zcrazyx

At the end of the day this is a combat simulator that strives to deliver as accurate representation of aircraft as possible, the solution is not to remove parts of an aircraft for balance as this then becomes unrealistic and you are intentionally making an aircraft worse. People pay good money for a module, I expect they should be able to make full use of it especially given how few good ww2 servers there are. There are some grey areas such as with 150 octane, it is documented that large numbers of mustangs flew with it and had the mods to use such fuel to gain the extra mp. However because not all mustangs flew with the higher grade fuel it is a grey zone as to If in a server it should fly with it considering IRL it was a mish mash of aircraft. Adding later aircraft or later modifications would help the issue out, gyro gun sight for spitfire mk9 that became standard being one example however you need to ask if it would be financially viable for ED to make such a module to which I would say in most cases it will be. In servers where all aircraft are included such as in burning skies, you can choose to fly the ishak or a8 but few people do because in a competitive environment it does not make sense to. I fly the spitfire in BS and I do extremely well due to tactics but there is no hiding that I will rarely be able to keep with a 109 who runs nor should I be able to because my aircraft is older. If you gave me the choice between a 9 and say a 14 with a griffon engine in a competitive environment where k/d matters I would likely lean on the 14 more. Hell the mosquito is coming out soon and I'll fly that and adjust my style to fly with it even against newer aircraft but that's my choice and I'm not gonna force a German aircraft player to fly without mw50 cause balance. As of now 109s can fly seemingly fine with smoke spewing everywhere and even in this state can still outrun spitfires and sometimes Mustangs and the 190 can boom and zoom all it wants and a mustang will struggle to stay with it as it should without the boost. That being said, I think a lot of this sentiment comes not from balance standpoint but the damage models being ridiculous, mustangs engines dying randomly if wep is enabled even if kept below 5 minutes of use, 109s tanking obscene damage, spitfires visually flying with no wing (rarely though) and with the new damage models coming soon I believe that people will be much happier with the current aircraft standings. I hear that they are modeling things such as cylinder damage and better bullet ballistics that will make those who are good marksmen more successful especially on the allied side who deal with lower calibre weaponry and will make aircraft running away with unrealistic damage unlikely. As for how I feel on 150 octane, it was fielded in substantial quantities when mustangs and 190s were fighting and therefore I think It should be added, its accurate, it brings the mustangs performance up and it's not taking away from the other team. What I really want to know is how often the spitfire run high octane fuel, I see many sites reference the use of it on the mk9 allowing it to push 25 boost but I haven't come across any official documents reporting this. this gentleman shows a document that appears to show the mk9 with Merlin 66 at least being tested with 150

or just give mustang the ability to push 72

german aircraft pilots are generally higher skilled imo, most know when to break away, what tactics to use and what weight to fly at where as most mustang pilots seem to fly with full wing tanks then complain they cant turn. having a wingman really does help however as gavagai said it still does not make the aircraft you're flying any more equal. 109s and 190s just accelerate away from spitfires and sometimes even mustangs. personally i would like to see more equal aircraft in terms of year however i historically mis matched aircraft flew against eachother so i can deal with having to tilt the favour in my odds. a griffon spitfire would be neat or an earlier 109 however weather people choose to deliberately fly older aircraft is something that we can debate as is other options like adding higher optain fuel or gyro sights for the mustang and spitfire respectively. with the earlier griffon spitfires im not sure exactly what the differences are in terms of acceleration as documents indicate that earlier griffon spitfires were heavier and climbed slower then the mk9.

Awesome mission! the most immersive sim mission i have played and a must have for any ww2 sim pilot

While i love the vixen i feel like the buccaneer would be a better choice given the variety of ordanance and service length.

the reason for not doing such maps imo is because the aircraft do not match, i feel like with the introduction of the fw190 a8 and the mosquito that ED are trying to focus down theaters rather then having alternate history type scenarios where you have aircraft from the early 30s fighting aircraft from early to mid 40s. sure we could have africa because we have the mk9 spitfire and a 109 however when you consider the aircraft that actually flew there it makes less sense in terms of historical accuracy. the aircraft needed being the 109 trop and a varient of the spitfrie with the filter. the feeling i get is that these maps are going to be marketed more towards the people who fly single player campaigns rather then how it with causcaus being a mish mash of aircraft. that being said, if they wanted accuracy, realism etc a korea map could of been a good choice for the mig 15 and sabre to duel it out over but maybe the market is too small.

Excited for the ww2 stuff, dont know why everyone is getting their panties in a twist over the map though, as long as its detailed and shows the UK off with landmarks i say its great, especially with the mosquito coming. i do wonder how they're going to model it correctly though given the fact there surely cant be images of the entire area they plan to do?

Time to hear how bad my own voice sound lol, will be only the second time i've flown on normandy.

Mosquito squadron lads? Who is ready to bring the pain to burning skies!

I would love this! I feel it would be the best way for ed to also make money in the future! It would introduce people not only to war birds but also multi crew. I believe that with multi crew operations emerging and more prop aircraft being made that it would be foolish to not capitalize on the theatre and the potential people that it will bring to the sim. The flight model is there already so why not? Ed gets money and we get to fly with our friends and give them the dcs bug, it's a win win!

part of me wants the gyro sight but part of me doesnt, i question its effectiveness considering how much the cowling blocks sight downwards. then again if the raf considered it good enough to warrent putting it in future aircraft it must be half decent :D

Spitfire feels the most rewarding to fly in my opinion, then again I'm british so biased :D. Narrow gear track, fixed sight, wobble pump and a big old Merlin to get you hual you through the air. Oh and differential brakes to stop you. It takes an exceptional pilot to deal with a good spitfire pilot because of the turning capability.

Having a good wingman is awesome for checking your 6, especially in a multiple aircraft dogfight, had a couple instances where we were out numbered 2 to 1 and survived just because we kept calling out hostile positions and adjusting to let friendly get lead on them. For the spitfire turning and using the mirror are the best options, I'm 19 and in vr even I struggle to check my 6 however that seems to be just how the aircraft was designed. Mustangs canopy provided much better rear ward visibility. Beyond turning, looking, mirrors and wing man the mustang has rear facing radar. Do take Into consideration that it can detect the ground.

Having the right assets is a start, many uniforms were different colour, many cars and tanks had different modifications to them as did aircraft and the bf109 trop and the spitfire with the dust filter are good examples of this. Then there is also the area itself, a good area with a fare amount of detail would have to be chosen because otherwise the only way to navigate would be dead reckoning and I feel a lot of people find that boring when they have ti fly long distance with not a lot to look at. I feel like most of the time sims go for europe and the Pacific due to it largely having the most amount variety in assets used and therefore there is a lot more leeway with details. Edit: i for one would love to see Africa campaign recreated however the question is how much would they really make off it? At the end of the day it's a business and people are already hesitant to get normandy and assets pack as well as a module to fly because that can be around 100usd alone.

I can help, from essex but live in norfolk primarily, speak to many people of differing nationalities so my accent can swing depending on who I'm talking to.

Yeah strangely burning skies doesn't include it which is a shame.

Vising Andrewsfield (RAF Andrewfield) where I got my ppl would sure be interesting, was a medium bomber base for b26s I think, also had some Mustangs later in the war.

My take offs have always been somewhat garish but I have been taking off on positive trim, also I haven't been following what seems to be the preferred method of using the brakes to get the tail up sooner. I could do with binding to a slider

It's a struggle between value and playability, when you consider that on discount the pack is 30 usd and the most of the props are 25 that's still over 50usd. A lot of people cant afford it :/ perhaps the value will be better when the damage model and engine simulation gets another look.

Think they're changing to Normandy in January from what I've seen on discord, not really to into it myself as whenever it's on normandy I see a max of 8 or so people compared to 26 on Caucasus. Could just be my time zone though.

