[DBS]TH0R

Wow. What a horrible decision IMHO. Why not allow people without it to have the units on the map without the possibility to control them? Essentially this is forcing people to buy both packages.

Just came back from -=ACG=- WWII server and from few engagements with 109s it feels like I am shooting blanks. Was on 6 OC of several planes and just couldn't land any hits on them. Afterwards I ran 3-4 offline missions and had no problem in shooting down targets on my first pass. Anyone else experiencing this?

If past modules / patches are anything to go by, better get ready for all 5 months, if not more. :) Sent using Tapatalk.

Just tested 1.5.4 last night. In P-51 I can't check my six, and A-10C view is odd at best sharing the same problem of not being able to look back over your shoulder. Please fix this.

I and many others had the same thought before getting them. Then Milan sent one sample to me for testing and I was sold immediately. I'd recommend you get them and then get the new fighter plate version you can easily just exchange for the existing ones. Besides, LW used this design so its not that they can't do combat. ;) There is a reason why Slaw started introducing CAM profile in his newer versions. MFG has one from day one and is the #1 reason why I would recommend them over any other rudder pedals. The difference just can not be described with words.

Nicely done. I agree that it comes down to flight hours in the P-51, the procedures described in this thread are to help those having problems. Once you know what to look out for, you can land on two wheels at speeds closer to the three point landing.

That is very interesting, thanks. Which part of the ground handling did they have problem with? Out of curiosity, did they later on try the TF-51D? Unless I am mistaken, this one should more closely resemble what they are flying.

I can not tell if the thing flies like the real bird, since I haven't flown one. There was however, a thread where the Horsemen fly the DCS P-51D. Since using real life procedures does the trick and slightly higher speed than what you find in the manual does too, I will take their word over your friend.

With a little more practice you will. The reason why I made that video in the first place was no wheel smoke on touchdown. :) Like Yo-Yo says, the problem is change in AOA due to pulling back on the stick when or second before wheels touch the runway. With a proper technique you can drop her on the runway with descending speed up to 600ft/min IIRC and the struts will absorb the impact without even the slightest bounce or ballooning. Sent using Tapatalk.

True, nose down trim helps. But once you get used to it you can land with no elevator trim at all. Definitely a recommendation to the guys having problems with two wheel landings.

Thanks. I was referring to the manual and Yo-Yo's posts #23 & #28.

Please read the whole thread, in particular post #72: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2196786&postcount=72 The solution is to center the stick on touchdown for two point landing and she will hardly bounce at all. If you touch down at 130-140 IAS that is. The problem with this is knowing / feeling when your wheels will touch the ground. If you can't do it land on all three wheels at about 100 IAS. The effect is known as "ballooning", not bouncing. In the tracks I provided here (probably won't work with current game version) I slammed her on the runway much harder than you would on a normal approach. The struts absorbed the impact and there was no ballooning. In short, do not keep pulling back on the stick like you would in other flight sims. A video of me demonstrating the normal two wheel landing approach [8:30]:

All true. OTOH B-17 was easier to fly formation in, and could fly higher IIRC. Back on the subject, since we're looking into ETO here (with the Normandy map), B-17 squadrons outnumbered those with B-24s by a large margin. Late B-17G with "Cheyenne" Tail Turret would fit like a glove considering the equipment and WWII planes we already have / are being built.

I'd love to make a track but track recording is currently broken in v1.5. When its fixed I intend to make a video (need tracks for better recording and playback for that). Just FYI we're not allowed to discuss other sims here. On the same subject, every one of them models something better than the rest, that much is given. I fly them all, and DCS's FM is the only sim where I have to work to get the most out of a plane. I don't like "mushy controls" in some of them, and ground handling is second to none in DCS, by a long shot. Feels like no corners have been cut and it wasn't made to be easier for desktop users like us. But that is my subjective impression. We're lucky to be able to choose from several titles, whatever suites you best.

Additional reading for you Nedum: http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/articles/airframes/black6/bk6_flight.htm EDIT: Apologies for posting the same link in two threads, but the reply is on the two different topics.

Here is what Dave Southwood has to say on the manual pitch, and how it is used during displays: http://109lair.hobbyvista.com/articles/airframes/black6/bk6_flight.htm

Here is some watching material for you Nedum: https://youtu.be/IbeRn1rgoIo?t=8m57s - note the challenging aircraft to fly ("tricky handling qualities") - note the precision required to do maneuvers - note the lack of directional stability, i.e. coordinating rudder in all maneuvers As for the comment about the aces flying it, if you fly a plane for hundreds of hours you will develop muscle memory and probably forget about the things that made it tricky for the pilots that first tried flying it. It becomes second nature. The same is true for DCS 109. After you get some stick time with it, it too becomes second nature and one can even do wheel landings in her, no problem.

I can't even play my own tracks correctly, track recording or just playback is obviously broken in 1.5... EDIT: When viewing them I didn't try to use custom views or mess with time acceleration.

