Talisman_VR

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

Also, will we be getting lots of shipping and the crucial Mulberry docks at Omaha and Arromanches beach heads? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulberry_harbour http://d-dayrevisited.co.uk/d-day/mulberry-harbour.html Any sneak previews of any models for the Normandy map would be greatly appreciated Racoon. Thanks in anticipation. Happy landings, Talisman

Thanks for the reply Racoon. Just to say that the railway infrastructure was crucial to the ground war for ground army operational effectiveness. Railway systems were major targets for air forces, especially for the Allies in 1944/45. We would need proper modelling of the railway system if DCS is to deliver WWII and historic ground attack mission capability. Mission builders need to be able to position and run train routes and timetables. Marshalling yards, sheds, Stations, locomotives, carriages and bridges need damage modelling. Ground attack by fighters and fighter bombers of various types was crucial to the Allied invasion plan and liberation of the continent. I would love to see DCS as the WWII flight simulation of choice for PC pilots, but we need a good interactive and dynamic map capability for mission builders in order to deliver and give pilots something tangible and realistic to do with the aircraft models they purchase. Otherwise we might just as well fly Nevada in the modern world and that is unlikely to generate and increase a decent customer base of WWII PC pilots. Perhaps you could have a word with whoever is leading the WWII project. Please forgive me if this is all in hand, but it should be one of the building blocks for delivering WWII on the Normandy map I would have thought. The railway system moved tanks, troops, food, spares, everything you can think of that an army needs. Happy landings, Talisman

LOL

Re 56. Looks like Tempest V from June 44 to the end. Short spell on Mk IX Spit prior to that and Typhoon before that. http://www.raf.mod.uk/organisation/56squadron.cfm Although used for anti-diver duties flying the Tempest V as part of ADGB, they also took part in OPERATION OVERLORD ops on the continent. For example, here are some combat reports from Jun 8th 1944 Pilot Accounts W/Cdr. R. P. Beamont, D.S.O., D.F.C. leading 150 (Newchurch) Wing recorded in his Combat Report for 8 June 1944: I was leading the Newchurch Tempest wing on a Fighter sweep to the Caen area of the beachhead via Rouen, Bernay and Argentan. We took off from Newchurch at 12.25 hours, and crossed the French coast at Pte d’Ailly at 10,000 ft. When we were a few miles to the West of Rouen at 12.50 hours over scattered cloud, I saw five aircraft in line astern at about 5,000 ft, turning from East to North. Leaving 486 (N.Z.) Squadron up above as top cover, I took No. 3 Squadron down to investigate. I closed in behind the aircraft at 370 I.A.S., and recognized them as ME.109G’s. They were traveling at approximately 300 m.p.h. and did not realize they were being bounced until just before I opened fire, when the e/a broke to port and dived for cloud with violent evasive action. I selected the fourth or last e/a, I am not sure which, and opened fire with a 2/3 second burst, starting with 30° deflection, and changing according to the e/a’s evasive action. I opened fire at about 500 yards range closing to pointblank, and saw strikes at the end of the burst on the starboard side of the fuselage. The e/a immediately poured smoke and flames. I had to break to starboard in order to avoid collision and then to port when I saw clearly the e/a enveloped in flames in an inverted dive. I broke to starboard as I finished my attack and heard a loud bang and saw a strike on my starboard wing. My No. 2 who subsequently saw my e/a disintegrate and the starboard wing break off, saw two ME.109’s diving down out of sun at him and myself. My U/C warning lights went on so I handed over to S/Ldr. Dredge, of No. 3 Squadron, and set course for base where I landed at 13.30 hrs. The aircraft I destroyed was camouflaged mottled chocolate and brown and no national markings were visible. I claim one ME. 109G destroyed. 1 F/O G. A. Whitman (U.S.A.) of 3 Squadron recorded in his Combat Report for 8 June 1944: I was No. 2 to W/Cdr. Beamont as he was attacking one of the Me.109G’s. As they were attacked they split into two sections and I observed strikes on the fuselage and starboard wing of the Wing Commander’s target. Then I saw it burst into flames and the starboard wing came off, the aircraft flicked over and went down in flames. Before making an attack myself I looked behind and saw two Me.109G’s slightly above on the port quarter diving in to attack out of the sun. I throttled back and the leader over shot. I opened fire at 300 yards with A.S.I. 370 m.p.h. with 15° deflection. The enemy aircraft did a climbing turn to port and I saw two strikes, one in the wing root and one in the cockpit, and then the target blew up. I claim a Me.109G destroyed and confirm W/Cdr. Beamont’s claim of one Me.109G destroyed. After this engagement I pulled up then heard the Wing Commander call up and say his aircraft was damaged and he was returning to base. I had lost him in cloud so I rejoined the formation which was orbitting up sun. 2 F/L A. R. Moore of 3 Squadron recorded in his Combat Report for 8 June 1944: I was Green 1, flying on the port of the Wing Leader when he sighted suspect aircraft. He turned and dived and went down with him. When at about 600 yards we recognized them as Me.109G’s camouflaged a mottled brown. As we closed to 300 yards the Me’s broke to starboard towards cloud. I saw the Wing Commander go for one of the enemy aircraft and I picked out another which was diving under cloud at about 7,000 feet quite straight. I was then indicating 300 m.p.h. and closed in easily to about 200 yards with I.A.S. 360 and gave it a 1 second burst from dead astern. Flames immediately appeared from the starboard side of the cockpit followed by almost complete disintegration of the cockpit area. It then turned on its back and went straight down in flames. (Upon landing a piece of this aircraft was found in my radiator which was damaged.) I continued straight ahead and saw another Me.109 at 4-500 yards. I had it dead ahead and gave a 1 second burst before it disappeared into cloud. No strikes or results were seen. 3 http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/tempest/temptest.html Happy landings, Talisman

