Cunning_Fox

I want to put a photo in the cockpit, like the pilots have done in the old times.

How to create a photograph texture for the Spitfire? I want To put a photo in the cockpit, like the pilots have done in the old times.

How does one do that? I mean like a photo of some sort.

No. I say it how it is. The new forum engine is terrible and I'm not going to wait on it like we wait on other moduels for years, until they never come out of EA and Developers just give up on them. How many bugs aren't fixed in the spitfire still?

There is yet to be a sloppy module like the Spitfire. 109 is a masterpiece compared to it.

Not really, I buy the modules as soon as they come out. I have flown it before a few times, but never in a campaign. In Epsom campaign as soon as you take off you are almost instantly bombarded with AAA, so when you enter a fight you are damaged and you have lost most of your squadron, which means that you almost always fight outnumbered. Let's not forget that most of action is behind enemy lines and if you go low, you are shot at by Flak 36. I have a weird connection to this plane now. Other planes I can fly whatever the psychological state I am in. I could reliably shoot down MiG-15's Ace AI in Sabre when everyone complained about MiG being unbeatable whatever the state I am in. It's like the plane "feels" when you hate it. In the Spitfire I have to be rather aggressive to win. There is no inbetween. You have to really be "inside" the plane in your mind, then it does wonders. I have been shooting down two A8 AI by myself (I do get damaged, almost all of the time, but I shoot them down nonetheless), most of the time I have to catch them whilst they turn into me when they go vertical and I have a split second to drop rounds on target as our planes pass each other only two or so meters apart. I have "ammunition anxiety", therefore I almost never fire when my nose blocks the target, but after a few rounds of practice I can sort of predict where he will be when I move my nose to lead him. It's also good training for judging the distance to enemy planes (since you have to know as the cannon shells seem to fall off much quicker than in the other planes). P.S. I don't know about you guys, but I am not really keen on this new forum engine

I am consuming gratuitous amounts of tea and buttered crumpets (no, really -- I cannot fly without a strategic-size cup of Ear Grey from Twinning's in my Homsar jug) to keep myself in the air. I also believe that my pilot survives these terrible emergency landings, that happen due to incredible amounts of Vasiliy Zaytsev-level sniper AAA in Caen, because the fall is cushioned by the giant stiff upper lip, that absorbs the entire force of the impact and is sometimes used as an extra flap during landings when the hydraulics are too damaged to deploy the normal ones. I have gathered why the Soviet pilots liked it (and even kept it until 1945 in the PVO) -- the fighter's engine is made for the high octane fuel, the lower octane fuel available in the USSR meant less power, but also meant that it would serve longer as the temperature in the piston shafts wasn not as great. I am guessing they could also get more performance out of it due to the fact that it's not sunny beaches of Normandy, where the thing gets cooked in seconds. They flew already worn-out 1942 Mk.Vbs versus the top of the line Luftwaffe pilots of Jg.3 and Jg.52 and still won most of the fights. I would rather have underwing boxes of extra ammunition for the Hispano, than useless fuel tanks or cherrybomb-level bombs. The MGs are useless. Also, note that the manual is copied from airwar.ru and is translated literally by google translate. The effort ED put into some parts of this module are almost incredible -- at least worth a lunch break. (Translate this in Google Translate and read the first part of the manual: Supermarine Spitfire Mk.IX (airwar.ru))

Fine, fine. I've read some accounts of the Soviet fighter pilots who flew the thing and they were all happy with it. They even used a low-octane fuel which meant the engine was not even used to its full potential. They flew Vb in the 1943, so then it must be something I am doing. I keep flying it for the third day straight (the thing's growing on me) and although I can land my shots perfectly on land targets and shake off the enemy from my tail, the thing still dies from one or two hits. I seem to have the problems that are opposite to everyone else: I can land and do ground attack in it just fine, but I can't do enemy AI in the air. I like the challenge, though, so I need to master it. Turns out that raising my brightness almost to 1.8 allowed me to see those guages which means it's easier to control the engine now, but I am to the point where I do it almost instinctively, without having to look at the temperature or RPM. Another problem is that a lot of things are hidden from view, even if you turn the pilot model off, so I just hotkeyed them (I am used to reaching something in the cockpit and licking it, rather than using hotkeyes). Apart from constant trim input the other problem with this plane is that the MGs are very weak, yet the cannons are rather low on ammunition. It makes it sort of useless when you spend all your cannon ammunition.

Who are these "aviation historians" and "experts"? What are thier credentials, that a complete stranger, is citing here without bothering to provide any names. So, who am I to belive here? Oh wait, let me guess, every single one of those "histotians" is British. If I said "every expert and historian said that soviet fighters were superior to every british fighter in WW2, this fact is supported by historains", you wouldn't be very convinced now, would you? Let's not forget the British have a knack for propaganda.

I can fly every other plane, weird that this one is so terrible, and that even Clostermann hated it. You keep on laughing, and flying a hyped up plane that needs more micro management than a Hearts of Iron 3 and that is outperformed by 1930's Soviet fighters. I am sorry your fantasy got destroyed, I am sort of famous for doing that to people. A killer of anyone misfortunate enough to be in it's cockpit. You're right. I have searched for long over decades for the worst plane in all os the sims combined, and the worst campaign, and I have found them: Spitfire and Operation Epsom. The absolute worst of the worst. I would rather fly the Storch. Oh sure sure, I have time to watch the engine temp and RPM on a small indicator in the ass end of the cockpit as I am dodging AI. No, you do not need this much management even with 30's allied aircraft. Even manual mixture and cwol flaps control is easier than this thing trying to kill itself and you inside it. Maybe you need an eye test? Mustangs had bad visibility up to D model. 4 years Spit was modified, yet it wasn't either armoured well nor was the visibility improved. Yet, there were dozens of modicifactions. Funny that in 109 anyone who flew it with overwhelming majority say that the visibility is extremely good for the year and weird that I can never lose a target I am facing unless I close my eyes, as opposed to it being blocked by a giant fat arch in the spit, provided it isn't folded into the background by asinine green tint and exaggerated reflections. I am doing research, I am reading the manual for the 3rd time. There is no lack of "finesse" on my part, it's an unstable, terrible machine that wants to spin and jerk without any reason to do so and that can't survive a single hit from anything other than an MG. No, I don't jerk on the stick to desperately get behind the enemy. I know how to fly, thanks. The plane shakes no matter what you do with it and needs constant readjustment of trim, constant monitoring of the engine. Somehow, the gentlemen got their back handed to them most of the time (save for a few instances, like September 1940, where the fights weren't even a great victory) and most preferred Hurricane and Tempest (and I can see why, Tempest is lightyears ahead of the Spit). Sorry, but don't try to blame me for the fact that it's a terrible aircraft that was very overhyped by the British propaganda at the time. If it was so good, why were Hurricanes more prominent during the BoB?

Ah, I see. A feature, not a bug. Good to know. Yeah, something "clicked", all of a sudden I could down K-4s with just a few shots. On the second kill my sight turned off, but I could still hit the enemy plane. Still sort of awkward, since I chase them, and as soon as they go up I go WEP and in those few moments whilst my nose is facing up I fire and kill the AI. Excuse the bad landing, my plane was damaged. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UpG...ew?usp=sharing

I'm flying almost straight, with low angular speed, not close enough to the target that I'd be in it's wash, yet it shakes for no reason. It's like the plane has a mind of its own and has seizures. It's these seizures that are to blame for most of the misses. The plane has poor longitiduinal stability. I don't manhandle the planes, if anything I'd rather take a longer turn than to risk doing what most new players do (as in turning until your wings break off), yet, for some reason, in other planes I can easily take AI on (be it K4 or I-16, no problem). This one -- not so much. I am surprised to find that trim has such importance in this bird. The other funny thing is that I find this plane the easiest to take off in and to land in, as opposed to others. Yet, most of the complaints I see is that people always spin on take-offs and landings. It's the exact opposite for me. Anyway, let's continue with my reply: -the wings fall off at the speed 109 is easily pulling maneouvers (if you dive after it, and try to follow it -- watch as your wings fly away). -engine overheats at anything above 8 pounds per square inch, provided you go over the 2800 RPM, which you will because everything outspeeds you. -not really, you could try to turn at low power, but your Spit will buckle and go into stall, your engine will overheat too -the aircraft shakes all the time: lined up a shot? Tough luck. Here's some random shaking to throw you off, as if some unseen force has hit your wing with a sledgehammer. The 109 shakes a LOT less, and there is no random twitching that makes you fell like your plane's got parkinson's. -I know that the pilot will black out, he just does so at almost any turn rate in the Spit, I could fly K4 and turn and still maintain consciousness no problem. As of now, this thing couldn't outturn B-17. Every WW2 fighter in the game has better stability and turn radius than the Spit. -I only ever increase power steadily (jerking the throttle is not my style) I do not set curves (although I did before), because the real thing did not have any either. -the 109 in the game is the cheaper version of the 109s before it, it's only meant to be cheap, not effective. And even though K-4 is the late war ad-hoc interceptor for the Germans, it still outperforms the Spitfire (even though this version is summer 1942, still it is quite remarkable just by how much it is outclassed compared to K-4). You are right about the unreasonable amount of damage, Dora has the same problem. -electric starters were removed not because of the lack of metal, but to save space in what was essentially a glider with an engine (109), including a starter is a double-edged sword: you can restart the engine in mid air, but it also meant that the plane was heavier which was not a good thing. Germans had no problem with the fuel up to the 43 at least and maybe even 44 because Romania supplied them with all the fuel they needed, and when it chaged sides -- they've still had some reserves. -deflection shooting can be done in any aircraft, it's just that here it's much more difficult because of the vision from the front of the cockpit, for the spitfire deflection shooting seems to be the only option, and that requires a lot of skill to position your enemy for that shot, so while there could be "better results" the chance of hitting anything is much smaller -109 lacks aileron trim because it's easy to fly and is very responsive, Spit has problems flying straight unless you crank the trim all the way almost to the limits of their range

Ok, well, jumping into the quick mission seems like a bad idea (you don't know what your plane has on, what sort of state it is in), but after trying to trim it it's a little better. Except that you can hit the enemy Doras with all you've got and they still keep flying, however, their hits almost always destroy your plane. Subsequent testing (I've been dogfighting and pressing Shift+R time and time again) has shown, that a well-trimmed aircraft performs better. But, it still starts shaking for absolutely no reason. You'd be chasing an enemy plane, trying your best to fly as close as possible, line up for a shot and it just starts dancing. It seems that trim is absolutely necessary in Spit.

I have been flying since the early 90s in sims and can take down a mid-war 109 in a P.11 in IL-2 1946 or 109K in I-16 at highest level AI in DCS, but sure... I don't have skill. "Someone doesn't like my favourite plane, he must be a troll!" Solid reasoning right there. I am not "firewalling" the throttle, nor am I trying to go vertical with the Germans. the thing is it's impossible to outturn even the Anton, you need the speed to cool the engine, and they (at least the AI) pull tighter turns on you. If you do manage to catch them, you end up seeing FW going into a steep climb that should be impossible (spoiler: it's not for them, because they actually made engines that don't burn to a crisp when you add a little throttle). And should you wish to WEP to chase him, you can't land the shots, because the sight picture is terrible. I'm not ranting buddy, and sorry that you got so offended that your emotions got hurt. Maybe grow up? I am sorry that an overhyped british plane turned out to be mediocre at best in reality. My interest here is genuine -- I am wondering why is it so bad and what do people do about it, since flying in that bullet magnet is a chore at best, and masochism at worst. But, maybe I am coming off a bit harsh. It's just that I did not expect it to be THAT bad a plane. Although, if it is modelled correctly, then I am questioning the sanity of anyone who ever fought in it, because the first few dogfights I've had in the Spit I just quit to the main menu and laughed for something like 5 minutes at how pathetic of a plane it is, it's a disaster. Either that, or the AI doesn't follow laws of physics. But in K4 I've shot Mustangs and Spits relatively easily, same AI skill. maybe ther is a trick to it that I'm not seeing.

No, the fighter is terrible for it's time due to objective reasons and comparison. It has nothing to do with the competition between a classic and a modern car. It lacks features that were widespread at the time and it is bad in terms of speed and maveuvrability. Completely wrong. Never had an issues with Mustang's engine temp. Just had a dogfight with some FW-190s in the missions, the only thing it's good at is catching bullets. Impossible to chase AI into vertical, impossible to outturn them. All the while you have to manage the engine and speed or it will overheat and blow up. The pilot has to fight the plane and the enemy.

It is more terrible in DCS because it is simulated more, the more this plane is simulated the more you have to deal with its many shortcomings. Let's add a few more: -the sight burns out, meaning you have to change lightbulbs in mid-flight (not implemented in DCS, the sight just turns off), and there is no ironsight for backup, like in the soviet fighters. Now, to reply: -so you have to shake your plane side to side violently to get a better view over that giant metal arch? All this while watching your engine? No. -mustang's cockpit ergonomics aren't even close -- the guages are clear and big, it takes a signle movement of the eyes to see anything, same as soviet aircraft, if not better. I'm not even talking about FW-190. In Spitfire, a little shadow becomes a big problem, since it obscures your view of the guages that are indented into the insturment panel, without any clear indication as to what is supposed to be a limit for the engine performance. Granted, most aircarft of the era had not clearly indicated those limits, however the Spit is particularly terrible at that. They should have gone a step further and put those guages over the pilot's shoulder, so that he'd have to turn his head to see them -the compass is blocked by the stick (which isn't even a stick, but a weird combination of a doughnut and a plunger, that obviously isn't possible to fly accurately with, because the bank axis is obviously getting some input when the pilot moves the stick backwards or forwards due to the fact that the pivot is not the same for lateral and horisontal movement) -most allied aircraft do not need constant RPM management, in fact -- most aircraft of the time did not require you to perform pagan summoning rituals with your lever assembly in the midst of battle just to increase or decrease power -manual prop control in 109 is optional and only when the governor fails, contstant max RPM in Spit is a death sentence, you have to keep it at 2650 most of the time (which is difficult to see on the RPM guage, since it's not graded finely) -the unnecessarily complex engine management is not compensated by higher performance, at the time of its intorduction Mark 9 was outperformed by most other fighters in terms of speed alone -gun jammijng might have been a problem, but not as bad as having to wax your guns in order to fly, not many people did that and not many aircraft had that problem, at least not to that extent -I have already read "Bag the Hun" a few times, I have completed the exercises, I have timed myself. I cannot hit anything in this thing, because the nose blocks my target and the green winshield blends it with the colour of the sky, and if I do manage to find it, it disappears behind the "arch of doom" that holds said windshield. That thing looks like a portal to hell. The only time I ever hit anything, is when I am as close to the target as tight formation flying, then again -- that's if the sight doesn't malfunction and turn off. -as mentioned before, not a single relatively mass-produced taildragger has this much of a problem for the view forward, this plane actually needs you to hit the top of the canopy bubble with your head, and then, maybe, you'll see a few things ahead of you; I would imgaine it would have been impossible to see anything in front of Mark 1, since it did not feature a bubble in the mid-section of the canopy. 109 has a great view, despite having a greenhouse-style canopy. -it doesn't just need proper handling, it requires continues monitoring of the engine, which is already hard enough in a plane that wants to fail in every system, be it the sight or the enemy appearing out of your numerous blind spots, trying to shoot you down (not a hard task to do, considering it can't take any punishment at all). ...more later... +In fact, the only thing good about the Spit, is that this plane is aesthetically pleasing. But in terms of everything else, it's like trying to drive a gorgeous RR limousine through a small clogged street or the dirt roads of a farm, or trying to race with it in Formula 1. All of those ordeals are comical at best, but the thing's nice to look at when it's parked. I am actually shocked at how bad it is, all the more respect to those boys who flew in it.

