Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


About DD_Fenrir

  • Birthday 05/16/1980

Personal Information

  • Flight Simulators
    DCS World, Il-2:GBS, Il-2:CloD
  • Location
  • Interests
    Aviation, music, history, philosophy

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Werlin, you're throwing the baby out with the bath water. Simple version: Play the campaign with the A. Invest your time with the A. It will only make you better with the B.
  2. My opening statement: As it currently stands the pitch control and stick force model employed in the DCS: Mosquito model needs review for FFB users, particularly those with Microsoft Sidewinder Force Feedback 2. They currently face an unhappy compromise; a) either they adopt a linear (1:1) control curves which renders their stick so sensitive to pitch input that it's nearly impossible to fly with any realistic precision for formation or gunnery, or, b) with even a moderate curve (say 20 to 25, which works nicely on, for example, the P-51) we are subjected to a "trim trap"; this is where we are obliged to trim artificially (i.e. beyond the aircraft operating manual values) so nose heavy to actually reach trimmed flight that it puts us unrealistically close to a virtual threshold that ramps up the virtual stick force. This causes a sudden nose down tendency - tucking - with slight airspeed increases, which, given the very low level cruising and attack profiles often employed by real-life Mosquito crews, can be the cause of loss of controlled flight into terrain; the operator is either obliged to hastily add some nose up trim or apply large elevator control displacement to correct this tendency. If the virtual pilot has succeeded in avoided collecting the ground, sea, tree or structure that the Mossie had suddenly decided was to be their perfect burial plot, they now find themselves porpoising heavily, their airspeed having now dropped in the climb to below that virtual threshold that ramps up the virtual stick force. So now they're trimmed too tail heavy and are fighting to keep the aircraft's nose down. Having generally ballooned during this process, they descend to their correct cruise altitude, pick up a bit of speed on the way down and... pass that virtual threshold that ramps up the virtual stick force again, recommencing the entire ordeal. Trying to fly formation or engage ground targets under these flight characteristics is again, rendered unrealistically difficult. In either case, flying the Mosquito is not a lot of fun, and it makes me wary of using it, and therefore it seems like a waste of money in some regards. It then colours my keenness of purchasing further modules in the future in case a similar issue arises. Let me be clear; I am not criticizing Yo-yo's work on the flight model; there are characteristics and restrictions that affected the real aeroplane here that must be transmitted to the player; my argument is that FFB users - and in particular Microsoft Sidewinder Force Feedback 2 users - are being artificially handicapped based on their gaming hardware due to a mismatch between physical and virtual ergonomics and a trim/stick force model that does not seem to account for the displaced datum inherent to FFB joystick operation. I would like to propose discussion with ED on how we could help them figure out a way adjusting the DCS: Mosquitos trim/stick force model that would not render the aircraft so uncharacteristically unpleasant to fly for FFB users, but still reflect authentic flight characteristics for all users. Question to Yo-yo; 1. Why as an FFB user is the inherent ability of an FFB stick to provide sufficient stick force to reflect those felt in the real aircraft not being leveraged? Why are FFB users subjected to the same artifice implemented to provide a spring tensioned joystick user with some controllability penalty when reaching the required threshold, when the FFB motors could be driven to provide the requisite force to restrict speed and amplitude of stick displacement? If you are an FFB user who has these issues please like or thank this post. If you are an FFB user who has NOT had these issues please provide further dialogue so that we might pin-down where and why some of us are having these issues. If you do not use FFB and are about to tell me to go buy a non-FFB product, please save your breath; there is a reason I hang on to a 20 year-old stick; having flown real aircraft I find the varying stick forces and increased AoA buffet that some aircraft give you a necessary part of my simming experience and you are not going to persuade me otherwise. If you are going to suggest I spend $1000+ dollars on a new FFB device, then again, save your breath. That is not an affordable option for me.
