Talisman_VR

How could intercept and great 'cat and mouse' air battles around bombers between Mig15 and F86 possibly be boring? Just flying a Mig15 is not boring and flying it in combat with F86 pilots trying to stop me hitting bombers is definitely not boring. Attacking the bombers with F86 trying to stop you is going to be hard. Just surviving and getting home is going to be hard. And landing a damaged aircraft is going to be even more of a challenge. It will be just as hard for the F86 to try and stop a well organised Mig15 group. Basically, the Battle of Britain was constant intercept for RAF Fighter Command and I assure you it is not boring flying a Battle of Britain flight simulation. Surely we want to test ourselves in line with the historical scenario's given the chance. I tend to find the fantasy stuff a bit of a turn-off. Which is why I like historical combat flight simulation and not Star Wars I suppose. Happy landings, Talisman

Historical please. It is why I purchased the Mig15bis. Happy landings, Talisman

This is absolutely correct. So many friends and organised squads are waiting to take part in good DCS WWII air combat on-line MP, but will not do so unless DCS show they can deliver and its product is playable in terms of available aircraft and air-to-air visibility for squad flying and tactics. WWII multiplayer will fail, as will all the potential increased sales of DCS aircraft if this issue is not addressed. It could be a mega success for DCS if they don't drop the ball. Drop this ball and successful WWII is a none starter. I have stopped flying the P51 since squad flying and tactics are not sustainable due to lack of complimentary aircraft sets, unrealistically bad visibility and poor MP servers (mostly low level dogfights with airfields too close). Also, I don't visit the forum much now since my initial excitement, as there is not much news on the WWII front of late. I have accepted that we just have to wait and even then we may be disappointed. More and more WWII flight sim enthusiast appear to be drifting off and away to other games as far as I can see.

By having geared synchronization with the propeller and firing mechanism, I presume that this limited the rate of fire to the propeller RPM. If the rate of fire is reduced as the propeller turns more slowly, is this something that is modelled for the Bf 109 and the FW in DCS? Or does the slowing down of prop speed not effect the rate of fire?

OK, just found this on the internet: Generally speaking, air-cooled engines operate closer to the temperature margin where predetonation occurs. Thus, an air-cooled engine with a simple supercharger will always operate at a disadvantage compared to a similarly-equipped liquid-cooled engine in a situation requring a high degree of supercharging, particularly air-to-air combat at altitudes just below maximum effective throttle height, which was quite high by 1944. (This would be particularly true of the wartime air cooled engines with cooling fans, such as the BMW 801 installed on the Fw 190.) American exhaust turbosupercharged air-cooled engines are not an exception. They worked quite well at high altitudes because they interposed an intercooler between the turbocharger and the manifold, but the American turbocharged aircraft were enormous compared to the Fw 190, and needed that size for the intercooler's plumbing. And this: Avoiding detonation The maximum amount of supercharging is limited by engine design and by the inevitable rise in temperature due to compression of air which could cause detonation. Intercoolers, lowering the compression of the engine, higher octane fuel all help reducing the risk of detonation. On the pilot side: avoiding too high MAP with a too low RPM (for example: 35" MAP and 1800 RPM) will help too. I get the impression that WWII British RR engines had a good pre-detonation margin anyway. However, I know next to nothing about this subject and am feeling a little 'in the dark'. I thought we already had pre-detonation damage in its catastrophic form anyway, as I have managed to kill a P51 engine dead on many an occasion and thought this was the cause. Perhaps by modelling the physics the developers mean that we will get a more gradual occurrence of damage, leading up to eventual catastrophic failure. It would be good if the developers could explain how we will be effected by the new pre-detonation modelling. Happy landings, Talisman

