airdoc

Dogfighting is a constant game of trying to maintain and exploit your advantages over the enemy's attempts to rob you of them. The keyword is constant. If you lose sight, then you are in trouble. "Lose sight, lose the fight". As suggested, practicing with labels on will help you a lot until you get better. If you are new to flight sims in general, then don't feel disheartened by all this. It takes a lot of time to be able to implement the theoretical knowledge of energy management and maneuvering into meaningful dogfight outcomes. What now seems frustrating to you, will become second nature and come effortlessly as you become better. You will inherently know which move to perform in most scenarios, when to engage, when to wait, and when to disengage. Practicing online and even joining a squadron will help you the most. Practice is the the key.

Coming from a dedicated bomber squadron, i would disagree with a lot of what you are saying. The mindset of the bomber pilot is completely different from that of a fighter pilot. It is true though, that you need a squadron to be able to fully enjoy it and practice formation flying and navigation. You find it boring because you are thinking in terms of a pure fighter pilot. Bomber pilots are primarily team players. For me, nothing beats the joy of flying in a sqadron of 9 heavies, planning the mission in advance, marking waypoints, setting rendezvous with fighter escorts, making the run, fulfilling the missinon goal, and rtbing. At DBS http://www.battle-fields.com/commscentre/showthread.php?24824-Selected-screenshots-from-various-Missions , we have been participating for years in many events in IL2 1946, and still flying in SEOW campaigns that are recreating historical scenarios. The immersion that a joint fighter-bomber effort yielded was unsurpassed. I can only dream about what it would be like to have SEOW-like campaigns in DCS with bombers. Most missions in reality were about bombing something. Fighters were there to make sure the bombers would hit their target. Simple as that. Any kind of bomber would be welcome. The heavier, the better. They would make for a vastly different multiplayer experience (for everyone). It is not the same thing to fly against AI bombers as it would be against human piloted ones. Although, as you said, the audience is niche, a B17 or a Lancaster would probably sell as much as the Dora (or even more). Same goes for the mossie. Just my opinion. EDIT : here are some shots from our exhibition flight with medium B25s a year ago. If you look at the screens, you will get a feel for what's in a Bomber Squadron event. It takes a serious amount of work in order to fly a large formation in a coordinated manner. http://www.battle-fields.com/commscentre/showthread.php?25578-19-01-14-Exhibition-flight-SCREENS

You can count on Battle-Fields.com hosting at least one dedicated server. UK-based

It doesn't look like the Wildcat cockpit. It wouldn't really make sense, to have them compete with another 3rd party. After going through the pictures again, i think that it is almost certainly an F4U cockpit. The distinct difference with the F6F-3 cockpit is the presence of a set of switches above the cockpit curvature and bigger on the left side. If you look at their facebook picture, left of the gunsight above the curvature, you can barely discern it, but the bigger switch is there.

+1 Development of WW2 aircraft should take much less work and time, so this should explain the comment by Cobra that the other 2 aircraft (besides the F14) are in more advanced stages of development. The A-G radar is a bit puzzling though.....but could they be developing it for the F-18 in collaboration for DCS??? (another wild speculation) Scenarios : 1. Hellcat/Corsair + Zeke and late war PTO map (Solomons, Leyte, Philippines) 2. Zeke + Jet and early PTO map (midway, coral sea). This could be combined with VEAO Wildcat due in late 2015 3. Hellcat/Corsair + P38 and late war PTO map (P38 would fit in nicely in Normandy)

The visibility issue has come up again and again. I think that ED should be well aware of it, and are probably doing their best to fix it behind the scenes. Regarding real-world data on spotting threshold , have a look at these charts : Specifically for the DC-3 this one : The link to the relevant thread with sources: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=1981393#post1981393

I was wondering when the 109 fans would kick in with that comment....:) That's why i inserted "allegedly" DB, I 've seen and read about this supposed turn radius of the A-26 and was also very skeptical about it.....

You 're right jcomm. Stutters are mainly related to tracers firing. This causes major fps drops offline and huge lag online. Wags has already posted about this and said that this issue will be actively addressed once EDGE is out (there is no meaning in trying to fix it now, with the new engine on the horizon). Don't have the link to the post handy unfortunately.

Agreed. From a historical standpoint i 'd choose the Marauder as a first option. The Invader would probably be a fascinating bird to fly next, since it was very fast and very maneuverable (allegedly it could turn inside a 109!)

http://forums.eagle.ru/forumdisplay.php?f=105 Scroll down and locate the relative thread pertinent to the update you want to see.

+1 I think that these should be the aircraft that they have on their roadmap. Hellcat or F4U, Zeke, Tomcat and P38. My guess is that they would probably go for the Hellcat initially, since the F4U would be more of a mismatch vs A6Ms. Given that we are looking at 3 aircraft in development, i think that they should be one modern jet and 2 ww2 birds. One of the 2 "small theaters" should probably be a late PTO map, such as Leyte Gulf or Philippines, and the period units mentioned should fall into that category (including carriers, AI SBDs, D3As and B5Ns). The P38 may be on their development plan, since it is a very popular aircraft that has not been mentioned by any developing party up to now, and may very well fit in the upcoming Normandy map. It would also make sense from a commercial standpoint. Easier to develop than a jet, large sales as the only twin engine DCS multirole WW2 aircraft. fingers crossed

i think that you should also include the A-26 Invader, since it was in the roadmap of the Kickstarter project as a medium bomber.

