DD_Fenrir

It’s less that and more that the lateral sliding is so much more detectable in RL via the butt cheeks that it was making the DCS tail drafters artificially difficult to handle; they decided to allow a bit more lateral slipping to compensate for the lack of feedback.

D-Day happened about 60 miles further southwest.... So.... no.

Three things that I found helped me hit the basket more regularly: 1. Anticipate - Make corrections sooner rather than later (they'll be smaller); sounds easier than it is, I know, but part of this is learning to trust your judgement. I found when I analysed my thought processes that I would suspect a correction was required but tended to wait for a larger visual clue to confirm... by which time it was too late. More often than not that initial suspicion was correct, so trust your instinct and get a small correction in the moment you even suspect it's required. 2. Many small corrections > one big one - when making corrections rather than try to get the exact control displacement required - which is tough to judge - for the stick, I started to use multiple small and fast pulses of the control column; if I was low on the basket I might put three very small but fast pulses of aft stick and then assess; maybe three more, no too much, 2 quick tiny pulses of forward stick now to get it back under control before I start to PIO too badly. 3. Alternate the dimensions - At first I found it easier to work alternately one dimension at a time; do a pitch correction, then a lateral correction; then a pitch correction then a lateral correction, etc. Now, if the tanking is going well, I don't consciously need to do this so much but on those occasions that I'm having a bad day (or night) it's actually a useful process to revert to, plus it breaks down the task in to a couple of more achievable steps to allow you to work your way in progressively.

Any time you move the stick laterally you should be coordinating with rudder correspondingly. For a right turn from level - 1. To initiate: Right aileron + Right rudder - this counters adverse yaw due to aileron input 2. Established desired bank angle: Centralise aileron + Reduced right rudder - this counters the adverse yaw from the outer wing travelling faster than the inner wing. Complications - as you tighten the turn you'll need to decrease right rudder (right turn)/increase left rudder (left turn) input to counter the gyroscopic precession and added P-factor effects.

As a WW2 map it’s got like 1 days relevance in a war that lasted 3 years (5 if you count the pre-US involvement). As a modern map, maybe but given the very tenuous modern day scenarios available even to the Marianas, stretching these to Hawaii seems a little too implausible. Personally I would rather see ED development time expended on a map with a wider period of relevance allowing a greater scope of historical re-enactment or more plausible what if scenarios.

Waaaahmbulance on aisle 4 please.

Gents, might be worth pushing this to the Bugs section to ensure that it's registered and acknowledged as such by ED.

It was more operational doctrine. In the late 70's/early '80s the Soviet fighter AA missile threat was not deemed significant enough that an AIM-7 couldn't deal with it. Save the heavy and expensive Phoenix to protect the fleet. It was with the arrival of the Flankers/Fulcrums and their more capable weapon sets in the late 80's/early '90s that it was decided that the AIM-54 would become part of an approved anti-fighter loadout. Time and again ACTUAL EVIDENCE from source documentation and trained personnel (Dave 'BIO' Baranek) has REPEATEDLY shown that the AIM-54 was a capable anti-fighter weapon FROM THE START, despite the delusional rantings of those who choose to ignore the facts.

Question was rhetorical. Besides which the developers have answered. They believe their calculations are accurate and account for all the prototypical masses and their distribution. It would be at this point wise to consign this thread to posterity.

Why? Why would the tail lifting characteristics of an aircraft with a different thrust line, different wing profile, different control surface area, different CoG position and different weight distribution have any bearing on those for the 109?

Errr... what? From the video description: It's a one-off celebration scheme. Where you get any of this deeper modification speculation from I have no idea. You smokin' that special tobaccy?

Not at my PC currently but I’ll ping some links later.

Without more detail or video evidence it's going to be difficult to nail this one down; could be any number of issues, but primarily would look to this being either a controls binding issue (check your brakes aren't being activated by another input than that expected) or an issue on the map with some terrain bug. On the latter what's your heading on landing? I've flown in and out of Detling numerous times without issue but that could be that I've not taxied over the area that's causing you issues.

