Talisman_VR

I use mine with a Saitek cyborg evo force feedback joystick and CH rudder pedals and it all works together great. I think the new Thrustmaster TWCS throttle is very good indeed. The long throttle travel is great for precision control of aircraft engine power, particularly with WWII piston engine warbirds. Because I use CH rudder pedals I don't need to use the integrated 'paddle' to control the rudder and find that the 'paddle' works great for wheel brakes. Assigning the 'paddle' for wheel brakes is particularly helpful with the Spitfire for landing and taxi. The TWCS throttle has very much helped my aircraft handling and general flying ability. I would much rather use the TWCS throttle over more expensive throttle systems. I highly recommend the TWCS throttle. I use it almost every day for 3, 4 and sometimes 5 hours at a time and think it is good quality and very good value for money. Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

Any news as to whether timed bomb fuses and skip bomb capability will be available in time for the Normandy map would be greatly appreciated. Sorry if I have missed any updates about this, but to the best of my knowledge we are unable to set bomb fuses and carry out traditional WWII skip bombing. Thanks in anticipation. Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

Thanks Bart. That is good news. :) Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

Hi Bart, Are you able to get 100% fuel yet, or is it still stuck at 83%? Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

Thanks Bart. Sound like good news. I have not updated yet, but will keep a look-out. Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

Hi SiThSpAwN, About the stall fighting point you have made. I think we can agree that stall fighting is not the way to go with the Spitfire; defiantly not the way to get the best from this aircraft in a dog fight. The engine can be broken with the current 18lbs boost very easily if stall fighting is attempted, so I would not expect people 'in the know' to suddenly start trying to stall fight the Spitfire just because 25lbs boost was available. Sure, novices may wreck the engine trying to stall fight, but they can easily make that mistake right now with the 18lbs boost. As for 150 Octane use, from previous posts and links to references, clearly Air Defense Great Britain (ADGB) used it and so did 2nd TAF. If the ED Team wish to differentiate between mission types to decide whether to provide 150 Octane fuel versions of an aircraft, then I fully respect that is their prerogative. However, I would suggest that ADGB aircraft were not just used to defend against the V1 threat, they were there to defend against conventional aircraft as well. I find it difficult to think that ADGB aircraft airborne with 150 Octane on patrol or scrambled over the English Channel were not allowed to attack conventional enemy aircraft in the sector they were defending. I also find it difficult to think that all the different aircraft types across ADGB that were using 150 Octane were only used in anti diver (V1) operations. Also, we know that ADGB aircraft took part in missions over France during and after D-Day (as well as other missions on the continent). Conclusion: Given that 2nd TAF used 150 Octane covering the period when the DCS 109K and 190-D were active and ADGB used to the same fuel earlier to defend England, which is to be included on the upcoming DCS map, I suggest that it could be considered reasonable to have a 25lbs Spitfire. I had better not post again on this topic or you will be getting fed up with me, but I hope not :) Good luck to the ED Team with the WWII project. Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

The difference between the Spitfire and Mustang will have an added dynamic when we get the clip wing Spit. I am very much looking forward to the clip wing version :) Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

Not just around during the Normandy landings, but before and after the landings too! I think it was Nelson who is said to have put a telescope to his blind eye once and said "I see no ships". If folks don't want to see evidence for 25lbs Spit there is always the blind eye trick. That is such a funny thing to do :lol: Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