The Mossie is already on VEAO's roadmap. My guess is that it should be released in 2016. I haven't seen any post from ED or a 3rd party about other medium (or any kind of) bombers.

Regarding the kfz. 305/29 : 305 is the standard Opel Blitz truck that was widely used by Germans in WW2, with various modifications, according to the task. The /29 mark is designated as : "Aussteuerungskennzeichenkraftwagen" (translation means something like a marker-vehicle). You can may find helpful to model the basic Open Blitz 305 (antenna is missing) from these drawings : Basic shape is identical to the pictures provided by Sith and myself regarding the EZ marker trucks. Exact dimensions shouldn't be hard to find on this type of track.

These are some more pictures that may be of help (including a new antenna photo) : The above is a photo of the LFF Lorenz antenna system in Berlin airport before the war (early civilian version, likely modified in the future for use by the Luftwaffe, but you can see that the structure of the 3 rods is identical with AFFA-2). It is taken from the original paper submitted by Ernst Kramar, the creator of the system, in 1933. The paper is written in English and can be found in this link : http://www.nonstopsystems.com/radio/hellschreiber-modes-other-hell.htm scroll down toRef. 137: "A new field application for ultra-short waves", Ernst Kramar, Proc. of the IRE, Vol.21, Nr. 11, November 1933, pp. 1591-1531 (the page is secured, if link doesn't work you have to go there and download the pdf yourself) For the truck images, I found the following : This is a truck that carries the antenna equipment for the Lorenz system. The image is from Werner Thote, pp. 20-25 in "Radiobote", Jg. 2, Heft 9, May-June 2007 , which can be found on the same webpage as the previous link, at ref. 70. The quoted text on the image (google translation from german) says : "mobile ground equipment landing beacons were installed in three trucks for the three radios . They contained in addition to antenna systems and accessories recover the 0.5 kw driving sender EZS -2. The picture on the right shows the side to remove the antenna from the roof of the driving force transmitting truck Kfz. 305/29" original : "die mobile bodenanlagen der schweren Landefunkfeuertrupps waren in drei Lkw fur die drei funkfeuer eingebaut. Sie enthielten neben antennenanlagen und zubehor den 0,5 kw ansteuerungs-sender EZS-2. Das bild rechts zeigt die gleitbahn zum abnehmen der antenne vom dach des ansteuerungs sende kraftwagens kfz. 305/29." So, i think that it is likely that most Luftwaffe airfields used the 3-rod antenna and the AS-system inside a truck (as shown in the AFFA-2 picture in previous post), while the biggest ones, inside Germany may have had the time and resources to house the equipment inside a building (as shown for the Berlin airport). This is a hypothesis, perhaps a german speaking DCS member could read read the documents and make more robust conclusions about this issue. The inside of the Trucks carrying the EZ Markers (inner-outer beacon) should look something like this : This photo is taken from Luftwaffe manual 4451 (see previous post for link), where the EZS are described in detail. cheers

Chizh, i think that it is the same system as in the pictures of Team Daedalus, yes. The 3 vertical rods have the same structure in both pictures and represent the antenna (in TDs pictures the metal rods are fixed on wooden bars, maybe this is a later modification, but one can see that rod height from the ground and distance match in both pictures ). Maybe some airfields used this small house to put the AS unit inside, but i think most should have used a truck for versatility reasons.

I came upon a website that has uploaded original Luftwaffe documents (in German) and here's what I 've come up with : - The Lorenz blind landing system (UKW-LFF) is consisted of a Transmitting-Directional Unit (the AnflugFuhrungSender or AS) and 2 markers placed at 300m and 3000m from the runway end (the EinflugZeichenSenders or EZS, inner is HEZ and outer is VEZ). The Directional unit is made up of a Transmitter (inside a military truck) and an antenna : There are Various Powers for the Transmitters, as described in the Luftwaffe Manual No 4458, Dated June 1943, AS2, AS3 (120W) and AS4 (500W). The Antenna used is referred to in the manual as AFFA-2. I found the Schematics and a picture of this antenna in LuftWaffe manual no 4454 : The location of the Antenna relative to the truck carrying the Electronic aparratus can be found here in the next pages : Another elaborate schematic can be found in Luftwaffe manual 4455 : The AS4 (500W) transmitter's pattern is shown in Luftwaffe manual No 4456 (also has schematics) : I believe that this was the true shape of the Lorenz system, having an Antenna with 3 vertical rods and a truck 17 meters behind it bearing the electronic apparatus. The other pictures shown earlier in this thread, that are more complex, are probably radars or navigation aids for the nightfighters and not part of the Lorenz system. Since you are modelling the entire system, you may also find useful some photos and schematics of the EZ marker antennas with their trucks (Luftwaffe manual No 4451): And their force-field distribution : Links to Luftwaffe and Lorenz company manual (much more info on the operation and schematics of these systems inside): -All the manuals compiled : http://www.cdvandt.org/manuals.htm -4451 (Lorenz+markers) :http://www.cdvandt.org/D-Luft-T-4451-5-Watt-UKW-Einflugzeichensend.pdf -4458 (description of all components of the Lorenz system briefly) : http://www.cdvandt.org/D-Luft-T-4458-UKW-Landefunkfeuer-120Wund500W.pdf -4454 (AFFA-2 antenna + picture+schematics) : http://www.cdvandt.org/D-Luft-T-4454-Antenne-AFFA-2.pdf -4452 (AS2 transmitter + schematics) : http://www.cdvandt.org/D-Luft-T-4452-Ansteuer-Sender-AS-2.pdf -4455 : http://www.cdvandt.org/D-Luft-T-4455-BuG.pdf -4456 (AS4 schematics+ field characteristics) : http://www.cdvandt.org/D-Luft-T-4456-Anflugfuehrungssender%204.pdf -Original Document about this system by Lorenz Company (pretty much the same as the luftwaffe manuals, no photos of the antennas) : http://www.nonstopsystems.com/radio/pdf-hell/article-hell-Fu-Bl-1-Ex.pdf In the cdvandt.com page there also the original manuals for most of the FuG systems, with the AFN-1 and AFN-2 instruments as well : FuG16ZY : http://www.cdvandt.org/D-Luft-T-4069-FuG-16ZY.pdf i hope this helps

