Talisman_VR

Updated from 1.2, did not take part in any alpha/beta testing, but 1.5 fails to launch despite running DCS repair and restarting PC several times. V 1.5 says it is up-to-date. PSU – Corsair HX 650W Processor – Intel (quad) Core i5 750 8MB Cache Socket 1156 2.66GHz Cooler - Akasa AK968 X4 Cooler Graphics Card - nVidia GeForce GTX 680, 2GB PCIe 3.0 Memory - 8GB RAM, Corsair DDR3 1600MHz C8 Twin3X Motherboard - MSI P55-GD65 Socket 1156 Hard Disk Drive - 500GB Caviar SE16 SATA 300 Optical Drive - DVD-RW 20X Sound Card - Onboard HD 7.1 Audio Monitor - Samsung 2433BW 24” TFT, 5ms response time (Res: 1920x1200) Operating System - Microsoft Windows 10 Joystick - Saitek Cyborg Evo Force (FF) Rudder pedals – CH Pro TIR – TrackIR4 & Track Clip Pro (V.5 software) Headset – Audio FX Pro 5+1 Force Feedback GAMETRIX KW-908 JETSEAT/SimShaker

No congratulations from me, as I have updated but the game refuses to launch. I have run DCS repair and restarted my PC numerous times to no avail :( Very disappointed.

Failed. Updated to released version of 1.5.2 today, but game refuses to run. I have repaired DCS and restarted my PC numerous times, but still version 1.5.2 refuses to run. Very disappointing! I have not done any beta/alpha testing and waited for 1.5 to go public release. So here it is and it fails to launch :( What now?

DD Fenrir, Thanks for your thoughtful and informative post. It is particularly informative because I think customers and potential customers can be newly attracted to DCS via WWII content and the project moving forward, but have no knowledge of the history or politics behind the project. For the totally un-initiated or partially initiated new customer to DCS, the way things are on the WW2 front can appear very puzzling indeed. Customer relations and the management of expectations, both ways, is not always an easy nut to crack. Happy landings, Talisman

Good rudder control is needed for aircraft carrier landings, even for fast jet aircraft I would have thought. Happy landings, Talisman

Agreed! Very much hope DCS will model damage to a more detailed level very soon. Particularly as they have indicated that they aim to provide the best WWII flight sim. Happy landings, Talisman

Stunning!! Congratulations :) Happy landings, Talisman

Holding on to 1.2 as my only version pending public update to Edge and version 2 standard, or whatever it is we will be getting. Have Stopped flying DCS in the mean time until 1.2 is subject to public update. Happy landings, Talisman

I see, against AI, not human. I think there have been some improvement with AI performance in the latest versions. Happy landings, Talisman

Hi Westr, Just thinking, if you could regularly take on 4 Mustangs with success in a single Dora, would that perhaps suggest that the Dora simulation was over-performing or the Mustang was under-performing in some way? I suppose it depends on how we might measure success; like shoot all the enemy down, just survive to land or bail out after shooting a couple down, or something else. Happy landings, Talisman

I hope we keep the clip wing as I believe it was historically the most common wing for the Mk IX Low Fighter version at the time and reflects the natural historical progression of the Spitfire. I do not want something less common in terms of the progressive time line for the sake of a beauty competition. The wings were clipped for good reason at this time of the war. Lets try to keep it real. Once the Spit II is simulated we will get the early classic shapes. As with so much in life, all good things come to those that wait, LOL. Happy landings, Talisman

Voted 2 as I am waiting for Normandy map and have no interest at all in Nevada for goodness sake! As a WWII enthusiast I am feeling like the poor relation to the more modern fast jet community at the moment. I, and many squad mates and fellow WWII flyers that I am trying to convert to DCS are not seeing much reason to rush into action with DCS yet. We live in hope that WWII is going to be shown to be deliverable. I have stopped any interaction with DCS at the moment, apart from the forum, because everything is in a state of flux and somewhat confusing. When can we expect some sort of public release for the next stage of either v1.5 or 2 that does not include the Nevada map and what are the options for WWII focused groups who want to fly decent public release MP maps and servers? My P51D is mothballed at the moment pending a more stable, inclusive and equitable product across the board. No pain no gain as they say, so I am waiting and trusting in DCS for now. I am hoping that in the future DCS will be 'the' place for the best WWII experience, just like it appears to be for more modern fast jet action now. Happy landings, Talisman

Thanks airdoc. It would be nice to have something from DCS along the lines of what you have put together, but with more detail of the companies vision for the future and what they aim to deliver, in there own words. I have been holding off getting too involved in DCS pending a clearer view of what the WWII project will deliver as an overall package. I have been encouraging WWII enthusiastic squad mates and fellow flyers from other combat flight sims to take a look at DCS, but have found it hard to pass on any firm idea of what is happening to get them hooked. Since my original post on this topic, todays news release has at least indicated a strong commitment to the project, which is very welcome. I think there are a lot of new potential customers waiting in the wings as far as WWII aircraft and an associated historic combat environment are concerned. Happy landings, Talisman

Any information, or direction to information, that could be provided regarding the vision, mission statement or road map for the DCS WWII Europe 1944 Project would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in anticipation. Talisman

Yes, the 5 minutes bit is clear, but putting this information in the context of real world practical use, it begs the question, is that only 5 minutes ever for the life of the engine, or 5 minutes in every 10 minutes, or 5 minutes per sortie, or 5 minutes between engine overhauls? What is your interpretation? I suggest that the pilot notes and other associated guidance was written with the knowledge that the engines would actually perform for longer than the printed limitations and aimed to allow a degree of discretion on behalf of the pilot in an operational combat situation. Happy landings, Talisman

This would appear to offer some leeway to the aircraft captain. For example: a. “Engine limitations which the pilot should observe”. I suggest that the use of the work should, appears to indicate some discretionary freedom to do otherwise. b. “Flying restrictions. Rear fuselage tanks may be used only with special authority and never on aircraft with “rear view” fuselages.” Use of the word never, clearly leaves no room for leeway. It is interesting to note that the word never is not used in relation to the engine limitations; reasonably so I would suggest. c. “To give the engine a reasonable life between overhauls”. If an aircraft is in serious danger of being destroyed in combat, the engine may not be given the chance of living long enough to receive the next overhaul. I suggest that under such circumstances, also considering the risk to human life, the aircraft captain could reasonably be expected to decide, at his discretion, to risk operationally overloading the engine, beyond the 5 minutes at 3,000 rpm combat limit for example. d. I suggest that these engine limitations are somewhat ambiguous (Open to more than one interpretation; not having one obvious meaning; not clear or decided). Moreover, I suggest this is reasonably and deliberately so. I don't believe that limits could be definitely calculated or proved in relation to exact failure points and, with RR engines, it would appear to be entirely sensible to give the aircraft captain an appropriate level of discretionary freedom in operational combat. For example, it is not clear whether the 5 minute at 3,000 rpm combat limit is once per flight, once every 10 minutes or once every hour, etc. I have seen a record of RAF Boscombe Down using a Spitfire engine (not one discussed above) combat rating normally permitted for periods of five minutes only, but with a concession for test purposes, being allowed full climbs to be made at this rating. Of course, testing and operational flying are very different, but still involve risk. The pilot notes engine limitations are part of risk management, but I don't think that to use the combat rating for more than 5 minutes should mean that engines should immediately break down in DCS. However, if DCS starts to simulate and model engine wear and tear and overhaul periods, then we will be in different territory. Finally, if an aircraft engine was so vulnerable to immediate breakdown if used beyond a stated combat limit time, I suggest that the operation to disengage the combat setting would be automated and not left to the pilot. I think some engines had such WEP limiting timed cut-off systems, but not RR engines; I stand to be corrected if I have got that wrong. RR tests that I have read about, using combat settings for extended periods have appeared to eventually achieve great success with extended use. Happy landings, Talisman

There are a lot of new potential customers for DCS out there who would be attracted by this sort of thing if the WWII project is a success.

If the WWII project really delivers, then loads! LOL. Happy landings, Talisman

GAMETRIX KW-908 JETSEAT/SimShaker See the Input Output topic threads on this forum. Had mine for a few weeks now and would recommend it. http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=134704 Happy landings, Talisman

Could be. I land at about 100 mph with my FF stick just starting to shake for the stall and it sticks like shit first time on 3 points. Full flaps and plenty of nose up trim too. So I never see the need for 2 wheel landing. Happy landings, Talisman

'Spotting' and being 'able to see' the contact air to air are different things. In other words, if it is not physically visible on the screen then the contact is not able to be seen and therefore there is no chance, I say again, no chance of spotting it. There is no skill involved in trying to spot a contact that is not physically visible on the screen as it is impossible to spot anyway, as it is not there to see, so no skill is involved. If the contact is actually able to be seen on the screen, than there may be some skill/method applied in order to actually spot it. I know this is stating the obvious, but I raise it because the correct use of words and the correct reading of words in context is important in these discussions for effective communication. In good visibility, if an aircraft contact is not displayed on the screen at a distance representative of what can normally be seen in real life, then there is an issue to be addressed. Simples. Problem for devs I suppose is that there are lots of different screens in use.

So, you are 'cherry picking' your simulation requirements and level of realism. Any sim pilot could say any one of the simulation aspects is 'annoying'; his or her choice which is annoying (we could find any one of the real aircraft flight characteristics annoying and ask the devs to change it, LOL). But what is more realistic? I see so many people giving the developers such a hard time on the forum over such small things, some of which I would agree with, but then the same people might be all to ready to accept ridiculous octopus arms and hands pilot ability, or even lobby for it! To my mind it is just double standards. If, in the real aircraft the pilot could move the throttle and trim the aircraft as well has operate the joystick during combat manoeuvre, that would be fine, but if this was not possible in real life then it should be modelled as such in the simulator. It would appear that we have double standards all over the place and then people still giving each other and the devs a hard time. What a mad house! The devs have a lot to put up with me thinks. I think it must be like trying to please a stroppy 5 year old, LOL. So, how does the Bf 109 feel then? Perhaps it depends on whether the pilot is human or octopus.

In a human competitive scenario in a flight simulator, for example air racing or air combat, I would like to see a restriction on the number of controls that can be operated at any one time, so that they match the same that could be operated in a realistic manner for each individual aircraft type. I do not want to compete against pilots with octopus arms. To my mind, if we are to achieve proper simulation that does justice to the high level of detail given to DCS aircraft in other areas, then we should accept such a restriction. Otherwise, we might as well fly a fantasy space ship simulation. Perhaps this would solve the cheat/exploit issue regarding trim and many other things. I just do not understand why anyone would want to fly a simulation of such fantastic detail and then overlook such a fundamental issue as to what the pilot could actually operated at any one time in the real aircraft. And as for people who want to use fancy hardware and automatic macros, or whatever you call them, to automatically run a sequence of operations in the air that would normally need to be done manually by the pilot, well I am lost for words; particularly when I read all the effort and passion that goes into forum posts about the need for accurate simulation.

I second that emotion. Happy landings, 56RAF_Talisman

Thanks for the information. I have the zoom in/out function mapped under my thumb on the joystick, but it looks at such a small area on maximum zoom. This is ok if you know reasonably well where you want to look, such as the reported place of a target on the ground, but trying to use it air-to-air to scan the sky around you on maximum zoom is just plane crazy, LOL; it looks at such a tiny area on maximum zoom :((