Talisman_VR

Not used in large numbers on the continent, as could have wrongly been assumed by your post. Let us be careful and not give the wrong impression to the casual reader. Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

I only posted to try and sort out the correct date of 1943 for Spit IX with Merlin 66 and 18lbs boost. If you read, I was thinking that perhaps the mix up by ManOWar was the date for 150 Octane. Lets not start a 150 Octane red herring, LOL. Be sure that 150 Octane was used though. Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

Very nice!

Again, you may want to amend your post above, as I don't think you give the full picture when you say that 40% of all airborne Spitfires on D-Day were MkVb. This source shows that the Spitfire MkV aircraft were in Air Defense Great Britain (ADGB) Reserve squadrons, plus a few air spotters. I think you will find that very few MkV were in action and they were used less and less in the weeks and months after D-Day. http://www3.sympatico.ca/angels_eight/2tac.html Also, when squadrons were rested from the front line it was practise to give swap their later Mk Spitfires and take over MkV aircraft whist resting in less busy locations in the UK. The MkV at this stage of the war was rather old hat and mostly used for training, spotting and ground attack, as it had been superseded by the Mk IX, XIV and XVI, etc. Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

You may want to correct something you have said in your post, as I believe you will find that the Mk LFIX with the Merlin 66 @ 18lbs boost started front line service in March 1943 (not 44). You may have been getting mixed up with March 1944 when this aircraft was given full service approval to use 150 Octane fuel and 25lbs boost; May 44 first squadrons operational with 25lbs boost and 150 Octane fuel. At the moment we do not have the 25lbs boost Mk LFIX model. Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

Yes, Yak 3 would be great :joystick: But La-7 Would be great too :thumbup: Happy landings, Talisman

Hi Flare, Chapter 10. Canadian Wing. His point 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. It shows that standard procedure was just that, a starting point and that standard procedure was not always the normal on a squadron. Just because something was standard does not mean that it was so all the time. Lets face it, when people are really good at something (sport, engineering, finance, military prowess, designing a cutting edge flight sim, etc,) they are rarely using standard procedure. A good shot, which many people are in DCS, will be far more lethal using spot convergence. By not being able to utilise spot convergence when it is practical and better to do so, we are not releasing the full potential of the aircraft that have guns mounted in the wings. In fact, they are being held back. In real life spot convergence was used, but we sadly only have a fairly large shotgun set up available as if this could not be change, when in fact it could and was. Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

Folks, I have to say that I think Yo-Yo is very correct in what he says. I am nothing special, but I have now mastered the Spit take-off and landing and have to wonder what I made all the fuss about before. It is just study, training and experience. Of course, controls and brakes need to be set up correctly on our systems at home, but if that is done then just work through it. The one small tip I might add is that sometimes we can all concentrate so much on instruments and technical stuff and actually miss the big picture. A bit like the 'magic eye' pictures that we cant see if we look too hard, but if we kind of de-focus and sense the wider picture as a whole we suddenly are able to see the image. I am better using peripheral vision and sensing speed and motion (or even imagine it, lol), I find sometimes the best landings are done with the wider senses rather than staring at the instruments. Try letting the force be with you and using sound and wider visual focus and cues. You need to be on the rudder though and I highly recommend brakes on axis, not button. I am loving this Spitfire :joystick: P.S. The flying instructor posts on the forum are brilliant and gave me the most help. If you have not read them then please do read them, perhaps more than once. Good luck and happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

Thank you for responding Rakuzard. I have tried to find out how the reputation system works, but have not managed to find a definitive guide on the forum. Sorry if I have missed it, but I have never been very computer or social media savvy (no good talking to me about face-book, LOL, I don't do stuff like that). Any way, I have had to resort to this thread and pick the bones of it to educate myself about this rep system. I have to say that to me it appears less than impressive and I still don't fully understand it. However, perhaps I am being given the wrong impression and am just not clued up on it. I can see from the date joined information on the forum how long people have been with DCS and am well able to read and judge for myself who is contributing well and with good intention to the community. We would appear to have examples of down-reps of a vindictive nature posted above. I am also willing to bet that other people will have examples of being on the wrong end of the reputation system. I put it to you that it would be naïve to think that people would not use the ability to damage someones reputation in reprisal or in a vindictive or unfair way at some point. I would say that if a company provides a means by which members and customers can damage another persons reputation on-line on a whim, then that means will be abused or at least unintentionally misused in an unfair way if the system is not understood; it is in human nature and we are all human for better or worse. Moreover, if a company provides a means by which some members can damage a persons reputation more than someone else (some members are enabled to have a bigger sick to beat with than others), then that exacerbates an already poor situation. Also, if people with the biggest sticks are on the company team and they use those sticks, then it can feel like a corrective moderation experience when you are hit by the big sick and your reputation is damaged (perhaps beyond recovery). Please correct me if I am wrong, but after reading this forum thread I am under the impression that a single hit from a very large stick has put my reputation beyond recovery. Also, I am under the impression that with a zero reputation it is pointless to give someone a positive reputation mark, because in will not register. I would be grateful if you could confirm this either way. If a reputation system is seen to be needed or desired for some reason, then I suggest that it would be far better to base such a system on positive reputation only and not enable people to be able to damage another persons reputation. I would also suggest that it would be more fair for everyone to have the same equal power of adding such reputation. If someone is to have their reputation damaged, then I consider that a serious matter which should be dealt with by moderators and fair judgment and disciplinary action taken. The ability to damage reputation should not be at the will and whim of all and sundry IMHO. Perhaps you consider that I am being too serious about this. Perhaps it is a generational thing and I am old hat. Nonetheless, I would be grateful if you would consider the points I have made and take them as constructive customer feedback which I hope will be of use. Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

Just been looking into this reputation lark and struggle to see the point. However, very much sympathise with your comments about the "wrong guy once" thing (even though I did not actually even argue with him). I got one negative mark from Wags, of all people, LOL. The equivalent to a nuclear strike! At my age it looks like I think it means I will be dead before I ever recover from a blow like that. I was not even rude or swearing. Just took his research on Allied bases in the South of England, together with maps including South of England from other posters, as meaning that the Normandy map would include England. Silly old me. Honest wrong assumption and allowed myself to be mislead. I will have zero rep for ever now me thinks. Surely it is time to do away with this reputation lark. What is it for exactly and is it fair in its conception and execution? Can't find anything about it in the rules about it and IMHO it can potentially be the source of misunderstanding, misuse and vindictiveness. Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

If a ban effects the reputation system then that is not a moderation issue? Sorry if I am wrong and that a ban does not effect reputation and therefore damaged reputation is not about moderation. Happy landings, Talisman

I understand what you are getting at, but for the PC sim pilots that have thousands of hours on aircraft type and are crack shots due to huge amounts of experience and practise, then they are effectively the Johnnie Johnson and George Beurling of the PC pilot scene. If PC pilots were drafted under conscription, whether they like it or not, and were to fight a virtual air war after only a few hours of training, then perhaps more of a hide bound approach might be understandable. But since that is not the case, being able to have custom convergence is all part of the WWII experience, the same as the flight model, etc, IMHO. I sincerely hope that DCS will be able to facilitate as near a complete experience as possible, including being able to change gun convergence, as is shown to have been done historically. Johnny Johnson studied gun camera footage and convergence settings of the most successful shot on his Mk IX Spitfire squadron 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. It shows that lower ranks were able to use custom convergence and that different convergence was used by different pilots. P.S. See page 155 of Wing Leader by 'Johnnie' Johnson, Penguin Books (price 3 shillings and sixpence). Happy landings, Talisman

Moderation is a difficult gig and needed very much, so salute moderators. However, I don't get why we have a reputation system. Is reputation supposed to aid moderators to keep order and keep us in line? Is reputation to pander to our ego? What is the reasoning behind the reputation system? Surely it is easy to see that any reputation system is flawed isn't it? What is the reputation system supposed to tell us and is what it is supposed to tell us correct? How am I supposed to be interpreting this reputation system? IMHO I think the reputation system could possibly actually be misleading and that a grown up forum should not need such a reputation system. Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman P.S. Is this post to be considered worthless because I have a reputation power of 0?

