OnlyforDCS

I too have deleted 1.5. Hopefully for good.

Are you guys talking about take-off and landing difference between 1.5 and Nevada, or 1.5 and Normandy? Im having a lot of trouble landing in Normandy for some reason, even though I was pretty confident in 1.5. In my opinion it's very subjective, for someone used to landing on tarmac, landing on these dirt fields feels very different and dare I say it difficult. Though I will concede that take-off has become much easier. I think it's down to the ground surface and not something that is specific to the Spit. Because I've noticed the changes with the 109 as well.

Still doesn't change the fact that you are running below minimum specs. DCS World requires 8 GB of minimum ram. Even if you do manage to get it to run on less, support won't be able to help you unless you at least meet minimum requirements.

Thats another really great point arglmauf

Some random WWII AI vehicles, or even airplanes thrown into the mix, would probably add a lot to the fun of the mission. Especially during low population times. (I have no idea are there any WWII AI fighter aircraft in the WWII asset pack?)

Maybe it's not the Merlin? Maybe the cooling system on the Spit was really awful? Then again, the Mk IX was built for high altitude dogfighting. At those altitudes the cooling system was probably much more efficient.

Paradoxically the engine will blow at 600 RPM, sooner than at 1000 RPM. I never drop it below 1000 RPM and I've never had a 109 engine failure on the ground. (Or in the air for that matter). Then again Im used to the Spitifire engine, compared to the Merlin, the DB605 is built like a nuclear reactor. P.S. Airspeed is more important than ATA setting or RPM. If you set the governor on auto, you can forget about the RPM really.

Vlerkies can you post your in game settings screen? I suspect it's definitely a memory + VRAM issue.

Im running textures on HIGH, yet have a lower VRAM card. It's probably related to System RAM too in some way.

Yeah your users DCS World Alpha save game folder, rename it. The game will build another one as soon as you launch it. You can copy over your inputs from the renamed folder later, to save yourself the trouble of rebinding all of your keys. After that, enter the game and set your up your video settings.

The map is still alpha. Also, did you try renaming your SAVED games folder for DCS World Alpha, and letting the game create a new folder? You can copy your inputs over later, but this will allow the game to create shaders from scratch. People have had some success with that, and I will try it ASAP. With that said, this is a new engine and a new map. You can't expect the same level of performance as in 1.5 even if they optimise it further (which will surely be happening) without dropping some settings.

Imagine if they modeled the 25 Lbs boost that was added to late War Mk IX. Spits. People would be blowing engines left, right and center :) It would still be a pretty nice thing to have though

Hi Seawolf. The 1060GTX is a midrange card. Also make sure to put in that 16GB of ram, it will most definitely make a difference. I've managed to get Normandy to work pretty great with my 970GTX which has only 4GB of RAM (Well, probably 3.5 GB actually). I did have to lower some settings, the most important of which was Antialiasing, which needs to be completely turned off for Deffered Shading to work correctly and for frames to remain stable. With 8 GB of ram your pagefile will be at least as big and that will cause stutter. So definitely add more Ram. I still haven't finished tweaking things, I will try some more things tonight, like deleting the shaders folder. Some people have had success with that. Still I can get Normandy up to 60FPS with most things on HIGH with my card, though it does drop to about 40 or so on occasion.

It is very difficult for the Spitfire IX pilot to take the fight to the 109K. However it is equally difficult for the 109K to stay on the six of a Spitfire. BnZ tactics are however definitely in favor of the German aircraft, so check your six frequently. Beware of dots descending on from above ;)

German engineering at its finest. Sure, they could tweak settings and make the Merlin less prone to cooking up, or increase the radiator effectiveness, but that would be cheating wouldn't it? I mean we love DCS for realism right? Do we want a realistic simulator, or do we want War Thunder?

Like Maulkin said, you are hanging on your prop in the vertical. If you go vertical like that, make sure you go with enough speed. You were about 220 MPh from what I saw in the video before you pulled up, which is far too low. Also, you have to reduce the throttle when going straight up like that in the Spit, she won't take that for long, in fact she wont take that for more than a few seconds. When stalling in the vertical your throttle has to be pulled right back, or your engine will blow. Everytime! It's not that you can't do those manevuers in the Spit you can, but you have to rely on momentum, and not engine power.

