Talisman_VR

Looking at the start up clip from Wags, I notice that it appears we might not be getting the gyro gun sight. Given WIP, does anyone know whether the type of gun sight has been confirmed as gyro or not yet? Happy landings, Talisman

From the air, looking in the direction that the sun is shining from, the ground, horizon and objects appear clearer to me than when I look at the ground and objects with the sun behind me. Surely this should be the other way around. I would expect visibility to be more difficult when looking in the direction of the sun, not when looking with the sun behind me. It is puzzling to me that I climb and position myself with the sun behind me, thinking I can spot targets better, as in real life, but in fact visibility is worse (more haze) with the sun behind me! It is not something to do with the cockpit canopy because I get the same effect when looking with the canopy open and not looking through the Perspex. Any one else noticed this? It is kind of like the effect of the sun light is back-to-front (better visibility (less haze) looking towards the sun and worse visibility (more haze) when the sun is behind me. Can anyone explain this? Happy landings, Talisman

I hope a stage to properly include the South coast of England will eventually be reached with DCS. Happy landings, Talisman

Many thanks for the update. Gosh, we are so close to almost seeing the South coast of England. So close that it hurts to see it is not quite there. Good luck with the project. Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

Apparently, according to my internet research: The horns on the tips of the elevators are aerodynamic balances. Designed to provide aerodynamic leverage forward of the hinge and thereby ease control pressures in flight. Also: elevator horns also allowed for a wider span of CG travel. Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman P.S. Just had a thought in my feeble old brain that this could be considered as a sort of power assistance mechanism.

The web page says this: "Elevators All except the initial production Mk. IXs had elevators with extended mass balance horns. Whereas the early Spitfires had a 45-degree break in the hinge line, this new pattern had an additional 45-degree break, resulting in the tip of the elevator pointing straight forward. As a rule of thumb the early pattern is seen on Mk. IXs converted from Mk. Vs, and early original Mk. IXs. I’ve seen both patterns on aircraft in the MA serial range (Castle Bromwich – mid-1943 vintage)." So I presume our DCS model is either a converted Mk V or one of the early original initial production batch Mk IX mid 1943 vintage. Correct? Or have I got the wrong end of the stick? Happy landings, Talisman

I don't think it will. We will have to wait for the Mk XIV for that. In the combat flight sim world most hard core simmers are wised up about their aircraft due to a passionate interest and have hundreds, even thousands, of hours of stick time. It is impossible to simulate a near real life (weather and physical, etc,) and wartime situation, even though we try our best. In real life much more was going on rather than just the set up air-to-air duels that we take part in again and again on MP at the moment (hope that will change eventually). The Mk IX is from a league below the Dora and 109K in terms of the technological development time line. I think it will be like racing with the previous seasons car in F1; you might put on a respectable performance now and then if luck goes your way (and get some PR for your sponsors), but don't expect to win the championship. Might be fun though. Happy landings, Talisman

I don't want a walking simulator. Don't walk, fly! Happy landings, Talisman

I have to agree that this is likely to be the case. Teamwork between the P51D and the Spit IX should work well though. Happy landings, Talisman

Well said :thumbup: Happy landings, Talisman

Very much agree. Single install, Normandy map and Spitfire plus all other WWII aircraft. I hope very much that we can all come together as a community on a single one track installation to fly warbirds. Otherwise we will have an unwanted extended period of disjointed activity/lack of activity, that will further put off the potential for an inclusive customer base. I will not mess about with multiple installations. Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

Just found this: To support the D-Day invasion the Royal Air Force formed the 2nd Tactical Air Force, which among other aircraft contained 18 squadrons of Hawker Typhoons. During the first five days of June 1944, the Typhoons put out of action all but one of the coastal radar installations on the Normandy coast. On D-Day itself, June 6, 1944, the nearest German armored formation to the invasion beaches—the 21st Panzer Division—was attacked continuously by Typhoons, suffering 26 destroyed or abandoned tanks. As a result, only six panzers and a handful of infantry made it near enough the coast to menace the Allied landings. Once the beachhead was secured, the Typhoon units were tasked with providing close air support to the British 2nd Army. While performing this job, Typhoons, in conjunction with Mitchel Light Bombers, obliterated the command center of Panzergruppe West, the headquarters which controlled all the German armored forces in Normandy. http://warfarehistorynetwork.com/daily/wwii/the-hawker-typhoon-1a-1b-worst-raf-fighters-in-wwii/ Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

Hawker Tempest Mk V is my dream aircraft for DCS :joystick: I second that wish big time. It is an aircraft that tends to get overlooked, which is a great shame. Happy landings, Talisman

We would need the historic high octane fuel used by the aircraft of the day. Happy landings, Talisman

Just as long as the possibility of getting something like 50 to 80 odd pilots on a WWII MP server will not be made difficult then that would be great. WWII in DCS has the opportunity to be massively popular if it starts attracting WWII pilot enthusiast from other titles. Happy landings, Talisman

I agree with you there Cripple :thumbup: Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

Funny you should say that, but I just broke a P51D wing twice in the last 4 days and I have not done so for so long back I can't remember; I thought I did not break wings anymore, lol, then I break 2 out of the blue. Just thought it was down to me though, as I was fast at the time and at about 400 mph and rolled over a little to try and get a guns solution at the end of a throttled back dive. Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

Regarding the "planes radar cross section in the game" comment. Sorry if I have got the wrong end of the stick, but would this be in reference to modern aircraft onboard radar systems? If so, perhaps we would not have this problem in the Normandy map as we don't have the need for aircraft onboard radar systems in the WWII aircraft planned for the WWII project. It would be great if the WWII project maps could be free of any problems associated with tying to replicate modern aircraft onboard radar systems; might enable more near to realistic air-to-air visibility of WII aircraft models on WWII maps (no need for sprites?). Just a thought and a desperate hope for the possibility of better aircraft model viewing quality prospects for WWII 1940's maps. Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

