Talisman_VR

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

No map on kneeboard that I can see in this film, unless I missed it, as he is flying a pre-planned route from his route planner on the kneeboard. However, if he was to go off course, gets lost, or have to deviate from route to hide from bandits or avoid sudden bad weather, he would need to go to his map box and pull out the map to study it and work out a new navigation course on the fly. To zoom in a little bit on a map would simulated holding the map nearer to closely study small details, so no need to simulate magnifying glass, lol. Such a slight zoom in would be in keeping with the pilot view zoom function principles that we have in other areas with DCS.

RAF WWII historical map. USAF also used British maps. http://www.8thafhsoregon.com/archive/Oregon-Chapter/Lawrence-Fick/Straight-of-Dover-aerial-map-February-1944.jpg If you zoom in you can see the sort of detail we need. Note contour lines around high ground and numbers giving the height if hills, etc. Spitfire, Mustang, Thunderbolt, all had map boxes built into the cockpit as part of the fixtures and fittings.

The thing is Neil, the in-cockpit map is too small with not enough detail. For example, flying a low level (being low reduces the visibility range of the geography you are flying over) under the radar strike mission of say 30 minutes or more to target, using dog-leg indirect routing to avoid concentrations of anti aircraft batteries, enemy air bases and interception by fighters, by coming from an unexpected direction with the element of surprise (also flying home by another route) needs a map that is good enough for the task and one that does not fill the whole screen and leave you flying blind when it is opened. Of course, if we want the arcade version of a map that we currently have on the DCS kneeboard in terms of being able to press a key and our position/icon on the map appears as if by miracle, then we won't have so much of a problem. However, I am suggesting the exact opposite of an arcade map. I am asking for a map that we can use to actually navigate ourselves without resorting to the crutch of having an icon constantly able to show our position on the map. A map with enough detail to navigate properly and historically. Also, please note that I am not asking for the in-cockpit map to be continually re-drawn to reflect something that has changed on the ground since take-off. I would just like the map to be detailed and the same as the main map set by the host server on MP; I would like us to be able to reduce the boarder size of the map (as if folding it) and be able to magnify the area I am interested in on the fly to simulated holding it nearer, like using a real map. The Mustang and Jug have long legs for strike missions, as do the Mosquito, Lancaster and many other WWII aircraft in the pipeline. I hope this helps to clarify were I am coming from. It is better to think of these issues now, rather than later when it will be too much trouble to change map functions. It seems to me that we need to put a WWII head on to think about this map, rather than copy and paste from current DCS systems that were not designed with WWII in mind. To actually get to a target to be effective and survive to get home in WWII needed navigation skills and a map much better than the likes of what we currently have depicted on the DCS kneeboard. Navigation is part of flying. If we are not going to simulate the challenges of WWII navigation then we will be missing a large part of combat simulation. I would like to see DCS WWII fulfill its potential for combat operations across the board, not just arcade air-quake and base vulching or make-do intercepts with an air-start. There is just so much potential for DCS WWII on all sorts of fronts :) Happy landings, Talisman

Thank you Racoon. I was really concerned about the size of the map and having it limited to the size of the kneeboard and the map being very limited in detail. If possible, a print ready map would be brilliant! :thumbup: Any way, looks like the map may not be as large as I had imagined and as you say, I expect navigation will be easier. Your feedback is very much appreciated. I will sign off for now and leave you in peace. Salute and good luck. Talisman

Yes, there is lots of potential and there are lots of aspects to look forward to :thumbup: Lots to get excited about :pilotfly: Looking forward to the 1940's ambience to match the aircraft, the history, the times :) Happy landings, Talisman

Mk IX: 434 mi (698 km) on internal fuel Mk XIV: 460 mi (740 km) on internal fuel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermarine_Spitfire_variants:_specifications,_performance_and_armament Shorter missions, in terms of a return trip there and back, than if map was bigger, unless want to fly around in circles on a small map. Did this really need to be explained? LOL

I was basing my expectations on this http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=135412 and particularly the 3rd post from Wags. Looks like I have got things wrong then. Happy landings, Talisman

Looks like short missions then, with not a lot of meat on the bone. What a shame. No starting point for the invasion, no conserving your aircraft to get back home across the Channel. Should be good for those that enjoy air-quake type stuff, but I was hoping for some proper WWII missions and airmanship challenges across a decent expanse of historic WWII geography. I am now going into phase 2 of trying to manage and lower my expectations and not get too disappointed, but it is proving difficult. I suppose I just have to accept that DCS is really about more modern aircraft and environments and that WWII is the poor relation in the bigger picture; at least that is what if feels like. Happy landings, Talisman

That would be hugely disappointing! It would also go against information in previous thread posts, including requests for airfield location information. I think I am going to have to start managing my expectations by the sounds of it :(

Thanks for your reply Racoon and conformation that we will get a kneeboard map. I had thought that the kneeboard was more common in terms of the jet-age and that WWII pilots more often had maps stuffed down their flying boots to pull out when required. I stand to be corrected if I am wrong, but I think having a proper map showing good levels of detail was more important to a pilot in the 1940's than it is flying in the modern world of automatic navigation systems. That is why I had thought that more attention might be given to providing readable, detailed maps for WWII style in-flight navigation; the current DCS kneeboard is not up to that IMHO. Although kneeboards were used as far back as WWI, they tended to be larger than the one in the current DCS. And that is the thing, the current kneeboard map is too small for the sort of WWII navigation I was thinking of. Although, I suppose it could be considered almost adequate if all we have to do is press a key to display our position on the map, but then that is not really anything like WWII navigation I would have thought; although I suppose that might simulate a reply radio message from a ground controller telling you your location. To be able to open a more user-friendly map that matches exactly the main map (not a smaller different map) with readable landmarks and names of towns and airfields, etc, that could be manipulated to the size required (drag with mouse) might deliver more realistic WWII navigation. I suppose my question should have been to ask if DCS intends to provide us with the map navigation challenges of the 1940's, or copy and paste across the current DCS map navigation provision which, correct me if I am wrong, appears to be orientated towards more modern aircraft operations. If on-screen map navigation is a bit difficult to simulate, then perhaps DCS could make a full map available that could be printed out by us DCS pilots. I would appreciate that above all else if it was possible. Happy landings, Talisman