Alright, finally installed beta 1.5 and examined 2 tracks provided by Sprog and Hummingbird. I have a problem with running them, anyone else experienced that? Second Sprog's track on first 3 attempts at running showed him crashing on TO. Only after I ran it like 5th time it showed him successfully TO and then flying straight and doing some maneuvers. Hummingbird's both track end with him crashing into the ground after pulling back on the stick and not really attempting to do a level turn. I've attached two of my tracks in this post, first one showing Instant Take off mission (Sprog used on his tracks), and the other Instant Free fly mission (Hummingbird used on his tracks). Based on the limited info I was able to gather from these tracks I think both of you are (almost) completely disregarding the rudder in turns which is essential to riding her on the edge of stall. In both tracks I flew low level, ATA 1.8 and on the edge of stall over the trees. In second track I flew figure 8 around two buildings for like 5 minutes straight. Average speed during those maneuvers was around 250-260 IAS. I hope someone can run these tracks else I will need to do a video. On first one I end up crashing on TO just like on Sprog's tracks, and on the second one I crash after 3-4 minuted into the track even though it should run for 10+ minutes. My controllers: - TM Warthog extended 7cm and mounted in my foldable simpit - MFG Crosswind rudder pedals All controllers featuring Hall sensors thus no noise or jitter. For accurate hardware calibration (better than one in Windows) I used TM Warthog calibration tool v1.13.. Only time it got off center was last time I changed grease on mine. This software works like advertised. I would recommend it over Win calibration since that doesn't fix the problem entirely. PS: The brakes on this thing are now much more powerful. For the first time in 1.5 I was able to lift my tail when braking. One does need to be careful. TH0R_109_test_1.trk TH0R_109_test_2.trk

True. Apologies if my views offend anyone. Definitely true about the real life part. However, from the pilots that I spoke with and that have tried formation flying - it is actually much easer in real life. On the other hand... I don't suck at formation flying, not real WWII bomber formation tactics at least. :P Most of my flight simming over the course of past 10 years was online, I could say exclusively. See signature for details about DBS. I've organized large historical missions in '46, and led bomber formations up to 20 planes on more than one occasion. All human piloted. The last being on one mission organized by Czech community. We even participated in filming the promo for DCS WWII by Mysticpuma, the four mustangs dropping tanks and peeling off way my idea. I flew no.4 position. So I pardon me if I think that I have some understanding of what the MP problems are in WWII flight simulator.

You are welcome. :) I am in the process of DL v1.5 and will examine tracks as soon as I have the opportunity. Back from my testing in v1.2 I found that in order to keep the virtual stick in the same position you need to "juggle" the stick back and forth a lot, I'm talking about very small movements here. Hence the stick precision is required to ride on the edge of the stall for a longer time, and why FF or extension really do help (not that much, but they do). Now this can be done two ways: a) either carefully watching your virtual stick position in the CTRL+ENTER indicator, ensuring it stays still throughout the maneuver or b) by listening to what the plane is telling you, there is plenty of warning before the stall. In other words, physical stick can not be held in the same position throughout the whole maneuver since it doesn't match the virtual stick, i.e. virtual stick moves depending on the stiffness. However, if Hummingbird really was able to maintain constant airspeed, the stick shouldn't move. At least, this how I experienced / understood stick stiffness modeling.

Couldn't have said it better myself. And lack of understanding or even will to understand the problem of some posters here is borderline insulting IMHO.

Perhaps this is what Wags was referring to when he mentioned unrealistic spotting distances of ground targets. :P I don't see it as splitting up the community, rather establishing an even playing field. And no, 8-12 is not a realistic number of people playing WWII as much as you keep telling yourself or trying to prove a point by continuously underestimating the number of people that relish in online WWII game play. Some even exclusively. Besides, all this is still WIP, in a beta version of the game.

Since you spoke with the mechanic. Was he (or other pilots) taking it to the limits before the crash? Crash video shows a very tight turn before belly landing into the field: You mention constant speed and stick deflection. The way stick stiffening is simulated in this sim, the following will happen: hold the joystick at a fixed / constant deflection and in game stick forces will prevent you from pulling it all the way back. Essentially the virtual stick will stop at one location until the speed bleeds. Then, as a result of lower stick forces, the virtual stick will continue to move further back to match your joystick position - forcing you to exceed critical AOA and enter a stall. But, since you say constant speed, the above shouldn't happen. Do enable control indicator with CTRL + ENTER when recording please.

No need to get emotional. All we requested is a track since we can't replicate what you are saying. It is in everyones best interest to find the problem, if there is one. Pilot quotes won't solve a thing. Showing what exactly you perceive as wrong is best done via a track recording, or if you have time, a video. Besides, last I checked, Yo-Yo / ED is in contact with Klaus Plasa, a pilot who flies G-4 Red 7. Therefore, modern pilot input is also taken into equation.