Noticed something I had not seen before on a WW2 server with large imposters last night. Strange green blobs, like glow worms, shining for 3 to 4 seconds, first below me over land (thought it was a ground object at first) and then in the sky above. Later, I saw that it appeared to be LW aircraft types with green tracer. From a distance with the large imposters this tracer was a green glow worm like condensed fluorescent blob of light (at least that is what I think it was). Another reason that I hope the imposter system will soon be consigned to the bin and history. I sincerely hope that the DCS WIP on the air-to-air visibility issue comes up trumps soon. Odd thing is that I did not see a similar red blob effect with the P51D tracer, just the green for the LW. Landing lights look strange with the imposters too. Happy landings, Talisman

As a current customer I am excited by this news and would like to say congratulations and wish you good luck. I very much hope to be using your improved systems soon. To be able to use my jetseat and simshaker with DCS and CloD as well would be brilliant :thumbup: I think you are likely to attract many new customers with this project and offer a great opportunity for improved flight simulation immersion for flight sim enthusiasts across the board :) I wholeheartedly recommend the jetseat and simshaker to anyone who has not yet taken advantage of this great product. Moreover, the after sales service is excellent! Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

Congratulations Racoon. Way to go! Many thanks. Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

So you presume I don't have a disability perhaps. Don't forget anyone who may be blind or not be able to move from the head down or joined twins, etc, etc. I know I will have to give the flight sim up one day because I will be too old and frail and may develop disabilities, but I would not want the flight sim to be compromised to suit me. But hey, that's just me. I hope your post was not an attempt to get this thread closed down. As for your last comment, I have no idea whether it can be done or not, but I wish it could. As I said earlier, I don't know much about computers. If unrealistic primary aircraft controls are to be the accepted order of the day, perhaps a space star wars sim might be in order instead. Happy landings, Talisman P.S. I did say above that I understood the need for easy settings like rudder assist, so I hope you did not miss that.

Thank you very much for your response Yo-Yo. It is the ability for the unhistorical benefit of improved quality of performance within the overall performance envelope that is of concern, for an aircraft that did not have the advantage of trim. An aircraft that did not have trim should not have the benefit that comes with trim is my point. The benefit if trim is considerable and not to be underestimated I suggest. If I understand you correctly, this issue of being able to use HOTAS software to enable trim control that did not exist is an anomaly that does exist at the moment on multi-player full switch, but won't at some time in the future? Or it will be an option? I do not understand what "wide MP" means exactly, or when that might be, so any clarification you may be able to provide would be gratefully received. Thank you again and happy landings, Talisman

This thread is about noticing differences to the way the K-4 handles since changes were made. My point is that if some pilots are able to trim primary control surfaces using a HOTAS software trim function to provide a magic secondary control device that was not part of the aircraft design, then noticing differences is going to be a different experience for some and perhaps not so easy to quantify. In short, the playing field is not level for all K-4 (and Dora) pilots in this instance. Trimming makes every sense and is a big deal. Rudder assist for easy settings is one thing and I can understand that. But the issue I raise is a bit more fundamental than that. The K-4 (and the FW 190-D) did not have rudder or aileron trim. For the K-4 (and the Dora) to be magically gifted with the advantage of trim functions they did not have, by HOTAS software, makes them less like a K-4 (and FW 190-D) and more like the P51-D in this particular regard. Further more, trim is in fact important in the combat zone, including when actually in combat, if a pilot wants to get the very best from the aircraft within the performance envelope. Trim makes handling the aircraft 'easier' and enables better 'quality' of flight; this in turn enables better performance within the flight model performance envelope. For example, if you were to take a P15-D and fly against a P51-D that has been modified to have no trim at all, it is easy to know which aircraft will always have an inbuilt advantage. Trim can effect the quality and performance of a dive, a climb and a turn; also fuel economy. The secondary control function provided by trimming can also enable a chance of surviving to control the aircraft if the primary controls are damaged. I would like to believe that it is worth discussing handling performance seriously. But my recently acquired knowledge that PC flight sim aircraft can be given trim controls, via HOTAS software, that they did not have in real life, to relieve holding the physical input of primary controls, is leading me to question the flight sim genre; even one with a reputation for fidelity like DCS. Is it wrong to question this? And how seriously can we discuss aircraft handling if secondary primary control functions are allowed and accepted, that did not exist? Happy landings, Talisman

How well and easy it is for the aircraft to perform up to and between the limits set by the designers is effected, surely? The real life design of high performance aircraft involves compromises. Surely we should experience the effects of those design compromises, rather than have a magic work around for primary flight control design compromises just to meet our convenience? As one example, if coarse and difficult movement of primary control surfaces are to be aided and smoothed out by a trim effect, using another set of controls that did not exist in real life and was not designed to exist by the simulator aircraft design team, then were are we as far as integrity of simulation of a primary control surface is concerned? In short, if trim effect can be achieved on a Bf 109 rudder by using a magically programed button, rather than relying on the allocated rudder control device, then the PC pilot has avoided a very fundamental design compromise and is arguably not flying a Bf 109 simulation at all. Same thing with regard to Spitfire aileron's. If the PC simulator aircraft model developers allow the movement of a primary control surface to be effected by a second control device that did not exist on the real aircraft, I suggest that it would be reasonable to consider that fundamental aspects of the integrity of the flight model would be compromised. Happy landings, Talisman