Talisman_VR

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 :((

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