klem

Are you running 1 screen or 3 screen? The latter avoids dide stretching etc but does give a strange perspective unless like me you are about 70cms from the middle screen and zoomed in to life-size view of the cockpit. Of course that means your instruments will be out of sight (I have a fourth monitor below for that).

Thank you WAGS for that information. The release of 2.5 will greatly simplify our choices and may improve Squad cohesion which has been splintered until now due to refusals to run two versions and frustration over WWII progress. We are primarily a WWII group which falls precisely into your picture of similar players being drawn in by DCS WWII but with a limited interest, or none at all, in more modern aircraft which perhaps for us are more accurately described as 'specimen' aircraft which hold little air combat interest for the larger WWII-type air combats. It is encouraging to learn of the independent development team for WWII, however there are long outstanding questions and complaints about aircraft imbalance and the handling characteristics of some aircraft, for example the seemingly over-difficult ground handling of the Spitfire and the very easy ground handling of the notorious Bf109. What your post does not do, and what previous responses to long standing questions on these matters did not do, is tell us factual progress on these matters. All questions have been rebuffed and sometimes quite rudely. It seems to me the WWII aircraft have also been viewed by DCS as 'specimen' aircraft with no true contemporary context for mid-1944 and cannot produce a meaningful 1944 combat scenario. At risk of some rule violation, you should know that this has forced us to vacate DCS for 'another place' where balance is more realistic and better supported on line. We all appreciate the generally high quality level of DCS but winning us back will depend very much on what ED do next and how quickly. What we really would like is a detailed factual statement on WWII aircraft fixes, attempts to produce a 1944 balance (not an exaggerated end of year balance) and indicative timescales. I imagine there are indications scattered throughout these forums but I don't see why we should have to jump around searching multiple threads for the answers when regular all-encompassing statements from ED would help. I am a big fan of the quality of DCS's flight simulations (I do also have most jets) even the few with currently very annoying features but I am having to fly it simply as a very good flight simulator for most aircraft, not a combat simulator. Unfortunately it holds little interest for my friends as things stand. Footnote: one of the moderators told me my arguments are understandable but my delivery is terrible. Well, no offence intended, I'm just used to having straight conversations.

The stick length and brakes issues are not the problem. There are control curves and if you have a twist stick (like X-52) that is not being used for Rudder then get joystickcurves and set the left twist to be your wheel brake. It is remarkably effective and feels right because it is a 'hand' brake and you can set a curve. I haven't found a problem with the in-flight FM, not that I've flown a Spitfire! For me the problem is the ground handling where it is too ready to ground loop on taxying and on the landing rollout. Also, the touchdown which feels as though the oleos have been welded up. No matter how carefully I land, it will eventually ground loop unless I am fighting it to a ridiculous degree. Unless I pull off a rolling greaser it will bound back into the air even with a very low vertical landing speed. It has all the hallmarks of the notorious 109 handling and then some. I've watched many Spits landing in RL and of course many videos, the pilots don't have to fight the groundloop threat as much as we do and the end rollout does not seem to lurch into a ground loop, in fact the rudder inputs we see on videos at that stage are often minimal. After watching the Hurricane crash at Shoreham in 2007 two or three of the Spits in that BoB display seemed to land a bit shaken. Two or three made poor touchdowns right in front of me and their straight drops onto the runway of up to a foot or more (at least the tyre diameter) did not result in the a/c bounding nose high back into the air, they merely bounced just three or four times, the bounces reducing as you'd expect. In DCS I would be up and over on my back. As in an earlier post I also played with a couple of the gear factors reachable in the FMOptions file for the Spitfire. First attempts are with mainGearSpringForceFactor = 6.2 * 1000000 at = 5.5 * 1000000 to soften the touchdown and tailGearYawDamperK = 36.0 at = 50 to increase the tail wheel yaw damping. May not be the best way to go about it but.... I'm not there yet but there's some improvement. I know that will be scorned by some but I feel sure there is a problem in this area. Unfortunately ED seem convinced it is correct or if they are working on that specific aspect (the main complaint about the Spit) they are not saying so but the ground looping is just ridiculous. Anyway, that's my 2p.

