Talisman_VR

I play SP with icons off too SharpeXB :), but my main passion and the reason I am here is MP flying with other humans and against other humans, with as much immersion as possible :joystick:. A scripted SP mission with AI is much easier and I like to use these for practise and trials to hone my skills for MP, which is the big deal for me and the people I fly with. Different stokes for different folks and all that, I am pleased that people have the choice and that some only want to fly SP with AI and that is catered for, but the visibility issue is killing in the competitive MP human pilot environment WWII style. The folks I fly with would rather not have a totally unrealistic navigation map showing the position of our own and other peoples aircraft, we don't want icons/labels on aircraft in the sky, we want to fly stick and rudder by the seat of our pants using the Mk 1 eyeball. I totally agree with you SharpeXB, icons spoil the graphics and the challenge, but the challenge is harder in the unscripted action WWII MP human player environment and I worry that this visibility issue has the potential to fail the MP community on the Normandy map. I so wish the developers well in this regard and dearly hope they can fix the visibility issue as soon as possible. Salute and happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

I was sad that we did not get the clip wing, as initially planned, in the first place. Sadly, I think superior capability as a Low Fighter may have been sacrificed for beautiful looks. Or perhaps the devs thought we would find the clip wing too tricky to fly first off. Or perhaps technical information on the clip wing was not so much available and it was better to run the standard wing first and then crunch the numbers for the clip wing afterwards. However, I believe the clip wing is much more in keeping with the Low Fighter version we have and hope to enjoy the following clip wing attributes soon: Faster level speed. Faster acceleration. Faster dive. Faster roll rate (all altitudes). Stronger wings by removal of wingtips, permitting higher IAS to be used (less easy to snap of in a high speed roll too, I would have thought). Continued decent turn advantage over opposition. A more agile fighter overall in comparison to standard wing Spitfire. Historical trial dog-fight tests conducted against a standard wing Spit at low level were won by the clip wing Spit. I would expect a zoom climb to be quicker too. The speed and manoeuvre advantage from not having the drag of the detachable wingtips would be considerable I would have thought. Yo-you has indicated a slight decrease in time to climb to 30k, but then if I am flying a Low Fighter I am not going to be chasing, or running away from, a 190D or 109K to 30K, LOL. One last thing, we should not get our Mk IX LF variant mixed up with the earlier Mk V LF. Our Mk IX is a different beast. Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

Agreed. The air-to-air aircraft spotting visibility is the biggest issue for me and will be the deciding factor, after the 'great merge' and edge release, as to whether DCS delivers a flight simulator that I can continue with as my sim of choice. Could be the same for many other WWII air combat sim fans that have dropped by recently to sample what DCS has to offer. I am not interested in modern jets, so WWII and early vintage jets (no missiles) are my passion. I dipped my toe in the DCS waters a short while ago to see if WWII could be delivered by DCS and I hope they can do it; however, current air-to-air spotting is so far from anything simulating real life capability that I may need to return to other flight simulator products if there is no joy for us on this issue. Without feedback from the developers on commitment, progress or intentions regarding this issue, I am losing confidence with each week that goes by as we near the release of the Normandy map and the eventual 'great merge'. I am trying to keep faith with DCS, but the elephant in the room is ever present at the moment. Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

Mig-15 bis :joystick: Love being able to feel/sense the weight and physical being of the aircraft. It has real character and needs to be carefully managed. Love the quirks and idiosyncrasies. Great satisfaction in mastering and flying this aircraft module. Very much feels like the nearest simulation of the real deal that one could expect as a PC pilot. Lovely to fly with a force feedback joystick and the Gametrix force feedback seat with the Simshaker for Aviators software https://dreamsimteam.blogspot.co.uk/p/faq.html Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

Hi Phil, There is a very handy reference table in the real life pilot notes with best economy settings and gallons per hour fuel consumption rates. For example, on your mission last night I was sometimes flying at zero boost and 1800 rpm (in theory (but not in DCS at the moment as it is still WIP) this should have given me 39 gallons per hour). Probably why I was the longest flying Spitfire, but even I did not make it back to base, LOL. The DCS Spit IX devs have acknowledged that they have set the fuel consumption too high at the moment, so we very much hope they fix that very soon, before the Normandy map is released. Also, eventually we should get drop tanks on the Spit IX I think. P.S. As Pman says above, 170-180 is a good speed for economy with the lowest boost and rpm settings to maintain that speed range. Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

Hi folks, Quick question about new effects. What is SPS? Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

Fantastic! Thank you very much :) Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

I won't jump in with the Normandy map yet as I intend to stick with V1.5 and don't plan to run more than one version of DCS. Once we have one fully merged version of DCS that we can all fly together I will then go for the Normandy map. P.S. And the WWII access bundle thingy too of course. Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

Tanks :) Should have been 'thanks', but on reflection 'tanks' perhaps covers it too, LOL.

