Cripple

No... ... because we have evidence that this was done in the period we are simulating. This isn't a free-for-all dakka-fest, as far as I recall. I believe this game has aspirations to be an "authentic recreation of WW2 air combat", thus meaning that anything that wasn't the done thing back then should not available to do now. (Except maybe in single player for experimentation). As I have said before, if *anyone* can show me evidence that real WW2 pilots (rather than gamers) tweeked their fuel (and/or ammunition) levels to improve performance then I will be more than happy to revise my position. NB: I am not talking about dropping external tanks, or not filling auxiliary tanks; I mean evidence that the amount of fuel in the main tanks was altered for tactical reason in the early 40s.

Heh heh! :megalol: Hit the nail on the head, Crump.

Hmmm... I am, let's just say, Politely Sceptical of the whole "e"-sports concept. I suppose my idea of a sport (and indeed, sportsmanship) is rather different. However, seeing as you brought it up: Regardless of whether one can, or whether one could historically, is "flying" with a reduced (internal) fuel load Sporting? (Sporting = fair & gentlemanly conduct, a concern for the spirit of the competition rather than just winning.)

I go away for a cuppa, a snack, and a snooze... and the thread hits 15 pages! I'm not keen to bother scrolling back, as it now seems to be two camps refuting the (erroneous) claims the other side has made. My position still stands. ED stated in their last newsletter, "We are committed to creating the most authentic recreation of World War II air combat ever done". Ergo, I am pro a tank-based fuelling model. Do we have any evidence that anyone in WW2 *deliberately* flew with their internal tankage half or quarter-filled to improve performance? If so, I may modify my position. I am *not* suggesting that fighters must carry filled drop tanks if they can carry them - that would be a pilot's choice. The choice would be between which tanks to fill, and whether they are full or empty. Click, click, click. Furthermore, I am not seeing a problem with this... unless there is some blantantly un-historic and meta-gamey exploit that people want to cling to. Hell, if a pilot is as hot-shot as he claims to be, will it really make that much difference?

Thanks for that info. Hmmmm, I wonder if they are a modern addition, and if they will be deleted? More on the beer thing here: http://spitfiresite.com/2012/01/modification-xxx-beer-carrying-spitfires.html

As you wish... I'll let one know. Which I believe is the trick isn't it? Self control. It's also strange that an attempt to offer someone an opportunity to know they've overstepped the bounds of public civility, and politely suggesting a wee break to gain some perspective on the issue, before dealing with it is seen as "goading" him. The point is, neither of you are now debating the preferred topic of conversation - Fuel: tanks or slider. Personally, I'm for tanks...

I didn't "insinuate" anything. I am stating it quite openly: some people seem to be playing the meta (X-improves-Y) rather than the game itself. Please do not conflate two very different scenarios. I have absolutely no issue with pilots not taking additional fuel tanks (or indeed ordinance), nor do I have an issue with pilots who drop said fuel tanks or ordinance before they enter combat. That said, I do take issue with the idea of short-fuelling the internal tanks, especially below a historic safe minimum, in order to be "more competitive". Feel free to correct me, but I don't recall even short-ranged interceptors like the early Spitfires in late 1940 being sent up with less than full tanks. "Are you one of those...." No, but I am beginning to sympathise with them...

Seems to me that some people haven't read the Rules. Kindly rephrase or remove your post, as it seems to violate 1.2. Whilst it evident you feel rather strongly about this, the manner in which you are expressing your position is currently unacceptable. Can I advise stepping away from the keyboard for a few hours?

Maybe these short-fuel load aficionados should be flying Zeros instead? I understand it was historically appropriate (or historically "realistic") for some of them not to intend to land... at their home base. Oooooo - someone used the 'C'-word - competitive. I always wince when I hear that in relation to people playing computer games. Personally I am playing for relaxation... but I was under the impression that a "competitive" environment had to be balanced. Am I the only one who finds it odd that a community that will argue the toss over historical data or the font on an unused panel will condone (tacitily or otherwise) what is essentially pilots going on one-way missions to "improve" the performance of their aircraft? Actually, it's a great idea; let's just all fly the Natter instead. Fantastic acceleration, for a start. It would make maps a whole lot smaller too! :P NB: there is a world of difference between letting a (virtual) pilot experiment with what-ifs and I-wonders (like a diminished fuel load) in a off-line environment, and letting them do so online to allegedly grant them an edge against other players in a free-for-all. Please don't confuse the two.

Amen to that! If people want to start 5-10 mins apart and Zooooooooom-dakka-dakka one another on bingo fuel then fair play to them. However I'd like to know that's what they want before I decide to join the server. Edit: Actually, no - it's not okay. If DCS are pimping the Mustang as "the most realistic simulation ever done of this legendary World War 2 era fighter", allowing (either intentionally or through exploits) people to fly one with a blatantly unrealistic fuel-load totally undermines their commitment to realism. Might as well fly with infinite ammo and claim that is "realistic" too...