Errmmmm yes, wear shoes. Did your mother never tell you about athletes foot? You know it's -30 C at altitude? I may sometimes fly in my underpants but never in socks!

Ditto

Hi Stonehouse. Yes I found the same. Unfortunately I have stepped away from DCS. Although I was very close to completing my campaign my entire squad, over a dozen of them, became fed up waiting for real progress on the Normandy map, Spitfire, visibility and the unbalanced planeset. Together these make WWII multiplayer unplayable to any enjoyable degree. I held on as long as possible trying to get real news but met with blind refusal and in the end I gave up and have joined them in another sim. We still play DCS Korea in 1.5/Caucuses one night a month but that's all. I think that's a sop to me as I tried so hard to keep interest in DCS. Hopefully one day Normandy will be more playable, visibility will improve and we will get contemporary 1944/45 aircraft to the two 'ultimate' Bf109 and FW190 currently in DCS. In fact my friends say they will only come back to DCS when that has been done and to be honest we are enjoying the other game very much at the moment. I still fly some DCS a/c offline as a pure flight sim because the cockpits and FMs are superior to other sims. Anyway, good luck with your campaign.

I'm sorry BIGNEWY, I know how difficult software and model development can be but that only tells me there is no project plan, no milestones, etc.. "will get worked on" says they are not being worked on now, at least not seriously, as does "Giving timescales is not going to happen". The community is capable if understanding problems and an insight into what ED are doing is better than obstinate silence. Either way you are going to get flak and have to manage it. Better to keep your customers informed than risk losing them. " getting these new features \ assets and content out". It is not new assets that frustrate us, it is the current assets that are not working properly that do. "Taking a break" means clearing disc space or buying yet another drive for some other product while two unused installations just sit there. It isn't going to happen. I have spent enough already. I won't uninstall them because they do have something to offer in quiet moments but not as a WWII online combat sim which is why I bought into DCS WWII. I do not understand why ED cannot tell us where they are on the Normandy map. As professionals they must have some idea of work and time. I assume they are not just working blindly looking for light at the end of the tunnel (if any). Similarly but separately the Spitfire and then the AI issue. You are the Community Manager. Do you speak for ED? Do ED even know what we are thinking?

ED - you are losing us OK, I will try again and try to avoid rule 1.15 because this is important and deleting a post of this nature only offends a member who is trying to make a point and even warn ED of a problem. I hope ED will not use 1.15 or any other rule to silence a genuine concern. If you don't like what I say please at least leave a post to say why and close the thread and at least we will know where we stand. My friends and I, like many other simmers, came to ED when you introduced WWII aircraft because of your reputation for high fidelity FMs and your new Edge graphics. Some of us have been with you much longer that that and have bought many models. Generally we were happy with the aircraft and looked forward very much to the Normandy map and the Spitfire in particular but there is now a huge problem for us. We come from many years of, and a variety of, WWII air combat sims. I am sure you will know what those were and are. They set the, now old, standards. Our huge problem with DCS is the state of the current WWII objects, particularly the Normandy map performance hit, the Spitfire LFMkIX handling problems and AI that continue to fly and fight for ten minutes or more when severely damaged to a point where an intelligent pilot would retire or bail out. Damage modelling is very average but we understand the immense amount of work to change that and we can live with it as it is. For those other problems we have been waiting a very long time for some promised updates that 'are being worked on' but with no end in sight and no meaningful word of progress. Meanwhile ED are putting major efforts into other new aircraft like the F/A-18C whilst the products we have paid for, even as early access, stagnate. Our frustration has been growing for months. I'm sure there are many long standing 'cold war' and generation 4/5 players who couldn't care less about older aircraft but the WWII community had high hopes of ED. Such is their disappointment, some frustrated people are even suggesting that ED has lost interest in the WWII era and aircraft. Last night I joined my friends online intending to find a MP WWII server or fly one of our Normandy missions with them. To my regret I found that all of them have now, out of frustration, bought another sim and they are not keen to fly in DCS as it stands.The reason I have not done the same is I just don't have the disk space, a problem that can only be resolved if I delete one of the, still, two DCS versions. Also I have invested in a dozen or so DCS models and I have worked hard on missions and campaigns only to see friends now disappearing over the horizon, at least for now. I can only hope they do not find other products too interesting. I know they would return if the problems were resolved before they become too entrenched somewhere else. However after years of MP with my friends I am not going to play on line without them, they are real life friends not just virtual acquaintances. I have to think hard now about going elsewhere. These are genuine concerns. You really do risk losing many of us. I know of at least one other good-size group of players that feels exactly the same. We have lost patience with the 'being worked on' argument. ED need to give us some kind of official timescale and an outline of what we can expect regarding these problems and deliver what is outstanding. Please will you do that?

