Tomsk

But the pictures are so pretty :P I did remember reading it somewhere, but I couldn't remember where or whether the plan had changed .. or whether a date had been announced. I'm quite interested in knowing this as well. What is the speed difference, and how much of a re-work would it be for the FM.

Am I right in thinking that there was also going to be a clipped wing variant of the Mk IX available? That could be pretty interesting being a little bit faster at low alts, and with significant roll rate advantages. Planes that both turn and roll well are very dangerous in the dogfight, and I reckon even with clipped wings the Spitfire should still out-turn everything else.

Yes, I've only been able to do it one of two ways. Either tricking them into blowing their energy and then booming and zooming them (easy mode). Or the more challenging way of winning at scissors. The scissors is actually quite easy to win as the AI isn't very good at it, but the problem is that ridiculous non-stalling climb of theirs. You can beat them in the scissors and then they just point the nose up and just go up and up, and you can't hold very long for the shot. Then they drop down and you have to start all over again from scratch. Eventually you can damage them enough that they die, but it can take ages. If anyone has regularly beat them any other way I'd love to see it :)

I can't see your feet for most of the video but I can tell the problem is your footwork. You're getting "behind" the plane and over correcting. Here's how I learnt, when you start rolling you want to "dance" on the rudders. Left - right - left - right in quick succession, pushing a bit more left to go left, or a bit more right to go right, but always keeping the rhythm going. At first it's best to do this really rigidly to get it into your head. As you get used to it you get less rigid, but even now if I feel it's getting away from me at all I do "the dance".

I feel like that, and I've gotten to like it and feel at home in it quite quickly. Yes it's a bit of a handful on the ground, but you get used to it. It's also lovely in the air, what was said of the Spit is that it was "a perfect lady. She had no vices. She was beautifully responsive.", I feel that the DCS Spitfire captures that (IMO showing just how good the DCS planes are). It's not that the Spitfire doesn't stall or wobble, it's that you always feel in control ... it never runs away from you.

Well it doesn't much matter whether the tail wheel is locked if it's no longer touching the ground :-) I think your procedure of easing the stick to let the tail lift up is exactly right, and I don't think the tailwheel lock is very important when the plane is traveling at higher speeds anyway.

Hey chase, I'd suggest that if we want to fight other people as a team (which I'm totally up for) that probably the easiest thing is to go on a public server. And/or we can arrange some dogfighting between us, split ourselves into two teams or whatever :-)

I definitely agree that the Spitfire isn't great for deflection shooting due to poor visibility, and low ammo load. I actually tend to like fixed sights, but for many the lack of gyro also probably doesn't help. For me the key to the Spitfire is to understand that it is an energy fighter, not a turn fighter. What this means is that when you are looking to make that kill shot, you should be doing it from a position of (modest) energetic superiority. If you don't have energetic superiority then win that first. If you do have a little energetic superiority then you can easily convert a high-deflection shot into a low-deflection one. Go lag pursuit (possibly with a little high yo-yo) which builds energy and reduces angle-off tail. Once you've got the right angle-off tail, use that energy advantage to pull lead for the low-deflection kill shot. The Spitfire out turns everything, and with an energy advantage it does it in spades. If you get behind someone, with an energy advantage, in a Spitfire then your opponent is in serious trouble the key is being patient until your opponent has no options left (Tip: if you're the defender in this situation in a 190 then dive and do scissors, the Spitfire doesn't like high speed scissors). For a really nice example of this (and where I learn it from), watch this excellent video by Lemsko. It's War Thunder, but the same principles apply ... Although Lemsko's aim is definitely not great here (as with many of his videos he doesn't use enough lead in his shots), the idea he's describing around using energy in the turn fight and using lag pursuit and yo-yos is pure gold dust. I will sometimes take a quick (blind) snapshot if I'm feeling really confident on being lined up, but I use them sparingly .. snapshots are just not the Spitfire's forte. By contrast in the P-51 or FW-190 I'll take any snapshot going as they both have better sighting, and critically, more ammo.

