really dislikes the historical accuracy thing and demands fundamental changes to suit themselves (more of this aircraft type, less mission objectives far away, no bad weather, etc). To them I say: there are about 30-40 servers available under the search term "ww2" in the DCS MP server browser. Most of those offer exactly what the minority wants. Yet nobody chooses to fly on those, despite it being free to do so. People who fly DCS WW2 do so mainly because they love the history. They love the idea of recreating what grandad and great grandad did in the war, and trying out the old tactics, tricks and tips from the books. What do we need to grow MP, and thus DCS WW2 as a whole? More squadrons. More group activities. More events. More reasons to come and fly with us. If each of us brought a new player along, and encouraged others to form up in groups and fly together, this could be a really fun and vibrant community.

That's how it worked. The P8 was derived from a marine compass design which would obviously be straight and level for most of the time. I find that if you're on a long transit it's best to correct the DG every so often from the compass, drift is modelled.

Yeah, second half is how it's meant to be and is the current build.

Which white mark do you mean? Do you have a picture, video or short track file? I was able to use the compass earlier this week as intended so I think it's probably OK, but worth a look.

Our testers for Project Overlord reckon all is back to normal based on their controlled experiments. We think it's stabilised enough to put bombers back into our missions, which we've had to remove since July.

Clearly this playback is bugged, neither Mosquito smashed its tailwheel into the runway and burst the tyre on touchdown. Reported. Beautiful thing to see.

Known bug with the AA director units (Kdo40 for Germany/Third Reich and DRT for UK/US). Should hopefully be fixed whenever the next major DCS update is published.

As belated closure, this was fixed quite a while ago. Now 85 gallons means 85 gallons! It should also have been fixed for all other DCS warbirds, as the fuel weight/density figure was previously set on a per-module basis but has since been tied to a single global figure.

The Spitfire is challenging to land without bouncing. This thread is well worth reading and applying in-game. Know your approach airspeed - 100mph in-game is about right, even though the original pilots' notes say 95mph is right for the full width wings. When you flare, know the pitch attitude you are trying to set and hold it there once reached. If you're bouncing, typically you're approaching too slowly and making large control inputs right before touchdown. Set it up a couple of miles out, gear as you pass 160mph while slowing down, flaps once you've re trimmed, re trim again, pitch to maintain 100mph and use throttle to adjust rate of descent. Start to flare as you see the runway threshold flash past in your peripheral vision, pitch up to select the landing attitude and hold it there for a three-pointer. Landing attitude is tail low, tailwheel about a foot off the runway if both mains are down.

I'm tearing my hair out here trying to figure out what, if anything, can be salvaged from the destruction of DCS 2.9.7.59263. So far I know that AI bombers spawned by the method we've used for years are no longer viable; there's a memory leak somewhere in the core game that saps performance and frame rates out of it over time like cutting a vein; and *somewhere*, one of the WW2 Asset Pack units in combination with another, in a way we've used harmoniously together for years, is directly harming server side performance. This is not a WW2 problem, this is a core game problem. I'd rather retire Project Overlord than turn it into an air spawn, air quake arena because that's the only scenario DCS can reliably support any more.