Escort P-51D switches from Escort to Fighter Sweep Hi MBot, I have a problem assigning P-51Ds as Escorts because the generator adds in 'search and engage' waypoint tasks and when I look at it in the ME it changes them from Escort to Fighter Sweep. It may not matter and I'll probably be able to find out why but I thought you may know the answer off the top of your head. ??

Hi Stonehouse Still building the campaign - nearly there :) My first pack of B-17s had an air start but the following pack took off ok from Chailey. I don;t control air/ground start. I edited in the B-17 in the ATO_Generator.lua because it assigns several bomber types (cold war) as single aircraft to a sortie. The default would be pairs but I wanted to assign them in threes so I made that entry. It should work ok without it but the sorties would be pairs.

OK a small nitpick ;) The Packard Merlin had a few superficial differences like some of the block castings were more robust where they were bolted together (see attached Merlin 70 vs 266) but the general appearance was virtually identical. Sorry to use a Merlin 70 instead of a 66, that's all they had out of the aircraft at Biggin Hill when I was there. No real visual difference between a 70 and a 66 for these purposes. Wikipedia may not always be 100% reliable but you may find these interesting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_Merlin see the 266 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarine_Spitfire_(late_Merlin-powered_variants)#Mk_XVI_.28type_361.29 see the Mk XVI. The slightly higher intercooler is mentioned which happens to sit in the area of the engine in my photo of how the castings were bolted together.

Yes, Packard MERLIN, known as Merlin 266.

<cough> and that mirror view.... !! <cough>

ah, ok

I don't know what 'the VP airfield equipment mod' is. I did place a grass airfield in a test mission. There is nothing to see and I don't think it is flattened for takeoff and landing, at least I found it difficult but achievable. I had to mark it with airshow cones to know where the 'runway' was supposed to be. I am hoping the grass field will become useable soon so that we can add a few more fields to Normandy's S. England (I accept and appreciate that in S. England ED have already given us more than they planned for Normandy).

Since when? And how far implemented? I haven't tried recently but it never worked before.

"even if it takes until Christmas to get anywhere" lol, it might. Just to say again that this is really all MBot's good work, I have only tinkered and the 'guide' is very unofficial.

I am currently creating a WWII campaign and there are a number of gotchas. I have been digging into MBot's brilliant code and what I have done to it, mostly in the basic sorties generator, may well make him tear his hair out so I offer him a huge apology for my vandalism! Here we go.... If you change the Map there are airfields to change. For most targets you need to obtain target element (hangars, buildings etc) co-ordinates using the tools MBot provided. The B-17 had to be 'written in' as some aircraft types are hard coded into the script. In time I'll probably make these a lua file that can be read in and can therefore be added to by the campaign builder. MP is only for up to 4 players but I have changed that to 12 (I usually use 8. I have also ensured that those player numbers are always available, unlike AI Units whose availability is randomised and usually less than the full Unit number. No-one wants to turn up with their mates and find they haven't got enough aircraft to fly. I changed a couple of other things to better represent WWII. This included a look at the firepower of various aircraft and munitions to get a set of values that are more relevant to eachother. For Ground Attack units I have the firepower used when considering A-A engagements and added attackpower for when considering ground targets. Escorts are generated in pairs and rotate in 'time on duty'. This may be suitable for the small packet numbers seen in the cold war but does not really suit a WWII environment with larger formations. This could be changed but at the moment what is being generated in this way is as much and sometimes more than my PC can run! These things can be adjusted by your inputs. Again in time I may change that to an escort numbers variable, and put values for each aircraft type into the aircraft lua file. I had real problems understanding what was going on so I have peppered the main generator script with debug statements that can be turned on and off. These display the generator working through the various input parameters so that I could see where I was going wrong with my lua inputs and why some aircraft/units weren't being assigned tasks etc.. So it's pretty messy inside at the moment but it works. With my memory retention capabilities I had to write down what the various lua inputs do. I have ended up with a kind of guide manual. Much of it comes from MBot's inputs here and the rest is what I discovered. I am sure is not comprehensive yet and may contain a few errors but I'll attach it 'as is' in case it is of interest. I hesitate to attach my campaign as it is still not finished, the code has all those debug statements in it and it has a couple of bugs: sometimes the frame rate is appalling and I have a theory about that; occasionally it generates a player aircraft 'empty' which can't be occupied and I have yet to find out why. I suppose you could always change the base mission and have a go yourself. I doubt if you would have any problems understanding it from what I have seen in your other posts. Anyway, yes there are gotchas at this stage if you change the map, aircraft and potentially the era. Finally, another apology to MBot. I am working through this. It may yet end up as a pile of junk on the floor and it may not be of interest to anyone else but I thought I'd try to answer your question. MBot_DCG_Overview.doc

First let me say that my observations regarding ED's Normandy aircraft are the conclusions I am forced to and not meant to be in any way offensive. I believe things went wrong from the start. This is an old chestnut. ED seem to have chosen to create Axis aircraft that were the last design examples of their type. The K-4 and the D-9 may be 'specimen' examples of how far the Bf109 and FW190 stables had gone but they do not reflect air fighting in Normandy. The K-4 only became operational in August 1944 - the same month that the German forces were beaten and driven out of Normandy with the closure of the Falaise pocket and the routing of the German forces back to the Seine. The K-4 played no significant part in the 'Normandy' campaign. It appears to have been presented by ED as the last development in the Bf109 series even though it had little or nothing to do with Normandy. Similarly the D-9 entered service around August 1944 and as such would have had little involvement in Normandy for the same reasons. Again ED seem to have decided to present the last operational version of the FW, allowing that the Ta152 entered service later in January 1945. I think this is the key to understanding ED's choice of 109 and 190 models - they represent probably the last versions but there is a disconnect between these and operational service in 'Normandy'. Of course they may have been misled by the original proposer of 'WWII 1944' . Against this ED chose to produce probably the most popular mark of Spitfire built but put it against superior aircraft of a different era (however slim). Perhaps one problem is that ED have a history of designing Cold War aircraft where combats occurred in penny packet numbers (pairs, perhaps fours) and with greater emphasis on BVR/radar weapons engagements. There is great emphasis on accurate jet flight and missile modelling. What seems to have been overlooked by ED is the fact that WWII was entirely WVR fought with largely contemporary aircraft types and in considerable numbers. It was not the cross-generation of aircraft operating in small numbers that might be found during the Cold War period among the disparate users of those aircraft generations and which might therefore be acceptable to the DCS cold war players. Super-accurate modelling of individual, if unrelated, aircraft seems to be the holy grail making it more a flight simulator or a single-player simulator than a player combat simulator. I think this habit/oversight may have mistakenly led to the provision of non-contemporary Axis aircraft types for that short Normandy campaign and, as stated above, the Spitfire MkIX was a 1943 aircraft and even the MkXIV was introduced in early 1944 but we don't have it. Also the WWII scenario numbers may explain why online performance creates lag problems. The tragedy is that there is considerable discontent among many WWII players, especially online where these things matter so much more and which with its forums is the vehicle for attracting more customers (where else is DCS advertised?). My own flying group of many years experience are being torn apart by the unrealistic balance of aircraft we are given and the desire to find more attractive flying elsewhere. Keeping player attention is hard at the best of times especially with the competition in the WWII air combat market. Having an unrealistic aircraft balance is hard to chew on for long. It's almost impossible to create interesting historical missions with an unrealistic aircraft set. It would be good if ED would speak up and tell us what they are doing to redress the balance of WWII aircraft. Updating the SpitIX might help but I doubt it will overcome the difference of the K-4 and D-9. What might be a quicker and more relevant solution is to give us the 109G series. It may not require too much reworking of the K-4 and although it goes against ED's principles I'd accept a 'G' in a K-4' skin for now.

