Whisper

It may be. GCI is only functional with certain countries. I don't have the list, unfortunately, but like you I have been unable at times to get the EWR to work and changing its country did the trick

Or that stick forces are not properly rendered

I can only second that

The trick that made it for my landings : Pressure of 4 on wheel brakes before the touchdown and all along the landing run. Fly parallel to runway low speed until the 60mph speed comes in and makes you touchdown on your own. Drop throttle back altogether, pull stick, if you have enough free hands left, flaps in :)

For me, the most important point to clear up first would be to be sure and confirmed if the stick forces are currecntly properly simulated in the Spit or not, tbh. That would be a very first step toward clearing the issue. I don't think there's been any acknowledgement or refutal on the fact there's currently no stickforce simulated.

Didn't he he say he never used brakes on the 190 on take off, but brake could be needed (right side) sometimes on the 109 on take off roll?

Well, I don't know for real world but for DCS, I've never used any curve or dead zone in any of the analog braking I use, be it on toe brake axis on suitable aircrafts : FW190 / Bf109 / Mirage 2000C, or on a single throttle axis on single brake lever aircrafts : Mig21, Mig15, L-39, Mi8 and now Spitfire, in neither of these cases have I ever needed to tweak the axis curve of the brake and I'm still having precise control of it. The curve changes the ratio between what you physically apply and what happens in the sim, so what you physically do is not anymore what is applied to the aircraft, I've a hard time understanding how that make the brakes behave how they do IRL.... I can rest my foot on my pedals in the 109 without applying any force to the wheel brakes in the sim already. No need of curves for that.

???? It's the goal of an axis to be gradual and proportional to the amount of movement applied on the control. You don't need a dead zone nor a curve, at least for this one, the toe brake is naturally in the zero position, and I really really don't see any use for a curve, let the amount of braking (ie, movement of brake lever) be proportional to the amount of movement of your toe brake. If you see that your foot is inadvertandly pushing the toe brake in certain unwanting ground situation, maybe a little bit of deadzone could help, though I'd rather position my pedals farther away to avoid this, personally. But really, I insist :), for curves, there's zero need in the case of the wheel brakes. You don't need THAT little braking input (at the beginning of the curve, you'll push the toe brake fr very little actual brake lever movement), and the end of the curve will make you unable to fine tune your braking during big turns (each little push toward the end of the toe brake axis will push on the lever in a big way). That's probably what makes you feel this "all or nothing" effect, tbh. Keep your brake axis with zero curve.

I don't know how you ended up like that, I have access to full range of motion on my brake axis and can precisely control the brake lever.why did you fiddle with dead zone and curve?

Just do it. "Axis assign", then you'll find wheel brakes has an axis assignable, assign it to whatever axis you have free on your HOTAS, toa brake if you want, though I'd advise to chose an axis on stick or throttle

How is the wind in your mission with CTLD compared to when you tested slingloading without CTLD?

Where else can I look for official statement & documentation on SSE?

Well, on my rudder, I dislike having brakes axis on the pedal when on top of it I have to use rudder for turning, the pedal when braking is to "flat" and the foot is prone to slide out of it. I really prefer having the brake axis on the hands, so I use one of the rotary under the thumbs on my X-55 throttle. You may want to try that, I find it far more precise than everything on the feet.

