Goblin

You're absolutely correct, BIGNEWY. However, I suppose many users don't know the meaning of alpha and beta. I, and I believe you as well, "grew up" with games entering Alpha testing when you first heard of them. Then they entered Beta testing. Some of us even managed to get in on a Beta test group. It was considered an honor, and you got your name in the credits. There was a special magic of hearing your very anticipated game had 'gone Gold' and was sent to the duplicators, because back then we needed our games on discs. :) And then you anxiously waited at the game store. An actual brick and mortar, physical store. With people in it! You bought the game off the shelf, and brought it home. The fact that the game installed on the first attempt was considered above standard. There would of course be bugs. Sometimes the most glaring bugs were corrected in a patch. The patch was distributed via game magazines that had CD pockets, or you actually knew a guy you could contact on your dial-up line and copy from. Then the game was abandoned. The developers moved on to the next title. Being stuck with a game that was what it was. There were still problems with it. You even needed to adjust your OS startup files to free enough RAM. You either lived with it, or you moved on as well. Many younger users haven't been through this process. They have no idea what I just wrote. It's up to old farts, like me, to tell them that they are much better off today! It definitely wasn't better in the old days. DCS is a Simulator of such a scale that is has no rival. Microsoft Flightsim is perhaps the best comparison. But even that title pales in comparison when you look at the fidelity of flightmodels, graphics and systems. Development of something as huge as DCS takes time. In fact, it can't stop. Instead of pushing something out the door, take your money and leave, ED is sticking with it. They continue to push the boundaries of flightsim development. Yeah, there are bugs. Several. Some showstoppers even. I like finding them so I can report to the developer, so they can fix them. I always revel in the next update. What have they done this time? Not everybody is like me. Some users just want to start their PC like it's some sort of console and just play a game, or sim. These users should not download the alphas and betas. They're much better off sticking with the stable releases and waiting for the test versions to become stable releases. Maybe this should be communicated in a better way? Nobody reads the EULA. Maybe a start-up video telling the user that he or she are now about to download unfinished software, and what they might expect..? Like those annoying youtube commercials. Ah... Who am I kidding? Nobody read this far anyway. ;)

I see. I hope you get 2.1 up and running soon. And if/when you do, please let me know how you feel the Spit handles. Edit: I had trouble getting 2.1 to work as well. In the end I used SkateZillas DCS Updater utility, and managed to install 2.1 and the Normandy map.

JCK, is this how you feel about the handling also after the 2.1 update? I have never flown anything with this kind of power. At least not single engine ;) But I really like how she handles post 2.1. Or, as they are telling me, as it has always have been handling. :D

I understand that. But as I have said earlier in the thread, the groundhandling improved on concrete runways as well. For me. But it might be that some general friction or other interaction value was altered, that also altered the ground handling. The Spitfire Mk.IX actually got reduced toe-in to reduce the wear on the left wheel during takeoff from hard runways. Earlier variants had larger toe-in to increase stability on soft runways.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again... I was set on waiting for the next generation of VR HMDs. Then I got to try a Oculus Rift CV1. When I looked back at the wing, and then tried to grip the canopy frame, to get out, I was sold. I got one, and I couldn't care less about 2D simming anymore. I loved IL2 and Rise of Flight, but since they didn't support VR, I lost interest. IL2 has since then gotten VR support, and it's fantastic! But my favourite VR sim is DCS. Taxiing around in the Spitfire and leaning to the sides to look out past the huge Merlin engine in front, is just amazing. Flying around with that perfect head tracking allows for near perfect situational awareness. Dogfighting has become a lot more physical than before, with a TrackIR and a 2D screen. Not that TrackIR is bad or anything. It totally revolutionized Flightsimming. I got a 34" curved 21:9 screen, that was awesome together with a TrackIR. That screen cost me more than the Rift did. Once I got the Rift, I sold the 34" screen. Sure, the resolution could be better. Doesn't need much though. A wider field of view would be nice as well. But that doesn't keep me from enjoying VR. Not one bit.

Yeah, I read his reply too. But I experienced going from successfully taking off and landing, and always with a narrow margin, maybe 20-50% of the time, to being successful every time, after I upgraded to 2.1. I was suddenly a much better Spitfire pilot :) Hence this thread, to see if others experienced the same, and it seems like some did. And I don't exclusively operate the Spit from non-concrete surfaces. In 2.05 I flew it in the NTTR. When I installed 2.1 and Normandy, I tried the Spit Takeoff mission and my immediate thought was that it had reset the takeoff assistance to 100%. I checked and nope! Still at 0%. So I set it at 100% and it got even easier to control, like on rails. So, back to 0%. Then I thought it had to do with the surface, as you suggest. So I tried it in the NTTR again. Much better control there as well. So, either I suddenly learned how to fly the virtual Spit, or something had changed. As I have little faith in my virtual piloting skills improving that fast, I naturally thought something had changed with the patch... I'm just checking to see if others also experienced this. Don't read anything else into it.

