DD_Fenrir

What monumental claptrap. Yes, some textures are showing their age with regards the 2.7 updates to PBR - milky glass being a primary issue, but the geometry is absolutely spot on. As for sound you've clearly never been in a Spitfire Mk.IX cos - I can tell you with authority - DCS sounds VERY much like the real deal. And reference to CFS? Seriously? Where the best they could do was loop a series of sound snippets snapped from aircraft flyby's using little more than half power? You're comments illustrate of just how ignorant you are to the profound issues of generating realistic sounds for flight sims. I reproduce below some thoughts from an earlier post I made that outline the problems a flight sim developer faces when it comes to re-creating the engine sounds: What BTD has accomplished using synthesised sound engine is incredible and is far and away the best of the current crop of WW2 sims.

Literally in the first post old chap...

The P-51 is fun. Yes the 3D model is 9 years old but it's not horrendous. Would it benefit from an overhaul? Sure. Is it a necessity?... Er... If you're spending your time staring at a textured fuel filler cap rather than through the gunsight at a wriggling 109 or trying to dodge a hail of 20mm flak rounds then maybe DCS is not your ideal simulator.

Hi OC - PM sent.

Your clearing of all the default inputs might be the issue with the tutorials here. Given the tutorials reliance on them telling a novice user which action is activated by which key, it is conceivable that ED added a controls override to these tutorial mission files so that rebinding controls doesn't break the tutorial - the tutorial tells you to press "shift-spacebar" but you've rebound it to "x" but don't realise that... Personally, given the complexity of the number of buttons and controls to be mapped in any aircraft I think EDs solution is clear logical and is much improved from, say, 5 years ago - it's infinitely more understandable than some of their competitors control GUIs which are downright disingenuous. Old Chap, if you're online and happy to engage in some multiplayer flying I'd happily spend an eve going over the controls with you and nailing down some of your issues if you would like. Let me know.

There is no way on God's earth that was flying - that's a ground collision and by the pattern of the damage I'd say someone ran up his a$$. The way the metal is cut looks suspiciously like prop blade cuts

I have submitted a bug report to ED:

Summary: when any Force Feedback effects activate it delays the response to any binding input that is triggered during the term of that FFB. Example: in low speed gunfight with 15-20 units of AoA under buffet which is being translated via FFB to the stick, any gun trigger input is not immediately recognised and a delay of some 0.5 to 1 second occurs between the physical depression of the hardware controller trigger and the in game gun firing. The same is true for keyboard inputs - selecting F2 or F3 during the same manoeuvre sees a significant delay before the actual transfer to the external camera view happens. Axis bindings are similarly effected. For 2D 1080p flying I have the zoom view mapped to the Sidewinder throttle axis and if I attempt to adjust FoV during manoeuvres where FFB events are being delivered to the stick then there is a time delay from physical manipulation the hardware controller to the requested adjustment of in game FoV occurring. It's hard to delineate but I would look at something in the shake effects first as buffet seems to be the cue. Various community members have submitted bugs to Heatblur on this, however they believe this is something only ED have the power to rectify:

One thing that springs to mind is that it allows full aileron throw without the pilots legs getting in the way - the downside is less moment arm to leverage that throw.

Prototypically, it depended on the mission as to what profile you would fly. 1. RAMROD a. Escort to US Mediums - RV usually Beachy Head, Rye or mid-Channel, Angels 10-12. Climb from base at 2650 +7lb @180mph IAS (hint: keep the Boost at 7lb or below to use a leaner fuel mixture setting) to RV. Once established at height reduce to 1800-2200 RPM and -2 to +4lb Boost whilst out over the sea. As enemy territory approaches, increase to max continuous and hold this over enemy territory. Reduce to the more economical settings when chance of engagement by enemy is negligible. b. Escort to RAF light bombers - RV usually Beachy Head, Angels 0. After takeoff, once established at treetop height reduce to 1800-2200 RPM and -2 to +4lb Boost. Hold these settings for RV when joined and proceed to pre-arranged mid-Channel point at wave-top height. There, all aircraft climb to medium altitude (Angels 10-16) - use 2650 +7lb @180mph IAS, aiming to cross the enemy coast >Angels 10. Hold this setting over enemy territory. Reduce to the more economical settings when chance of engagement by enemy is negligible. 2. RODEO Fighter Sweep Climb from base at 2650 +7lb @180mph IAS. Once established at mission height reduce to 1800-2200 RPM and -2 to +4lb Boost whilst out over the sea. As enemy territory approaches, increase to max continuous and hold this over enemy territory. Reduce to the more economical settings when chance of engagement by enemy is negligible. As grafspee indicates, if you're above ~Angels 15/16 and the Supercharger has engaged, as long as you're not expecting to run into trouble, manually switching out the second stage of the supercharger is a good way to save some juice. From 1942 nearly all Spitfire missions cross-Channel would have used jett-tanks.

It's great to see personnel moving around or just present on some of the campaign/single missions provided by some of our talented 3rd party mission builders but I find it a shame that we re obliged to use armed infantry types; please ED could we have some unarmed maintenance personnel to put into our missions to truly represent these essential yet often overlooked people who where so fundamental to the fight? USAAF: RAF: Luftwaffe;

Bear in mind that the real aeroplane has very light elevator stick forces and such a low percentage stick travel to critical AoA that in some regards it should be a little twitchy in comparison to it's contemporaries; however, modern gaming hardware exacerbates this:

I have been experiencing this for months. It's generally not noticeable in general flight but as soon as FFB shake effects activate it delays the registration of both axis and button inputs; snap gunshots at 15-20 units of AoA are heavily compromised. Tried it last night in the 2.7.0.5659 Open Beta and it is still a factor. I have EDs F/A-18C, A-10C, Spitfire, P-51, P-47 and this FFB input lag is not occurring in these modules.