  3. English is the current lingua franca of international business, science, technology, and aviation. It is the third most understood language across the world, the primaries being Mandarin Chinese and then Spanish but these sums are mainly based on total number of peoples speaking, which naturally lends weight to those nations with very large populations, many of these being less developed nations. However, economically speaking, EDs market resides in the 1st World, where English is more dominant. Ergo, if you aim to be consistent in your map annotation and want any place name to be understood by the widest percentage of your customers, English is the logical choice. Why anyone would be so piqued about the spelling of their hometown on a map in a computer game is, I feel, a far more knotty question.
  4. Hi Gunfreak, If you're open to some advice... 1. You spend a great deal of time at sub-optimal MP settings. Much of it you are at under 35". You're over babying the engine. You can stay at 61" MP and 3,000 RPM for 15 minutes if you keep your speed at 200mph or over. If you're starting to worry about temps then bring her back to 46" and 2,700 (maximum continuous) for a while. 2. Use rudder more - when in a banked turn, a little rudder into the turn helps balance the aircraft and delays the stall slightly, meaning you'll get less of those incipient spin flicks (Bear in mind that later on, some of those were due to the gaping hole on your left wing-tip...). Also make sure you check rudder trim particularly when about to make gunnery passes; spot your slip gauge quickly before committing finger to trigger - If it's not in the middle, the bullets won't go where the reticule is pointing. Also remember that your rudder trim is applicable for a single speed/power setting only; if you're airspeed is higher or your MP is lower than that setting you're likely out of trim requiring a left rudder input to correct; if you're airspeed is low or your power is higher a right rudder input will be required to balance the aircraft - important things to bear in mind whilst in the middle of a dynamic 3-dimensional dogfight where adjusting trim to the rapidly changing energy state of your aircraft could well be unfeasible. 3. If using the lead computing gyro feature of the K-14 gunsight, have the range adjustment mapped to a HOTAS binding if able; for you to make the best of it you need to be adjusting the graticule size to keep the targets wingtips just touching the inner edge, otherwise again, the bullets will not be going where the graticule is suggesting. If this is not an option, I suggest either resorting to the fixed only site, or having the dynamic graticule and fixed site cross only. Otherwise that was fun to watch and looked epic!
  5. Personally I would recommend Jocko's Spitfire skins: Seen in the DCS New WWII Propeller Technology video: here Reflected's skins are great but there's just some combination of colour and tone that to me feels a bit more so with Jocko's skins. In addition he has edited out a number of errors in the panel lines to make his skins as authentic to a wartime Spitfire as a DCS skin gets. His generic skins also include revised fonts and colours for the squadron code and serial letters & numbers to make them look a great deal more authentic. His skins are all available on the ED User files, here: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/filter/unit-is-spitfire_lf_mk.ix/user-is-jocko417/apply/?PER_PAGE=50
  6. There's the issue. There's no getting around the physics. If your temps were in the green until this moment it is likely that the sudden application of max. power at that low an airspeed spiked the temps before the cooling system could react. The rad doors on the Pony do NOT open/close progressively with temperature increase/decrease. The technology to do this simply was not available back then. What you have instead are two thresholds; a high and a low. When engine temps hit the high threshold the doors start to open and continue to open until they are full open or until the temperature drops to or below that high threshold and which point they cease to open any further. The low threshold works identically in reverse; when engine temps hit the low threshold the doors start to close and continue to close until they are fully shut or until the temperature climbs to or above that low threshold and which point they cease to close any further. The process takes time to open and close the doors and for the resulting cooling or heating effect to work it's way around the system. It is not instantaneous. If you demand too much too soon it is possible to heat spike the system because the coolant system cannot keep up with the increased thermal load that your power application demands. The low speed regime simply exacerbates the problem. 1. Where possible keep IAS over 200mph. 2. Avoid sustained vertical manoeuvres and if the speed drops below 160 with your nose high, cut power and pick up airspeed to get better than 200 before re-application. 