airdoc

It's very nice to have the Lorentz system implemented in the server. Since there are no missions available for training with the AFN2 gauge, do you think that you could create a tutorial of some sort David?? Not only about the needle function, but also how to tune to the frequencies, etc (talking about the whole procedure) IIRC, from the IL2 days, the localiser needle in the AFN2 (vertical one) works the opposite way from the allied ILS system (i.e. if the needle is deviated to the left, you have to fly to the right), is this correct? It would be great if someone created a training mission for this as well. Good work on the server guys cheers EDIT : after re-reading your post i 'm a bit confused about the needles. Are you saying that the vertical needle works like a radio-compass, pointing you to the heading for the selected marker, or does it work like the ILS localiser, telling you if you are on the left-or-right of the extended runway path?

I 'd like to see EDGE introduce wake turbulence effects. This would add greatly to the immersion, especially in WW2 aircraft. I recall Yo-Yo mentioning something about this a year ago. Does anyone have any news on this?

Hi with the upcoming multi-cockpit feature, i think that it would be nice if we could implement the ability to join as spectator inside the cockpit (even in single-seat fighters). It would be even better if the first pilot had the option of transferring aircraft control for a given period to the spectator and seizing back control when he chose. An option of allowing / banning such spectators set by the server or by individual pilots would also have to be included. I think that this feature would be very helpful for training purposes : both for experienced players and especially for newcomers who have to face a steep learning curve ((i.e. experienced players can demonstrate gunnery, CEM, take-offs and landings, aerobatic maneuvers or formation flying techniques from inside the cockpit and switch positions in real-time). I 'm not aware of any other sim implementing this, so it could potentially be an attractive option for people who want to get online training with seasoned pilots in order to get familiarised with the sim quickly. cheers

Mostly agree with you David. In online battles I 've been, good Dora pilots use rolling scissors very effectively, taking the Dora's roll rate into advantage, while keeping the energy up. That's the best defensive-offensive maneuver I 've witnessed. I don't think that any kind of snap-roll would be an effective maneuver in a dogfight, unless perhaps under very specific circumstances and a heck of a good pilot. Too much energy loss.

This is the longest video with gun camera footage I 've been able to find. It contains clips from 8th fighter command operations in 1943 and 1944, so it's mostly .50 cal damage effects (and not 20 mm), which they appear to be quite destructive. It' 3hours 30 mins long. It seems that explosions are pretty common, and wings coming off are rather uncommon. Most of the air-to-air shots are at short distances (<200m).

Hi I 've set DCS to metric system. After designing a simple mission and setting the AI P51 to fly at 300 km/h, i noticed that it was flying at 300 mph. Unless i 'm mistaken, this is a possible bug. thanks EDIT : after replaying the mission several time, it all seems to display speed correctly. Maybe it was some kind of confllict?

the gunner was probably waiting for the FW to close in at <400m before he started firing and got killed in the first spraying round before he had a chance. (looks like the fw pilot started shooting at about 400m and used the rudder to disperse his shots)

Actually, as counter-intuitive as it sounds, the Lancaster could also perform a slow roll, since you 're pointing out the difference with the barrel roll. Check this pilot's account from 3:10 onwards : (I think that the pilot in the video is referring to Henshaw again, who has done various rolls and other prohibited maneuvers in a Lanc) I think that you are missing my point though. All I 'm saying is that comparing maneuvers performed in a SIM to RL maneuvers that have never been performed due to the high risk should not be used as an argument that the sim FM is wrong.

That's a very interesting video iFR, thanks. Regarding the topic, i think that there are probably many maneuvers that someone can pull in an aircraft in a SIM that seem counter-intuitive, because IRL nobody would attempt them due to the high risk of crashing. No sane mustang pilot (or any warbird pilot) would ever try to perform a loop right after take-off and certainly no He-111 pilot would try a barrel roll at any altitude. The fact that these maneuvers haven't been performed IRL can't be taken as proof that the FM is incorrect. If a 4-engine beast such as a Lancaster can perform a barrel roll in the hands of a seasoned test pilot IRL (Alex Henshaw is the only pilot known to have successfully performed a barrel roll in a Lanc), then i 'd think that most other aircraft would be able to perform this in a SIM (and after a few dozen test crashes). http://www.bcar.org.uk/avro-lancaster