Was the oil pressure within limits? Overcooled oil has a greater viscosity, it doesn't flow fast enough to provide the relevant cooling and lubrication films are more likely to tear. If you demand too much performance from an overcooled motor too quickly then bearings and such will heat faster than the oil can transfer it and there will be damage to partially lubricated bearings etc.

Consistently those of us attempting to fly realistic missions at prototypical lengths and attempting to use prototypical recommended* engine settings (low RPM, "high" boost) in order to (a) eek out some semblance of the range that these aircraft were capable of flying and (b) fly in a prototypical manner, we are experiencing coolant temperatures of sub-60° for long periods of flight and this seems to consistently be resulting in engine failure due to overcooling. Even long periods at max continuous settings, 2650 RPM @ +7 lb/sqin boost, temperatures seem suspiciously low. If there was some documentary warning or evidence that this was an issue for the Spitfire IX in particular or Merlins in general, then fair enough, but we cannot find a single warning in any period documentation, including the Pilots Notes, that covers this fallibility. Given the following attached documentation shows that these settings were RECOMMENDED for operations, it would seem a critical omission not to warn pilots of the risks of operating at them, if overcooling was actually an issue. Hence we believe this behaviour in DCS is inaccurate. We've been told there was supposed to be a revision to the thermodynamic/coolant models some time ago. We hope that this is imminent and that it sorts this issue.

Dunno what you guys are going on about. Having actually flown in one I can tell you that it looks spot on & sounds perfect.

Ah, point duly noted, I misconstrued.

I don't get this 'No Hills' attitude... same accusations were levelled at Normandy when it first came out. Seriously, it's a map of a real place with - guess what - the topography of that the real place. Like saying the Nevada map is too 'canyony'. No s**t, Sherlock!

Thanks Nineline.

Mosquito FB Mk.VI Mission Roles, targets and attack type summaries: Daytime Low-level Precision Strike - Fixed high value target. Nap of the earth (hedge hopping) throughout. Weapon release altitude <100ft. Maritime anti-shipping (bombs) - Transit across sea @ ~50ft altitude. Weapon release altitude <100ft. Maritime anti-shipping (Rocket Projectile) - Transit across sea @ ~50ft altitude. Pop-up to 3,000-5,000ft for the attack run. Weapon release altitude ~1000ft range. NOBALL - Nap of the earth (hedge hopping) transit. Pop up to 3,000-8,000ft for the attack run. Shallow dive to target. Weapon release altitude <1000ft. Night Interdiction - Cruise and search for targets 3,000-4,000ft, no lower than 2,000ft. Pilots cleared to minimum 500ft on attack runs. Night Intruder - 2,000-3,000ft transit to and patrol target area. If airfield lit, climb to 5,000ft and release bombs on runway. Day Interdiction was not really tried till April 1945 (Operation Clarion) and that didn't work out well for the Mossies.

Pinpoint Navigation at tree-top height is no laughing matter; with a pilot concentrating on not hitting anything it is essential to have a Nav who can take that burden from you, especially considering factors such as Time on Target are far more critical in the Mossies assigned missions than any fighter sweep. The Nav isn't just working out where you are, he's correcting the courses for any changes in drift and recommending revised speeds so you hit the waypoints, and ultimately the target, when you should. In an icon off F10 multiplayer environment, running round dodging chimneys, trees and church spires you would be bloody glad of a 'breather' Nav worth his salt.

Just found this: https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/1060025446 This is RAF gun camera footage from winter 43/44, showing a mixture of Spitfire V, Spitfire IX, Hurricane and Typhoon gun camera clips. Whilst notably poorer quality than the 8th and 9th Army Air Forces examples, it does show one important aspect - there seem to be no tracer rounds for any of the Spitfire IX guns at this point, across any of the squadrons involved. While some may say that the film quality maybe too poor to discern, I would beg to differ; while many of these clips from a collection of 8th Army Air Force gun camera reels show a similar lack of tracer, there are moments when it appears and is unmistakable: The contrast of the tracer is too bright and too distinctive to be confused with grain/dirt/noise on the RAF examples. Ergo, I suggest that a no tracer loadout should be the default for the Spitfire IX, with tracers as an option for those that wish to have them.

1. Which sub-variant? 2. Gyroscopic precession 3. Phugoids 4. 200mph is not fast for a P-47, especially as you add AoA. 5. Check auto-rudder in settings.

My understanding being that the WW2 Asset Pack was primarily designed to integrate to Normandy, at this stage in the actual war the use of 'vanilla' Ju 88A-4 on the Western Front was negligible. The most commonly encountered were the torpedo bomber (A4/torp) and long range fighter (C-4) variants based in Brittany. There were dedicated level bomber Kampfgeschwader but these flew only at night and were using Ju 88S, Ju 188 and He 177.

Because, perhaps, calculating the physics for vertically carried bombs that rotate through 180 degrees when dropped is not a back of a napkin calculation and would be the first aircraft of the type to carry and drop bombs in this fashion in DCS? Maybe, they they got the simpler iteration completed first and thought they'd push it to their client base so there's at least some level bombing capability. So, what I think you meant to say is "thanks ED, it's great to finally have some level bombing capabilty. We realise that the provision of droppable bomb bay bombs will not be straightforward but is there any chance we will see this in the future." At least that's how the un-entitled adults around here would have phrased it.