Folks have been talking about having seen a release trailer, but I can't find it :( Is it in a restricted place? Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

I think I know how you feel. I don't do facebook either and never will. Makes me feel like a second class citizen for just religiously reading these main forums; like, I am not as worthy of receiving early information unless I do facebook. Fully respect it is up to ED how they want to communicate, but this has not made me feel good. Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

Very nice work. Thank you and all involved for time and effort. Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

Hi eekz, Just a short note to say many thanks for your server and to ask a question. Would it be possible to have some overcast cloud now and then, say about 3000 meters or so? A grey overcast cloud, 360 degrees, that we need to break through to the sunlight for higher level combat, or stay under, would add to the immersive atmosphere. We would need to use our airmanship skills a bit more as well with some overcast conditions. Nothing too bad, but just something other than perfect weather every time. Sorry if this has been asked before and it is not possible. Thanks again. Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

I could be wrong David, but I don't think the Spit XIV with 18lbs boost will be as fast as to dominate the Bf 109K in level flight at the lower altitudes; I think the 109K still has the edge on speed in this instance. From reading the forums it looks like we will not get the higher boost Spit XIV. Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

Strange think is, I can't get the P51D to fly as fast any more as I used to be able to do at sea level. I am not aware of any published changes that may effect the speed at sea level, but I certainly find it slower now. Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

Further to above, please find link to source book: http://users.skynet.be/Emmanuel.Gustin/volume1/index.html Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

Hi Folks, Further to the above, please find the following link: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=183520 Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman P.S. Looks like by 1942 the standard loading for fixed .303s was half loaded with AP and half with incendiary bullets.

Dear Spitfire Devs, The reference below states that: "By 1942 the standard loading for fixed .303s was half loaded with AP and half with incendiary bullets." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incendiary_ammunition Any information you could provide to clarify the .303 belting mix for the final release version of the Spit IX would be gratefully received. Thank you in anticipation. Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman Cross reference: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=178037&page=3

Hi Folks, Just a short post to provide a cross reference on this topic as per the link below. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=181978 Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

Alphazulu, Thanks very much for this; I am not very PC literate, so all the file code stuff tends to leave me blank. Spitfire Devs, Would it be possible for someone to confirm were we stand regarding the .303 machine gun load out? I stand to be corrected, but at the moment the .303 machine gun load out appears to be more 1940 battle of Britain, rather than to 1943/44/45 specification. Ball rounds and observer rounds were very much 'old hat' once aircraft had more armour protection after the Battle of Britain. Thank you in anticipation of your kind attention to this matter. Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

Many thanks Yo-yo, but I could not open to view the youtube clip. However, found this: http://www.universalweather.com/blog/2014/09/international-standard-atmosphere-how-it-affects-flight-understanding-the-basics/ As a side note, the following is an interesting extract: "Be aware that aircraft may not perform exactly as listed in the manufacturer’s tables, and some sort of bias may need to be factored in." I would not want the above to be a red herring to this discussion, but I find it interesting that, even in the modern day, there is a caution against aircraft manufacturers bias, LOL. Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

I can only guess that the manufacturers needed to test all engines with the same set of parameters and 3,000 rpm was the max rpm for the engines, so it made sense to test each time at max rpm for comparison purposes as engine types were modified and/or advanced. I also guess that using 3,000 rpm provided something of an additional stress test in real flight. I stand to be corrected, but I don't think we are aware of the fine detail of how each different nation or manufacturer tested best sea level speed. For example, did they do a timed trial over a long course like the Schneider Trophy, or did the pilot just read his instruments in flight over a period of time (what period of time might that be?), write them down and then work out an average? Or perhaps the highest speed at any one time was claimed? For all we know we may be comparing apples with oranges as far as test procedures, results and max sea level speed claims are concerned between different nations and manufacturers. Remember the old adage of "lies, damn lies and statistics", lol. Was there some international rule for speed tests followed by all of both the Axis and Allied nation powers? Finally, I am still not convinced that a propeller configured for full power max rpm (3,000 in this case) will deliver the fastest possible sustained speed a sea level. But I stand to be corrected. I would love for someone with more concrete knowledge to contribute to this thread. As for DCS, I suspect that they do their best to gather as much reliable data as possible, apply the mathematics and science and then make reasonable decisions as expert and knowledgeable people for each model. We then give them our feedback and they have to decide how much to take that into account. A hard job to do well I think, but I am grateful for the developers work and passion. Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

I am using the latest patch to DCS version 1.5. The map I use is the Spitfire in-game instant mission named 'Free Flight'. I spawn in with the air-start, drop slowly down over the sea and start testing. Always the same place, as sometimes it seems to me I get different results from different maps. I can't do another test today, but if anyone else is able to test on the same map with the same DCS version 1.5, over the sea, then we might actually be able to check apples with apples. Also, perhaps at least 10 to 15 minutes for the test from the point the speed reaches what appears to be a sustainable speed. Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

Hi Phil, Real life manual says forward for take off and landing (filter activated to protect engine from dust and crap, particularly at make-shift airfields), and lever back to de-activate filter in flight. I have presumed that with the filter in operation, as for take off and landing, there would be more drag. Therefore I have assumed that with the filter de-activated (lever fully back) the aircraft will travel faster. But perhaps I am wrong about this. Perhaps someone with accurate knowledge could chime in on this point and educate some of us. P.S. I have not speed tested with carb intake lever full forward. Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

Hi Holbeach, To add to Phil's point, the land undulates and has obstacles, so to run level to test sustained best speed for 15 minutes +, the sea provides a much more equal and sound test environment. It is too easy to move up and down more over the land, which can alter results. I can easily get to speeds higher than 330 mph for a while if the nose is almost unperceptively slightly down, but I try and resist logging such speed and take the level at which I can truly sustain for a good amount of time. So, if I occasionally make 335, 332 or 331 mph, but never drop below 330 for a long period and 330 is the lowest most common figure, then I call it 330 as my best sustained speed. Of course, this is just me testing my way in DCS and I am not claiming real life conditions, just trying to get the best in DCS. Following real life tests at 3000 rpm never seems to work for me in simulators. Also, I seem to remember reading somewhere that, for some technical mathematical reason, real life 3000 rpm will not give best sped at sea level anyway (perhaps someone with more knowledge could chime in on this one as I may be remembering it wrong). So perhaps whatever the 3000 rpm max speed figure is, we should be able to go faster at a slightly lower rpm anyway. Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman