klem

That's fine Schmitty, horses for courses. As a 20 year 'vet' of virtual WWII sims I agree the jets are easier to fly and have some interesting advantages. I'm particularly enjoying the F-5-E at the moment as a bridge between the post war period Sabre/Mig-15 and the later generation cold war jets; it's like a Hawk on steroids. Nevertheless I am really looking forward to the agile Spitfire MkIX with punch so much better than the early marks in CoD and a more comprehensive flight model too. I don't know that the DCS WWII a/c are more difficult than RL but they were a bit of a handful with all that torque and prop wash. Even the experienced RAF pilots that join the BoB memorial flight have to learn how to handle them.

Balance?

"bart has fallen over" (old non-PC joke) :)

Probably a good idea if DCS is the only programme that uses three screens but I also fly in COD which doesn't support three separate monitors. :(

I think that's Indefatigable? http://fleetairarmarchive.net/Ships/INDEFATIGABLE.html and apparently would require a few new aircraft types: FAA squadrons embarked Dates Aircraft type 894 May 1944-March 1946 Seafire II-III 1770 May 1944-June 1945 Firefly I 820 June-Sept 1944 Barracuda II 826 June-Sept 1944 Barracuda II 842 July 1944 Swordfish II 887 July 1944-march 1946 Seafire F.III/L.III 1840 Aug 1944 Hellcat I 820 Oct 1944-March 1946 Avenger I 888 Dec 1944-Jan 1945 Hellcat II 1772 July 1945-Dec 1946 Firefly I

Thanks WAGS!

Definitely like the second choice especially with the mouse roller for zoom. I won't want 'my position' but for arcade play some might. The key thing is that it doesn't drag you out of the cockpit into a darkened room with a wall map-projector :)

That's more like it :) Would there be a separate 'kneeboard', e.g. 'PocketMap', to avoid trawling through those kneeboard pages of airfield diagrams that would get in the way when trying to find the map page ('fold') that you need?

Well you touch on an important point. In RL, in-cockpit, it was possible to fold/refold a map of sufficient scale to be useful. I use kneeboard builder to give a larger kneeboard and it is very helpful with airfield charts. Even so the range of info covered by the kneeboard (all airfields x 2) already means constant paging through to find what you want. I have even re-sorted the kneeboard airfield maps into alphabetical order for easier searching (have to replace again with each update!) and added custom aircraft pages but the idea of putting the map on the kneeboard in fixed pages just won't work, the kneeboard workload would be impossible. We do currently get detail for the take-off field, those three map shots, but it's all you get and you can't change it or move it ('re-fold') on the fly. And a printed map? Of all that territory on a useable scale? It would have to be several A2/A3 sheets from hi-res files I suppose but not useable with Rift (my next big thing) and not very practical with the limited room available due to multi-screens, keyboard, mouse pad, etc., things you don't have getting in the way in a real cockpit.

I meant to say that the key point Talisman is trying to make is that the map style we have is fine but we would like it to be framed inside the cockpit view, like the kneeboard is. The problem with the kneeboard is that it is too small and only has only static images.

Well, you'd better get on with it. My clock's ticking!

Short, yes. 1 hour, no. With an internal fuel capacity of 92 gallons and a Merlin 66 consumption of approx 35 - 88 gals/hr it could easily be stretched to about two hours on a quiet run. That's without slipper tanks. Flying from Southern coast airfields it could almost reach Germany although I doubt the map will stretch that far.

OK, thanks for the info. Do we already have an insight into the territory envisaged? It would be interesting to know.

There has been talk of southern england up to around the London level, or maybe not quite that far. I can't imagine ED are building a map with future expansion for allied forces to fly from. Surely it would be one job? Of course! It could mean carriers from which to launch Overlord! :surprise:

Thanks for the screen shot. To be honest I don't like the trees but I've never seen a flight sim that does realistic-looking trees. In any case that's the least of my worries. As with CoD I wonder if it would be better if forests were rendered as single, or a collection of, larger blocks with a collision model or perhaps even built into the terrain mesh.

Presactly :)

Same here (well it would of course). For pedals without toe brakes consider using the joystick rudder twist as a brake if you have it. I also do this for hand braking as in the MiG-15 and no doubt the SpitIX when it comes out. For left twist braking set Axis Tune as: Slider and User Curve Deadzone 0 Saturation X & Y 100% Curvature 100% L-R Values 100 48 22 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 It's not perfect and the last stage of the twist drops the brake back to zero but you probably won't go to max brakes anyway. Steer with rudder until nose-wheel steering below 60 knots. btw, hand brake systems will have assisted rudder steering through distribution of hydraulic pressure but not of course on the F-5.

Well, see, "two weeks" is sort of elastic. It is traditional that "two weeks" is this long "........" but sometimes this long "......................." and can even be this long "..................................................." It's just that we know it isn't.... but it could be... but we know it probably won't be.... but it might be...... I'm hope I cleared that up. I blame <cough> Oleg <cough> for "two weeks", whoever he is.

... and I quote... "I think they pulled the trigger on the new section a little early, but I would love to be wrong __________________" I'll turn the pacemaker down now :megalol:

I know I can be a bit thick but can you point me to this new Spitfire Forum? All I can see is the one this discussion is in.

Ermmm, you mean this forum? The one we are in that started on 10-10-2013? Steady girls. "Two weeks, be sure".

Yes redterror, sorry I didn't notice this was an old thread revived. That link is the current situation (Skatezilla's post page 3).

Sorry if this is buried in a thread somewhere but is anything being done to improve the Merlin failure characteristic as in... BANG! Will there be progressive retardation/warning effects of the Merlin being overheated and perhaps even a final grinding to a halt or failure instead of the sudden and unrealistic Bang effect out of no-where? Merlins were often run hot and sometimes suffered some performance degradation. But BANG!? I don't think so.

My concern over railway lines and their damage modelling would be a potential performance hit due to the extensive rendering of the lines and the damage. If trains can be modelled as vehicles and made to follow the path of existing 'painted' rail lines across the map that might be a good compromise. Specific sections of rail such as those near towns/depots etc. could be modelled.