It would be nice for DCS to offer the ability to calibrate far dot size for each user, but this could lead to various issues, the most important one being "unfair advantage" (i.e. cheating). Most likely, the majority of players would end up adjusting the calibration so that it would yield the max dot size. Even the ones who are rather "honest" during this process, would surely change their minds quickly if they join multiplayer sessions and get bounced all the time by enemies they never saw coming (who had implemented max dot size during calibration). The only way around this that I could think of, would be for the software to auto-detect the user's monitor size and adjust the far-dot size accordingly; but i 'm not sure if this can always be reliably implemented and not be subject to various cheating methods. Also, the problem lies not only in far-distance LODs, but in short and medium distances as well. It is frustratingly hard to spot an aircraft at 2-4kms, where the LOD isn't a dot.

that cleared it up thanks EDIT : it may be a good idea if you included the info about kneeboard types in the first post of this thread. Users may find it easier to understand what they are doing with your application.

Hi Grizzly, I tried to use your application but ran into some issues : - at first I started importing specific pages from the pdf manual and created a kneeboard for the P51. However, since many of these pdf pages needed some process, i started manipulating their saved png counterparts with MS paint, only to find out that the saved changes were lost if i switched between kneeboards. I tried to import manually .png files but the application wouldn't accept them, it seems that it imports only pdfs. A complete custom kneeboard would usually have more than one sources of input, i.e. besides pages of the pdf manual, some users would like to create copies of keyboard binds, procedures, etc, which would be made by using printscreen and save as image. Do you think you could modify the software in order to accept manual import of jpegs, pngs, etc directly into an existing custom kneeboard and merging them? - How does the custom kneeboard images work in conjuction with the built-in ones for a mission? Are all images available or some only, and at what order of appearance? If a user creates a custom kneeboard, would this be unavailable if he were to fly a mission in multiplayer?? (replaced by the mission designer's one?). sorry if these questions have already been answered in previous parts of the thread, no time to go through all posts great mod thanks a lot for putting this together

+1

use CTRL+F11, unhook the camera, move to the carrier, and try to find the desired altitude for you to place the camera. Then hit LAlt+K to lock the camera altitude and try to set the camera speed and velocity vector so that it matches the carriers. Padlock the dora from that position and you should be good to go

that's a very interesting find David. It sounds as if you discovered a possible bug in LODs. Maybe it explains why you observed that contacts above you were invisible at greater distances, but we would have to see ED's answer to this. I wonder though if these LODs are all the same for different skins of the aircraft; i.e. a silver mustang would appear as green from 500meters, or as a green dot from 4000m. This could explain why spotting a mustang against the ground is so difficult in the crimean map. The skin of the LOD is almost the same color as the terrain. Have you checked the LODs for the Dora? If this is so, then simply by darkening (or manipulating) the LOD colors could have a significant impact on improving visibility by increasing contrast with the background. excellent find! EDIT : could it also be possible that a modder would increase far dot size simply by making the box bigger?

are these missions in the same folder as the furball mission? Because i haven't seen any new one with the update

you may find this interesting regarding lift distribution (the site has the equations, integrals, etc, so if you 're looking for a crude calculation of the forces after partial wing loss and are patient enough you could try it out ) : this one depicts the calculation of the total wing load distribution (after taking into account lift, wing weight and fuel weight) http://www.mathworks.com/products/symbolic/code-examples.html?file=/products/demos/symbolictlbx/Wing_load_model/analytical-model-of-aircraft-wing-loads.html