Ever since I have flown it in IL-2 in 2004, Spitfire has always been a pain in the ass. The DCS one is even worse: -the front windshield is rendered in such a colour, and with so many reflections, that it's impossible to see the target; it's impossible to see anything, because as soon as the enemy plane moves into your 12 o'clock you lose the target whether it's against the sky or against the ground; the colour of the glass makes everything look like a green mess, like you're looking through dirty green-tinted sunglasses that have wet celophane haphazardly taped over it -let's not forget the giant assembly holding the thing: a thick metal arch, full of bolts and a barely useful mirror -- it's like flying a pillbox -the most important guages for coolant and oil are next to your right knee, miles away from your sight (and you need to constanlty check them) -the engine management is atrocious: the thing needs two levers, throttle and RPM, to be managed constantly; and, in order to increase/decrease power you need to first move RPM then the throttle and reverse the order for decreasing engine power -the amount of modifications this plane has is mind boggling (what for?) -cannons and MGs have wax on them, so they don't get jammed at higher altitudes -gunnery in this thing is terrible, I'd rather fly a Nieuport than the Spit -- the nose blocks everything, so it's pretty much guesswork -landing is the same: even in Yak-3 you can see the airstrip over the hood, while this thing's nose completely blocks it -the sight is just a dot with a circle that you are supposed to use to measure distances and angles from; well done Brits, maybe put some lines on it for bullet trajectory or for range estimation -the engine overheats like crazy: even though both supercharger and radiator are automated, you still need to constantly monitor their performance and switch to manual from time to time -you can easily burn out your radioator and it's game over, limp to base until your engine dies. You can't go slow either -- your air-cooled engine will die as well. -dropping bombs vertically will chop off your propeller -trying to hit a target in front is nearly impossible -- the thing jerks and twists like a centipede that's having a seizure at a single press of the trigger -turning in this plane is a tedious ordeal: if the circle is not 8 miles in diameter, the pilot blacks out -moreover, as soon as you don't want to fly straight it jerks and shakes as you desperately try to turn into your enemy, just to lose them from your sight as the gunsight and pilot view angles are terrible, as mentioned above -no armour whatsoever: BF-109 can take tons of punishment from those .50 cals in B-17s, while this thing has holes the size of tank turret as soon as it enters a fight I remember a British pilot who has flown something like 500 planes in his life commenting on how MiG-15 had a "clumsy cockpit". Well, if Brtis flew this thing into combat, then every other plane would most certainly look clumsy... kind of like how the colourblind people see colours differently. Terrible plane, I have no idea how the Brits flew this in the BoB.

S3 Refuel Maybe I should clarify, I meant to say that refuelling is impossible right now for ME. Not that it isn’t possible for anyone else. I have spent 4 hours yesterday trying again and again. Also, the damn canopy blocks everything, I can’t see the probe and what’s worse is it’s offcentre. I can’t judge how far right should it be to connect. I connect with it once and then it disconnects and Jester is there laughing in the backseat “You’re teasing it, haha!”. What a jackass! I’ve silenced him. I was watching MST3K “starfighter” episode (more like listening to it whilst refuelling) and there was this pilot saying “You can’t refuel in two minutes? You’re crazy!” So, I’m trying my best to also do it as fast as possible. I’ve gotta say though, the module is so good. I feel like that critic in ratatouille when he tastes the dish and is taken back to childhood in a flashback, I’m having as much fun as when I first flew in sims. Edit: grammar Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

