Talisman_VR

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

I am not going to say a lot, because Klem, Phil, Solty, Roblex and others have said it and I have said similar in other thread posts, or thought and felt similar frustrations. I would just like to say that I think this thread raises valid issues and that I would like to see/feel more vision and passion expressed by ED regarding this matter, because my confidence in ED being able to deliver is now extremely close to rock bottom. Perhaps from the perspective of ED this is my/our personal problem and I/we are just not a 'fit' with DCS and they are content to see our custom and passion go elsewhere. I can't help it (because its my problem), but ED leaves me feeling down as a customer these days more often than not. A more fleshed out vision of the future for WWII, some passionate expression, progress and updates would be very welcome. If I had to try and distil this all down, I would say that, in short, I am just not feeling the passion from ED. Happy landings,

The point is amazingme, that we would be grateful if ED could communicate and tell us. Please correct me if I am wrong, but you do not appear to be a representative of ED. Therefore, your comments on things like wishful thinking, reality and complexity re budgets and resources and so on strike me as likely to be assumptions on your part. Please, I don't want to offend anyone or see this thread go down hill so it can be closed, but the request from the OP is rather simple to answer I would have thought and a 1944 technological time line Spitfire or a cannon armed Tempest V is not asking the earth by any means. Wags has explained in a live stream video recently how it does not take long to produce a war bird compared to the lengthy time span needed to produce a modern fast jet. So, perhaps more warbirds would bring money in at a faster pace for ED and allow them more resources in the long run for other projects to expand and improve business profits overall. Finally, some communication from ED with greater detail regarding their bigger vision, aspirations and a road map for WWII is a reasonable request I would have thought. Particularly now that there has been a change of circumstance regarding expected aircraft. Perhaps when ED have had a chance to review the changed situation they may be able to give us some more information. I suspect that many of us may want to hear more from ED regarding the direction and plans they have for WWII. Happy landings,

I think your F1 motor racing analogy hits the nail on the head! It is the analogy I have often thought of myself, but never posted. Thank you and well said. Happy landings,

Hi Flighter, Thank you for getting back to me. No probs. Thanks again for the server. Happy landings,

There you go, there are other sources, but this is one of them: http://www.clubhyper.com/reference/typhoonpropsf_1.htm Happy landings,

Allied fighters currently only have one aircraft with cannons and that is a Spitfire variant introduced from May 1943. Given that we have the 190 Dora and 109K to play with, the Tempest V would be by far the best option in my view. The Tempest V was a variant of the Typhoon. The Tempest V was introduced in spring 1944 and in action shooting down 109-G types in June 44. By contrast, the Typhoon was introduced in September 1941, although it was modified and had a 4 bladed propeller for June 1944. It was also improved by being fitted with Tempest tail units. The Tempest V is the better contemporary to the 190 Dora and 109K in terms of the historical technological time line match and fought alongside the Typhoons. Also, the Tempest was the first British aircraft to take inspiration from the P51 low drag laminar flow wings. In addition, the Tempest frequently flew against the Messerschmitt Me 262 jet fighter. Historically scrambling when word arrived that Me 262s were airborne. Since the DCS plans to give us the Me 262 for WWII, this is another reason the Tempest V would make sense as a better choice for now, given the circumstances of the current DCS aircraft set. It is a shame that it looks like we will not get the Spitfire XIV, since this was the main air superiority aircraft for the 2nd TAF and the Spitfire IX Low Fighter (LF) we have in DCS was increasingly used for ground attack. I would be grateful if DCS could provide us with their vision for flyable aircraft in WWII for the future and how they see things developing and matching up. Particularly as I am still trying to decide whether to go in the 'whole hog' with DCS rather than other combat flight simulations I am with at the moment. I am not alpha testing version 2 or the Normandy map as I still feel somewhat uncertain about the future of WWII, which is my main interest. Happy landings,

Hi Folks, I believe you will find that the Mk LFIX with the Merlin 66 @ 18lbs boost started front line service in March 1943 Happy landings,

I believe that the F-86F of the RoCAF (Nationalist) met Communist PRCAF MiG-17s in action over the Straits of Taiwan in 1958/59. I think the F-86F with air-to-air missiles is an historic match vs the Mig-17. As I understand it, the F-86F did not have air-to-air missiles in time for the Korean war, so the F-86F with no air-to-air missiles is an historic match for the Mig-15. By the time air-to-air missiles were used with the F-86F the Mig-17 was in play, so I would say that the Mig-17 is an historic match vs the F-86F with air-to-air missile capability. In short, Mig-17 vs F-86F would appear to be a fair historic match to me. Happy landings,

High Flighter, Thank you very much for the just dogfight server :) I have a small request which I hope you can grant. I have a Gametrix 908 JetSeat with SimShaker for Aviators software. Please find the link below for more information on this excellent product which delivers aircraft specific seat force feedback for DCS modules. It is very immersive and I recommend it to anyone flying DCS. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=175028 For the JetSeat to work in MP the server needs to allow 'player export data'. Would you be able to enable player export data on your server? Happy landings,

Hit by a Mig-15 missile! If the Sabres can have some missile action so can the Migs, LOL. Seems fair to me Thanks again to all for a great event. Happy landings,