Echo38

Sorry, Otto, I don't buy that. At normal multiplayer altitudes, the 109 turns better in all but the most unusual of circumstances. (As it should, I might add; the real 109 did out-turn the P-51, in general.) Are you doing that thing where someone say something that's technically true, but omitting critical information that alters the meaning completely? You know, the thing that advertisers like to do. "NUMBER ONE RECOMMENDED BRAND BY DOCTORS" (... all two of the doctors they consulted) In this case, it'd be "the P-51 turns better than the 109" (at very high altitudes, or when it has a massive E advantage to burn up on high-speed turns). Not an honest way of describing the comparison, when you leave off that game-changing aftertext. So, a more accurate statement would be: the 109 out-turns the P-51 in almost all co-X situations in multiplayer. (Insert a number of things for X ... E, numbers, fuel loads, pilot experience levels, etc.) That's in addition to climbing better (as it should) and being faster (which isn't right, because the P-51 has an acknowledged bug causing massive losses in its top speed at normal altitudes). Which brings me back to my original question: if the current 109 already tends to dominate the P-51, in co-X situations, then why in the heck should anyone be crying about one of the more down-to-earth engine/propeller/Ata being used, rather the most extreme high-performance variants? You can't have your cake and eat it, too, especially when it's already skewed in your favor. If you're going to make the argument that the 109K should be using the best propeller/engine/Ata it ever used, then we'd have to take a good hard look at the P-51D, which is using the worst of the WEP settings P-51Ds were rated for. Not "slightly less than the best," but the very worst! You can't complain about having a slightly less-than-optimal performance 109K when we've got a very sub-standard P-51D, and the former dominates the latter as a result. ("Sub-standard" meaning a configuration which is less than the contemporary standard at the point in the war where the two would have met--not implying an actual error in data or modelling.) And all of that applies even if the P-51 didn't have that bug with its speed--that's just icing on the cake, and the problem of standards will remain after the bug is fixed.

You're not talking about an incipient spin, are you?

Why disheartening? It isn't as though our K4 has a competitive disadvantage compared to our P-51D. The 109 is currently faster, better climbing, & better turning than the P-51, at normal altitudes. As such, it dominates in dogfights. Why would you want to exacerbate that disparity?

I usually see manifold pressure abbreviated as MAP (for "manifold absolute pressure") in period documents. Not being an engine expert, I don't know if there's a distinction between "manifold pressure" and "manifold absolute pressure," where WWII fighters are concerned.

Oh, come on! The P-47 was way above being a dedicated ground-pounder that couldn't find its own empennage in a dogfight. : )

Looking at the credits for the P-51D module, there are only a handful of people qualified to do a fix like this. Yo-Yo and a couple of programmers appear to be the only part of the team who do stuff like this. I don't know that they're specifically working on DCS 2 itself; rather, I assume that it's the new aircraft that's got them busy. Once the Thunderbolt & Spitfire are released, I hope they can take a step back and fix some of the issues that still aren't addressed for the 109, 190, & P-51. Of particular concern is the P-51's speed. It's been acknowledged, but AFAIK it still hasn't been corrected.

For an experienced pilot, energy fighting is easier up there, because you've got more to work with. The TAS is higher; there's more E. So, for example, you can zoom out of gun-range quicker up there, than you can down low. The turn&burners struggle more at that altitude, and so the energy fighters dominate more than they do at low altitudes. For a less-experienced pilot, it can be pretty daunting, because you are closer to stalling at any given point, all else equal. Closure rates show that the speeds are high, but the IAS is low and (if you don't have a visual reference point, e.g. your opponent) your aircraft feels like it's going slow. But with a bit of practice, one can get to the point where you're more comfortable up there than down low. I know I am (or was, back when I was doing it regularly). Another thing to note: it's easier to maintain your total E state up there than down low, in most of these birds, because of the supercharger thing. So, at angels ten, a P-38 will struggle more to keep her altitude in a dogfight, than a P-38 at 25000 feet. The tendency of fights to lower in altitude is less pronounced, the closer you are to your aircraft's optimal altitude.

Ah, yes. Straight & level, you'll have higher AoA up there. [nod] Hence the eventual ceiling. But in turns ... hmmm. I think I see what you're getting at. Tough question! Well, I mean with WWII fighters, specifically. Most of them fly faster at altitude than they do on the deck, with the max speed being achieved the altitude, determined by the supercharger. E.g. angels 20-something for the P-38's turbosupercharger (IIRC). So, comparing a P-38 at 5000 feet to one at 25000 feet, the TAS is quite a bit higher for the latter. Also, according to a chart in the P-38 operating handbook, the best climb IAS decreases with altitude, despite the true airspeed being higher. Which gives me some confusion as to what exactly happens to the turns. A higher best climb IAS will mean a higher sustained turn IAS speed, too, right? Hrm. I'm out of my element--I guess I really don't know what that'll do to AoA & turn radius&rate & G-load.

Hmmm--that doesn't sound right to me. TAS is higher up there, so turn circles are wider for a given IAS, and a wider turning circle means a lower AoA, not higher. On the flip side, if you can pull the same AoA at a higher TAS, you're pulling more G's. Further corrections welcome--I'm not an engineer, I'm afraid.

As best as I can tell without having actually tried it, the Warthog still isn't going to feel much like a real aircraft stick; the point is rather about having high precision & durability (both micro and macro) compared to the average controller. Not trying to talk you out of getting it--it still seems to be the best spring-centered stick, other than custom jobs--but just be aware that if you're expecting a stick that feels like a real aircraft stick, you're likely to be disappointed, even with a length mod. Springs just can't replicate the feel of airflow, balanced mass, & cables. It's a shame there isn't a force-feedback stick of this quality level, without paying into the four digits. Which, by the way, is pretty relevant to the original complaint, given that this is the ultimate cause of it: most of us have spring-centered short sticks, and few or none of us have full-size force-feedback sticks of sufficient quality to accurately mimic the real-life behavior & feel. : /

Right; I didn't mean to overstate it in my last post. In the post before that, I pointed out that those who are having joystick problems specific to the 109 will probably find the (small) reduction in pitch precision worth the benefit gained from no longer having to hold the stick forward constantly at high speeds / power-settings. What I meant by my previous post was merely that those with a short-throw joystick will be affected more by this pitch-precision reduction than those with a full-size (chair/floor-mounted) stick. Not that it'll be a deal-breaker for those with un-modded Warthogs; due to the spring force, I expect that it'd be overall much easier with this pitch-forward curve, even though it does mean some loss elsewhere.

Yo-Yo wouldn't have it any other way. : ) DCS's professional flight model isn't the kind of FM where you have a distinct separation between what you see, and what the physics engine "sees," excluding damage states. Rather, as ED has explained in the past, the PFM takes the aircraft's shape into account. So, I think we don't need to have any worry that Yo-Yo would toss in a Spitfire that looks elliptical but flies clipped. Technically, the game engine would allow this (at least with SFM), but this sort of kludge isn't how ED does things with the PFM birds.

"Shoddy plastic joystick"--a blanket phrase I use to refer to mass-produced controllers (joysticks, yokes, & pedals) for P.C. flight sim/games. It's easier than typing out the latter each time. They're designed by non-simmers and cheaply constructed on assembly lines. Plastic is generally chosen as the primary material, due to cost & speed of manufacture. Some SPJs are better than others (the best quality-to-cost SPJs are what I recommend to entry-level sim users), but they're all united by a jarring dissimilarity to the real aircraft controls they're supposed to represent. This includes nearly all of the force-feedback sticks, too, by the way. FFB is much better than spring-centered, in theory, but in practice, the same problem of poor craftsmanship plagues desktop FFB as badly as spring sticks. So, basically, if you paid less than, say, $300 for it, and it was made by a company with more than a handful of employees, then it qualifies as an SPJ, and I can predict a lot of things about about it. For example, it's going to be a short desktop stick and not full-scale, and it's going to have a center-precision problem, and it almost certainly has outer-edge hardware deadzones of varying size, too. Unfortunately, one really has to go custom or limited-production to get above all those problems. The big brands simply aren't "for simmers, by simmers." Rather, they're about filling a market--nothing more. Popular makers of SPJs include Logitech, CH, Saitek, and even Thrustmaster (though their Warthog obviously doesn't qualify as SPJ, being somewhere between the SPJ and limited/indie categories). There are plenty of others, but those are the ones that most simmers buy these days. And, as I conceded, there is a place for some of them. I'm using SPJs myself, out of current necessity. But I cannot be content with them, because I still remember what it was like to fly real aircraft, and I refuse to ignore SPJs' flaws & overrate them to unsuspecting newbies.