Well, there's still something that itches me greatly about the whole topic, and the "ED is working toward 2.5" isn't going to appease me for that, at all. The whole stance of ED toward SSE is that it's an added layer they "offered" like the icing on the cake. When I read the official wiki SSE page, I'm baffled. Page 1 : So the only official statement about SSE is up to date with ... version 1.2.0 SSE is presented as the debug tool it originally was and only an additionnal layer, and prone to bugs. If any other component of the simulation was treated in the same way, .... well, I can't even imagine it. Very clearly, the SSE is not considered a core part of the engine, like 3D, modelling, physics, but is considered a additionnal tool. Nothing in 2.5 annoucements shows that this status will change. This is imho a huge, huge mistake. That means that when considering a change, SSE is not taken into account and people in ED departments are constantly struggling with consequences of choices to fix bugs appearing. I'm speechless when I see basic stuff like the ability to embark troops into cargo broken, (whole ME commands for it actually disappearing!), just to name this. That's half the utility of 2 modules (Huey & Mi8 ) ED is actually selling ... gone! (unless you rely on community script like CTLD, thks Ciribob!). What would be the outcry of ED suddenly removed the 3D model of the A10C wheels? This stuff should have been corrected presto! Yeah, it's being looked into (thank BigNewy for the update) but... look at the dates : https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=176514 So my main problem isn't the actual bugs, lack of proper reporting channel, etc.... It's more to do with how ED regards ME and SSE. They are heavily toward pretty and 3D, but if editing topics are not integrated into the core of the development, I don't see anything actually getting better. I'm sorry, but I read "ED is working heavily toward 2.5" only has "ED is enhancing graphics and physics", and that doesn't make me comfortable. There's a big parallel that can be drawn (and has been early on in this thread) between SSE and Bohemia Interactive take on their own scripting engine in Operation Flashpoint (now ArmA series) back in 2001. It was initially the exact same stance BI had toward their scripting engine : it was originally a debug tool & they kindly gave access to it to the players. It was neat but kinda horrible in the same time, with half the scripts being explained in Czech, for example. The situation changed after a few years and BI heavily invested in making the scripting engine and mission editing a core aspect of the game. DayZ has shown how a winning move that was. I'm not saying ED should go the exact same route, but getting out of the idea that it's a simple tool they kindly give us access to would be a start. EDIT : Imho ED has 2 choices : Either built themselves the content (and I'm not talking about modules, because modules without a proper way to use them isn't going to cut it), by the mean of proper dynamic campaign, working multiplayer scenarios (along with larger theater, proper dedicated server support ... ). Or give the ability to the community to do all that. And the SSE is the perfect tool for that. Or would be, if it was more viable.

This, +20k I'm using wheel brake on an axis for all my birds using such differential braking since I own the Mig21, never regretted this setup. I tried a few days ago to go back on brake-on-a-button to try helping a flight mate and see how it felt for him, it was a nightmare. Wheel brake on an axis is a game changer

I've read suggestion about limiting K4 in some missions to not have MW50 enabled (I didn't know it was possible) to try to simulate some G models. I don't know how accurate that would be regarding said models, but that may be worth a try if satisfactory. Probably unapplicable to public play, but more for WWII BlueFlag versions and the likes :)

Assuming that the P51 will start a turning fight and stay alive long enough for the Spit to gain on the 109. Sure that can work against bad players, but a good one will just increase the vertical separation. Not to mention 109s that currently rurnfight spits and win. That's not what I am saying.... Whatever I'm going to say, you're going to push for your agenda, so it's better we stop it here.

Well, 1st effect, as a 109, I won't turn & burn a P51 anymore, because that Spit in the vincinity is going to handle me nicely if I do so....

You burn your Spit engine the first few times, then you don't anymore. +18 is for the initial acceleration, then either the guy in front of you will be faster so you can drop it, or you're going in a climb and speed will not allow to sustain usage of +18, so in both case you learn to drop the boost pretty fast. Which doesn't mean you lost. That vaulted speed advantage of german fighters, while true, is not a 100% invulnerability either. It's only visible after 10+ seconds of speed running. In the meantime, a Spit with its turning and acceleration (and guns) can make the german pay. On another note, more inline with the original question, I'd say to not try to compare Spit vs P51, but more how they can complement each others. From guts feeling, I think they are more complementary than the 109/190 duo.

I got this 3 times in a row in a 109 tonight on BS server. EDIT : disregard the above, fault was on my side, wrong buttons assignment. Issue NOT seen on Bf109

Someone should sticky : this http://www.kurfurst.org/Engine/DB60x/DB605_datasheets_DB.html This gives (table at bottom) the proper settings for rpm and manifold pressure for various flight conditions. In automatic propeller pitch mode, setting the manifold pressure to the given setting will make the rpm go to the roughly correct level. So for cruising, go for 1.35 ata, or 1.15 once you have settled at your correct altitude and bearing. Once there, with nose trimmed down a bit (amount of trim needed will depend on conditions, speed and altitude), you should be able to keep the plane centered by using your rudder only, keeping the ball centered or near center to keep the plane level. You should be able to put your hands off the stick this way. If you want more precision, switch to manual propeller pitch control and ensure you have your pressure and rpm at exactly the indicated settings for cruising

Engine gone in a bang is not from overheating but something to do with inside pistons breaking,if I'm not mistaken. That's due to too high RPM. What is the RPM readout during your 1.2 ata climb?

That's what I did. Most of the warning were coming from my teammates shooting while we were close. Absolute game changer!

Don't like it? Don't put it in your missions. That's why Razbam made it optional. Can we stop this useless drivel?

If you expect this to make you win a MP dogfight, prepare for disapointment. I won't change anything most of the time (ie, won't warn you), seeing the limitations of the detection enveloppe.