Mr_sukebe

I believe a C5 can. I'd be doubtful about anything else.

During the demo yesterday, I don't remember seeing any belts. As it happens, I put a 4 point Willans on my own right, which doesn't move (though does have a jetseat). I just like the slight improvement in immersion, and they were peanuts from Ebay.

I assume the choice of seat was two fold, i.e. SimReality were I believe primarily focused on the racing sim market As the units can put you at some somewhat unusual angles, being fairly well held it is probably rather prudent, especially so as they're demonstrating the units. Imagine if a customer fell out and hurt themselves? Personally I use a seat from an older (NB) MX5, which I find much more comfortable than say a race seat, cost peanuts and makes me smile having owned three of them.

At the recommendation of a chap on these forums, I contacted a newish kit supplier, i.e. SimReality, based near Horsham in Surrey (UK), booked a dem and went to meet with Theo about some of their gear. It wasn't perfect, but Theo was very positive and helpful. As I understand it, he's a dealer for DOF kit, Pimax and Moza. Unfortunately, he's currently waiting for a Moza AB9 and the release of their rudders and he didn't have DCS installed. Making up for that, he did have FS2020 running with the DOF6 setup, using a Moza throttle and Yoke. I tried that with both a monitor and a Pimax light. The DOF3 kit was used in driving mode with Asseto corsa on a monitor. Sorry, can't remember the FFB wheel/pedals. Thoughts: First off, a thumbs up to Theo The DOF6 has a significantly larger footprint on the floor, when compared to the DOF3 The DOF6 is something like twice the cost Turns out that the DOF3 can pitch, yaw and roll to wider angles than the DOF6. Linked to the cost difference, that would make the DOF6 a very hard sell Both of the units were using race style seats bolted to steel framework. I forgot to ask about using an aluminium profile setup, which is what I currently have, but with the pics/vids online, I assume that it's more than possible The seat on each of the frames was very low on the frame, meaning that mounting a joystick base "low" would have been difficult. I use my AB9 centre mounted. To achieve that on a DOF3, I'd need to have the seat on a thicker platform. Maybe 160mm, or a combo of that would work Maybe it was the tuning of the software, but both left me a little underwhelmed on the first try in each. It was less about the amount of roll, but more the speed of response. Neither felt truly natural, e.g. the squat you get under breaking whilst driving As mentioned, I got to try the Pimax Crystal light. Yes, noticeably sharper than my current Quest Pro. What I couldn't quite manage was to get it "dialled in" for myself. I found the periphery to be far less consistent, though sweet spot was pretty big and as mentioned, the visuals were a step on from the QP Whilst I wasn't that impressed with either DOF unit whilst using a monitor, that impression changed when in VR, which I got to use with FS2020. I can't explain why, but when I was in VR, the feeling of immersion from the DOF was significantly more effective Apparently SimReality are planning to stock the Dream Air, and I've already asked to be notified when they have an SE version, such that I can revisit them. For one thing, they'll hopefully also have an AB9, pedals and DCS by then (anticipated for early 2026)

As is the AB9

as I understand it, by 1945, the German's were building more planes than they could use. They didn't have the pilots or the fuel. That's why videos about "could the Me262 have changed the war" make me laugh. It might well have been an amazing piece of kit (despite having engines that only lasted 25 hours), however, without the trained pilots and fuel available, it didn't matter.

That’s true, but overlooks the fact that the Dora’s and K4s were being flown in insignificant numbers by trained pilots. If there had been more Luftwaffe resistance, it’s fair to assume that the ratio of Mk14s flying over Germany would have increased.

The Dream Air SE looks interesting. Far more sensibly priced, higher res than the QP, Eye Tracking and a DPMI connection. No, it's not got the mega res of the full fat Dream Air, but that might be a good thing in DCS, as it'll be easier to run. I'll be looking out for reviews on that.

Survival rates from ditching did improve dramatically during the war, above all by planning and integration with surface rescue craft. However, early war, rates were pretty diabolical.

I’d happily cough up for it too. Would really help immersion

That’s what I did one gen back. The power connection cables might be slightly different and I seem to remember the 3080 requiring more Watts. Otherwise, should be good

Go on, what's the worst that can happen.

Would you like that estimated in weeks?

