Talisman_VR

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,

Further to above, I have just had a look at my copy of an Ordinance Survey RAF (WAR) map from 1944 covering the Strait of Dover and Normandy, and the magnetic variation is shown as 8 degrees and 47 minutes. I believe that the variation at the moment in 2017 for the same area is 0.1 degree. That is a significant difference between 1944 and today. P.S. I suggest that if DCS want to give us a Normandy map with a negligible variation, as per more modern times, then that would be fine, as long as we know one way or the other. Happy landings,

I think you will find that the magnetic variation was different in the 1940's WWII era than it is now in modern times. As I understand it, the variation changes over time. So the Normandy map should have different navigation in terms of magnetic variation than the more modern DCS maps. So, I suggest that the Normandy map should be subject to the magnetic variation of the time of WWII and not 2017. How this may effect modern jet flying on the DCS Normandy map I am not sure. Perhaps the Navigation map for WWII should be separate, bespoke to the 1940's and part of the WWII pack. Happy landings,

I can't make tracks and post, but perhaps someone could make a track of the elevator trim wheel movement to show Yo-Yo that many of us do not get full movement in anything like 7 seconds! (I use button on my TWCS throttle for trim and do not have any axis available for trim). Elevator trim is painfully slow, slow, slow Yo-Yo. Please check this issue. Thank you in anticipation. Happy landings,

As I understand it, he was referring to the fix in relation to the DCS version 2.1.0 update for Friday 26th May. I am asking if it will be included in the version 1.5.7 update due this Friday 7th July. His post about the fix was dated 24th May, at which time there was no news of version 1.5.7 update, only 2.1.0. There is no mention of the fix in the version 1.5.7 changelog, so I am concerned about that. Some information on this from the developers would be very welcome, as many of us are not involved in testing version 2.1.0. I hope that version 1.5.7 users will not be left out of this fix. Happy landings,

Many times I am searching the MP servers looking for human combat Mig-15 vs F86 for good old guns only fast jet action Korean war style. I just love the challenge of flying the Mig-15, especially against the Sabre :)) I will even spend an hour or so on an empty server hoping someone will see me and join in a Sabre to test our skills and aircraft capability. Such a shame that I am not able to find populated Mig vs Sabre servers :(( If only there was a Korean war package and enough historical aircraft, like with the Normandy project, to create the environment. Carrier operations with aircraft like the Hawker Sea Fury and others would be great! Thunder Chiefs, B29 bombers and more aircraft for the North Korean side, etc, etc. Now that would be truly great! I love the WII and early jet aircraft, prior to air-to-air missiles, but not having the historical environment to use them in is what I find disappointing most of the time. Happy landings,

Hi PilotMi8, Will the fix be included in the new version DCS 1.5.7 now planned for release next week? I am a big fan of your Mig-15 :) Thank you in anticipation. Happy landings,

Hi Andre, Any chance of compatibility with BoX (BoS/BoM) series in the near future in terms of software? Happy landings,

Dear Spitfire dev's, Any news regarding my original post concerning .303 rounds for the final release version of the Spitfire would be greatly appreciated. It seems that we may still have historically incorrect type of mix of .303 rounds for the Spitfire, including observer rounds :( Thank you in anticipation. Happy landings,

Yes, I used to be able to get these speeds when I flew the last 3 races of the last DCS Mustang racing series a couple of years back, but lately a quick test showed me that I can't get the same sort of speed anymore for some strange reason. However, it is important to note that the speeds stated above need manual control of radiators and extremely, repeat extremely, careful flying; the sort of flying that does not lend itself at all well to combat because to get these speeds in racing means flying on the extreme edge and the engine can blow in a heartbeat. Just lifting the nose a fraction for a second too long and a slight reduction in airspeed and resultant cooling effect can mean a lost engine very, very easily. Not only that, although these speeds can be sustained for a while, you need to take the word 'sustained' with a pinch of salt because the engine will not last indefinitely at the settings required for such speed and race winners have had engines blow just before the finish line but stayed in the air long enough to carry enough speed to win by a whisker; it is in fact a calculated risk to go for broke in the last seconds of a race to secure a win knowing that the engine will likely be lost (this is not real world realistic behaviour). I would suggest that we don't get side tracked by specialist racing settings, but concentrate on the real world speed tests for the DCS competitive combat environment and leave the racing settings and scenarios to one side. P.S. You can't out run the bullets/cannons being fired at you from behind, so as soon as you manoeuvre to avoid them you won't be at optimum speed anyway. Happy landings,

It would be good if the devs could confirm if they have sorted out bomb delay settings for the allied side ready for the Normandy map. The allies used bomb delay settings for ground attack, so it is a basic fundamental requirement for a WWII simulation. Bomb delay was not just a LW thing, LOL. Come on DCS, lets hope you can give us some news on this. Happy landings,