I added more information to my post; sorry. You may not agree completely anymore. ; ) The discussion was previously about Saitek pedals, and I had pretty much finished talking about the downsides of those, but then you went and brought up CH ... To my grave, I'll remember the disappointment I had when my CH pedals arrived, back in 1999. After all the glowing reviews, I'd been expecting something that were closer to the pedals of the real aircraft I'd flown. Big let-down, that, and a bit of resentment at being misled. I feel obligated now to warn the new guys ... give 'em a chance to avoid being fooled. Wish someone'd done that for me, back then; would have saved me years of frustration with mediocre controllers. If I can help even a few get an optimal quality for their budget, instead, then I guess it's worth all the crap I get from the SPJ fans, right?

CH pedals are much too close together for fighter pedals, and the center precision is also lacking (as it is with the Saiteks). The Saiteks are much closer to a real fighter's pedals, in terms of dimensions. For this reason alone, I'd recommend the Saiteks over CH any day. (Saiteks also can be placed directly against a wall, without rendering them unable to yield full rudder & full brake simultaneously--unlike CH, which require a board or chocks to be placed behind them, reducing legroom if the desk is against the wall.) A real fighter airplane always has pedals that are wide-set, the "fighter's stance," rather than close-set, "the ballerina's stance." It's about stability & leverage. A person is better at keeping his balance when his legs are apart than when his legs are together, all else equal. I've seen inside the cockpits of dozens of real fighters, and none of them has close-set pedals like CH & Logitech. They all had wide-set pedals like Crosswind, Simped, VKB, & Saitek. There's a reason for that. What's sufficient for an airliner or Cessna 150 often isn't good enough for a fighter, where precision matters more. In addition to the ergonomic issues, exactly 80% of the CH products pieces I've examined hands-on came defective in some fashion (even when not counting the outer-edge hardware dead-zones, which defect seems to be common to mass-produced plastic joysticks, regardless of brand). On the flip side, CH products do age better than some of the alternatives (other than the potentiometers); my Saitek pedals loosened up & got sloppy much sooner than my CH ones did. But that isn't enough to make up for all the downsides (including the CH's potentiometers instead of Hall sensors). Bottom line, once more, is that you can learn to fly well with Saitek pedals--or even CH--but it will be unnecessarily difficult. It is easier, and closer to reality (and you'll have a higher success cap), if you get something higher quality. I don't know why some of you insist on fighting me on this & trying to trick the new folks into believing that stuff like CH & Saitek are good controllers. They aren't (although the Saitek pedals do have good value for their price). So, hopefully, for the last time: new fliers, get the Saiteks if you can't afford $300 pedals. But if you want quality, and can afford it, then go with the Crosswinds. Don't let anyone tell you that you have to buy Crosswinds, sure, but also don't let anyone tell you that the Saiteks or CH are just as good. It simply isn't true.

You don't have to master your virtual bird with sub-optimal controllers before considering getting something more close to the real deal. That progression ("first learn on hard mode, then move on to real mode!") isn't a natural part of the learning process; real pilots don't have to deal with it, and a sim pilot shouldn't have to, either. More difficult /= more realistic. (In this case, the increased difficulty is less realistic--I can tell you from personal experience that it's a helluvalot easier using real aircraft stick/yoke & pedals than plastic gaming ones.) The only reason you should be limiting yourself with unrealistically-clunky controls is if you can't afford better. I don't know why we're even having this argument. I think we've both said enough that the new guys can figure it out for themselves. Echo out.

Well, I meant in terms of having the aircraft available for comparison. Different models of Spitfire handled quite differently, so I would have assumed that the chosen aircraft would be one that TFC had flying. But, I suppose they have plenty of connections, and there's no shortage of Spitfires (relatively speaking), and pilots who are familiar with them.

Hmm, good question. I just checked TFC's site, and it says they operate two Spitfires, but neither is an IX. I wonder why the IX was chosen instead of one of the ones that TFC owns & flies.

To get anything that really feels like a real aircraft stick/pedals under any circumstances, you're looking at custom stuff that costs $1000 or more. AFAIK, there's nothing like this that's commercially mass-produced, but every few years I read about hardcore simmers who also happen to be handy with machinery, who manufacture & sell stuff like this on a very limited basis. Dunno who's doing it now; there's a high turnover rate. These little high-quality makers tend to quit a few years after they start, because manufacturing simming equipment in their basement machine shop was originally a hobby, that started taking up too much of their life, with a backlog of orders piling up. IIRC, that's what happened to Simped, as well as that one $2000 FW 190 stick. It's a shame, too, because some of these crazy little custom jobs are brilliant. In the latter case, the maker claimed to have mechanisms in place to replicate the feel of mass balances in the control surfaces, and since it used actual cables, there was no need to try to simulate the cable-pulley feel. Cool stuff, if it works as promised, but way out of my price range to try out & determine whether or not it's worth the money.

