xvii-Dietrich

Similar to the thread on German WW2 Ships, I'd like to ask about Allied ships. Specifically warships. At the moment, we have: LCVP Higgens landing boat LST Mk II landing ship USS Samuel Chase Certainly the latter two allow the making of the semblances of a trans-channel convoy. You can use the Dry Cargo Ships (Ivanov and Yukushev). There is also a tanker (Elnya), which vaguely looks like a T2 Tanker (without the mid-ship bridge). It would be convenient for these three to be added to the USSR roster, so we get them by default on the Allied side for WW2 mission builders, although at least there is a work-around (just remember to add "Russia" to the Allied coalition when building the mission). However, what is missing is some form of warship. Even just one design would be extremely useful for putting together convoys, landing forces, shore bombardment and docked naval forces. Yes, there are some destroyers in DCS, but they are all Cold War or Modern and are armed with surface-to-air missiles. :eek: Some RN or USN escort ship of WW2 vintage would be really nice! Some examples: USN Gleaves-class destroyer RN Hunt-class destroyer RN U-Class destroyer (alternatively S, V or W-Classes) RCN Flower Corvette Ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Allied_warships_in_the_Normandy_landings#Destroyers_and_escorts Any chances?

Apparently not... I had to look that one up. Turns out it is a Sci-Fi movie quote. Good point. I am on the deck, so I had guessed that TAS and IAS should be close. And for the tests I was doing, I was using the F2 external view reported speed (but now I can't remember if that was TAS or IAS). However, you are absolutely right that it is atmosphere-dependent, so I should have taken that into account too. In any case, closing up the radiator cowls accounts for a huge difference, so that's where at least one big discrepancy was... and I've now figured out how to get an extra 20-30 km/h out of the aircraft in an emergency to I'm happy now! :) Thanks again everyone for the input!

Many German naval units had been moved out of the Normandie area by 1944. Marauding Allied aircraft had made the area rather dangerous for the larget vessels. VIIC/41 I am a little puzzled by the VIIC/41; it seems a bit of an odd choice. I can find no encounters between VIIC boats of any variant and any type of P-51, TF51 or Spitfire. There were two encounters between B-17s and type VIIC boats (although these were standard VIIC boats, not VIIC/41). These were U-311 and U-417, and occurred far out in the Atlantic. The aircraft that are in DCS and U-boats don't really interact. Ref: https://uboat.net/history/aircraft_losses.htm There were no U-boat bases in the map area either. They were all on the west coast of France: Brittany, Bordeaux, etc.. Ref: https://uboat.net/flotillas/bases/france_map.htm That said, there were VIIC/41 boats operating in the English channel in 1944 and there were plenty of Type VIIC (the earlier variant). Although not a VIIC/41, the following VIIC boats were also sunk in the English Channel area during this time: U-741, U-390, U-984, U-1200, U671, U-672, U-1191, U-678, U-212, U-413 Ref: https://uboat.net/fates/losses/1944.htm In fact, there was single Type VIIC/41 sunk in the area during that time: U-322 Ref: https://uboat.net/boats/u322.htm On the other hand, the VIIC/41 will be a nice target for the upcoming Mosquito! :-) S-130 This is a PERFECT choice for this map and it will be a great addition. The 5th, 8th and 9th Flottillen operated S-130s in the Normandy area, including against the invasion forces, as well as numerous other operations in the Channel and against the English coast. In addition to operations, these will make for great static targets in places like Cherbourg and Le Havre. Refs: http://www.prinzeugen.com/S130.htm http://www.s-boot.net/sboats-kriegsmarine-organisation.html

This is not important in the slightest, but I figured I'd mention it anyway. In DCS v2.5.2.18521, if you go to the "Settings/Options" from the main menu, then click the "Special" tab and select "Bf 109 K-4" on the left. One of the options reads "Rudder Tim" (when it should be "Rudder Trim").

Yes. That's it. Just been testing this today and I can get about an extra 20 km/h by closing them for a bit. This easily accounts for the discrepancies that I had noted. I've been flying on auto-radiator control for so long that I didn't think of it. Thanks for this suggestion! I'm not sure what the "trimmer luke" is. As I mentioned, I do trim the aircraft, so it flies pretty level and stable. I'm guessing that what you mean are the "trim tabs" that are set on the ground. These are the ones that are set from the main DCS menu, clicking Settings, then the Special tab and selecting Bf 109 K-4 on the left. I have the following: Take-off Assistance = 0 Aileron Trim = +30 Rudder Tim (sic) = +5 Auto Rudder = off Are there better settings I can use? Thanks!

If I fly the Bf 109 K-4 just above the ground (to help me fly level, rather than having a slight climb or dive), trim the aircraft, engage the MW50 and then use maximum throttle, I can achieve a speed of approximately 575 km/h. This seems slow compared to performance charts (which give 585-595 km/h, REF) or the FW 190 D-9 (for which I can get 590 km/h for the same test). What I am wondering is whether I am doing something incorrectly? Is 575 km/h the same speed that others can reach flying level on the deck?

As has been said already, pull the "cyclic" (joystick) back and left a bit. Apply some left pedal (rudder). Ease up on the "collective" (throttle-control) slowly. I usually leave the actual throttle in the UH-1H at full. Two extra tips. 1. Use the training missions provided in DCS. The take-off one will talk you through it. 2. Reduce your load. Going with maximum weapons/payload makes your job more difficult when first starting, as the helicopter is then very heavy and prone to overcompensation.

In the last few days, there was a DCS update. The announcement is here: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/news/2018-06-08_WWIINews/ This is excellent and there were a lot of new features for WW2, including new units. I've marked some of them in blue. The reason is that these units have a feature that wasn't mentioned in the announcement... ... they are player-controllable using Combined Arms. Last night's WW2 training mission was all the more interesting for being able to drive a StuG IV out to a ridge and shell an Allied road-outpost on the coast road just north of Bayeux, as FW 190s roared in overhead. I also noted that there was a command bunker, which could be "human controlled", with 3 machine-gun positions. I didn't check every unit, so perhaps there are more. And hopefully, there will be some conversions of some of the existing WW2 units to use DCS Combined Arms in future. It is certainly excellent to be able to control operations from the ground in an actual unit, rather than just monitoring the map. Now, maybe there was a mention of WW2-Combined-Arms somewhere, but I certainly didn't see it. On the other hand, DCS have been very productive and rolling out a lot of new content, so I may have missed it. Still, I thought it was worth drawing it to everyone's attention.

Indeed! The announcement was made on 6th June (Normandy D-Day), which was most fitting. And the devs indicated that there is more to come, which is excellent news. But to return to the topic... Is a IJN CV needed? One option might be to have Japanese aircraft land-based (Pacific-Islands or Vietnam type of map) and have only the Allies operating off carriers.

The LST MkII (Landing Ship Tank) is not destroyable. It can be damaged, and will belch black smoke, but will not sink. When hit, it will show damage decals too (bullet holes, charred areas, etc.) The ship itself works (it sails along, and will fire a enemy aircraft). If labels are enabled, it shows a label, but no green health bar. We have tried on different maps (Normandie and Caucasus) and with different weapons: SC50, SC500, R4M, 20mm cannon fire, Mavericks(!), CBU97(!!). For the SC50 and SC500, we have tried both Wagerecht and Sturz settings and both mV and oV. For the bombs we have made multiple hits in all cases. The version we are using is DCS v2.5.2.18144.

I got the Finnish markings working in the mission editor in no time. It works fine. Thanks for the other tips too... much appreciated. Example in point... Greetings from Enontekiö. 8)

I am a Steam user, and I am really grateful to ED for releasing the F/A-18C on Steam right from the start. Thank you ED!

Yep. Some more callsigns would be really appreciated. (and... any chance of some Finnish ones?)

The following link is an online-map with the maps from a selection for flight combat simulators and flight combat games: https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1nEGqkqYUGBipkmMq-NSwixdUHmU It allows easy comparison and you can toggle on/off the different layers to look for specific features.

On the issue of a WW2 carrier, it is certainly an interesting scenario. But is the Corsair that is being planned the right variant for carrier-ops? The impression I get is that originally, there were a lot of problems with the Corsair and it was only late in the war that the British Royal Navy managed to get it to work successfully from carriers. Just on the topic of carriers though, I was wondering whether any of the other DCS WW2 aircraft could be used off a carrier. That led me to read up on the Bf 109 T. Given how stunningly difficult it is to land a 109 on solid land, the idea of putting one down on the pitching-deck of the Graf Zeppelin seems utterly insane. It was probably just as well that that ship was never finished.

I don't have the Spit (yet), but I watched the video anyway. Nice and clear presentation style. Good point regarding making a note of attitude when on the ground, so you can judge the 3-point touch-down on landing. Thanks for going to the effort of making the video. Much appreciated. PS: Feel free to make one of these videos for the FW-190. ;)

I disagree. I do not have the Spitfire, but I do have the P51D, TF51D, FW190 and Bf109 and in all of them, without exception, I have scraped wings, collapsed undercarriage, have added plenty of craters to the landscape and resulted in so many fireballs as to have made a significant contribution to climate change. I suspect the few, if any, who have not trashed a DCS WW2 aircraft on takeoff and/or landing are probably blessed with 2000 hrs from other flight sims before they even started in DCS. I would postulate that there are a plethora of reasons that make it difficult for DCS than for real-life. Such as... Monitor size (and thus lack of peripheral vision), Low resolution (real vision is not 100dpi), Frame-rate (low FPS doesn't help), Graphic fidelity (DCS is damn good, but the real-world is still better), Probably a desktop joystick, rather than a full length flight stick, Pedals that are rather light (assuming even that, instead of a twist stick), Probably on an office or kitchen chair, rather than a proper flight seat, Unlikely to be strapped in with lateral leaning points, Not necessarily force-feedback controllers either, No motion sense (we do not move, nor feel the bumps or acceleration), No sense of vibration from the engine or wheel roll-out, Limited audio-cues, Self-taught, rather than given actual instruction, Being used to throttle-and-go takeoffs from other flight "sims" Less patience (or are rushed to get the most out of our free-hour), Distractions (children, spouse, cat, phone, etc.), Fatigue (probably tired after a long day at work/school) Pilot age (I for one have slower reflexes that I did when I was young), Focus... when your life is really on the line, you concentrate a bit more. No doubt there are more. Of course, there are going to be some of us who have addressed some of those issues, but for someone who is trying to figure out why it is so difficult, then knowing this helps lessen the pain of failure. :joystick: My suggestion to fellow-struggling pilots, would be to take a look at some of the above and try and rectify them if you can. I would also suggest controlled practice setups (build your own mission with your favourite aircraft sitting on the runway with engines on), and then be systematic about figuring out where it is going wrong (take notes... write down what you did, which way you crashed, and at what stage). And practice, practice, practice. Oh, and Phil, for someone who say DCS is "not that hard", may I remind you of this?... :music_whistling:

I've been doing some searching to try to figure out the differences between the B/C and D variants (or the Mk III and Mk IV, as the RAF seem to refer to them). One site I found was: http://www.mustangsmustangs.com/p-51/variants There is also a comparison chart here: http://www.mustangsmustangs.com/p-51/specifications From what I can tell, the primary difference is in the reconfiguration of the canopy. There also seem to be some technical modifications to improve reliability. And the armament has been upgraded from 4x.50cal to 6x.50cal. The engine and basic aircraft configuration is the same though There seems to be a lot of enthusiasm for the B/C over the D variants, but the differences to me seem minimal. Have I missed something? :huh:

Thank you to Nick Grey for taking the time to answer our questions. It is really appreciated. Any twin-engined prop warbird in DCS would be a dream-come-true. The Mosquito is a superb choice and I am delighted to see it under consideration.

I have CH Pro Pedals. I do not use the CH Manager software (I just plug them in as normal devices). They work fine for me (UH-1H, FW-190, Bf-109 and P51D - not tried the TF51D, but guessing it is the same as the P51D).

Wow. Looks really cool. Nice work there Topsy.

DAR-10 is a nice one. I've found a few others too (list below). I know the match will never be perfect, but padding out an airfield or as a stand-in for something in special missions is the sort of thing I had in mind. Whether it is armed or not doesn't really matter too much. We need as much WW2 content as possible, so looking for plausible uses of early-50s/60s items is worthwhile. But is also interesting to see how many designs have similar features. Even if never used, if certainly had fun reading up about these various types. Wirraway -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAC_Wirraway K10W -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyushu_K10W DAR-10 -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DAR_10 NA-16 -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_NA-16 Pyry -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VL_Pyry BT-9 -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_BT-9

This would definitely be my vote too. Especially as it could be used for WW2, cold war and post-modern.

Just thinking out-of-the-box here. I wonder if the Yak-52 could be used as a stand-in for a WW2 aircraft? I mean, it looks vaguely similar to something like, perhaps, a VL Pyry or a CAC Wirraway, if it was given a new paintscheme. I know the undercarriage would be a bit of a giveaway, but I'm just exploring ideas. Is there anything else that it could mimic for a 1939-1945-era mission?

Old thread, I know, but I've been trying these exact procedures trying to improve my take-offs. I've seen Little_D's videos, so I know that his take-offs are really smooth. I am taking off-okay, but it is still really wobbly and quite a struggle to get it level and stable as I go airborne. What I am wondering, is whether there are any changes being made to the ground-trim. What I mean by that, is that in the settings (outside of the mission) you can select the special settings for the Bf 109 and then set the aileron and rudder trim tabs. What sorts of values are pilots using there?