philstyle

FB VI PZ474 made it's first flight after retoration last week, in New Zealand.

Yes, this fixed it! One of them works as a toggle in both directions. The other only works to turn it on, but not off again. I wonder if HB knows this? I have now swapped the binding over and it works. Much apprecaited.

As of 18 JAN, the server will be offline for 5 weeks.

I don't understand why the supplier has gone silent on this . . .

Another 2 weeks and another update passes . . https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3760511&postcount=39 Nothing mentioned about the Canopy and Cockpit issues. Once downloaded, can someone report if this has actually been attended to, and maybe just not mentioned in the pacth notes?

Hi folks, I have the AFK lever set to a single keyboard button, which should toggle it on and off again. The button press works to toggle AFK mode on, but if I press the button again, the AFK lever does not return to the off position. I have to use mouse click to dsiable AFK mode. Is this the same for others? Am I missing a key binding here?

Yes, the Spitfire IX is significantly slower than the P51D. This is entirely historical.

You're right that this isn't an example of "wingless", but rather it shows a "Wingtip-loss on one side". I can't see where Lixma claims that this occurs "without doing nothing". The video has no audio for me though, so maybe he says it in the audio? Lixma merely wrties in his post that he observes that there "didn't seem to be any drag penalty" from this. He clearly observes some changes (such as the need for additional aileron input during level flight). However, the video does NOT show whether or not there is a drag penalty. In oder to see that we need a video with BEFORE and AFTER the event, with the same engine settings and attitude applied. Only then can wee see if there is an airspeed or altitude loss to compensate for the damage and assymetrical flight.

That was my introduction to flight "simming"! . . back in 1991 or 92.

Yeah.. how has that survived moderation? It's off topic.. for the second time.

Updated all aircraft tail/unit numbers to look more historically correct for the mission that is currently running. The plan is to update the other missions over time and add them back in. We are currently looking at some scripting options to help with AI and to implement a kind of ground-controller (RADAR-based fighter control) system. More on that in time.

you don't need to load a script at all when the MiG spawns Just set an "advanced waypoint" instruction at the MiG's first (number 0) way-point to "Follow" and then select the aircraft group you want it to tag.

This probably belongs in the Spitfire discussion, but seeing as the content is here: No.1 Sqn RAF converted to 25lb Spitfire Mark IX in May 1944. http://www.spitfireperformance.com/no1_25lbs.jpg However No.1 Sqn was not part of the 2nd TAF and was not based in Normandy in support of the ground forces there. It looks like the May 1944 conversions were for Non-TAF Groups of Fighter Command. http://www.spitfireperformance.com/adgbs29867g.gif No.165 Squadron also converted to 25lb Spitfires in May 1944 http://www.spitfireperformance.com/no165_25lbs.jpg No.157 Squadron converted in July 1944 http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/157sqdn-ORB-25lbs-3july44.jpg The 2nd TAF units do not appear to have conducted large scale conversion until November 1944, well after breakout from Normandy. http://www.spitfireperformance.com/2taf150_112044.gif 2nd TAF seems to have been using 130 Octane at this point. However, No.1 Sqn did fly operations over Normandy/ France during the Falaise Gap period, but from airfields in southern England, and not from 2ndTAF bases in France. In any case, the 25lb Mark IX was being flown operationally by the RAF in June 1944. However, its numbers were few as a proportion of all operational Spitfires and I am unable to find evidence of 25lb Spitfires with the 2nd TAF at that time.

We've used the before to get an enemy AI to follow the human player but not engage. Set the AI to "follow" task. Also, set the AI to "weapons hold", which will prevent it from firing. You can also then tell the AI at a later waypoint to go "FIRE" (i.e. weapons hot), or to disengage and fly away by turning off the Follow instruction.

Is it possible, using MOOSE, to generate a player stats file during a (ideally multiplayer) mission? I've had a bit of a look through the MOOSE website and can't find anything specifically on this topic.

This I've not tried, and will have to wait until this evening (europe time).

Thanks for the reply. So I am pretty sure that the time from landing to park is less than 10 minutes, however I cannot be certain so I'll check that tonight. I alos plan to send one or two groups to other bases, in case it is a bug which is perculiar to Chailey (I wouldn't be suprised given the way that the Normandy map behaves some times...) Some of the aircraft groups are definitely late activated. So this might explain them. However there is one formation which I have present at mission start (3x groups of 4). These are landing (despite an inordinate amount of time circluing around the airfield for some reason) and parking but not de-spawning. So I suspect the script will need to be modified to account for the late-activated aircraft. The mission runs for 6 hours, with around 15 to 20 AI groups activating throughout and conducting missions and retruning home to land.

I've found that key-bindings is critical to deploying the RB75 effectively. There's quite a lot of ergonomics involved in getting it smooth and not-cumbersome. I've had to do the following: (I am right handed) 1. I Assigned the up-down-left-right movement of the EP13 scope to the cursor keys on my keyboard. I move the scope round with my right hand, fingers on the cursors. 2. I have the T0, T2 and T2 options bound to a seperate button box (actually an Elgato streamdeck) that sits on my desk, left of my joystick, kind-of above my left knee. So, whilst looking through the EP13 scope, with my right hand on the cursor keys, my left hand is on the three T0, T1, T2 buttons. As I am lining up a target vehicle/object with the cursor keys, I repeatedly press the T2 button with my left hand until it "fixes" the scope. 3. Once fixed I lean back fromt he scope and prss the fire trigger, which is on my joystick. (in order to line up the EP13 scope, it's almost always necessary to have the aircraft at least on attitude hold. Occasionally I will move the nose around with the stick if the scope is too far off the target, but very small nose movements cause a lot of scope movement especially at longer ranges from the target). As time has gone by I've realised that 1 or 2 RB75s is the max I can expect to get onto most targets. I just run out of time/ room to deploy any more. For this reason I seldom take more than 2 in my loadout.

Hi Hardcard, your test mission works perfectly, and I was also able to swap out the AI aircraft for B17s and they also landed and despawned fantastically, just as I was hoping. However, when I use the scripts on the Normandy map, with B17s landing at Chailey Airfield, they would not despawn once parked. Perhaps if you have the WW2 assets and the Normady map I can send you the mission I am using. However, if you do not have those modules I shall have to try and work out the issue myself.

Only if you think you might forget to switch back to it after weapons release? But yeah, it doesn't seem to offer specific advantages over ANF for the run in to target as far as I can see.

Thanks Lima. Good to see someone persisting with sustained G over time (repeat tests) and actually showing the break-points as modelled.

The calculations I posted confirm very similar to what your video shows. . . claiming (sans rationale) that they are "erroneous" doesn't do your argument any favours. I leads one to believe that you might not have paid much attention to them at all. From the linked video, a max value in the maneuver before wing-break of "about 11.4G" was derived from the calcualtions. This is only 0.1G (0.8%) away from the G shown in your video (which on multiple reviews as slow as I can get youtube to playback does show an 11.3 at one point). Now you *might* have achieved 12G at some point, but you asked us to assess your video - not something you saw but didn't show. The video does not show 12G. Adding that in to the mix now, sans data, is specualtive and nothing more. As for this statament "the pilot to suffer the natural and obvious consequences", I doubt you even know what these are. Theres no medical data provided to show an instantaneous 12G (assuming you really did see 12G) on the human body . . so you've not made any substantial kind of claim here that can be reasonably assessed by anyone. John Paul Stapp famously conducted G rocket tests on himself. He survived 46.2G. instantaneous (despite some broken bones) and at 18G instantaneous reported grey outs. His report of 10G was that it was "quite pleasant". But Stapp has to be seen as an outlier. Despite that, I think many ametuers will be rather shocked at how high the report G values were in his experiments. I certainly was. Continuous G is less "survivable", and is often confused for instantaneous G. U.S. DoD Studeis from the 1950s found that without any strain or G-suit, average G’s prior to G-LOC was dependent on the rate of G onset. G-LOC occurred at an average of 5.4 G’s at 1 G/sec rate and 4.5 G’s at 2 G/sec rate. The 5.4 G 1/s rate is a 5 1/2 second test The 4.5 G 2/s rate is a 9 second test Extrapolating those figures gives us jsut on zero seconds for 10.9G. So 11 seconds is basically the average instantaneous G for G-Loc onset that could be expected without G-suit or straining. Now, in amazing's video we're not looking at zero seconds exposure, but 3 seconds and the G climbs and drops back again in that period . . so there are still some vagaries here. But we must remember that the US DopD study is assuming no G suit or straining. Our DCS pilots possible don't have "G" suits**, but there were trained to strain, so they can pull more G continuously than the above "average" times and rates before G-loc. G-suits started being used by spitfire pilots in 1942, incidentally. No 807 Squadron (Seafires) were the first to have pilots equipped with the Franks Flying Suit Mk I in 1942. So based on that, it's not wildly specuative at all that a pilot might not suffer G-loc in the maeuver you showed, assuming the pilot strains (abdominal tensing, sharp breathing). Unfortunately, we can't see if your pilot was suffering greyout effect, due to your decision to stick only with external views. I'd like to see the same from the cockpit, but I've already stated that only to be met with dismissive shorthand from you in response. As before, your video is a good start. But it's just a start. And it has quite a few gaps that need to be filled before is gives us anything more than a shapshot data point. It certainly might still turn out that the opinion that the Spitfire/ Pilot in DCS can sustain un-realistically high G loading. But the video provided certainly doesn't get us very close to that conclusion. Finally to adress your last remaining issu, that "Spitfire is able to pull +11Gs (I saw even +12Gs) without natural and obvious consequences" We can now see that, in fact, Pulling 11.7G casues total catastrophic failure of the Spitfire wing. Whats more, just 9G (max) is apparently enough to structurally weaken the spitfire airframe, so that a third subsequent 9G maneuver will result in catastrophic failulre. The Spitfire airframe IS weakend/damaged by just 9G. You just cant see the damage until you try to stress the air-frame again. This is why we do repeated tests, and just don't selectively post one-off data points that appear to prove a point, but do little more than cloud the issue.

It is a good video, it demonstrates the following to me: That, with an unknown set of difficulty settings it is possible to: 1. Pull 11.1 G instantaneous G in the DCS spitfire without breaking the airframe 2. It is possible to hold around 6G continuous (varies from 4 to 11 and back down to 2) for 3 seconds without breaking the air-frame (during this point of the video 1:02 to 1:05 it's in external view, so we cannot see if the pilot is greying out at all) It does not, however, demonstrate: 1.Whether such a load is possible in the other types in DCS 2 Whether the pilot has begun to grey out at all under these conditions 3.What G load "instantaneous" or "continuous" is required for a failure to occur 4. Where on the air-frame the G-load is being recorded (Datum point or elsewhere?) Here's how I'd set up a controlled test: 1. similar entry into the maneuver, noting altitude and airspeed at the point of entry 2. play the maneuver at normal speed from in-cockpit to get full view of instruments, and pilot greyout (if any) 3. replay the maneuver at normal speed from external view 4. replay the maenuver at half or quarter speed to show the amount of time under G load 5. conduct the maneuver 2 more times to confirm accuracy 6. conduct a simlar maneuver, but this time designed to break something, noting the G load that was present at that time 7. conduct similar meneuvers to observe effects with other air-frames 8. attempt to reproduce the same G loading with other manuevers in other air-frames to confirm their G-load capability Furthermore, one of our guys at SoW did some calculations based on visual observation of a Spitifre failing under G load a while back (http://www.stormofwar.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=5934). His calc determined that 11.4 instantaneous was enough to snap the wing off. So your 11.1 in this video is only a tiny fraction below the failure point. See this video: And the attendant calculations here: Okay, first, let's extract the data. For this I stepped through the video frame by frame. Look at the pitch: This is linearly increasing from t = 10.5 to 11.5. Fit a line to this, and you'll get a slope of approx. 35 deg/s. Convert this to angular velocity (symbol = w, units = radians per second). Because the change was linear, this means it is uniform circular motion. w = 35 deg/s = 0.611 rad/s Angular acceleration, a, is (w^2 r), where r is the radius of curvature. But we don't know what r is. But angular acceleration is also given by v^2 /r. That means that a = w^2 r = v^2 / r. Rearrange to get: r^2 = v^2 / w^2 r = v / w Going back to the data, the IAS varies from 575 to 557 km/h. Again it is roughly linear over that range, so we can take the mean. This is v = 565 km/h But this is IAS. We need TAS. For this, I'll assume a roughly standard atmosphere and that the altitude is roughly 1130 metres. This is roughly 3700 feet. So the TAS is 599 km/h (REF). 599 km/h = 166.4 m/s So, we can now calculate r. r = v / w = 166.4 / 0.611 = 272 m With either velocity and r, we can calculate the centripetal force. a = v^2 / r = 166.4 * 166.4 / 272 = 102 m^2/s The acceleration due to gravity is 9.8 m^2/s. So, the centripetal acceleration is 102 / 9.8 = 10.4 G But, you are at the bottom of the curve, so the gravity vector itself is added. This 1 G, but you need to allow for the pitch and bank. Let's say pitch = 10 deg at the moment of break, and that the bank was about 5 deg. cos( 5 deg ) * cos (10 deg ) * 1 = .97 G So, still close to 1. Thus, the total force would be about 11.4 G. I'd say my errors are a about 2% per step on 3 steps. That's a total error of +/- 5 % Now, if we compare that to the registered data, it was max'ing out around 10.9 G. However, that is probably a frame average, and my figures have about 5% error. In any case, the G-calculations look pretty good.

Every sime I've ever been in I've seen this same dsicussion. The spitfire being obnoxiously good at turning . . . Once, in another sim, we decided to put this to the test. The Sptfire 1a turned thourgh 360 degrees at it's max turn rate, in 19 seconds The 109E variant, did the same turn at its max turn rate in 21 seconds. This matched up almost perfectly with real world data for these types. It's relatively easy to test this stuff.. . . . Unfortunately, I don't own any german modules in DCS, so I cannot conduct a comprehsive test myself. I can certainly test the Spitfire at a given altitude and airspeed though, and time the 360 turn.

What altitude are you flying at in the mission? I don't think you are overheating/ blowing anything, I just think you're loosing fuel pressure. Up above around 15,000ft (depends on air pressure) you are going to need to make sure you have the high-altitude fuel pressure butterfly turned on (right-front, lower side of cockpit/dash). Sometimes, if you don't have the electric fuel pump on, you also might need to give the wobble pump a few pushes in order to add some pressure manually to the fuel supply system. The aletrnative to doing this is just to use the electric pump, but that's not receommendeed in the real aircraft (but seems to have no adverse effect in game). You can also cruise at just under 4lb and 2600 or so RPM very happily. 1800 RPM is pretty low. If you are escorting slow bombers, use a wide weaving pattern to maintain your airspeed - assumign your orders allow you some freedom i this area. Besides keeping the engine warm-ish, this does two important tactical things also 1. Allows you to check your 6 and the bombers 6 more often and 2. Keeps your airspeed up, which puts you in a better position when jerry arrives.