Lace

I must be one of the few who buyers who were not only not only disappointed, but actually happy with the Viper in it's day-1 EA state. Personally I'd rather be flying an incomplete module, than waiting forever for a feature complete version. I like to start incorporating new aircraft into missions, getting a feel for the systems, checklists, tactics etc, which is all perfectly achievable with a 50% complete module. However, Razbam will release it when they want to, not when we want them to.

A-6, A-7 and F-8 all in development. Possibly F-4 too...

We are simulating warfare. Warfare is not nice, or pleasant. I'm amazed people are squeamish about this stuff but will happily ripple CBU into built up areas. Personally I think the distraction of a wounded co pilot or other crew member would add a sense of urgency and desperation and certainly reduce your combat effectiveness, which is exactly how it should be. Microprose are incorporating this very thing into their new B-17 simulator, as they know that managing crew 'damage' is just as important as airframe damage in ensuring a successful outcome to a mission. At the very least, the damage model should extend to the cockpit and controls IMHO.

Flare works for me, not tried changing chaff yet.

You don't. You look at it with the VR crosshairs and click LMB. Nothing to map, nothing to remember.

Practical? You mean completely unnecessary. I have been flying exclusively in VR for a couple of years now and never needed to touch a mouse, trackball or VR controller. Map a stick hat to LMB/RMB/Mouse scroll up/down and simply look at the switches to operate. If you don't have enough buttons a modifier on your throttle lets you double up. I can't understand why so many people don't do this. Don't fight the HOTAS, use it!

I feel that accurately modelling the systems and crew stations of multiple vessels is unachievable, at least to the standard which would be expected from an ED module. Modern warships are incredibly complex pieces of equipment, which would make even the highest fidelity aircraft module look as simple as a Cessna 152. There is a reason for such specialisation of crew members. Not to mention the classified nature of much of the equipment on board. To accurately model these, never mind learn the required systems to the level required for effective combat employment would be a huge undertaking (or would require a huge MP crew - equally unlikely IMHO). Instead I propose a different approach. A 'Captain' sim. Rather than seat-swapping between stations, information is fed to the vessel's Master, who in turn issues orders. You can set ROE, EMCON, engagement ranges, etc but do not need to micromanage each system operator. That way, one can concentrate on the business of naval combat, without the minutiae. We can still have a realistic 3D wheelhouse, with the relevant repeaters as IRL, but just as IRL the Captain is unlikely to actually be hands-on any controls, the module would be more of a vessel management sim. As you receive damage, then damage control orders should be issued, and as systems are degraded, so is the information being fed back. You as captain could order an ASW or ASuW patrol be despatched, and give a patrol area to cover, and the vessel will prepare and launch the relevant assets. Or you could plan and execute a land strike using stand off cruise missiles. Think C:MO, but with a 1st person interface. Or a realistic interpretation of Carrier Command 2.

Useful given the upcoming IR signature improvements.

Trims fine for me too, but that's not to say a bit more fine control of the trim wheel would not make things easier.

Mission 9 attached. Anti-ship strike against the Marshal Ustinov. Don't get too close, those CIWS are vicious. Northern Flank 9.miz

Yes. Without changing power settings, you can trade speed and altitude. Say you are trimmed S&L at 120kts, 3000ft. You pull on the stick to trade some speed for altitude (a zoom climb). You are now flying higher but since you have not changed the power setting (which controls altitude) you will require more back pressure on the stick to maintain that new altitude. Two things can happen now - you trim nose up to hold the new altitude and reduced airspeed (you have swapped some speed for some altitude) or you relax the stick pressure and the aircraft reestablishes 120kts by entering a shallow descent until it stabilises at 3000ft again. Try it the other way. At 120kts and 3000ft you push the nose over. Speed increases as altitude decreases, but as you get faster the stick pressure required to hold nose-down increases. You are fighting the aircraft as it wants to find 120kts (I.e. by pitching back up). Again you now need to re-trim for the faster speed, and the aircraft will level off at a lower altitude and higher speed, or you release the stick pressure and the aircraft makes it’s way back to 120kts/3000ft. From this it should be obvious that a well trimmed aircraft is essential to an accurate strafing run, otherwise as speed increases in the dive, the pilot will need to fight very heavy pitching forces and end up oscillating up and down as the aircraft is constantly trying to pitch up, while the pilot is trying to hold a steady dive angle.

I seem to have caused further confusion here. Of course in a practical sense you are correct in that each aircraft manoeuvre requires the manipulation of multiple controls, and in order to accelerate in S&L flight you need both trim and power. Again, this is really easy to demonstrate. Trim for S&L flight and increase the throttle, don’t touch any other controls. Allow the aircraft to stabilise (give it a minute or two) and check the conditions. Are you now going faster, or are you flying higher? Your trim setting has essentially fixed the aircraft speed, and no matter what you do to the throttle afterwards, the aircraft (assuming positive stability characteristics) will eventually settle back to that airspeed. The only way you are going to get it to sit at a faster cruise speed is by turning that trim wheel nose down. edit - imagine this scenario, you are stabilised on finals, and low on the glide slope. Do you a) pitch up, or b) add power. One answer is correct, and the other is likely to end in a visit to the hospital (if you are lucky).

No, the answer to my question is 'pitch up'. The only way it would be 'get faster' is if you simultaneously apply forward stick (or trim) as you increase throttle. Given a S&L trimmed aircraft, you can go faster just by trimming, but, as you stated, this will result in a corresponding pitch down, and then a settling S&L at a lower altitude and higher speed. Trim effects speed. If you want to increase speed and maintain altitude, then you will need a power increase. Power effects altitude. If you are interested in how this all actually works in reality it is worth booking a few lessons with your local flying school (even if you have no intentions of taking it further). It will increase your understanding and help your simulator flying.

Trim sets speed, power sets altitude. Think of the trim setting as a speed (or cruise control in your car). You trim the a/c for 120kts, if you then add power the aircraft will try to maintain 120kts - and does this by beginning a 120kt climb, until it reaches an altitude where the new power setting is correct for S&L flight, and the aircraft settles into a 120kt cruise. Now you reduce the power, the aircraft will again try to find 120kts, it does this by pitching down until you reach an altitude where again, the new power setting is correct for S&L flight. What you are doing is not wrong, but you perhaps misunderstand (as many non-pilot simmers seem to do) what the trim is actually for and how it works. If you trim for 120kts, and set power for 110kts then the aircraft will descend, and oscillate, eventually settling out at 120kts at a lower altitude. The confusion comes as most people think (and fly as if) the power controls speed and pitch controls altitude, whereas this is not actually the case. It is easy to demonstrate. Simply trim the aircraft (any non-computerised FBW aircraft) for level flight, and open the throttles. Does it get faster, or pitch up?

Mine trims out ok. It seems to have a heavy port wing though. It’s worth noting -for those unaccustomed to props- that any trim setting is only correct for a particular speed, configuration and power setting. Change any one of those and you need to re-trim. IRL you trim the forces out of the stick. Unless you have a FFB stick, this is harder to do in DCS, but I can still achieve a decent hands-off S&L.

This is how I was taught.

Given the absence of any sight or aiming computer, does anyone have any hints or rules-of-thumb for bomb aiming in the Mossie? So far I’ve had mixed success eyeballing it on shallow dive and level deliveries, but I think it is more luck than skill. The manual and training missions seem a little lacking in this regard.

Warm and moist are often the worst conditions for icing. SALR is about 2degC per 1000ft, so on an ISA day you are in sub-zero air at only 7,500ft. Add in some cloud (i.e moisture) and you have ice.

Spadeadam and Otterburn would make a nice Northumbrian mini-NTTR. Day one buy for me, though I suspect I might be the only one. That reminds me, I must do another weekend mild-weasel trip to get some photos of the AD sites. Nothing like doing SEAD at 90kts in an SEP. Ha ha

I think a DC-3/C-47 would probably be the most versatile, given it would fit with the WWII modules, and is still in service today with private cargo operators. My personal pick would be the C-130. In use with air forces all over the world, from the 1960s to present day. The IL-76 already has a big presence in DCS, a FF version would be nice too, though perhaps less prolific than the Hercules (probably not by much). Either way, tactical transport makes much more sense than strategic lift, so doubtful we'll see a C-5 or 141 any time. The C-2 is more a personnel than logistics transport, most carriers would be replenished by other vessels, so although it would be nice to have, I don't think the COD would play a critical role in a dynamic campaign. Personally, I would be happiest with a C-130K.

Ahem,

S&L power changes do not have a gyroscopic precession effect. They would result in a torque moment (roll) about the longitudinal axis. I think you might be confusing the two.

Gyroscopic precession effect of the rotating engine parts? As you pitch up you are essentially applying a force to the 12 o'clock (looking aft) position of the turbine blades, which will translate 90deg left or right (depending on the direction of rotation of the engine) and become a yawing moment at the 9 or 3 o'clock positions. The secondary effect of yaw is roll so this could be manifest as a slight left roll tendency on pitch up, assuming a clockwise (looking aft) engine rotation. I'm a prop guy, so maybe the effects are negligible on a small diameter, low mass turbine.

+1, but only if they can also be turned off in the ME. Nothing worse for ruining the war-zone immersion than an airfield lit up like a Christmas tree.

Yeah, I know there is some change, just couldn't quite remember what it was exactly. Pretty sure CAT/III limits roll and pitch rates too, but happy to be corrected.