HotTom

The Mosquito, Typhoon and Beaufighter all carried RP-3 rockets. Only one Spitfire squadron experimented with them late in the war (and they carried only two on each plane). And even those planes that carried them were quite ineffective: http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/04/04/ground-attack-aircraft-myth-of-the-tank-busters/ Let's keep our DCS Spit an accurate simulation, right? Happy Holidays from The Grinch.

Truly awesome! Thank you!!!

:lol:

I had this problem in an earlier version of 2.1. Horrible glare. Turned off Deferred Shading and activated HDR. Works fine for me. Try it.

When you are stressing the engine at all, you must manually open the radiator flaps (for at least 20 second after which they will remain open). I have a button on my throttle for that purpose and use it frequently.

Thanks for the brilliant update, Wags. I noticed you are right here in Phoenix. Good man!

Here's a hint, Phil: If you are interested in flying historical missions, avoid on line flying. Always. Forever. (mic drop :cry:) Why is there even argument here? Spitfires (and Tempests and Typhoons and P-47s) did not ever destroy tanks. Period. Go after trains and trucks. That's what they really did. Come back AFTER you have read this: http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/04/04/ground-attack-aircraft-myth-of-the-tank-busters/ Both bombs and rockets were utterly abysmal in terms of accuracy. A trial conducted by the RAF had fired 64 rockets from 4 Tiffies(2 flights) at a stationary Panther painted white. A total of 3 hits were recorded giving the rockets a 4.69% accuracy rating in the most perfect of circumstances. Near misses did no damage to the tank. In real combat the Panzers would have some some camouflage, some flak protection(which downed hundreds of Allied fighter-bombers over NW Europe and greatly reduced accuracy of bombs and rockets), and crews that would know to seek cover when they realize they are being shot at. Bombs were even worse in regards to accuracy. It had been concluded that overall it took 800 rockets or 3500 bombs to hit a tank sized target in battle conditions.

Stick to soft skin targets such as trucks. Deprive the enemy of beans and bullets and fuel. It's called "interdiction" and it's a valid and historical use of fighter aircraft. Interdiction: the action of intercepting and preventing the movement of a prohibited commodity or person. Tank busting is a myth. http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/04/04/ground-attack-aircraft-myth-of-the-tank-busters/ I do wish we had some trains to shoot up. Also a valid historical mission.

LOL! Luv it! Hiya, Demon! :lol:

Ah, now we get back to the beginning of this thread. I say: Stay high (30,000 feet or more) and all the online gangbangers and air quakers whine they don't have the time (read "patience") to climb that high and there's no one to fight up there (because no one else has the patience either). So, we get back to simmers and gamers and then we go round and round and round again and again and again. The problem here is many (most) of the posts are coming from MP pilots (gamers) and some from SP pilots (simmers) and we just aren't ever going to agree. :( I think we've kinda exhausted this topic. Did we answer your question in your initial post, Magic?

Viper nailed it! Got a new CPU last year and had to do the same thing.

The gamers have arrived!

Echo wants the last word.

Drag and Bag.

Okay. I get you! :thumbup: As I said earlier, no one is trying to take anything away from you. And if we get DCS set up and expanded to fly historic, no one will be required to fly them. S! HT

Good idea, Orso. A couple of points: *Back in the original IL-2 days, we had a brilliant mission writer (Hangar was his call sign) who came up with missions very similar to what you suggest: Everyone had to be on board when the mission started (often air starts), no late joiners, specific tasks for every pilot, chain of command, specified start times for each mission, AI filled the vacant slots., dead is dead (for that mission, although you could stay in as a spectator). Commanders for each side had authority to kick any of his members who was ignoring the plan. Missions didn't start over but they rotated among a variety of good ones. Challenging, realistic and great fun. I would welcome such on line missions in DCS. *I took a break from flight sims for a few years and got involved in Steel Beasts, the most accurate tank sim ever. On Sundays were had only one on-line mission, force versus force, and it had some features I really liked. If your tank (or APC or IFV) was killed, you could request one of the AI units from your commander and he could give it to you, or you could fill a vacant AI spot in a vehicle (driver, gunner, etc.) with permission from the vehicle commander (human). Accurate radio procedures. This was a very hard core event. All of us were ex-military and many were former tankers (lots of Brits, Germans and Scandinavians, all spoke perfect English). The tactics were very real (I doubt we could find former pilots for DCS events). Once a week. Lasted half a day or more, and great fun! This (or anything like it) would take some help from DCS to set up and it would require talented mission writers but we should pitch it to ED. S! HT