3. Clue is in the name: War Emergency Power. Use it to run away cos you're out of ammo or ideas and make sure you have some smash on before hitting that button. It is not a "toggle to win" button in the midst of a dogfight. There is a kernel of truth it what you say; I personally (and I suspect many others here) think EDs interpretation of the engine thermal limits are a little too strict. There are indeed reports out there of pilots giving their Merlin's quite a flogging and it being a seemingly robust powerplant. However... There is such a thing as survivor bias; what about all those reports that couldn't be filed because the unfortunate pilot was KiA or a PoW because he overworked his engine too long or too hard? No powerplant is indestructible and there are a host of factors that define how long an engine can last under duress. Most of us are eager to see the implementation of EDs revised cooling model, as it has been teased for some 3-4 years now but the Pony & Spitfire are eminently flyable and fightable in DCS - if you are mindful of your speed and power settings and fly accordingly.
  7. I feel need adjusting. The tone is too light in the blue and there is too much pink, giving the blue a near indigo/purple hue. The red I feel is closer but would be easier to interpret if contrasted against the correct blue. DCS default Mosquito scheme: Original colour photographs (NOT COLOURISED):
  8. 1. Are incorrect tone and hue. The tone is too light in the blue and there is too much pink, giving the blue a near indigo/purple hue. The red I feel is closer but would be easier to interpret if contrasted against the correct blue. DCS default Spitfire scheme: Original colour photographs (NOT COLOURISED): http://www.spitfiresite.com/photos/historic/uploaded_images/Spitfire-AA963-color-1-732027.jpg 2. As has been repeatedly requested, could you PLEASE correct the proportions of the roundels to better reflect the WW2 standard (I know MH434 was referenced during the research for this model, but her roundel proportions are plain WRONG) and to better represent a WW2 airframe.
  9. Hi ED, It appears that either more modern maps or data have been referenced when creating some of the towns in the Southeast England portion of the map. Sevenoaks and Eastbourne are two such examples: Sevenoaks in 1940: And on the DCS map: Eastbourne in 1940: And on the DCS map: Be nice to see these conurbations reduced to a size more in keeping with the time period; it might help save a few frames or too also! Also it should be noted that a railway line from the North that currently terminates at Sevenoaks should actually continue through a series of tunnels and cuttings to join the railway line at Tonbridge. It looks like this has been mistaken for a road on the DCS map.
  10. Bewl Water is an artificial reservoir located 10 miles East of Crowborough and 7 miles Southeast of Tunbridge Wells: Bewl Water - Google Maps It was created in 1973. It is however in evidence on the DCS: The Channel map. Could we get this feature removed as it is obviously not appropriate for the time scale represented by the map.
  11. Please add Canterbury Cathedral to the map: 3D Model: Canterbury Cathedral | 3D Warehouse (sketchup.com)
  12. RAF Kenley actually falls just outside the western limit of the map unfortunately. It may be instead that we see it included as part of the expansion of the Normandy map; keep your fingers crossed but don't hold your breath... I agree the cathedral at Canterbury is notable for it's absence, and as unique landmarks go, it should really be included. However... You have to be careful asking for the inclusion of lots of one-off features - there's economy in utilising a library of more generic structures to make the map, it's not only easier to develop but also serves to keep system demands reasonable for the average user; add too may unique structures and the tax on the average system will become too high, so there's a balance to be struck. Regards additional airfields on the continent; agreed but choosing the right ones is also important. The map seems to represent a period covering late winter/early spring 1943-44. By this time the majority of the fields near the coast were not operational; most had been abandoned and either mined and obstacled or had only the bare minimum ground echelon to caretaker the field should it be needed in the future. The majority of the fields occupied by the Luftwaffe were closer to the French German border, or further East in Belgium and Holland. This reflects: 1. The Jagdwaffe's increasing focus on Defence of the Reich operations, it's reaction to the 8th Air Force's strategic bomber raids on Germany proper. 2. The Jagdwaffe trying to increase the time allowed it's interceptors to climb to altitude to attack with some height advantage. 3. The Luftwaffe trying to conserve it's forces from snap fighter-bomber/medium bomber attacks on it's forward bases. Again these prototypical fields are mostly - but not all - currently East of the detailed map area. One hopes that any future expansion might push them to be included.
  13. In every other module that is correct; however Heatblur decided it’s such a fundamentally important feature of the flight model experience in their eyes, it’s on permanently in the F-14.
  • Create New...