Please re read what I wrote and I think you will see that I have not denied anything, nor have I disregarded any possibility of error. I would be grateful if you would not give the impression to the casual reader that I have. I have merely suggested exploration of why someone might dismiss certain documents as falsified in some way or wrong. Some sort of evidence based consideration as to why someone has drawn a certain conclusion would be helpful in this case. I agree with what you say regarding the possibility of errors in documents generally and am grateful to those who genuinely are searching for a reasonable and as near as accurate picture of history as is possible. High handed dismissal of documents without explaining the rationale behind such a dismissal does not help us move forward. It can also cause friction and set up red herrings and distractions, whether intended or not. Happy landings, Talisman

Racoon, Will the map include detailed railway infrastructure that can be damaged as part of mission building? If so, if would help us with historic missions. For example, a general offensive was laid on against railway systems in France and Belgium by the Allies. From 19th May 44 to 1st June 44, there were 3,400 fighter sorties against the railway system. Individual locomotives were destroyed or damaged, as were railway bridges, loco sheds and tracks. All marshalling yards from Paris to Brussels were attacked and razed in the period from April to May 44. It would be great to be able to fly on missions like these from England to attack railway systems on the continent and also to try our hand at locomotive busting. [ame] [/ame] http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafcms/mediafiles/6FCE5079_5056_A318_A80C60638BA71D99.jpg https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/f5/90/c1/f590c12a931f0784ff7b6ac70f854991.jpg https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/USA-E-Supreme/img/USA-E-Supreme-p133b.jpg Happy landings, Talisman

Firstly, surely operational significance is about more than just air kills. To narrow a combat sim down to just air kills as being worthy above all else is surely not taking into account the wider picture and would not widely represent the use of airpower during WWII. I have given just one example of the many other uses of airpower in my post above regarding the fighter and fighter bomber attacks on railway infrastructure just prior to D-Day. Also included anti-diver missions. Surely operational significance is wider than just air kills on manned aircraft. Secondly, I do not understand the reference to dubious alternate history sites, nor the long discredited comment. I am not sure if we are to understand whether you consider the combat reports I posted above regarding Spitfire XIV sorties in 1944 to be falsified. If you do think they are falsified I would be very interested to know on what grounds you think it is so. These documents include pilots names and squadron number and all sorts of details. Perhaps you have cross referenced with other source information and found a discrepancy. If so, it would be nice if you could share the information so others can see why you have reached such a conclusion. Happy landings, Talisman

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=157129

Pre D-Day missions from England to France to take out railway systems and locomotive busting would be a nice mission to do one day in a Spitfire, Tempest, Typhoon, Thunderbolt, Mustang or Mosquito :) I hope the DCS developers have ideas like this in mind for map mission potential. There could be many happy days ahead :joystick: Happy landings, Talisman

Thanks for the 98% tip. Nice one. Works great. Talisman