Thank you for the above informative references. It never ceases to amaze me that some people still want to be 25lbs boost deniers. There is so much proof out there. ADGB Spit IX aircraft started using 150 grade fuel with 25lbs boost in 1944. The following is and extract from http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...rade-fuel.html “Following successful testing, the Spitfire IX's Merlin 66 was cleared in March 1944 to use +25 lbs, obtainable with 150 grade fuel. In early May, No. 1 and No. 165 Squadrons comprising the Predannack Wing, were the first to convert their Spitfires to +25 lbs boost and employ 150 grade fuel on operations.” It is worth noting that the Predannack Wing is quoted as the 'first', not the 'only' or the 'last'. 'First' means that more ADFG Spitfire Mk IX aircraft converted after No 1 and 165 Squadrons. We also have it on record from Mr A. C. Lovesley, (Rolls-Royce 'Chief Experimental Engineer' and later 'Chief Engineer (Aircraft Engines)' then deputy director of engineering and a member of the Aero Engine Division board of directors before he retired in 1964) that, regarding 150 grade fuel, "The first operational use of this fuel was against the flying bombs in the middle of 1944. Subsequently the whole of A.D.G.B. Was put on this fuel. Later it was used by the Second Tactical Air Force during and after the invasion of the Continent." It is worth noting that 2nd TAF was attached to ADGB for the invasion period. “By mid August the V-1 diver threat was largly eliminated with the advance of the allied armies beyond the launching areas. The ADGB squadrons that had converted to 150 grade fuel now found more time to operate over the continent. The Spitfire IX Squadrons were permanently pulled off anti-diver duty on 10 August and went over completely to escort work, sweeps and armed recces. They paid their first visit to Germany on 27 August 1944.” http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...rade-fuel.html It is worth noting that the phrase “more time” indicates that, of course, the ADGB Spit IX squadrons were also already spending time engaged on missions across the Channel, but now they had even more time and resources to focus on sorties over the Continent. Anti diver (V1 flying bomb) squadrons did not spend all their time on anti diver duties. They were rotated on standby and sometimes would fly anti diver for the morning and other operational sorties in the afternoon. There were lots of aircraft and squadrons sharing the anti diver task and they were not all needed at the same time. Though the V-1 diver threat war largely eliminated, the attacks only stopped when the last launch site was over-run on 29th March 1945, so ADGB was using 150 grade fuel well into 1945. Below are 2 Operational Reports from ADGB Spit LF Mk IX 150 grade fuel, 25lbs boost, Armed Recce sorties, from England to the Continent and back. http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...p_16sept44.jpg http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...ep-27aug44.jpg By the end of June 44 ADGB and 2nd TAF had flown almost 46,000 sorties of ground operations, losing 740 aircraft in the process. (Fighter Command 1939-45 by David Oliver, ISBN 000 7629087) Also, during July 44 ADGB Spitfires took part in operations over France, particularly to take Caen. 2nd TAF Mk IX Spitfires continued operations on the continent to the end of the war and were one of the major users of 150 grade fuel and 25lbs boost. A DCS Spitfire Mk IX 25lbs boost should be very much in keeping with the historical time-line of the Normandy 1944 Map, which includes England. Moreover, I believe that the 25lbs boost Spit Mk IX would in no way be out of place, as some tend to claim, for the historical area of operations depicted on the forthcoming DCS map. In fact, almost any version of the Mk IX Spit is more in keeping with the Normandy 1944 map than any other WWII aircraft currently provided by DCS. However, given the later advanced WWII German aircraft opposition in DCS at the moment, and the Me 262 in the pipeline, the addition of a Spitfire Mk IX with 25lbs boost would be a much needed addition to the DCS WWII aircraft stable and totally in keeping with the new map. Of course, the Normandy map will be able to be used for any number of scenarios and aircraft types and I am by no means suggesting that its use should be limited to Normandy 1944. Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

Racoon, You are a superstar :thumbup: Thank you so much for the work, passion and dedication you are putting into this map. As a rule I don't give rep to ED team members, but in your case you have positive rep and many many thanks from me. South of England, yes!! :) I am getting more and more faith in the DCS WWII project; thank you ED Team! Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

Hi Folks, If you use a force feedback device and are a FF fan for DCS then please see this forum thread poll: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=3025951#post3025951

If anyone uses a FF device and is a fan of FF in DCS then please see this forum thread poll: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=3025951#post3025951

Hi Folks, If you use a force feedback device and are a fan of FF for DCS, please see this forum thread poll: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=3025951#post3025951

Hi Folks, If you use a force feedback device and are a FF fan for DCS, then please see this thread poll: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=3025951#post3025951