I mainly fly on burning skies at the moment in the spitfire (missile tip 1-3) not sure about joining units but I'd certainly be happy to form up whenever I'm on.

What I will say is that it's my experience that many servers on dcs do not run Normandy and if they do they also use the ww2 assets pack which makes it a very expensive ordeal to partake in. As for the spitfire, it is hard at first for the reasons previously stated, high torque, narrow gear and tail dragger however practice will soon help to negate these challenges. What I would advise is flying tf51 first and also getting a good pair of rudder pedals to help with fine control of the rudder as using g the twist on a stick gets very hard when also doing other movements. YouTube videos and the manual will definitely help to teach you about the spitfires quirks and many people within the community would gladly help you to learn. There a few things to note with the spitfire. Rudder trim on take off is a greatly useful thing in the initial run up as is not using full power on take off. The spitfire uses differential brakes similar to Soviet aircraft and as such getting used to no toe brakes is something to be aware of. To taxi the lever is pulled in which disengages the brakes, then to turn use the rudder and let out the brake. I personally have it reversed so that the brakes are always released as I dont have an axis to assign the lever to and instead I tap the brakes. As for actually flying it the main thing to note is that under high power low air speed conditions the radiator wont do a good enough job to keep the engine cools and as such it will over heat. This will be visible by steam coming from the radiators and engine. When flying at height make sure to turn the fuel pump on which is located under the elevator next to the pilot heat switch as well remembering to pressurize the fuel tank. The aircraft has a fuel gauge but it only reads the fuel quantity for the lower tank therefore knowing how much flight time In fuel you have can be useful. When landing I recommend to follow the specified advice of the manual which If I recall correctly is to use 0 lbs boost and 2500rpm on approach. I am prone to using full prop pitch however that makes the aircraft harder to land due to yaw with power as well as a generally faster flare Into the 3 point. As with actually dogfighting in ww2 servers it's always best to have someone to cover your back, you'll find that youll generally be able to easily turn with a 109 however they will soon brake and run, the fw190s will more then likely never try to turn fight unless you can make them frustrated and tunnel vision. They instead will boom and zoom to which the only counter is to have your eyes peeled and always check your 6 with the mirror and by doing clearing turns. Now as for the sight and armament, the spitfire has very potent 20mm hispano cannons with 60 rounds per side however the remaining 4 303 calibre machine guns are somewhat lacking. With the sight it is a fixed sight and as such I would look up "chucks spitfire mk9 guide" which includes a link to an RAF gunnery manual from the period this should help to teach you how to judge range and deflection angle so you can lead the guns. Just note you will likely find yourself firing blind due to the engine cowling. These are just the main things I can think of as of now but I'd be more then happy to answer any other specific questions on the spitfire you have.

Have you seen burning skies? if you're allied pilot you better get that trimmed and firewall the throttle to avoid a 190 bombing you :P

I believe its also due to the lower quality of fuel. iirc the formulae for the octane of fuel being used in ww2 was lost somehow so they use lower engine settings to try and preserve the engine.

i would say that he used too much brakes for too long, also notice how high the tail was before he reacted, experiance seems to be a factor, also its worth looking at other spitfire videos of them taking off and landing, they almost always seems to do it with the tail just below the level position to avoid a prop strike. Remember pilots, being too coy with the controls is just as dangers as being too firm with them. edit: got a few hours in the moth and that demands the tail be up as well however that being said its a fine line between too little and too much. I do wonder what power setting it was really at, it didnt sound like it was at a particually high power setting. one thing i havent heard anyone mention is the way the brakes actually work, if he is low time on airframe its safe to assume there may of been a moment of hesitation on the brakes, its important to note how they work. bare in mind that to taxi you actually have to pull the brake lever in, the opposite of most modern aircraft with toe brakes, this style is more akin to soviet style aircraft. there could of been a moment where he wasnt sure if he needed to pull the lever or let it out but this is all just speculation.