Davee

If you have 1.5.6 it might be a good idea to keep it until the complete merger. I say this because when upgrading 2.xx, it usually transfers files from the 1.5.x beta into 2.x and thereby makes the upgrade faster as it doesn't have to download those files over the internet.

After this latest update, user skins for M2000 (Canada) are showing default original French skins in various places (combining both skins). No issues previously in v1.5x or v2.xx Tested on different user skins. This shows if Canada skins are loaded via JSGME or via the new process of placing under Saved Games in new Liveries folder. The results are exactly the same. Cheers Merged Skins.jpg

Whoa! A steam download!

:) I think we will probably have two installs because I suspect that there will be a 2.5x beta version in order to test new items as well as the 2.5x stable version.

In support of your previous posing on this, it is a matter of optical physics. We do not look at the glass, as it would be drawn dirty in a 2D world - but in reality we look through it and the dirt is not in focus. Looking at the dirt the way it is now drawn would be the same as sitting in the cockpit and focusing on the glass - everything else (the world) is out of focus. Can't fly that way. We are not looking at a static model airplane, but rather a simulation - you can't see dirty glass looking through it. Also, do you really want pilots chasing a dirty spec on the glass thinking it is a bandit? A mistake many times done by graphic artists is to assume reality is like painting a scene and sometimes forget the reality of what we actually "see" until reminded. Interpretation of reality is in the eye of the beholder. :) Do you see the floaters in your eye all the time? Most of us have them and some a lot.

I would like to know definitively if there are any changes or is this just an assumption or placebo effect?

Need more info on how you tried to start the engine.

Isn't that the name of the "Michelin Man"?

Interesting - my understanding is that the DG will go off settings when maneuvering hard and it requires checking the compass to reset the DG. It is possible that the DG is not working correctly at this time?

No prob - always good information on how others accomplish landings. My approach is essentially the same as yours.

What are your trim settings?

e-book Wing Leader Johnnie Johnson Can anyone provide a link to where I might find an ebook of "Wing Leader"? Thanks

:megalol::megalol::megalol: :thumbup:

So why is landing the Spitfire so "realistic" than you end up in the grass upside down. By your definition, there should be no problems with engine management, torque, slip, etc. etc. etc. (which are calculated in DCS aircraft), and we can all zip around the sky with unlimited fetters and shoot laser guns. Ah, but according to you, guns are different! No they are not.

Yes way. When I was doing my research for armaments for Team Fusion, I studied the P51. First, we both agree that the pattern was a dispersed pattern rather than a point pattern. And I also agree that evaluation resulted in the decision for a dispersed pattern. One of those reasons was pilot efficiency in the early stages of volume recruitment. I'll have to go through my notes but what I recall in one article was that one of the reasons for the dispersed pattern was to increase the probability of hits with respect to the type of energy fighting the P51 would likely be engaged in, and another observation was that . . . . . with the increased volume of pilots being quickly trained and thrust into service for the European and Pacific theatres, the dispersed pattern set for 1,000 ft was more effective for them as they would not have sufficient initial combat experience to be as effective with a point pattern. Not the main reason, but one of them. Here are some bits from my notes: The normal vibration of the guns as they fired would also spread the shots; an intended point convergence was at best a somewhat larger grouping of shots within a circle. At a distance of 1,000 ft (300 m), the tightest practical grouping of shots would range throughout a circle about 4 ft (1.2 m) wide. Various distances that were employed in World War II by American fighters using .50 inch (12.7 mm) heavy machine gun rounds include 500 ft (150 m), 750 ft (230 m), 900 ft (270 m) and 1,000 ft (300 m), with the longer distances favoured later in the war. Some American air units also converged their guns in a rectangle. USAAF Major James White described how the Mustangs of his 487th Fighter Squadron were harmonised to fire their six guns into a wide rectangle 10 by 6 ft (3.0 by 1.8 m) at 450 ft (140 m).[15] The outer guns of the Mustang were 15.846 ft (4.830 m) apart, so this ten-foot box narrowed in width as the firing distance increased. Some pilots preferred more than one point of convergence. In 1944 operating out of England, American Lieutenant Urban "Ben" Drew set the .50 in guns of his North American P-51 Mustang "Detroit Miss" to converge at three points: 600 ft (180 m), 750 ft (230 m) and 900 ft (270 m), with the inboard guns aimed closer and the outboard guns farther away. Drew felt that this gave him a suitable concentration of fire over a deeper envelope of engagement distance. Cheers

Hmmmmm, all Spitfire pilots were not English. What constitutes an RAF accent? There were pilots from: England (in all the quaint dialects), Ireland, Scotland, Wales, Canada, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Poland and more. Sorry, can't have just an English accent for a Spit Pilot.

