Talisman_VR

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

But if PC pilots can programme in unhistorical and unrealistic trim effects using HOTAS software then what is all this worth? And I mean that as a serious question, as I don't know much about computers and I am no expert on aircraft flight modeling. If changes the developers make to a flight model for more accuracy can be over-ridden, modified or worked around by HOTAS software programs in terms of primary flight control surface effects, then I am beginning to question the meaning of it all, lol. Happy landings, Talisman

The "it is the pilot not the machine that is important" thing that we read so many times on the forums seems a bit of a daft comment IMHO. In fact, I have come to think that it is a rather disingenuous comment. The reason I say this is because I have just learnt from reading another forum that, apparently, some high tech HOTAS systems have software that can be used to provide a PC pilot with magic control effects to primary flight control surfaces that an aircraft in real life did not have and was not designed to have by the sim developers. For example, I have read that an aircraft that did not have rudder trim, like the Bf 109, or an aircraft that did not have aileron trim, like the Spitfire, can be flown with the trim they did not have and were not designed to have in the sim, by programming HOTAS software. Of course, sim flying on PC systems has its limits of realism, but if expensive HOTAS systems can magic up primary flight system control effects (and I am talking about primary flight surface function here, with is fundamental to any attempt at realistic simulation) like rudder and aileron trim that is completely unhistorical then I would say that "it is not the pilot that matters, but the HOTAS software programme that can cheat the primary flight control systems." I wonder how many PC pilots are banging on in the forums about flight models and flying accuracy and then are using magic rudder trim via HOTAS software on an aircraft that did not have rudder trim? I wish there was a way for the flight sim developers to stop this sort of thing for the really important fundamental flight controls and effects. Of course we can't all fly the same PC home cockpit, so there will always be limits, but primary flight control effects by magic that the real aircraft did not have is a step over the line for me. Happy landings, Talisman

Many thanks for adding the Mig-15 and Sabre. :thumbup: I don't fly Tiger or Fishbed and have very much missed Korea jets on ACG. Happy landings, Talisman

Strongly disagree regarding realistic spotting/aircraft visibility. OK if you are lone wolf all the time and just want to dogfight in airquake perhaps, but if pilots want to fly more realistically and fly as part of a squad with cooperative operations/missions on large maps then not being able to see your own squad mates and spot/identify friendly aircraft as well as enemy will still remain one of the biggest problems, especially for WWII DCS. Happy landings, Talisman

Yes, I was thinking the same thing. I hope there is some positive news soon :joystick: Happy landings, Talisman

Thanks for posting the above link; it is very illuminating and great information. Happy landings, Talisman

Kurfurst, firstly, what is your source regarding service life for RR engines as you have quoted above? Secondly, service life is different to in-use performance and should not be confused.

I think I agree with most of what you are saying, but the grey smear, as you put it, on the screen is just such a disappointment and is the main reason I have for feeling very underwhelmed by the new engine to date (I use version 1.5). I am desperately hoping for something better before fully committing to DCS in the way I would like too. Happy landings, Talisman

1. The Spitfire Mk IX will give us the first aircraft for the Allied side in DCS WWII that will provide cannon armament. 2. For the first time the Allied side will have a choice of 2 fighters instead of 1. 3. I stand to be corrected on this, but I believe it will be the most agile fighter so far, even thought it will be out-performed in many ways, particularly level speed, roll rate and climb rate. 4. It is not in the same technological time-line league as the 109K or 190D (as the Tempest V or Spitfire Mk XIV would be), so we get to experience an aircraft from an earlier technological time-line and pit it against aircraft in the next higher league up on every flight that involves combat with the 109K or 190D. So that should be fun! Happy landings, Talisman

Nice one! All adds to the spice :pilotfly: Happy landings, Talisman P.S. One day it would be nice to fly some missions from Scotland to Norway and back.

Very much agree with the two posts above regarding the RR engine and the break down situations. Its like a glass engine and I am sure RR was not in the business of producing glass engines. Still, I am no expert, but all I read about RR continuously testing engines to destruction and then improving the parts that break and testing again and again as part of development seems to be at odds with the DCS experience. Then there are all the pilot accounts of engines getting them home having been badly damaged and the pilots being amazed the engine kept going. All I have read indicates the RR engines were extremely reliable, pilots loved them and they had a margin for abuse in combat that was well over the guidance in the pilot notes. Any way, I accept I could be wrong about what I term as a 'glass engine' and stand to be corrected, but I must say it makes me somewhat concerned about how things might be with the upcoming Spitfire Mk IX. Happy landings, Talisman

Thank you Wags. The South Coast of England enabled the Normandy landings and was the springboard to invasion. Huge numbers of missions were flown from England (effectively the Allied aircraft carrier off the West coast of the European Continent). The addition of the South Coast of England would add so much :thumbup: More options for both sides, more variety, more fun. Crossing the Channel means serious business, not just a quick flit to the nearest enemy base for an airquake shoot-em-up. Happy landings (in England and Normandy), Talisman

Hi Racoon, Big thank you for looking into this issue :thumbup: With you on the case the Normandy map could end up being the best map ever and everyone will want to fly on it every day possible with a variety of aircraft models and a variety of challenges on offer for pilots :) I must say that your general approach to this and your communication on these forums is starting to full me with confidence that I am likely to be growing into DCS WWII in a big way and that I can get more of my squad mates interested in DCS too :joystick: Thank you again. Happy landings, Talisman

Exciting! Very nice work :)) WIP I understand, but is it me, or do those airfields seem to stand out as rather too bold. Real life airfields tend to start blending in with the surroundings surprisingly fast once you get a little distance from them. I suppose an airfield that had only just been completed would stand out as more of a fresh scar on the landscape though. Not sure if these airfields are long established or simulated as only just finished construction. Happy landings, Talisman