Talisman_VR

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,

Thanks Mike :) I have only dipped my toe into DCS and own 3 aircraft to date. P51D, Spitfire IX and Mig-15. I am really into WWII aircraft and combat planes up to the era covering war in Korea. I am waiting to see how things pan out with DCS after the great merge before committing to further aircraft types. The Red Flag series sure looks very tasty though. Very impressive! Very many thanks to you and everyone involved with Red Flag for making us newcomers welcome. It is much appreciated. Happy landings,

Big thank you to 104th for this event. It was my first Red Flag and I am still feeling a bit shell shocked with the intensity of it all. I will try and do better next time, but at least I survived. Lucky for me I had a good lead who really looked after me; thanks very much Sydy :) Also, I was just blown away by the great job done by our ground controller <51P>Moltar. Sorry Moltar if I did not always react as fast as I should and my sense of direction was lacking somewhat, LOL. I am a 'guns' only man, so I very much look forward to the next Sabre vs Mig-15 tournament, whenever that may be and will have to pass on the fast jet missile type action. Thanks to everyone and good luck at the next event.

Perhaps some of the 'no' votes have a vested interest in not seeing their usual combat simulation opponents being given the opportunity to be more lethal, LOL. Also, perhaps some 'don't care' voters don't understand the potential and historical accuracy in terms of practiced and experienced pilot combat. Happy landings,

I suggest that the reason it is important is that this is a combat sim and, for example, spot convergence is a far more lethal method of obtaining a kill. You may have this book: See page 155 of Wing Leader by 'Johnnie' Johnson, Chapter 10. Canadian Wing. Penguin Books (price 3 shillings and sixpence). 'Johnnie' Johnson's point in his book is that the far more lethal method of obtaining a kill is spot convergence, rather than the standard procedure to give a fairly large 'shotgun' pattern at the best firing range. From his book you can see that Johnny Johnson studied gun camera footage and convergence settings of the most successful shot on his Mk IX Spitfire unit and copied it. The pilot he copied was not high ranking, famous or well known at all. If a Wing Commander of a squadron, like Johnnie Johnson, studied gun cam footage of his subordinates in order to decide which convergence to best use himself, then I think that speaks volumes. We have been given this knowledge on the record by pilots that actually successfully flew combat aircraft and used their guns in WWII. As practised PC pilots, I suggest that it would be great to use that knowledge in this simulator and put it to the test. I suggest that this is a reasonable request and would allow us to test and use our simulated gunnery skills to the best possible advantage, just as we are able to test our skills with the flight modelling too. It would add value to the product for the customer and add to the WWII experience. This is something that is distinct from helicopter or fast jet flying in combat and would add value, not to mention historical education and technical/scientific education. It would also add to the DCS reputation in my view. However, if the hurdle to implementation is a technical one, or it is seen as not enough of a benefit to DCS customers (perhaps because WWII flyers are too small a part of the pie), then I can understand that. I would go with 'Johnnie' Johnson when it comes to guidance on guns convergence and the most lethal method of obtaining a kill in combat. I suggest that the chance to use that knowledge in DCS WWII would be a little nugget of gold for your WWII competitive combat simulation customers. Happy landings,

I suggest that for every WWII pilot that writes a book and mentions custom convergence settings, there will be hundreds/thousands who used and tested personalised settings but did not write a book and mention it. I suspect it was often a hot topic in the mess bar too. Happy landings,

Thanks Phil. This is my take. This is very interesting, informative, historically relevant and important for the users of Digital Combat Simulation warbirds like me, particularly with wing mounted guns. One of the things we need to remember for WWII enthusiasts interested in this issue is that DCS is not a WWII bespoke product. Folks who are mainly interested in helicopters and fast jet aircraft have little or no interest in this issue and I suspect they make up more of the customer base for DCS. As a customer I would like DCS to take notice of this issue for us, but the feeling I get from reading the forums is that the mind set of DCS is against this. I think this is a shame, as convergence was part of the story of WWII aviation, particularly of those trying to make a difference on the front line and provide leadership in combat tactics. A bespoke WWII combat flying simulator company would have more interest in this issue, but that is not what DCS is; even though I wish it was. So, it is down to us to decide which flight sim product to give our loyalty to as a customer and for the flight sim companies to decide on their business model and product output as suits them. For me, it is clear that different convergences and patterns were used, whether by individual pilots, squadrons, wings and groups, etc. In truth, get a bit fed up when I read what appears to be a denial of this by some, particularly when it appears to be offered as a reason for not implementing it in a combat flight sim with Warbirds. However, I can understand why a company would not wish to implement convergence options from a business model perspective. I wish the DCS 'mind set' (as mentioned by SithSpawn), would change on this issue and that they would give us some formal means of choosing different convergence patterns, as happened and was allowed for during WWII, but I suspect it is a forlorn hope. Happy landings,

As a point of interest, this is a link to a discussion that quotes the RAF AP (Air Publication) covering setting convergence, including 50 yards! http://www.rafcommands.com/archive/02487.php Does anyone have the contacts to gain access to the source document so that it can be given wider access via the internet? The source document quoted is: Section 7 of A.P.1984 Standard Technical Training Notes for Fitters Armourer and Armourers Happy landings,

Well done Phil. Thanks for posting. Very enjoyable. Happy landings,

I agree with you re mirrors eating too many fps, which is why, generally speaking, I like to turn them off completely. Even better, I wish the dev's would allow us a pilot option to remove the mirror completely from the airframe. I don't imagine it was compulsory to have a mirror fitted if it was not wanted in RL. Happy landings,

Used to be able to turn of completely and have a black face on what was usually the mirror face. Now I am unable to turn off completely (black face), even when the mirror box is not checked (turned off) under options. Are you saying that you are able to turn off completely to get the no mirror (black face) option? At the moment I can't turn the mirror off as before. Even when on it is not functioning correctly and just shows fuzzy blue, green or brown, depending on what is behind (no tail fine either). Perhaps the Spit developers could let us know the situation with the mirror. Happy landings,

Hi Folks, I now find that I am unable to turn off the Spitfire rear view mirror since the 1.5.7 update. Is anyone able to turn off the mirror since the update? Happy landings,

56RAF_Talisman. Mig-15. Presume this will be run in release version 1.5 ?

Check this out: https://dreamsimteam.blogspot.co.uk/p/simshaker.html Good thread here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=134704 But be award it has been superseded by this: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=175028 I have the Gametrix 908 jetseat and SimShaker and can recommend it very highly. I would not want to fly without it! Happy landings,

Nice to know that the performance is good in version 2.1.0. Thanks for the feedback and good news :) Happy landings,