@ Echo -- yes, we have had this discussion before in Rise of Flight forums. If you want to call "fly-die-respawn" your idea of virtual combat, have fun doing it. I'm not trying to take it away from you. But, no matter how detailed and deep the airplane sim is, don't pretend you are also simulating WWII air combat. You aren't. It's a valid discussion but, as I said when I first posted in this topic, I knew I was starting a shitstorm because it is one on which people are very polarized. That hasn't changed and neither have I (nor you). S! Were there low level dogfights involving Mustangs? Yes. There was a point when Doolittle did order VIII Fighter Command to attack Luftwaffe airfields and destroy the German planes on the ground. But that's not what I see simulated in MP. It's "Fly to the Big X on the map and rumble." Walter Mitty stuff for sure. And, of course there was Operation Bodenplatte where the Luftwaffe tried to destroy the Allied air bases during the Battle of the Bulge. http://donhollway.com/bodenplatte/ I would love to see some single player campaigns based around those two efforts. But for MP? No. They would just devolve into fly-die-respawn quakefests.

Okay. At the risk of starting a shitstorm, there are simmers and there are gamers. Multiplay (emphasis on "play") is a game. I've been flying flight sims (emphasis on "sim") for more than two decades and I have never yet seen online multiplayer that even remotely resembled the way the aircraft were used historically. I gave up on multiplayer crop dusting furball contests a long time ago. The Mustang was designed and flown historically as a high altitude, long range bomber escort. Did it come down low? Yes, when returning from bomber escort missions to strafe enemy airfields and catch enemy fighters as they returned from missions. But its PRIMARY purpose was to protect bombers at 30,000 feet and it was very good at doing so. If you don't want to fly the Mustang to its historical strengths, don't whine about the results.

The 109K could out-turn and out-climb the P-51. The 109 was indeed a better dog fighter. What he was telling you and what I am telling you is to play to the Mustang's strengths: Long loiter time and wonderful aerodynamics. Get very high and BnZ. Hit and Run. You will lose in a turn fight with the 109.

I'll share what I was taught when I learned to BnZ in an SE5a in a WWI sim decades ago: Get high, VERY high (10,000 feet isn't high). 30,000 feet would be good and realistic. Wait. Patiently. Softtee, Softee Catchee Monkey is a useful mantra. When a bogey passes below you, dive on him. If it's a bandit, shoot him. If it's a good guy, extend (run away). Don't turn, don't give up any energy. Whether you hit him or not, extend and climb away. Far away. Lather, rinse, repeat. One of the big advantages of the Mustang is it can stay up there a very long time (unless you have been fooling with the fuel supply) It really works but a lot of impatient folks find it boring.

Define "historically flown in large part." Data? :cry:

Buzz, I've done well more than 500 landings in the Spit and I was still having the odd ass-over-teacup landing. Maybe me, maybe my stick (Logitech G940), maybe my pedals (Saitek) but was getting surprised on landings I thought were fine. With the springs adjusted, I now grease every landing. I was doing fine on grass runways in Normandy but having problems on the concrete runway in Nevada. It makes sense to me that the spring weren't soft enough. I'm just suggesting it. Copy and save the original and you can always put it back to default. :joystick:

This from Air and Space Magazine published by the Smithsonian Institute: "All Spitfires are exceptionally easy to land with no inherent tendency to swerve or groundloop. Just reduce power to idle, flare to a three point attitude and she sets down on a feather almost every time. This is a great surprise to most considering the narrow track undercarriage and full swivel, non-locking tailwheel. Why doesn't it drop a wing violently or make the pilot stomp on the rudders? I wish I knew. The genius of managing to combine light aircraft characteristics with such high performance is nothing short of miraculous compared to most other wartime tailwheel types. One or two landings in the Spitfire and you are in love for life." Read more at http://www.airspacemag.com/history-of-flight/supermarine-spitfire-134209906/#ZmW8WMMRwRQhuIsJ.99 FWIW

That's cool. ;-)

Guys, just fix the springs as suggested earlier in this thread. The big discovery here is that the problem landing the Spit isn't the rudder and it isn't the brakes. The springs are way too stiff and now we have a way to correct that problem. Keep your eyes on the prize!