I use the Saitek cyborg evo force feedback joystick. This stick is regularly available on ebay and I have a stock of about 7 second hand ones in the cupboard, all tested and ready to go. Should last me 15 years or so, or at least until a new type is manufactured by industry. Also, Gametrix 908 force feedback seat with Simshaker for Aviators Software. Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

Hi Folks, I have just found out that the VEAO Spitfire Mk XIV, P40 and other aircraft are unlikely to be provided with Force Feedback :( This is extremely sad, to say the least. Below is a link to my post to ask VEAO to provide FF for the Spitfire Mk XIV, due release this year I believe. If you feel strongly about FF and are interested in VEAO aircraft, then you may want to consider contributing to this thread as well (in the nicest way): https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=3025624#post3025624 Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

Very sorry to see you are having a problem there Vinnie. I am afraid I have no idea how to help. Hope you get a fix soon Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

Do you use a modification on V 1.5.5 or is it a clean installation? Just a thought. Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

Definitely feel the stiffening difference with the Mig-15. She is such a beast! I think the FF has been done well for the Mig-15. Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

Long shot, but perhaps there is a conflict with 2 different versions of 1.5 on your system. I am not very computer literate, so forgive me if this not an intelligent thought, LOL. Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

High Kwiatek, I use the Saitek cyborg evo force feedback stick and get on very well with it :joystick: I use DCS v 1.5 and all the latest updates to it in turn, but I have not had any problems with my FF stick at all; it is all working well I am pleased to say. Sorry you are having problems. I presume you have tried the old unplug from the electric and the PC and reconnect thing. That is about as technical as I can get, lol. Perhaps changing the Saitek stick settings will bring it back to life. My stick settings are: Default gain 100% Spring gain 60% Damper gain 100% Default spring 80% With default spring checked as always on. As well as FF enabled on DCS as an overall option, I have set each individual control input at FF 100% (next to axis tune option). Have you got a second spare Saitek FF stick to test? Perhaps you need to replace the stick. I find that the Saitek FF stick very often comes up on ebay as second hand. I have purchased some FF sticks on ebay that have hardly been used and in mint condition. I have my own second hand stock purchases ready to go at a moments notice in the cupboard, lol. I find that with hard use (almost every day of the week between 2 to 4 hours) the Saitek cyborg evo FF stick will last me 2 or 3 years each one. I also recommend the Gametrix 908 force feedback jetseat with the Simshaker for Aviators software application (see DCS forum 'Input Output' section threads). I also use the force feedback headset by eDimensional AudioFX I think FF brings the aircraft models to life and would not want to be without it. I hope you can solve your FF problem soon. Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

Very much agree with the sentiment regarding concentrating on 1944 aircraft. Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

Tempest V would be much better. It was the aircraft the Typhoon was supposed to be but did not make it. IMHO, the Tempest V was the best Hawker Company aircraft that saw combat in WW2 and it would be great to see a DCS salute to the Hawker Company by modelling the Tempest V. P.S. I think the Typhoon could possibly be a contender for the title of the worst RAF aircraft developed and put into combat during WW2. I love all aircraft though, so I am sure it would be fun to fly in DCS, its just that it would be nice to get the best aircraft Hawker developed in WW2, rather than the Typhoon. Happy landings, Talisman

I very much agree with what you have said Klem. Very sensible, very reasonable and very logical. Salute and reputation points added to you from me. Happy landings, Talisman

Point convergence is more lethal than pattern. This is why it was used by experienced combat pilots in WWII and was facilitated by the technical design function of aircraft armament systems. PC pilot customers, particularly with thousands of hours of experience, that can make good use of point convergence would like to do so. Point convergence was used historically, as well as pattern. Therefore, customers would like the option of being able to choose pattern or point convergence to meet their preference in line with the technical design function of the aircraft armament system. There is an old saying: 'There is more than one way to skin a cat'. Different ways of skinning the cat are built into the design function of the aircraft armament system and different ways of skinning the cat were used by pilots in WWII. Customers are asking to be able to use different ways to 'skin the cat' in line with historical use and technical design function. This would appear to be a perfectly reasonable request. But I stand to be corrected if someone can explain why this is not a reasonable request. Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman