DD_Fenrir

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.

That's their prototypical layouts - the runways are short as they are only half paved, the intention being the asphalt areas are for starting your take-off run from or making your initial touchdown whilst landing. You are supposed to run on to the grass to complete your take-off roll or landing roll-out, the concrete is there to absorb the rigours of touchdown and supports the static weight of aircraft for run-up, mag tests and the initial portion of the run, but once rolling the grass is perfectly able to support the weight of the airplane.

With the release of the DCS 2.7.7.14727 Open Beta I am finding that once trimmed for cruise flight ~250mph IAS, that I am suffering a form of almost control lock with aft stick only inputs - in actuality it presents more like a significant deadzone in the aft stick only direction, with the elevators unresponsive to aft stick input until a significant displacement occurs at which point it breaks and we get a sudden nose up input; it's peculiar as the aircraft is still responsive & sensitive to stick forward inputs, but not aft. This only occurs once trimmed. If I ignore the trim and hand fly the aircraft, it does not occur but is unpleasant to maintain as stick forces are naturally quite significant in order to supress the noses desire to rise. Hardware: MS Sidewindeer FFB2 Pitch input curve: Custom - 0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 44, 100 This behaviour also occurs to a squad mate with an identical stick setup. Is anyone with spring centred stick (or even an alternative FFB) seeing this behaviour also?

@NineLine Please pass my thanks to the team for the inclusion of the towed artillery types, this will really help provide the fighter-bomber types we have in DCS with missions where frontline target destruction or attrition is achievable and has useful potential knock-on effects for mission design. At the risk of sounding ungrateful, are there any plans to make these units towable by an appropriate gun-tractor in the future?

It's a minefield ain't it? Just one suggestion from me - the roundels that ship with EDs spitty template are incorrectly proportioned, I'd strongly recommend redrawing them to get them correct:

Easy on the prima-Donna princess. It’s coming, just that - guess what - it’s a feature that requires changes to the core code and as such could cause cascading issues across the whole slew of ground attack weapons if enacted without care or in a hurry. Whilst FB.VI Mossies often made their attacks at treetop height with delayed fuses it is by no means their only method of delivery; indeed when attacking V-1 launch sites a pop up to 3,000-5,000ft followed by a shallow dive and bomb release @ 1,500ft with instantaneous fuses was the standard deliver technique. This form of attack is entirely achievable in DCS and can be quite accurate with practice but requires a careful monitoring of your flight profile and altimeter to ensure you don’t get sucked into the target and release too low and too late and frag yourself.

Fascinating, thanks for sharing.

As a P-38 aficionado I am not particularly enamoured of FlyingIrons external 3D model; the chin intake modelling looks just plain wrong. Actual: FlyingIron:

I don’t entirely disagree with some aspects of this suggestion - it would be nice if deck crew were a core feature; however, the latest newsletter gives further insight to the depth of complexity required to develop even this aspect and the budget for these developments has to come from somewhere. The reference to AAA titles is disingenuous; those titles sell in their millions, quantities that combat flight sim developers only dream about - ergo R&D budgets have to be split across fewer customers. This brings us back to my original statement - they charge what they need to to remain viable as a business.