Spitfire seems pretty similar. Just under 2 hours of idle time on normal tanks (no rear or drop tanks). I can show the working if anyone is that bothered. Hmmmmm, I certainly don't want to ever play Quake, let alone an airborne derivative of it. Another factor to consider is the conservation of fuel for the trip home and landing, or not as the case may be. Would a Quaker be concerned about getting back to base, or just fly about until shot down (then respawn, which I am pretty sure isn't in real-life aircraft)? Here's an idea, modify the slider so the zero point is the mimimum amount of fuel to get up to X altitude and back down again? Nothing to stop people still flying on this, of course. I seem to remember reading that a rather high percentage of spitfire combat patrols didn't see an enemy. I might be out on a limb here, but I'd like to see *that* replicated. The experience of beetling about a beautifully simulated sky in a similarly simulated sky, not knowing if I was all alone or about to get "ganked" - with the appropriate level of tension that produces.

Hang about, has she got wing tanks then? Wasn't expecting that... I spotted the switches in the electrical panel (on the port frame, by the seat). However, it had been my impression that the mkIX didn't possess wing tanks. "The leading edge fuel tank was peculiar to this mark (VIII) and was not mounted on Spitfires Mk. V and IX." Quoted from: http://spitfiresite.com/2010/04/concise-guide-to-spitfire-wing-types.html/2

Would making the combat airspaces bigger help with this? Or increase fuel consumption to make the effective range seem bigger without meaning people have to fly for an hour looking for a fight? I mean, aircraft IRL fly with enough fuel to complete the flight with a bit to spare. Improved performance is worth nothing if your engine splutters out mid-combat. (Personally I like the idea of having to drop external tanks too, from time to time.)

Can we set boundaries on the map? If so, that would indeed be rather cool.

I'll probably get the Nevada map just for the fun of pootling about and buzzing Vegas.... but using it for WW2 multiplayer? No thanks.

Personally I'm wary of engaging two or more of anything flying about online, mainly for the reasons already stated - they'll be on voice chat and know what they are doing. Hell, I'd rather pick off loner stragglers or maybe try for the wingman if an enemy pair has already engaged. It might not exactly be "cricket", but... OP: have you seen this? [ame] [/ame]

Bit like a trainer jet then? :P Seriously though, I was looking through a book on it. Interesting piece of kit, but very niche.

That's an interesting point: would people expect the large bombers to cost the same as "snub" fighter? I wouldn't, now that I think about it... More stations = more art = more complexity = more cost. However, I am sure that some people would (erroneously) assume that a-plane-is-a-plane-is-a-plane, and get the hump if they are asked to pay more that 50 dollar/pounds.

So, how much sweat was pouring off you at 6-minutes-plus mark? :P You make another good point in that video: know where your nearest friendlies are, and head that-a-way. Even if you don't get any direct support, it can cause a cautious pursuer to break off.

In *Normandy*? Really? I missed that bit of history... To put it diplomatically, I think the majority of simmers who use DCS would prefer a more-is-more approach to detail than a quick-start button. Personally I though the time-consuming element in getting airborne was not so much the pushing of the buttons, but waiting for the engine to warm up. I am also pretty sure that our own (British) Spitfire pilots were able to "Scramble" pretty effectively without a big red button in the cockpit. Come to think of it, how would the start up time of an experienced pilot compare with the time it actually took to get to the operational altitude of these bomber streams? Surely that's pretty time consuming too? Conversely, I also agree with a previous poster that running a fully-crewed large bomber as a several hour sim flight is ... maybe not as appealing as leaping in to a fighter, as well as being potentially more problematic. Why? Well, if we are assuming you want a all-human (as opposed to NCO... heh heh) crew then you'll potentially start hitting the group problems well-known in multi-player PC gaming. It's all well and good if you can play with the same crew, you all have your favoured positions, and you all work as a well-practiced group. However... ever played in a PUG (that's a pick-up group) with complete strangers? Some times it can go well, and other times it just doesn't. What happens when you want to be the pilot/navigator/bomb-aimer, and you draw the tail-gunner - is the 3 hour flight so fun now? What happens if your bomb aimer gets bored/confused and bombs your own troops? Your tail gunner runs out of ammo before you cross in to enemy skies because he was "practicing"? Your top-gunner goes AFK to answer his phone? And we'll not even mention having a hyper-active 12-yr old as a pilot... Or do you intend just to play on locked servers with your mates? Short version: the more (real) crew-members in your aircraft, the more you have to rely on the commitment and skills of others for your own enjoyment of the game. This, when it works well, would indeed be incredibly immersive and fun. However, the potential for it to all go to pot also raises correspondingly.

Well, she's got the bomb release button on the throttle, so not a pure fighter.. . probably ;) I'm in agreement with others on here. I don't usually go for pre-orders, but I'll be voting with my wallet on this WW2 sweetheart (and supporting the wonderfully free DCS while I am at it).

Ooooooooo! Ta muchly! :D Just what I am needing as I work on the interior of my spit-pit. She's looking good too.

I actually like that idea, a lot! I love the idea of using the wall as cockpit "floor" - gonna make pulling Gs fun, especially reaching *up* to manipulate controls. Maybe use an angled monitor bracket mounted to the wall rather than the ceiling for safety? Or an HMD (if it suits the aircraft you want to fly)? Please try this... and start a build thread on it. :)

How many pixels will they be if I'm at 20,000 ft? :-P

Very nice! I particular enjoyed seeing the planning process and your thoughts being making the 'pit like that. It's also nice to see a very individual pit creatively squeezed in to a pretty small space. Cosy. :-) (The dust covers are an excellent idea too. I love the flight tags on them...)