Talisman_VR

If you are running a version other than 1.5 release version, then it looks like you might have found a bug worth reporting. I don't have time to check the P51D at the moment. Sorry if I missed it, but what version of DCS are you using? P.S. I agree with you that it is important that the rads close as they should. Happy landings, Talisman

Did you read in my post when I said "P.S. I am still on 1.5 release version, so have no experience of later versions/patches."? Thing is, the rads on my Spit are working fine and dandy. I have just watched them open and close 4 times over with no problem, just as they should. I have just tested them using the Instant Action, Free Flight mission for the Spit in the 1.5 release version. If you have a different version then that might be the key to the issue you have raised. What version of DCS are you using? P.S. I only mentioned throttling back in a previous post because that is what I sometimes do in combat if there is a break in action, to get the rads closed again as soon as possible. Happy landings, Talisman

Thanks for the news. Any chance your company is thinking about producing a force feedback joystick any time in the future? That would get a lot of attention I am sure. We live in hope. Happy landings, Talisman

Lower throttle = lower boost = lower temps = rad closure at lower temps, under 115 deg. Do what ever you need to do during your flight, the auto rad will open and close to keep your engine temps within limits. Take care that you do not fly too slow, nose too high for too long, in a climb, or the engine will overheat even with rad open. Happy landings, Talisman

Check the pilot notes, but I believe the rad was designed to auto open at 115 deg. In my experience, I find that a few seconds at boost +8 lbs and engine will cool enough for auto operation to close the rad (unless nose too high and speed too low for cooling effect). Trick is to not fly over 115 deg unless you really need to (perhaps in combat for example); a little under 3,000 rpm may help at times, try 2850 rpm. Pilot notes for most Spits indicate that climb settings are good for combat. Once you have accelerated to speed, climb rpm setting with +18 lbs boost can help with max speed at sea level (yaw and pitch trim, together with minimum movement of stick and control surfaces is essential). P.S. I am still on 1.5 release version, so have no experience of later versions/patches. Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

Hi, No problems, I use MSFF2 with JetSeat and SSA and it is great! :thumbup: Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

That is a great restoration project, I have been following it :) If they ever get that Tempest V flying, before I am in my box, I would like to fly to the good old USA to see it. P.S. Some information can be gleaned from the Sea Fury, since the Tempest was the basis for that aircraft. If I remember correctly, at one time one of the 3rd party developers was planning the Sea Fury for DCS, which would be nice (historical) for a Korea scenario. Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

Thanks f4I0, I will try and remember not to say product in the future, but what you do is really very, very good! :thumbup: Thank you for all your good works. Happy landings,

Hi f4l0, Thanks for all your work. I now have full aircraft specific list showing, as well as generic types :) I have had a chance to more seriously test things out with the following results: No flap movement effect with Mig-15, Spitfire and P51D. No cockpit open/close effect with Mig-15, Spitfire and P51D. No gear turbulence effect with the Spitfire. No WEP effect with Spitfire and P51D. Almost no effects with the Hawk apart from ground bumps/take-off rumble (perhaps because the Hawk is still WIP). On a more positive note, I would just like to say how much your product brings the Mig-15 alive. I love all the effects, including the cannon loading effect, the air brakes and all the other features; pure joy :) The JetSeat and SSA software worth it for the Mig-15 alone. I say to any Mig-15 lovers out there that you are missing out if you don't have the JetSeat and SSA software. Happy landings,

Thanks f4I0, I really enjoy the Jetseat and SimShaker for Aviators software. :thumbup: I will try again tonight, but it is strange that I have no aircraft specific list anymore and only have generic aircraft setting for rotary, piston and jet. Happy landings,

If we get a new force feedback stick I will purchase as soon as possible. :joystick: In the mean time I use second hand force feedback joysticks, purchased from e-bay, such as MSFF2 and Saitek cyborg evo FF. :) I think everyone would want to purchase a quality FF stick if one was produced and I think such a stick would corner the market and knock all the other competitors out. Happy landings,

Please see P.S. in above post. Sorry I was not quick enough to add before you read it. Happy landings,

Hi, Updated to version 1.0.1.18 yesterday, but now no flap movement feedback and no cockpit open/close feedback. :( Anyone else find the same? P.S. I flew Spitfire and Mig-15 yesterday after update and found the above problems. Also, I notice that only generic settings are available now, no longer aircraft specific effects, is that correct? Happy landings,

Very much agree with you. :thumbup: Especially since we have the Messerschmitt aircraft company represented by the late war series 109-k and the Focke-Wulf aircraft company represented by the late war series 109 Dora, it would be consistent and sensible to have the Hawker aircraft company represented by the late war series Tempest V. I think that would make good sense all round. :) Bearing in mind that we also have the North American Aviation company represented by the late war series P51D (soon to be European theatre model). It would be great to have aircraft competing on a joined up technological time line representing all of our great historical aircraft companies for our digital combat simulations. :) Happy landings, P.S. Me 262 on the way soon too. :)

56RAF_Talisman UK Spitfire Mk IX

Thanks. Yes, see it now. Happy landings,

Question: Will this be held on DCS 1.5 release version? I don't have version 2, so don't know if I can take part or not. Thanks. Happy landings,

That would be brilliant :thumbup: :joystick: :pilotfly: At least once a month would be even better :) Happy landings,

Congratulations. Very good news. Thank you for the server :)

The mission start time in the UK at 22.30 hrs is a bit too late. Also, I am not keen on Discord; it has been a right royal irritation in trying to set up, so I have deleted my account and have now removed it from my PC. I will enjoy the server in the week, but sadly these Sunday events are out for me. Thanks for a good server. Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

Brilliant server SeaQuark. Thank you so much for this :) Made my day I have alerted my squad to this fine server! Great to have Mig-15 vs F86 action as per Korea 52 style. Happy landings,

Dear Spitfire developers, Do you have any news that you could share with us regarding this thread and/or any WIP concerning the Spitfire guns load-out? This book is a good source of information: "British Aircraft Armament Vol.2: Guns and Gunsights", by R Wallace Clarke. Below is a quote from the book: "Most air forces opted for shell-firing guns in the 1930s because it was thought that explosive shells would destroy an aircraft with very few hits. This was not borne out by events; in fact trials often showed that solid ball ammuntion did as much damage as explosive rounds, which tended to explode directly on contact with armour or airframes without penetrating them. The heavy ball projectiles penetrated both, and was the main type of ammunition used in the early war years. However, it was then realised that an ideal round would first penetrate an airframe and then ignite the fuel or oil inside it. Incendiary ammuntion tended to break up, but a composite explosive/incendiary shell was found to be very effective. Known as HE/I, this new round was however less effective against armour. In July 1942 the semi-armour piercing incendiary (SAP/I) was introduced, with a tungsten nose and a shell containing an incendiary composition. On impact, the tip penetrated the armour, and there was then a flash of flame which ignited anything inflammable within 305 mm (12 in) of it. From mid-1942 these two types of ammuntion replaced other types, belts being made up equally of HE/I and SAP/I." This book could be a good source of information for Allied aircraft WWII. Good luck and happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

Yes, the Mig-15 is absolutely brilliant! Glad you are enjoying it too. I only wish there were well populated Mig-15 vs Sabre MP servers out there. Happy landings,

Roblex, I don't think you are correct. Observer rounds were not part of the load-out for the Mk IX Spit and other aircraft at this time. I believe you will find that observer rounds gave a puff of smoke with no damage, not sparks/flashes. I believe that observer rounds have no place for aircraft live combat firing at all for this time. I think you will find it is incendiary rounds that cause the sparkle effect, not observer rounds! From the source liked below: Note that the RAF did not mix .303 ammunition belts. This was to reduce the risk of stoppages, so only one type of cartridge was used per gun belt. By 1942, the .303 standard load-out was 50% guns AP and 50% guns incendiary ammunition. From 1942 on, the standard Hispano loading became 50% HEI, 50% SAPI. http://www.quarryhs.co.uk/RAF%20guns.htm Please also see this thread post asking for historical load-out for the Spit IX, as DCS would appear to be giving us outdated and less effective ammunition than we should have. It would appear that we should certainly not have observer rounds. This is another WWII issue that we have not heard anything back from the ED Spitfire developers about; I wish so very much that they would be more communicative. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=183520 Happy landings,

The Spitfires and other aircraft types that did this used 150 Octane fuel, because the V1 is so fast. The V1 chase aircraft performed other tasks as well, besides chasing VI's. The squadrons were put on V1 chasing duties on a rotational basis and performed other tasks in the English Channel and on the continent when not on anti V1 duty. But, as we don't have the historically correct grade 150 Octane fuel modelled in DCS, V1 chasing and the other more general flying operations performed by 150 Octane aircraft will have to wait I would have thought. Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman