Talisman_VR

How do you do that blkspade?

If DCS pilots are expected to rely on the zoom view zoomed to maximum to get something more akin to real life air-to-air vision (please note that I am not sure whether that is the case or not) then I think that is a very tall ask and offers a very unnatural and less than intuitive, not to mention darn difficult way to fly, especially in combat WWII style. As for spotting ground targets, I suggest that in real life it is even harder than spotting air-to-air in some cases, apart from when standing out against a stark contrasting back ground. I have read that in WWII the allied armies would fire coloured smoke flares to highlight targets for air force close support units to attack. Otherwise it would have been near impossible to spot the enemy or distinguish between sides. The bottom line for me, as a WWII enthusiast and someone that dislikes aircraft icons/labels (including on maps and knee boards) , is that if a DCS air-to-air object is not visible on the screen then it can't possibly be spotted by me. If the DCS environment is placing such an object close enough to me that in real life I would normally have a chance to spot it, but it is invisible on the PC screen, then there is an issue. Of course, I understand that we need to take account of what is reasonably practicable and achievable in terms of available PC technology and that reality cannot be achieved. Finally, I can't fly properly or effectively if I need to have zoom view on maximum to see objects I would normally be expected to see without the feeling of viewing life constricted by looking through an empty toilet roll. Looking through an empty bog roll is an NVG thing, LOL, but that's NVG's for you and represents real life NVG problems. Happy landings all, Talisman

Yes, can be tough. Especially say, spilt the human group your are leading into 2 sections, one up or down sun as required, with an altitude separation. Then RV at a set time with another human squad of fighter bombers some 10 to 15 mins flying time away, then find each other, and set course for target. Do this and lead and navigate without external view, aircraft labels, without unrealistic map showing your position as well as friendlies and enemy, without unrealistic knee pad showing your position on map. Then see how many times out of 10 this can be successfully done with the limited view of pre 1.5 patch. As I say, can't judge visibility in 1.5 as I have not tried it. Don't know if it is good or even the best solution, but at least DCS are trying to address the less than real world visibility issue. P.S. It's not just about flying in formation on a jolly outing around the local airfield doing what you like when you like with no impact on the successes of a mission outcome.

I often wonder how many people who post about this have tried to effectively lead or take part in a squad of, say 6 or more, WWII fighters taking off in good weather and visibility in DCS and flying together for an air-to-air mission and remaining in visual contact with each other to maintain tactical battle formation integrity? To have numerous set of eyes working for you and fly together as an effective force in the combat area requires being able to fly together in visual contact as a large force in the first place. DCS was not up to this prior to patch 1.5. I have not tried 1.5 yet, but clearly something needed to be done, so I am glad DCS has tried to solve the visibility issues that are there.

Do you even want to try and understand, or are you a closed book on the subject? Do you fly on your own mostly with or against AI or just off-line with AI or just fast jets with missiles and modern weapon systems and AI? Perhaps if more people regularly tried to fly on MP as part of a human squad mission in WWII aircraft using WWII formation and combat tactics against human opposition with co-operative missions between other friendly squadrons in the air, they might get a better perception and appreciation as to why something like more real world visual capability is needed in DCS. If you do all this and still think there is no need for more realistic air-to-air visibility then, frankly, I am almost lost for words. There are a lot of WWII sim enthusiasts, particularly virtual squadrons, waiting to see if DCS can deliver a decent WWII experience. Some of us feel like the poor relations to the modern fast jet world at the moment and mostly fly other sims while waiting to see if the DCS WWII project is worth committing to. If I had DCS standards of visibility on my PC for my real life vision, I would be considered visually impaired, LOL. Happy landings, Talisman

Sorry. I tripped up on that one all too easily.

So, what is more realistic then, being able to see on a clear day in good visibility a WWII fighter at 5 km or hard to see at 1 km? What is this "aids" thing then? Do not both simulators have zoom in and out and other visual aid features? I find the zoom in DCS to be much easier than CloD, because in DCS it actually does bring things into view that you otherwise can't see. For me, I think BoS has it just about right. Best depiction of aircraft air to air visibility goes to BoS IMHO. Happy landings, Talisman

Well, the OP did say it was a big issue to him right at the begining.

I often wonder if the people who think DCS provides realistic visual ability in good weather conditions live on the same planet (although a 55" screen probably puts a pilot on a different planet to most), lol. I also wonder whether they fly on their own mostly or just off-line or just fast jets with missiles and modern weapon systems. Perhaps if more people tried to fly on MP as part of a squad mission in WWII aircraft using WWII formation and combat tactics with co-operative missions between other friendly squadrons in the air, they might get a better perception and appreciation as to why more real world visual ability is needed. Happy landings, Talisman

Under para d. BORESIGHTING, the uses of the wording 'may be' and 'ordinarily' would seem to indicate some leeway for local command decision making. In the military, if something is mandatory or an order, then the language used tends to be more commanding in nature. Also, by your post it would appear that if the pilot has to consult the armourer to find out the convergence set, then, unlike the RAF, the pilot is perhaps not involved in setting up the guns. This is interesting.

Very interesting to note the full participation of the pilot in the process, along with the weapons technicians and the photographer. Talisman

Crumpp, there is no need to get rattled old boy. Also, please do not bark orders at me or tell me what I assume. From the tenor and content of my post, I believe a reasonable reader would not expect me to feel obliged to post RAF instructions (or perhaps notes for guidance) for sighting weapons. I would also appreciate it if you would not post to me in such a superior tone. If you don't like the information I have posted, then we can all understand that, but please lets keep things civil. I am not trying to claim this or that as a definite fact, as it appears you are trying to do, but simply contributing something to the discussion. I though it was worthwhile background information and shared my thoughts on it. That is all. No need to get your knickers in a twist. Also, I am a rather confused as in one post you said: 3. Just because he had a decision to make does not mean he did his own thing. And in another you said: I will restate my last point. Just because Johnson had a decision to make does mean he "did his own thing". But never mind. No need to explain as I think I can see your stance.

Consider: Firstly, I don't think this thread is limited to discussion about the USAF. Secondly, the Spit Mk9 was using 20mm cannon as well as machine guns. Finally, If all pilots were using the same set up then he would not have needed to study different pilots combat gun camera footage to draw a conclusion. It is worth noting that he followed the example of another one of his pilots who was of a lower rank. In a way, it would appear that it was not only Johnnie, but other pilots who were 'doing there own thing' at the cutting edge and making new up-to-date and relevant procedures for the front line fighting force. This sort of thing still happens in the military today, believe it or not. Talisman

I am currently reading a book named Wing Leader by 'Johnnie' Johnson. Published by Penguin Books in 1959 and sold for the princely sum of 13 Shillings and sixpence. On joining the Canadian Wing flying the Spitfire Mk9 aircraft and subsequently flying very much in the field with the 2nd TAF, he mentions specifically testing his guns to decide how to set them up. He says that, although there was procedure for a shotgun pattern to be used at the best firing range, this was because the average pilot was not a good shot. Johnnie considered himself a good shot, so to help him decide how to set his guns, he studied combat gun camera film from his fellow pilots. He noticed that a pilot named 'Ford' had gun cam film footage that was, in his words, “the best ever taken” and decided to follow his example. Johnnie says that “a far more lethal method of obtaining a kill, provided a pilot could aim and shoot, was to harmonize the guns to give a 'spot' concentration of fire. Ford's guns were 'spot' harmonized and Johnnie says he decided to follow his example. Johnnie was accredited with 38 air victories during WWII. He was an RAF officer, but later served with the USAF in Korea and later commanded a Sabre jet wing in Germany. From reading this book, and others, I would say that it was common practise to deviate from standard procedures in wartime, including procedures for setting up aircraft guns and cannons. In fact, the more one reads about wartime exploits it can be seen that the people at the front line are often the ones at the cutting edge in setting new standards in a fast moving tactical and technological situation. Particularly when recommended procedures and practises, from well meaning 'experts' who are not at the business end of things, do not always produce the best results.

feedback from a satisified customer I have had the Gametrix KW-908 JetSeat and SimShaker from Andre for about 5 days now and must say that it was a good purchase and adds a lot to my flight simulation experience. It compliments my FF joystick and FF headset very nicely and I feel that I have more of a 'flight simulator' now, rather than just a PC flight game. Customer communication from Andre was excellent and product delivery to Heathrow Airport in the UK was quick; there were no additional charges from customs or the Post Office. After sales service from Andre via PM was excellent, as I did need a little bit of help to set things up and understand the system. I use my flight sim rig for approximately 3 to 4 hours almost every day, so 'bang for buck' I think the JetSeat and SimShaker was a good investment for me and I am very pleased with it. I wish Andre well with future sales and associated DCS aircraft compatibility updates. I highly recommend the JetSeat and SimShaker to other PC pilots. Go for it! Happy landings, Talisman

Thanks for your reply. Very kind of you to say you will test. I get no surface rolling force feedback effect at all with my FF joystick :(( Perhaps the developers have not made the Mig 15 compatible with older force feedback joysticks. That would be a great shame, because there are no decent new force feedback sticks available on the market that I am aware of and lots of PC pilots are using old, or purchasing second hand, force feedback sticks. I am holding onto a number of second hand FF joystick for dear life at the moment. I hope the developers are aware that lots of pilots want force feedback and use older joysticks, like the Saitek Cyborg evo FF stick. Force feedback adds so much value to flight simulation IMHO. I have a FF joystick, FF headset and the FF Gametrix KW-908 JetSeat with SimShaker :)) Consequently, my rig feels more like a simulator, rather than just a PC and a dead stick that might just as well be a gaming mouse. Without FF I find flight sim aircraft somewhat "dead" rather than "alive" with FF. Happy landings, Talisman

Yes, I believe the feet/legs being raised up to a higher level towards the level of the pilots backside helps slow down, lessen, the flow of blood away from the brain under positive G-force. I believe that the important thing to remember about g-forces in flight is that it is the "rate of onset" that can be a critical factor. If high g-forces come on gradually, then there is more chance to mitigate against it and stay in control of the aircraft, but very high rates of onset send the pilot to sleep very quickly; this is when the instant effect of the anti-G-suit comes into its own. Happy landings, Talisman

Please read again. I said fair for the Seafire not Spitfire, LOL. Surely you agree for the Seafire, yes? I did not say fair for the Spitfire, just Seafire. Edit: OK, I now see you re read my post and re posted. Thanks. Talisman

Do we have force feedback enabled by the developers with the Mig 15 bis that is compatible with force feedback joysticks? I am not getting force feedback, no stick shake at all, with the Mig. Any one else getting FF? My FF joystick is a Saitek Cyborg evo Force. Happy landings, Talisman

Thanks Andrey :)

What is the difference between the bold black tick in the box and the faint grey tick in the box?

From reading the extract below, from this link, It would appear to be fair to model the G-suit for the Seafire. This G-suit apparently increased resistance up to plus 3g over what could normally be sustained. http://aerosociety.com/Assets/Docs/Publications/The%20Journal%20of%20Aeronautical%20History/2014-01_Rood_Aircrew_clothing.pdf In mid-1940 the RAF agreed to supply a Spitfire to Canada for further flight trials and in early 1941 Franks came to Britain to demonstrate and develop his suit. Considerable development took place and once experimental flight reports had been completed, two operational squadrons carried out preliminary service trials. These demonstrated the raising of black-out thresholds by up to 3g and reduction of the fatigue from high-g manoeuvres. After some further refinements, the Franks Mk III suit was produced, issued for trial to the Fleet Air Arm, and was successfully used in 1942 by Seafire pilots of 807 Sqn at Oran in French North Africa. Later in the war, on D-day+1, Seafire pilots were still using the g-suits and Mike Crosley, flying the Seafire in combat against FW190s and Me109s notes: "Thanks to my g-suit I remained conscious in the steep pull-out and regained altitude astern of their ar**-end Charlie after all ….." (Delve, 2007). The suit was little used by the RAF, partly because of worry that with such g-protection pilots might exceed the structural limitations of the aircraft, and the security limitation that aircrew were forbidden to use this secret system over enemy territory, largely because there was no evidence of g suits in shot-down German aircraft. Happy landings, Talisman

I thought the Spitfire rudder pedal design had a second set of higher bars above the standard bars for the feet. This raised the legs more when in combat to give better tolerance to G-forces. Talisman

The 2 I have. Waiting to see if DCS can deliver WWII before getting any more. Although, I might try the Spit on release, but that will be it pending Normandy map and better WWII environment. If all goes well with WWII project, then more modules will be in my collection. I only get modules that I intend to be proficient at. Pointless otherwise. Happy landings, Talisman

Great news Chimango. Many thanks in anticipation. Happy landings, Talisman