But it's really good offline training! The AI's insane energy retention really teaches you not to blow your energy. I found I got much better by practicing against the AI regularly, especially in an aircraft that is worse at turn fighting (e.g. P-51 vs 109 AI or FW-190 vs P-51 AI). Going 2v1 against them is also great for learning to track multiple targets. When you go online you spend a lot of time padding around looking for a fight. Not so against the AI, who you can practice against more or less continuously. Ultimately they are not as challenging as the best human pilots, as the AI is very predictable, but they really helped me "level up" my pilot :)

No not everyone does, for sure, and I also like fighting in disadvantage planes ... you learn a lot more and your kills are all the more sweet when you do them from a disadvantage. However, I do think there is a certain "gravity" towards the stronger planes. I'm also not sure I really want to face substantial numbers of Me262s in a Spit, you might out turn them but unless they make a mistake you'll never catch them. I've argued many times on these forums that the determining factor in any engagement is a combination of the numbers on each side, the skill of the pilots, the energy states and the performance of the planes. With performance of the planes typically being the least important of those things. None the less, I personally would have preferred ED to have chosen a more well matched set of aircraft :)

I do think it's partly ED's responsibility, especially when there aren't currently many planes available. It would make more sense to build a core of "well-matched" planes first, and then extend it with more "exotic" options once that core was done. I like to fly offline as well, but personally I wouldn't have felt short changed if we'd got a 109 G-6 instead of a 109 K-4. Or a FW 190 A8 (or A5) instead of the 190 D9, particularly as I have a special fondness for the A5. Nor would have I complained if we'd got a Spit XIV instead of a Spit IX.

I don't have any "skin in this game" so to speak, I fly (and love) both German and Allied planes. The problem is that if you create a multiplayer sim such as DCS, and just put aircraft against each other that historically fought each other ... you don't necessarily get very accurate representation of what historically happened ... or a very fun and engaging simulation. Take the Me262. The Me262 was definitely a contemporary of the P-51D and Spitfire Mk IX, it fought against them. So does that mean we should let people choose to fly the Me-262 against P-51s and Spit IXs? Would that result in a historically accurate outcome and an engaging simulation? I would argue not really. The problem is people can choose any plane they want, and which side they want to fly on and there is a strong tendency to choose the best plane available. You would see large numbers of Me-262s dominating the allied planes. That's not realistic because the reality of course was that there were so many allied planes flying by that time of the war that even though the Me-262 was superior it didn't much matter. It's also not that much fun, for either side ... So whilst I do not believe in balancing individual aircraft, they should fly as they really flew. I do however believe in balancing the choice of aircraft available. Large numbers of different aircraft all saw service at overlapping times, we should be choosing aircraft from that set that are all well matched. That's what a multiplayer simulation such as DCS requires to make it fun and engaging.

Yeah I found there is a lot of lag in the rudder controls of the Spitfire on the ground. You make an input on the rudders but the effect isn't felt until a bit later. This is true of all the WWII planes, but I found it much more pronounced on the Spit. It means it's very easy to over-control it and get into oscillations. It's okay once you get used to it though, you learn to apply the rudder input ... stop, re-center ... wait for the effect and then maybe apply a correction. If you keep applying the rudder until you see the effect, you'll likely have applied too much and it'll go veering off somewhere.

Another great essay Chief, I've long been lifting the tail during my takeoff run but I'd never had the why's and where's explained so well. Really interesting to hear the theory behind it. A couple of things to add. Personally I like to trim the nose down a bit more than suggested in the manuals, especially in the 190 where I go full nose down trim. I find trimming the nose down more naturally leads to the tail lifting before the plane tries to takeoff. Maybe something for people to experiment with and see what works for them. Also personally I have a FFB stick and so I rest it fully back before takeoff and then let the stick centre itself as the airspeed increases. It happens naturally around the right speed and tends to give a nice smooth transition, I find. I've also found centering the stick too early is better than too late, especially in the 190. Also just a note that I've found once you've got the tail up you really have to keep on top of the rudder. More in some planes than in others (I'm looking at you 190). You can anticipate the yaw left due to the transition and you have to dance on the rudders to keep it straight. The good news is that the rudder dancing is easier with the nose up as you can see the horizon out the front.

I really like the Mustang as well, and I do think it's a great plane and you can be successful in it if you use it right. That said I stand by my statement ... 1. The 190 also has a gyroscopic gunsight. No clear advantage for the P-51. Not that I use the gyro sight on either mind, as I've got used to guessing lead :-) 2. The 190 also has a very good ammo load capable of destroying lots of enemies. No clear advantage for P-51. 3. The 190 also has very good visibility. 4. The 190 is also a great firing platform. 5. Whether the P-51 has better firepower than the Spit is debatable, personally I'm finding the cannon in the Spit to be more effective. However I'd still give the win to the 190 for firepower, with those close to centreline cannons and heavy MGs with tonnes of ammo. 6. The 190 is also an excellent diver, and is crazy fast at low altitude. 7. The 190 also loves speed, and handles beautifully at high speeds. 8. I would argue the WEP on the German planes is better, it certainly lasts longer. I've also found it less likely to cook the engines in one of the German planes than the P-51. 9. Okay, that is a unique advantage .. but as you say, not such a useful one :-) The P-51 still has some advantages over the Spitfire, and you've listed most of them. But everything the P-51 can do one of the two German plane can do it just as well or better.