Nice one Sokol_br :) This should also help:

Thanks for posting :)) I am using TIR so not using snap views. Are snap views possible with TIR? I hope it is not anything ultra complicated to set up; as a customer, I don't want to be going in and changing files on the c drive. It would be much better to have the compass view catered for as a toggle as it is in rather a difficult positon for a PC pilot to access in flight. No idea how you have achieved this view to be flashed up for use whilst in flight, how is this possible? So, looks like you are heading 220, correct? Thanks again. 56RAF_Talisman

Would it be possible for the devs to provide a 'main compass view' key function? The aim being to give a clear zoomed in view of the main compass so that it can be used to navigate, set and read to be able to set the gyro compass from it. At the moment it is hardly possible to safely use the main compass whilst in flight as per the real life design function. Sorry if I am missing something, but proper navigation in the Spitfire would appear to be nigh impossible at the moment. Thanks in anticipation. Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

With the DCS in-game visibility already being inherently much worse than real life in general terms, especially air-to-air contact wise, adding poor quality cockpit visibility on top as well feels like adding insult to injury IMHO as a customer. Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

Great stuff :thumbup: Some of my squad mates are potential customers now the Spitfire is released. Happy landings, Talisman

Can't believe you have asked this, loads of posts on a thread months back showing not just a trial (mission reports and other stuff). No time to find them at the moment, but will look later perhaps. Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

The in-game gunnery tutorial says set range for 150 yards, so I had presumed that the convergence was set to 150 yards; if not, then perhaps the gunnery tutorial should be changed to reflect a range of 300 yards, not 150 yards (big difference, LOL). It would be good if you could confirm gun single point convergence range for certain Yo-Yo. It is very important, crucial in fact, if we are to use the gun sight to best effect. Thank you in anticipation. Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

Hi Andre, Do you have any news as to when you will be able to include the Spitfire Mk IX as an update? Happy landings, Talisman

I thought that ball rounds and observer rounds .303 were no longer used by RAF fighters after early war and that incendiary and AP (50/50%) was the standard loadout once armour protection was used more on aircraft of both sides. I don't think it would be historically correct to see .303 ball and observer rounds in use by RAF Spitfires Mk IX over France. Any experts out there to confirm this? No point in observer rounds as they do no damage and strikes can be observed by incendiary rounds, so observer rounds were not needed. Please don't tell me DCS are going to give us useless observer rounds and ball rounds in the Mk IX Spitfire over France! Sorry if I have got the wrong end of the stick about this (this ammunition stuff is a bit confusing, LOL), but hope someone with some proper knowledge could put me at ease. Thanks in anticipation. Happy landings, Talisman

The irony is that the XIV was held up in the UK to fend off the flying bombs until late 1944 and by the time the K4 came to the front line in numbers the lack of fuel and air supremacy mitigated any kind of gains in performance. Not all XIV, but some used on anti 'diver' (V1 flying bomb) duties (including Mk IX Spit) and even then not exclusively. For example, the RAF used its aircraft very flexibly and in the same day multiple sorties could include both anti 'diver' missions and other types of operations across the English channel. Also, the anti 'diver' missions were rotated and shared amongst other aircraft types including the 25lbs Spitfire Mk IX, Mustang, Mosquito and Tempest; there were plenty of aircraft types to share the task. V1 attacks peaked for a limited period of about 2 months before tailing off. Very much looking forward to the Mk IX Spitfire :thumbup: Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

Rare is a relative term perhaps in this instance. Personally, I would not use the term 'rare' for any aircraft that was produced in the many hundreds. Also, as Jeffrey Quill indicated, they were delivered in the numbers required at the time when they were need. If more had been needed then more would have been produced, particularly the Mk XIV, but with Allied air superiority and the LW very much on the back foot later in the war, then not so many thousands of air superiority fighters were needed. I think it is worth suggesting that it was the Axis that needed many thousands of the latest air superiority fighters (and super weapons) but could not produce enough. Both the Mk IX and Mk XIV historically flew together and were in combat in the sky with the current DCS Axis opposition aircraft. The difference is that the Mk IX is in a league below the Mk XIV and the current DCS Axis opposition aircraft in terms of the technological time line. So, historically the Mk IX is a good fit for us, but when, without exception, all opposition for it on a MP combat competitive server is from the higher league in terms of the technological time line, then the combat competition element for PC pilots is somewhat skewed and skewed in favour of the Axis aircraft at the moment. Of course, not all Digital Combat Simulation customers want to engage in competitive digital combat, human vs human on MP servers, but it is something that attracts many DCS customers. Happy landings, Talisman

Ok, thought I read that they were issued during the period of the Normandy invasion. Happy landings, Talisman