Yes, it is. It's also true, however, that it's easier (and more similar to the real thing) with higher quality controllers. Hence my objection to the original statement. "There's nothing wrong with medium-quality controllers" implies that there's no good reason to upgrade. @the OP: so, to conclude, if you have a fair budget for entertainment, and really enjoy virtual flying, then you'll want to get a good pair of pedals. MFG Crosswinds being the ones recommended by the most highly-experienced flight sim enthusiasts, at present. If you don't have the money, the Saiteks will do, but it'll be harder & less lifelike than if you had better gear. On the bright side, the cheapest Saitek pedals are the ones I recommend to those who can't afford Crosswinds (I can't, myself, currently). Either way, good luck! Echo "Gear Elitist" 38, over & out

I'm not gonna throw my thermos out of the cockpit if we get the clipped wings first, but I would really prefer the elliptical wings. : )

Far from solving the decreased-precision problem I mentioned, the short-stick problem compounds it.

Not to pick a nit, but it does have the unavoidable side-effect of reducing pitch-control precision in a certain range of the pitch axis. So, technically, not perfect ... but I think those with un-modded Warthogs won't mind. : )

Maybe the lower-detail areas. I can't imagine that Eagle Dynamics would do this for the main scenery. There's so much wrong with just tossing down real aerial photographs, e.g. shadows that are where they shouldn't be at most times of day, stationary automobiles on roads, 3D objects which are visibly flat, terrain contours which don't match the mesh, etc.

I'd say they're overpriced. Never buy a piece of plastic-contruction (and by "plastic," I mean "has plastic where metal should be") simming equipment for over ~$150 (these days, anyway--prices go up over time). If you have the budget to buy the more expensive plastic pedals, then don't; instead, wait a little longer & save up for something really good, with all-metal construction, made by someone who flies sims as well as making equipment for them. You'll find it's worth it; I've never once heard one of my simming buddies or students express regret for buying a pricey-but-suberb controller. Always the opposite. Again, Saitek pedals are only recommendable for being "adequate" for ~$140. And that only applies to the cheapest ones, because the more expensive ones are still only "okay" but are approaching the next price bracket. So, if you want cheap-but-serviceable, the ~$140 Saiteks are your best bet, at present; if you want good quality, then save up ~$350 for the good stuff. There's plenty wrong with Saitek equipment. It's plastic, it's imprecise, the spring doesn't feel like real aircraft controls, and it doesn't keep well with extensive use. Of course, you can say that for most simming equipment (including popular brands like CH & Logitech), so it's a bit relative. There are few choices, and Saitek pedals are at the top until you go up into the "next bracket" ($300+, meaning Crosswinds, or something similar, like Simped, or those Russian-manufactured pedals with a V in the name, that I can never remember). So, yes, Saiteks will do the job, "reasonably" well (for commercial mass-produced gaming hardware, anyway), for a moderate cost, and that's why I use them & recommend them to simmers on a budget. But, it isn't true that there's nothing wrong with an SPJ, or lower-end pedals such as these. "It's the pilot, not the equipment" is as much of a myth as the notion that having high-end equipment will make you a great pilot. It's a combination of both. A poor craftsman might blame his tools, but even a master cannot do much with tools that don't work right. And an SPJ--or plastic spring-centered pedals, for that matter--doesn't work right (that is to say, work like the real aircraft controls). Not nearly as precise, missing the tactile sense, etc. etc. With simming equipment, eventually, if you practice long enough, competitively, you get to a point where your equipment is holding you back (compared to what you could do with real aircraft controls). That point comes sooner rather than later with shoddy controllers. And not only does inferior equipment put a cap on your success, but it makes the learning process unnecessarily troublesome from the beginning. I've had too many of my virtual flight students, whom I convinced to upgrade, tell me that it made all the difference. And I could see it, as well, in their flying (and gunnery stats). There's a reason why most of the top-scoring VFPs prefer the same two sticks and the same two pedal sets. Bottom line is you always want the best equipment for your price range, and although that sometimes means using sub-optimal equipment (I myself am, at present), that should only happen if you can't afford better. Any simmer who cares about flying enough will want to be aware of the benefits and detriments of one's options, and get the best he can for the price range he's limited to. "Make do with what you got," then, only applies to people who have no money to spend on simming, or who don't care to fly as well as they can.