You already know the answer: You'll need a 5090 to drive it Visuals will be a good deal clearer and with a wider FOV It'll have Pimax's famous reliability baked in

Ah, gotcha. So it's acting a bit like an afterburner gate in say an F1. Thanks

Just had a scan at Claringbould's info online. Interesting stuff. Funny how all over the place available onlines sources are, e.g: Wiki states the F4u was first used by VF12. Vought F4U Corsair - Wikipedia This summary of VF12 doesn't mention the F4u: VF-12 - Wikipedia VF-17 was next mentioned by Wiki, and this suggests that they had 152 victories with the F4u However, this suggests that VF-17 were given, Hellcats before "firing a weapon in anger": VF-17 The original "Jolly Rogers" World Naval Ships Forums Archive VFMA-124 was apparently the first marine squadron, though there's no mention of k/d ratio. They do however mention that the squadron members had an average of just 25 hours in the aircraft. Hardly what you'd call experienced This includes a claimed victory/loss for VFMA-124, of 69:11. U.S. Marine Aviation in World War II: VMF 124 in the Solomons. VMF-113, VMF-312, VMF-323 were not in combat until 1944 VMF-214 claimed 203 victories, 97 of which were apparently confirmed. VMFA-214 - Wikipedia VMF-224 didn't have F4u's until their Marshall island campaign, and it looks like they didn't see combat with the F4s until 1944: HyperWar: USMC Operations in WWII: Vol V--Western Pacific Operations [Chapter V-1] Another interesting stat: "claimed a 12:1 kill ratio against the Mitsubishi A6M Zero and 6:1 against the Nakajima Ki-84, Kawanishi N1K-J, and Mitsubishi J2M combined during the last year of the war" That 2:1 disparity highlights to me that the Corsair/Hellcat were both significant steps ahead of the the Zero, and that the Japanese really should have been introducing their better late war fighters at a higher rate.

Added a section ref Mods.

I did think that in the real aircraft, that simply pushing the throttle further forward enabled the water injection. Is that not how the updated version works?

Wolf> Thanks for the link. I'm going to a scan next Wed at a DOF3 at Simreality. One of my key points being to understand how I'd integrate it with my current Alu profile base and whether it would fit into what is not a massive space. Looking forward to that.

As the zero was introduced in 1940, it's genuine cotemporaries' are more like a mkV Spitfire, 109-E, Wildcat etc. Against those, the Zero was an extremely dangerous aircraft. For example, the Zero pretty much mullered the Buffalo's and Hurricanes in Malaysia and against the RAAF Spitfire 5s, seemed like the Zero's had the upper hand. Where the Japanese failed was to assume that the progress of aircraft tech would be substantially lower than it was, so the Zero didn't go through the massive enhancement programmes that say the Spitfire and 109 experienced, and the replacement and better aircraft were too late and too few.

"A decline in DCS's quality is quite obvious". Not to me. Yes, I know there are bugs, but IMO, it's better than it was say 2-3 years ago. ED have seemingly learned to reduce the amount of "overpromise and under-deliver" for one thing. The forums are significantly quieter than they were. As part of that, I do believe that testing has improved, which is probably why the circling dead aircraft issue still exists. Slapping out what might appear to be a very simple fix into a very complex model can create substantially more trouble than it solves long term. It's also worth considering that every time a new terrain or module is added, that the unit will need ongoing maintenance, refinement and patches to meet changing standards. As there's been a LOT of new modules in say the last 5 years, that's a LOT of effort being required. Personally, I believe that ED do a good (no, not perfect) job of balancing their workload. Above all, I also own the other key sims (both Civ and combat), yet spend pretty much all of my time in DCS. That to me is the final arbiter of the quality of their product.

Yes, WIP

Within DCS, easy to resolve by enabling "Weapon Hold" by default, then having a Trigger to set Weapons Free if an enemy aircraft crosses into their airspace, as defined by a Trigger zone.

There must be some kind of degradation model if it’s possible to overheat with prolonged usage at WEP. If you weren’t already aware, there is a random failures option that can be enabled within ME. Additionally, you can set a plane wear level. One thought is that the game will by default assume that at the start of any mission, you’ll have a brand new engine in tip top condition.

I was just building an Iraq mission in Dec 2004. Apparently, daytime temps were typically 30 degrees. In the mission editor, I was limited to 16