S3 Refuel Well, after making the F-14 finally not crash the game, I’ve tried refuelling again. Needless to say, the quick missions made by heatblur are atrocious as they have put like 50 planes around you for “refuelling practice”. Thanks for making an already difficult task absolutely infuriatingly difficult for no reason at all! I have concluded that it is impossible to refuel on Tomcat. I have flown sims since the early 90s and was in the top of the DCS servers for either ground attack or dogfight, but air refuelling is impossible. Curves or not, whatever the refuelling plane it’s just impossible to catch anything because for some reason F-14 just goes crazy whenever it’s close to the refuelling cone. It goes up, down, left or right, whether it is in a jets ash or not. Autopilot doesn’t help, trim doesn’t help. Nothing works, except fluke. To even think that this is a routine task is incredible. Yeah, maybe once in 1,000 tries in 20+ hours and 1,000,000 gallons of fuel later. Otherwise, I am sure the real life refuelling is much easier, or they wouldn’t do it. As it stands now it’s impossible in DCS. Unless you trim the F-14 200 miles away and use microscopic adjustments on the throttle. The plane either reacts violently to your inputs, however minuscule, or does not react at all. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Я понимаю причину и общий тезис. Дело в другом немного — в брифинге не все сокращения имеют объяснения. Хотя, на второй полёт я посмотрел на брифинг и планшет и мне всё стало понятно. Потом я открыл карту и увидел точки маршрута нанесённые на неё с пояснениями, что очень помогло. Но про это не упоминается в брифинге. Потом я нашёл шкалу времени в планшете, и определил с какой скоростью нужно лететь (что не помогает сильно, ибо сложно держать её — 39й тянет то вверх то вниз и оттримировать его сложно, не смотря на то, что на РУС есть и так мёртвые зоны, значит дело в том, что РУДы очень чувствительны и создают существенное кабрирование или пикирование при малейшем изменении оборотов, что значит что скорость скачет на +-20 км/ч каждые минуты две, однако это к кампании не относится). Я так понял что секундомер включается над первой точкой и снова над разворотом до цели чтобы определить время и позицию самолёта по планшету (линия с градациями в минутах), а за тем позицию (МС) по ориентирам на местности и понять где ты должен быть в какую минуту. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Во второй миссии некоторые вещи можно сообразить, некоторые не совсем. Например ЛБУ и ЛЗП. В общем, чем больше я летаю, тем больше она мне понятна. По линии видимо нужно определить МС и каждая риска это минута пути. Единственное что непонятно это «манёвр скоростью», потому что в Мануале часы не описаны подробно. В принципе понятно, но например я даже не понимаю градацию в шкале «время полёта». В мануале я искал объяснение, но не нашёл. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

МС, ЛЗП, КО, Тфакт, ЯННП... Кампания видимо создана для уже действующих курсантов по тому что понять ничего без подготовки нельзя, спрашивается кому она нужна если настоящие курсанты летают на настоящих Л-39. Давайте вы будете выпускать полный продукт с документацией, это ведь не бесплатное дополнение с пассивно-агрессивным инструктором который видимо выпил вчера лишнего.

I want the public to see this when they view your page. Several months down from "release" version and F-14 is the only module that crashes. And I have all of the DCS modules, none of which crash for any reason on the same settings. This is pathetic, move the "release" to EA and stop spending more on marketing that on basic coding. Unplayable.

Just a headsup, came back to DCS after a big pause. Took off on Gazelle, shot down three tanks in quick mission, reloaded and got the last one, came back and landed on a rooftop. Then landed on a town square. The on FARP. All of this without the curves and with a twist. Gazelle is like second skin now.

I was getting shot for the first two tries. Then, after dodging a few missiles, I've made a visual que for the city and the forest on the right where their missiles will hit me. It is perfectly possible to blow them up if you hover just above the railway bridge (city) and over the alley road (forest on the right). I consistenetly get 3 in a row, then one of my missiles gets screwed up because I hit a fence or someting so I have to go back and reload. Ahh so that might be it. I felt really incompetent at first, but this mission created some awesome TacView files where I am dodging missiles matrix-style as they fly 3 cm from my engine exhaust, next to the rotor shaft and between the blades as I swing out of the way in the last second. Hollywood type stuff.