The TU-154 is a very large aircraft compared to a small WW2 fighter, and also much more complex. The type of damage that you are referring to (6.5 meters wing rip-off) would usually be considered as catastrophic in such big aircrafts. I don't ever recall having read about an incident where a big airliner lost a significant part of the wing and managed to keep flying, let alone land safely. On the contrary, there are numerous stories of WW2 fighters having unbelievable sorts of wing damage and making it back. I 've also seen a photo of a P47 that had a prop strike at the terrain during a low-level strafing run that managed to keep flying with the prop bent(!!) and landed back (sorry don't have the link with the photo handy) I think that the fact that airliners become unmaneuverable with such kinds of damage is a result of many factors. Part of the wing getting ripped off would result in hydraulic pressure loss most of the times, which would render the aircraft *completely* inoperable. This is not usually a problem in ww2 fighters. From an aerodynamics standpoint, i think that a fighter operates on much higher "safety factor" than a big airplane, meaning that it is able lose part of its lift-producing surfaces and still retain the ability to generate enough lift for it to fly (at a speed that is reasonable for landing); also the control surfaces are much more powerful, so that the aircraft can still operate with half of them missing. In a big airliner, even a rudder hardover can be fatal (many related incidents in the past). And then there is the sluggish responsiveness of a big airplane that makes things even harder in case of structural damage : consider the roll rate of a fighter versus that of a big airliner (i.e 90 deg/s vs 10deg/s). A fighter aircraft would respond quickly and robustly in case of a sudden bank due to asymmetrical wing lift, whereas a big aircraft would react very sluggishly. This roll rate difference is also a sign of the relative weakness of ailerons in fighters vs big aircrafts. So, in a scenario where a part of a wing is suddenly ripped off along with the aileron, even with retained hydraulics, the aircraft would start a sudden bank, and the pilot would have to exert full opposite aileron to counteract; the roll response of the aircraft would now be about the half (due to the missing aileron) so at best the reaction would be a few degrees per second. In an ideal scenario the opposite aileron could maintain roll controllability within certain degrees of bank and the pilot would land the plane. But in most cases of larger aeroplanes that I 've read about, the aircraft starts a sudden bank, during which it pitches down quickly picking up speed, despite the pilots full opposite aileron; within a few seconds the aircraft is nosing down at a steep pitch and bank angle and at overspeed with various pieces of the structure getting ripped apart. In general i think that we shouldn't compare the controlability of a big airliner with a small aircraft in case of structural failure. The small and simpler the aircraft build is, the more likely is it to endure such a failure. EDIT : found the P47 photo : http://www.vintagewings.ca/Portals/0/Vintage_Stories/NewStories-C/Lower%20than%20a%20snake/Lowdown24.jpg

Press RCtrl+Enter. EDIT : sniped by Lizzard As Yo-Yo said, never look at the ball while rolling. As a matter of fact, I don't look at any other instrument, only quick glances at the speedometer. If I look for more than a second, it usually ends in a disaster. What helped me the most, was to set my rudder curve so that the quick pushes i used were not too much (current curve is 19 ) . I usually start the take-off roll zoomed out, so that i can see both sides of the runway with my peripheral vision, and focus straight ahead. Macademic's video shows the "rudder pedal dance" on take-off beautifully.

No criticism intended mate. There is a takeoff video posted by Macademic, with control input visualised. You can check it out for some tips on the Dora. See post #169 on this thread. cheers

If you practice enough, you 'll find that both the Dora and the P51 in DCS can take off with minimal input. Minimal = occasional abrupt rudder input to keep the plane on the runway. You just have to set up your controls properly and go over the procedure the correct way. Mistakes cost, as they did in RL. At first, we all experienced frustration on taking off with these birds. You 'll get so much better with experience, so practice, practice and practice :) There is no comparison between DCS modules and *any* other sim product in the physics simulation part. DCS will provide you with an experience as close to reality as it gets.

Lol, i deleted my previous post because i though you meant it the other way around :) glad that it helped anyway. Yes, VEAO will be releasing a whole bunch of aircraft starting with the P40F on December 2014, and moving on to more than a dozen warbirds in the future. Check their part of the forum for some eyecandy, and especially the 1st page of their roadmap for planned modules : http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=127100 cheers

I 'm using red LED lights for the cap, not IR ones and have not messed with the PSeye at all. If the room is not very lit, the camera can tell the LEDs from the background pretty nice.

i have been using freetrack for some time, and after this i switched to facetracknoir. It is better, more user friendly and less buggy. thanks for this post

Thanks for the videos Charly. I enjoyed them. I find the 500 and 600 meters convergence distance for the Dora ridiculously long. Maybe this was set standard in reality in order to attack B17s or B24s which were big non maneuvering targets, but for dogfights, I find that anything over 300 meters to be at a "spray and pray" range. Most of my shots are at 200 meters distance or less (and even then i miss very frequently :)). I hope that we see an option for setting convergence in the future in DCS