There's a great deal of naivety on display here. Problems in converting the Spitfire LFIX to F.XIV: 1. External 3D model - The airframes of the Mk.IX and Mk.XIV are significantly different structurally and superficially. Different ailerons sizes, larger vertical stab and rudder with different vertical stab offset to counter the opposite engine rotation. Stronger and heavier longerons to support the extra weight of the Griffon. Retractable tail wheel. Wing root fuel tanks. Larger radiators, completely different nose profile, and propeller. You can't just tweak the Mk.IX model, you have to build from scratch. 2. Cockpit 3D model - you may be able to use some base elements of the IX but the throttle quadrant would need to be completely rebuilt as a new type was introduced on the XIV. Also changes to some gauges and ancillaries. 2. FM - again, profound changes; different ailerons sizes, larger vertical stab and rudder with different vertical stab offset to counter the opposite engine rotation, completely different nose profile and propeller and thusly a different thrustline with larger radiators. You may be able to use the IX as a starting point but you have to build an entirely new engine and cooling model and recalculate the drag for the entire airframe. Does that sound insignificant to you? Seafire variations on the above suffer many of the same issues; the Merlin Seafire (III) is a heavily modified Mk.V, not a IX; it has a single stage Merlin, ergo the nose is shorter than the Mk.IX; the same issue is raised in regards the Griffon Seafire in comparison to it's land based equivalent (which is closer to a Mk.XII than a XIV). Both would require remodelling of the wing 3D art to allow for wing folding mechanisms. The fuselage requires remodelling to incorporate the arrestor gear. The Seafire III also has the radiator format of the earlier Mk. Spit. Take all the above Seafire visual element changes and apply these to the flight model; damage model too. Any one who thinks that any of these is an overnight job for ED or that it doesn't warrant full price module fees... well.

And how is this any different from any other module? Why would you expect any special treatment for the Hind?

The Spitfires rudder authority is highly reliant on the propwash - have you been keeping power on during the manoeuvre of have you cut power entirely?

Don't blame Geoffrey de Havilland, blame the Air Ministry/RAF.... By WW2 every British service aircraft had to have a standardised layout for the instruments that would be referenced during IFR conditions; this was known as the Blind Flying Panel. This meant that every aircraft designer was obliged to set these in the primary position on the instrument panel and squeeze every other instrument around them; this partially accounts for the somewhat seemingly haphazard arrangement of some British aircraft instrument panels. The other problem with the Mossie is defined by the minimal cross section of the aircrafts fuselage and particularly the profile of the nose; the pilot is sat at the point at where the nose starts to narrow, so much so that his legs are not aligned straight with his seat; the rudder pedals are slightly offset to the right to fit in the aircraft. Such were the compromises deemed acceptable in order to ensure that the mosquito would have the necessary legs to outrun enemy fighter aircraft when it was designed.

I can always tell Csgo’s posted cos of the highly fecund aroma that makes itself unwelcomingly apparent.

That’s a strange one Coota, no, can’t say I have ever experienced that one in the 2 years of owning, and the first I have heard of it. My first recommendation would be to run a repair of DCS; you’ll find an option to do this under your windows start menu in the Eagle Dynamics folder. If it persists, let us know what hardware you’re using and we’ll investigate further.

Hazzer, like this thread?: Be interested to see your input curves and joystick type...

Wind your neck in chum. You're not the only user who might benefit from the information posted in these boards, and - god-forbid - someone else might not want to go through the rigmarole of disabling the module (and remembering to re-enabling thereafter) if there are other options THEY might find more convenient.

I believe he means dressing up a specific variant or sub-variant to represent an earlier or later model. I.E. - skinning an F-16C to look like an F-16A but still having all of the capabilities and upgrades that the C has over the A.

When I'm doing the same StevenJ, I try to remember them as pairs of basic types: AAA - Flak18 88mm + Bofors 40mm Tank - Panzer IV + Sherman M4 APC - Sd.Kfz.251 + M2A1 Truck - Opel Blitz + Bedford MWD Aircraft - A-20G only No ships.