Philstyle is probably dissapointed that the Spitfire is not performing at the level of the 109, which is why his post is not that constructive, especially as he is pretty succesful with the Spit against 109Ks in DCS, as his videos will attest. I will say that the Spitfire IX performs EXACTLY as expected from what is modeled in the game. Be aware that the 109K is a superior machine to the Spit IX in nearly every respect. It has more power, accelerates better, climbs faster and has better top speed. It is after all a late war model that is facing a mid war Spitfire. However that doesn't mean that it can't be beat. As Phil said for one thing the Spit turns, much better than the 109. It is the better defensive fighter and as such if you are aware of the 109 and are adept at energy management there will be no way that he can touch you. You can slowly climb while avoiding his Zooms, trying to get to supercharger altitude and higher. Once there the fight will be on more equal terms. Of course if the 109 decides to run, there is very little that you can do. Forcing him to RUN is a victory in my book! But if you are patient you will be able to get there eventually and score some kills. For one thing even the best pilots make mistakes and the Spitfire is the most forgiving of planes in that regard. This is my opinion though, Im sure many don't share it, but I really, really love the Spitfire IX. I too thought it sucked horribly when it first came out, now it is the plane I feel the safest in. Sure it's slow as molasses compared to the other warbirds, but it packs a punch, and with its awesome turn rate it feels invulnerable if you have good situational awareness.

I haven't noticed any FM changes in the two warbirds I've flown so far. (Spitfire, 109).

Accipiter, at what speeds? Listing a boost setting without indicated speed is not giving a full report of what happened. I've yet to blow a Spit engine without it being my fault. I can run it at full boost all day long actually. (Well as long as I have fuel).

I've been thinking about a tactic to use when engaged by a 109 (that is correctly BnZing you and not trying to turn fight). I usually leave the rads on auto, but in the above case I find that I usually climb slowly after the 109, trying to get to an altitude where I can use my supercahrger and get a fight on somewhat more even terms. It works for me, but last night for example I was a bit careless with my throttle management and climb speed and my engine blew. Managed to make a safe landing, but should have thought about turning the rads to full open. :) In any case, my point is. If you are forcing a high altitude engagement, turn off auto rads, and go full open. You will be slow in the climb anyway, so the little bit of extra drag won't make much of a difference but it might save your engine and your life until you get high enough to push the fight to the 109.

Maybe I missed this, but are impostors back in 2.1 now?

Yeah, the "local" effects is the dealbreaker. It might look OKAY in a single player scenario but it will either crap out, or will not be synced with every player in multiplayer correctly. The blue skies snow and rain from that video is even worse than the small white clouds. It's a shame because weather effects and clouds are IMO the most important part of simulating realistic flying. You probably hit the nail on the head with this comment, the backers alpha was a single player only affair:

I guess they are trying to simulate sheets of rainfall. However it looks rather poor from the outside view, though from the cockpit the effect is not that bad looking. I too would prefer to see realistic rain effects, especially rain on the canopy, but maybe it's just beyond ED at the moment to do that, hence these types of "local" visual effects.

Next year sounds, I hate to say it, realistic. I keep repeating myself, but the Merge can't get here soon enough, this splitting of DCS World into different branches is a nightmare and has slowed development of improvements to a crawl. I hope Im wrong though, I hope they decide to keep it simple with the Caucassus upgrade, to get to the merge sooner and to keep it performing at an adequate level.

It is much easier to takeoff on the Normandy map, it follows because you are not taking off from a concrete runway, the sideslip friction on the wheels will be much less than on concrete. Then again, I quickly mastered taking off in the Spit even back in 1.5. Weirdly though, Im having more problems taking off in the 109 compared to before, but the Spitfire is tame by comparison. Landings are a different matter though, I just need to get used to these new runway configurations and shorter lengths I guess.