It'll be interesting to see the effect the Spitfire has on the DCS WWII community. For a long time the 109's have been able to out turn anything they faced ... but the Spitfire is going to win that game. Which is not to say that the 109 pilots don't have cards they can play: the 109 is substantially faster, and climbs a bit better than the Spitfire. But playing to those advantages requires an entirely different play style to the way most people seem to have been using the 109 in DCS. Should be really interesting :-) One does have to feel a bit sorry for the P-51. A plane whose best attributes were range, high-altitude performance and speed. Range rarely matters in DCS, and not many battles take place at high-altitude, and even then the 109 is also very good up high. As for speed, the P-51 was a fast plane, faster than most opposition it faced. Unfortunately some of the exceptions to that were the late war FW-190 D9 (down low) and the Bf 109K4 (at most altitudes). It has no single (useful) attribute where it clearly excels over both the FW-190 and the 109.

Definitely agree on the upper wing roundels, the red bit is too large, it's really noticeable. Also agree that the C & C-1 roundels are not standard proportions. However, looking around at period photos on the internet, there does seem to be a bit of variation. For example: http://spitfiresite.com/uploaded_images/spitfireixz.jpg The white on this fuselage roundel definitely looks a bit larger than the standard C-1 type. That said, even though there might be evidence for these roundel variations existing, personally I'd prefer to see the standard proportions for our DCS Spitfire :-)

As I understand it modern airliners are often required to land somewhat crabbed because they can only land somewhat slipped before they risk scraping an engine. As such the gear of modern airliners are strengthened to deal with side loading. However everything I've read on taildragger landings tells you above everything else avoid landing with side loading. The gear are not designed for it and can easily be damaged and the risk of ground looping is very high with side loads. If anything I would have thought this was especially true of war birds. That said this is all received opinion, I'm not a pilot, and it is possible the risks are somewhat overstated.

Fatigue is a difficult thing to simulate well, however I believe stick forces are simulated. And this is exactly why the 190 is better at high speeds in DCS, compared to the 109 - lighter stick forces.

Ha oops, yeah 400 kph not 400 mph (650 kph). But anyway you get the idea ;-)

Eeep, that probably works in DCS but would likely destroy your gear in real life ... *soo* much side loading :-) You'd normally crab in (as you have), but then transition to a slip just before landing (wing down into the wind, opposite rudder) to avoid destroying the gear. You end up landing with your wings not level (windward wheel touches first), but it's much safer :-)

I have also noticed that planes such as the 190 (and P-47, and other very strongly BnZ focused aircraft) often don't do as well in simulators as they did in real life. I think a huge part of the difference is whether you are flying to get kills, or flying to survive. If you want kills going towards the nearest enemy, and turning for all your are worth is probably the quickest way, and the 190 sucks at that. However, if survival is your goal the FW-190 D9 has some fantastic attributes. Real pilots valued speed hugely, speed meant if you didn't want to fight you could choose not to. The FW 190 D9 is really fast down on the deck. Even the (also really fast) P-51 can't catch it at WEP, and the D9 has a lot more WEP time available than any of its competition. It also dives incredibly well, and these attributes together make it almost impossible to catch if it has a few km's of altitude to play with. That said, if you do you want to go on the offensive and dogfight I've found they key is the roll rate and high-speed maneuverability. The 190 out rolls everything, and although it turns badly at slow speed it's an entirely different matter if you first dive to 650 kph. Here it beats everything, and the plane is probably the ultimate high-speed scissors machine. Not even other good high-speed scissors planes (such as the P-51 and P-47) are as good at it as the 190.

So could be this has already been answered, but I could finding the answer in the thread history. Will the new damage model also apply to the AI? Currently they are crazy tough, and fly as though damage doesn't effect them. I've previously shot off one horizontal stabilizer, one aileron, filled both wings with holes, shot the daylights out of the remaining elevator and had the engine trailing fuel and smoke ... didn't cramp the AI's style one bit.

The Spitfire LF Mk IX used the Merlin 66 engine, which had a Bendix-Stromberg injection carburettor. As I understand it this newer carburettor didn't have the same starvation problems under negative G that the older Spitfire engines had.

I do think the P-51 should get engine settings that match the time period, which seems to be late '44 or early '45 judging by the opposition it faces. I believe ED have said they'll do this after the Spitfire and Normandy map releases. Although IMO, people's biggest problems with the P-51 vs Bf109 matchup is that they don't use the P-51 to its strengths, and an extra 8" of manifold pressure at WEP isn't going to fix that :-)