Talisman_VR

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

Very much agree with you Gavagai :thumbup: Very much dislike the imposter system anyway and large is just a grey cloud of awful horrible mess which is a total immersion killer IMHO. It is one of the reasons I don't fly DCS MP as much as I would like to.:(

Hi Racoon, I hope all is well with you and that the Normandy map is progressing in good order. Any information you may be able to provide regarding the 4 questions below would be gratefully received. 1. Will the pilot in-flight navigation map be able to be used in such as way as to: a. Enable pilots to look at the map and still fly the aircraft safely with peripheral vision outside the cockpit? b. Enable pilots to check ground landmarks below with landmarks on the open navigation map? c. Enable pilots to manipulate the size of the open map to meet their needs in the cockpit? 2. Will the pilot in-flight navigation map be able to be opened by a single “toggle map on/off” key so that 2 separate keys (one for open and one for close) are not needed? 3. If the in-flight navigation map can be sized by the pilot (simulating a real WWII pilot folding the map to the most user-friendly size), can the selected map size be saved automatically so that after the map is turned off and subsequently turned back on again, the map comes back up again at the previously selected user-friendly size? 4. Will the in-flight navigation map have an authentic 1940's period look? Thanks in anticipation. Happy landings, Talisman

Great! My grandson and I enjoyed that one :thumbup: Happy landings, Talisman

http://imansolas.freeservers.com/Aces/Greek%20Spitfire%20IXc_.jpg Any chance we could have a Greek Spitfire Mk IX like above? Happy landings, Talisman http://imansolas.freeservers.com/Aces/Greeks%20in%20Spitfires.html

Nice ACG servers, both WWII and early jets :) Just one thing has changed that has made me very sad :( All of a sudden my Gametrix FF seat cushion won't work with the ACG servers :cry: Used to work fine and dandy with both ACG servers, but recently I can get in and fly with no problems except that the Gametrix FF seat cushion fails to work for some reason. Soon as I log off ACG and go to Dogs of War then bingo, it works again. Seems like ACG has something against my FF seat cushion :helpsmilie: Happy landings, Talisman

Very much agree with this. I would definitely celebrate a decision by DCS to discontinue Model Enlargement for more fundamental changes to make model visibility much more realistic. I find it hard to believe that DCS considered Model Enlargement it the first place and hope that it was just a stop-gap attempt until they produced a solution that makes the grade. Happy landings, Talisman

Test if it has been given a glass engine, or one that will last for hours at high performance settings as designed and tested to do so by RR.

Thank goodness more people are giving this issue an airing again. I was beginning to think this issue was a bit like that story about the Emperors new clothes; the one were the people are supposed to all agree that his new clothes are great, he believes he looks great too, but really he is stark naked and it takes a young street urchin boy to blurt out the truth during a parade and break the whole pretence. This issue is one of the main reason my squad (and many others I suspect) is not transferring to DCS as the flight simulator of choice. It is the main reason why all the flash sales and new aircraft models are wasted on me (I will make and exception for the Spitfire), I am waiting to see if Edge will deliver the air-to-air visibility improvements needed before I fully commit to this simulator. So far I have only the Mig-15 and P51D. When flying with others on TS in MP this issue is by far the main thing talked about that people are not happy with. I have never met anyone on TS in MP that has a good word to say about DCS air-to-air visibility. Better air-to-air visibility is the main thing I have been waiting for edge to deliver and so far I have seen nothing to encourage me. In fact quite the opposite. The imposter system leaves me almost lost for words as I cant help but find it is such an ugly and unnatural attempt at a solution IMHO. I so want to be able to fully commit to DCS, but this issue is so frustrating and we appear to be getting so little recognition of the issue from DCS, which makes me as a customer feel somewhat perplexed to say the least. Please, please, please DCS communicate with us on this topic and let us know what is happening. Happy landings, Talisman

I would like to see the P51D doing some high level bomber escort, so I am with you regarding that. I just hope we can get some bombers modelled that we can escort. Great battles around bomber formations would be very desirable and very representative. Happy landings, Talisman

Airquake will always have its place for fighter pilots to practice and get a quick fix; good for intensive and quick training for combat, including gunnery, etc. Also good for comparing aircraft combat performance, pushing things to the limit and perfecting your air-to-air fighting tactics. No need to have a snobbish attitude towards airquake servers IMHO. However, for me MP servers with more sophisticated maps and missions is more the real deal :joystick: and is what most interests me. I would love to take off from England in a fighter or fighter bomber with mixed aircraft types taking part in a joint operation to attack targets in France like the railway system, V1 launch sites, radar installations, airfields and army ground units. Flying low level across the English Channel to avoid radar detection and navigating to target, attacking the target, perhaps meeting defensive bandits and then trying to survive and get back across the Channel would be great. To do that with my squad mates on comms with another squad on the same mission, with one squad flying something like Thunderbolts or Typhoons and another squad flying Spitfires, Tempest V or Mustangs would be epic. Such mission could also take place From airfields in France, but I just love the idea of crossing the Channel and back. To fly such missions against Axis AI fighter cover would be OK, but to fly against human pilots on the other side is what it is really all about for me. Twin engine bomber missions in something like the Mosquito from England to France would also be epic. I would also like to fly higher level bomber escort missions from England to France as well as fighter sweeps. Anti-diver (V1) missions in a Tempest V, Spitfire, Mustang or Mosquito would be interesting, but the current problem with air-to-air model visibility may mean that this would not be feasible. Happy landings, Talisman

Very much agree with you Klem. Currently it does not feel real to just go from no problems to full stop. A bit more sophistication in the engine modelling to represent an engine that is beginning to struggle, and gradual failure if not tended to would be so much more realistic, rather than instant full failure every time. Being able to have the chance to coax and nurse an engine along with appropriate remedial action would be very immersive, challenging and a bit more real IMHO. Happy landings, Talisman

Thanks SiThSpAwN. :thumbup: Happy landings, Talisman

Very much agree with this sentiment. It is becoming exasperating! The lack of communication on this topic from DCS (I stand to be corrected if I have missed it) and the lack of progress to date are leading me to feel concerned about the level of interest and commitment from the developers towards this problem. I wish DCS well, particularly with the WWII project and hope that they can deliver acceptable model visibility soon. Happy landings, Talisman

Agreed, actual train lines themselves might not be so good to damage model; perhaps in the marshalling yards and stations only. Trains/locomotives, engine sheds/workshops, station buildings and bridges would be the things to prioritise I would have thought. As long as the target can be put out of action with enough damage. Happy landings, Talisman

Many thanks Racoon :) Below you can see the reason it is important. Comments from German Field Marshal von Rundstedt on the causes of the German defeat in the West, from the Intelligence Bulletin, March 1946 AIR POWER AT WORK Systematic preparations by the Allied air forces caused the general collapse of the German defense, Von Rundstedt said. He cited three important factors. First, there was the smashing of the main lines of communication, particularly the railway junctions. Although Von Rundstedt had planned the defense so that reserves could be moved to the threatened areas, Allied planes knocked out railway lines and made the shifting of troops impossible. The second factor was the attack on roads and on marching columns, individual vehicles, etc., so that it was impossible to move by day. This made it extremely difficult to bring up reserves, and it also created a supply problem because fuel and ammunition could not be brought up. Carpet bombing constituted the third factor. In certain respects, Von Rundstedt said, it constituted an intensified artillery barrage and knocked out troops in pillboxes or dug in ahead of the front line. It also smashed reserves in the rear. http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/rundstedt/ Thank you again for all your work and for taking the time to give us feedback and updates. Good luck with the map. Happy landings, Talisman