None, until DCS shows it can deliver a good historical, playable and battle space integrated WWII combat flight sim experience. If 'Edge' and the WWII project goes well, then me, and probably most of my squad mates, will start purchasing WWII aircraft big time. We are waiting to see what DCS can do. I do not intend to purchase aircraft just to fly around without putting them to there intended use in an historical setting against historical opposition. For me, and others I know, we are especially looking for the Tempest V, if a good quality DCS WWII experience can be delivered. Happy landings, Talisman

Very interesting to see the above RAF Spitfire test results. Particularly the time flown at full boost with no adverse effects: "The total time flown at +25 lb/sq.in. during the tests was approximately 1 hour, 10 mins., whilst total time flown at boost higher than +18 lb/sq.in. was approximately 2 hours." This in relation to 24th November 1943 test on a standard Spitfire IX with a Merlin 66 engine and a Rotol 4 bladed propeller.

Were is the DCS Open Beta updater? I can't find it.

As a WWII combat sim enthusiast, it appears to me the DCS WWII Europe project is not very well "joined up" at the moment in terms of aircraft match up for historical time line. It is one of the reasons that I am only interested in one aircraft at the moment, to keep my hand in, and am waiting for the project to prove itself in terms of enabling a historical combat flight sim experience. If the project is an eventual success, then I will purchase a lot more aircraft. But it looks as though it could be a number of years before we will get enough aircraft common to a particular time line to be properly representative of a particular air battle/scenario that took place in WWII. I am very glad to see that DCS are giving WWII a go, but I suspect it may be a long time to fruition regarding an historical and integrated battle space.

Very much agree with what you say about reputation and taking things for granted. I am a WW2 combat flight sim fan and have only dipped my toe in with DCS with the P51 to see if they are likely to meet the grade with the WW2 project. I will only purchase more aircraft if improvements are made and am waiting for Edge, Normandy map and better damage model for WW2 aircraft, etc. If DCS delivers the goods then I (and probably the rest of my squad mates) will be a long term and avid customer. If not, then I shall not continue with DCS for the future.

I find the same time lag and I use key presses. The in-cockpit wheel turns, but it takes a long time before I can feel any + or - effect taking place. Then, when the effect is felt, it is a sharp change that does not feel like any trim response I have known before. I also use a FF stick and thought this was just an issue that I had, so I am interested to find that I am not the only one. Happy landings, Talisman

Did you only use flat turns then? With some vertical in the turn I find the 109 will generally kill the P51 in short order.

Yes, must have been harder and slower for the real life 109 pilot to wind flaps up and down in such combat using the manually operated hand wheel, compared to the P51 pilot just flicking the flap lever to the first notch to achieve a combat setting and leaving the hydraulics to operate the flaps. Even easier for the Spitfire pilot with wings that provided enough lift and turn capability without a combat flap setting to worry about.

Did the 109 have 'combat' flaps as a design function then? I thought 109 flaps were for landing in terms of design function.

When you say "we will probably get the lower powered Mk.IX Spitty", I hope you are wrong. Surely we can expect to get a later version of the higher powered Mk.IX Spitty that is more of a time line match with the historical appearance of substantial numbers of 109 K-4 and 190 Dora aircraft on the front line. Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought the the Spit Mk.IX was a 1942 aircraft. With the arrival of the Spit Mk.IX it will be good for the LW opposition to finally get cannon armament too, but not if the aircraft is 1942 spec, LOL. Happy landings, Talisman

Things look set to get better with the WWII Europe project and 'Edge'. News of the WWII Europe project is the reason I have just decided get into DCS, starting with the P51D. I think the WWII project will prove a good business model to extend the appeal of DCS to a wider audience. If they get the WWII project right, there is a good chance that many organised squads and others that currently fly other combat flight simulator titles will move to DCS and extend the community. This is likely to stimulate more activity on the fast jet front too. Happy landings, Talisman

Later series Tempest V with the short-barrelled Hispano cannon Mk.Vs the muzzles of which were flush with the leading edges. This would be a great for the DCS Europe WWII project and an historic time line match with the FW 190 Dora and 109K (and coming Me262). Happy landings, Talisman