Mustang was 1,000 ft. with a large pattern to aid inexperienced pilots.

You've probably already viewed this site but if not Anthony Williams has collected considerable information on WWII aircraft arms. http://www.quarryhs.co.uk/BoB.htm

A sort of profiling. :)

Hi Yo-Yo, I've completed my evaluation of using TO assistant and note that there still is an issue in my mind. I say this because watching the rudder pedals during roll-out, I notice fine adjustments and at the same time I see no swing at all in the nose/tail. The aircraft is tracking true and I think it is unnatural to assume that the rudder dancing is influencing it that much. My take on this is that the AI of the TO assistant is making calculations based upon other calculations that I can't feel or see. With no TO assist, I can track straight and true in the same manner as with TO on - however, there may be some force being applied that I cannot detect as I am at a computer and not feeling what is happening in a real cockpit. I submit, that even though the calculations may be correct according to the "book", the translation into what is being experienced behind a computer screen is not. I think that there needs to be some tweaking to transmit what is happening to the aircraft in order to provide some time for the virtual pilot to detect it and then to react. Not enough response time between being aware (if at all), to the tail is breaking out. For me, I'm putting the Spit to bed for a while and wait and see what is being changed down the road. Cheers, Cats . . . .

Thanks Yo-Yo, :thumbup: I'll review Matt's video more closely and experiment with TO assist viewing from behind to see what is happening. It's nice to know that even he had issues at first. It gives one hope. :) Cats . . .

Hi Yo-Yo, Question: Are you suggesting some rudder or aileron input similar to takeoff, at wheels down? I'll further evaluate replays to try and determine what you mean because I am certainly in the 146%. I'm aware that any bounce (even minimal), drift or wobble, will certainly induce the need for rudder/brake application. At present, I will touch the rudder if I start to detect a drift, for example. In the case I am presenting, it seems that the dip happens prior to any rudder/aileron/brake input when the aircraft is tracking straight and true after touchdown (after settling down). (Wind direction nul) The dip happens within 10 seconds or so with everything appearing normal and the aircraft slowing down. With the variety of sensitivities of equipment that simmers have and the difficulty of translating real world flying parameters into the SIM that developers have, I can readily understand that in a pre-release, there will be adjustments required to further improve the input and aircraft reaction modelling. My position therefore, is that the sim dynamics that induce the dip may be over-sensitive in the SIM and further accelerate unwanted results. IMHO, further evaluation should be - and probably is being, undertaken. I really enjoy this aircraft and the challenge it presents and can only draw on my experiences flying Sims since 1985 and being on several beta teams - these of course are not substitutes for a real world flying experience (I have some) - but it makes me aware of certain things in the mathematics of the modelling cycle that may impact what I am describing. Thanks for your recommendation, I'll continue to try and determine if it's the pilot or other. :) Cheers, Cats . . .

Hi Buzzles, It's not an issue of wing dipping when taxiing. It's a wing dip after touchdown and trundling along straight and level with no input to create a dip. After about 5-10 seconds there is a sudden dip - usually the right side and it digs in. Repeatable. Cheers,

Pitch: fine Throttle: boost +4 Elevator: trim level Rudder: trim full right Aeleron: slight right Make sure tracking straight on runway before braking and getting ready to take off. Increase boost slowly to +4 - the aircraft will track straight and watch for right wing lift - the stick a bit right should take care of this - hold it steady and it will lift off by itself. Very smooth and repeatable. Cheers

Original post was about wing dip - not the tail wheel. When running straight and smooth after a good touchdown, one side or the other of the wing will dip and then strike the ground with little or no input from rudder or aeleron. If the real Spit was this problematic, WWII pics would show dozens of Spits spun out all over the grass fields and tufts of grass stuck to the wingtips for the Erks to remove. :)