Just to tie off the OT, although it is certainly helpful for flying the Spitfire, you just need a plastic box, three pots/knobs (see spoiler), a notepad to carefully record where each wire goes, a few hand tools, soldering iron and a little courage : ) Hope that helps.

Hi Tekkx Actually it is an old X-45. The X-45 throttle sits to the left of my X-52 Throttle and I use the X-45 Throttle for RPM/Prop conrol. I took the X-45 joystick apart, mounted the parts into a black box, replacing the pitch, roll and rudder (rocker) pots with 10 turn pots for elevator, aileron and rudder trim. You can see it mounted to the front of the X-45 throttle in the attached photo. There are a couple more switches I could have brought out and may do in the future. You probably know that DCS allows several controllers.

Well, it seems I am stuffed anyway. Yes, at the checkout I could use my bonus points. However I already have it on my Player account, this is for my server, a different account where I have no bonus points because I never had to purchase anything because I never actually fly on the server. Even playable a/c don't need to be bought for the server in order to run a mission with them in it so I don't need to buy the modules twice. We need something like this for server/map operation. I can't buy Normandy on my 'Player' account and gift it to my 'Server' account because trading of modules is no longer allowed. So no matter what I do I will have to pay full price for the map just so that I can run Normandy missions on line for other people's benefit. It's about time ED produced a non-Player dedicated server with the maps embedded in it for free and no mission editor or Player options. We can load into it missions that are created from a purchased Player account full version. That way the customer has to buy a full version to make missions and play but can run a server they do not need to pay for, after all we're already providing a second P.C.. If they want an online community to grow and increase their customer base they need to give us the means to make it happen without financial penalty. I don't believe it can be technically difficult to strip DCS back to a server version which will run on a separate account anyway so there are no licensing risks. Leave multiplayer access, remove all other 'player/builder' options, remove the module installer and so on.

Well, the bonus amount is what you get if you buy it. Previous posts confirmed that our bonuses cannot be used to buy 'New' products. The confusion here is that in announcing the 60% bonus deal ED provided a link to Maps including Normandy. That seems to conflict with the above statement. Currently I can buy Normandy and WWII Assetts for $59.99. If the bonus deal does apply to Normandy I can get it for $44.99 - 60% = $18 plus WWII Assetts for $29.99 = $47.99. I am trying to save money for a second purchase of these for my server. So I'd just like someone at ED to confirm that this bonus deal really does apply to the Normandy map.

That doesn't answer the question

60% bonus schem I assume this: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/news/2017-08-11_60OffBonus/ does not apply to 'New' Normandy map even though the Maps link takes us to it?