Hi Jaypee As far as I know, one has to use the keys to enable jiggle. Its function is tied to the camera float, so when you enable jiggle, you always get a float as well, that's why I recommended to set the float parameters to zero. As you noticed, jiggle parameters are prescripted (like the stock ones). I 've looked around for ways to introduced G or AoA - dependent jiggle, but wasn't able to find the functions in the lua file. EDIT : if you feel that stock jiggle is overdone, you may find this jiggle mod excessive as well. In that case, try reducing the ampx, ampy, ampz1, ampz2 parameters by 30-50% to see if the results match your expectations. cheers

This has appeared many times in various posts during this week. It also happened to a member of my squadron. I don't know what the reason is, it may have to do with some changes introduced in 1.2.14. You could try a repair or reinstall to see if it fixes the problem

Yes, if you see the reference I made in the other thread about fig. 17, buffet seems to start at about 5 degrees of elevator up deflection, and the pilot keeps it on the verge of stalling still at 10 degrees (out of a max of 20 degrees). I think that this is what the document refers to as "relatively far back after initial stall flow breakdown", which would be about 50-60% of full deflection.

thanks for the file. It's an interesting read. Fig 17 shows how small elevator deflection is required in order to get into an accelerated stall in the Spit. Buffet starts at about 5 degrees of elevator up deflection and the pilot never exceeds 10 degrees (out of a max of 20+ degs)

Nobody is arguing that the flying characteristics of the spitfire are not benign. Its exceptional handling abilities at the limits of the flight envelope are well documented. But this does not mean that the spit would not flip out of control easily if the pilot would pull the elevator suddenly all the way back. "Benign flying characteristics" in this case would refer to the aircraft giving a more pronounced buffet warning with a wider margin of flying on the limit than another aircraft that would give minimal or no warning; thus, trained pilots were more likely to keep the elevators on a position that would not exceed the critical AoA and enter a stall/spin. This position however, is certainly not all the way aft, as in CLOD, otherwise the aircraft would almost never fall into accelerated stalls. Don't get me wrong here, i like CLOD and what TF have done with it. It's just my view on the FM

I don't want to turn this discussion into another sim's weaknesses thread, so i 'll just say this : http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=115453 "You think that Mk IX will make you an absolute winner? I have bad news for those who consider P-51 too stick sensitive and thus prone to stall... As Spitfire has neutral stability there is only 3/4" of stick travel to stall as it was reported by NACA. Really silk hands or full scale joystick required... It will be no mercy, hardcore only - all will be as Mitchell designed." The way elevator authority and subsequent changes in AoA are modelled in CLOD, seem to me way too benign to be true. When I flew either 109 or spit, i could pull up sharply by applying full elevator deflection, and almost never got an accelerated stall, unless the aircraft was *very* uncoordinated at the beginning of the pull. Stall and spins did happen frequently, but this had to do with the simulation making it too easy to fly at the limits of the envelope. What Yo-Yo says about the Spit's characteristics is what any true sim should be modelling, and I 'm sure it will be like this when we get it in DCS.

Eventually there should be a permanent fix for this by ED, otherwise a significant proportion of the newly arrived ww2 community members will be very disappointed. Like you, i find the spotting issue the most unimmersive feature in online play, along with the lag when people fire (i 'm not referring to the absence of a proper map, because this is in the makings). I read a post that ED are already working on the "green box" glitch. Hopefully this will improve somewhat the current spotting problem, and will be combined with a reappraisal of the entire LODs modelling/scaling system.

In CLOD you can pull the stick all the way back abruptly in a Spit, and you may get a little buffet, that's about it. In reality, this move leads to an immediate spin, in almost all ww2 aircraft.