Yes, I read it. Did your read what I wrote? :) A general adjustment of the wheel/ground friction, or a general adjustment in yaw-roll coupling, doesn't have to mean there was an adjustment to the Spitfire flightmodel, but an adjustment in the physics of DCS. Yo-Yo did write that there was some adjustment to wingtip interaction with concrete. Maybe that had some spin-off effects? I'm tempted to back down to 2.05 and try it out... ;)

A lot like Leapmotion... The Nimble Kickstarter was cancelled as they was bought by Oculus. But yeah, I agree that we need something like that in VR.

Yeah, that was discussed earlier in the thread. It is, however, easier on NTTR concrete runways as well. But maybe the friction of wheel/ground interaction has been adjusted, over all..? Or, the yaw-roll coupling has been adjusted. Because this is part of what I think is better now. Earlier the Spitfire had a tendency to roll its wingtips into the ground if you weren't fast enough on the rudder pedals. This is better now, I think. Easier to counter the roll, so to speak. I just love the way the Spit handles now! I'm having a blast in VR leaning to the sides, looking around that huge engine when taxiing, while tapping the pedals and the brakelever to keep it going where I want. :)

I guess that's why DCS is so addictive..! ;)

That's what I did. Not YoYo, specifically, but other simmers. So, I guess we're several people that have a collective hallucination then... ;)

He's welcome to reply to this thread, just like anybody else ;) Edit; I should add that the purpose of the thread was to discern if there actually is a difference in the ground handling, or if I'm imagining things. Of course the developers could tell me if it were. I just wanted a second, or third, opinion about it, first.

Yeah, I did. And it's mentioned on page 1 of the thread ;) Still is a lot more stable at 100%. I just feel that it's more stable at 0%, than before 2.1. Yet I can't see that it's mentioned in the patch notes.

Good find, and good translation. I must admit that I had to force myself to read the text, as I listened. I may have missed something but generally speaking the translation is very good. I sure couldn't have done better.

That's dependent on the mission design, not the module. The takeoff instant mission in Normandy has mist. Try the landing mission. No mist in that one.

I'm talking about a difference in the 2.1 update. I think the Spit handles better in both NTTR and Normandy, after the 2.1 update.

That's how feel as well. The Spit still really need your full attention, but now it's not impossible to control it. ;)

You know, what was true a year ago, may be false today. Not saying it is. Just that you can't hold TM to a statement made a year ago. A lot of things may have changed. For one thing, they have got serious competition in the high-end flight controller market, by VKB and Virpil. Another thing may be that the DCS F/A-18C module is a whole lot more certain today, than a year ago. I doubt TM would put their money on a new stick unless they are absolutely positively certain that there will be a Hornet module. So contracts could have been made, that weren't there a year ago.

There's a major difference in design of the landinggear, when comparing the Mustang and the Spitfire. The Spit has a very narrow track, which makes it much less stable in yaw and roll, on ground. Add to that the Mustang differential toe brakes and steerable, and lockable, tailwheel... In short, the Spitfire should be a lot harder to control on the ground.

I've never used negative curve values, only positive, and they are the same. And I only use a slight curve of around 10, I believe. Anyway, I thought the Spit was a bit too nervous on the ground before, but now it behaves much more like I would expect. Now I feel I can counteract the expected movements. Of course, I have no idea how a real Spitfire behaves, only that it's a very powerful taildragger, and that it can be a handful. It still needs the correct flightcontrol input in relation to power and speed, but now I can correct it, and even overcorrect, without being severly punished, like I feel I was before. Was just curious to hear if anybody else noticed something different about it.

I've tested both Normandy and NTTR, and taking off from concrete is perhaps a bit more unforgiving, or is it the fact that Nevada is at a higher pressure altitude and you need more speed and the rudder is less effective? Either way, I feel I succeed at every takeoff and landing now. I certainly didn't pre 2.1. But, like I said... Maybe I just learned how to do it right..?

My review of the BRD-N. http://www.mudspike.com/review-brd-n-black-stork-joystick/

I prefer the sight pointing at where the bullets will hit... ;) You could do what real pilots do. Look at the slip indicator.

Yes, that's a good theory. Although, I tested the takeoff mission in the NTTR as well, and I still think taking off was harder before 2.1. Could be I have developed faster reflexes ;)

I thought of that, and checked. Still at 0. But I went back and set it to 100, did a testflight, set it back to 0 followed by another testflight. Nope! Takeoff assistance is definitely at 0. The Spit definitely feels more predictable on the ground, than before. Sure, she can still be provoked into groundloops and other nasty behaviour. Feels better, I think.