What is stopping the Spit coming out of beta? - Page 4 - ED Forums


Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-11-2018, 08:47 PM   #31
philstyle's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: The Aeotearoan Republic of Niederbayern
Posts: 904

Originally Posted by Reflected View Post
It wasn't really up to every pilot to decide what their convergence should be. Maybe some COs and big aces, but mostly they had to work with what they had. t.
Because I am almost certain that's made up.
philstyle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2018, 08:52 PM   #32
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: Cornwall, UK
Posts: 1,932

Originally Posted by philstyle View Post
Because I am almost certain that's made up.
What Reflected said was what I understand the situation to be as well. There were more than one threads on this topic here a year or so ago.
imacken is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 05-11-2018, 09:20 PM   #33
WildBillKelsoe's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Cairo, Egypt
Posts: 6,251

Originally Posted by Silver_Dragon View Post
Remember, in the Mi-8, the previously features as minelayer launcher equipment and bombing sight was deleted after release.

The clipped wing 3D model has actually into the game, that require a new FM by the different performance (better turn rate).
I cant believe the bombing sight was nerfed... I missed a whole lot of things apparently.

Fat T is above, thin T is below. Long T is faster, Short T is slower. Open triangle is AWACS, closed triangle is your own sensors. Double dash is friendly, Single dash is enemy. Circle is friendly. Strobe is jammer. Strobe to dash is under 35 km. HDD is 7 times range key. Radar to 160 km, IRST to 10 km. Stay low, but never slow.
WildBillKelsoe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-12-2018, 02:24 AM   #34
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Montreal (QC), Canada
Posts: 1,682

Originally Posted by OperatorJack View Post
Gun convergence is such a convenient feature in every WW2 flight sim ever it baffles me how DCS just deliberately forgoes including it
Key word is "convenient", not "realistic". I live perfectly fine without a simmerism like that.

I can hardly imagine IRL ground crews were setting up custom convergence for every single airframe they work on. Especially since specific airframes didn't belong to the pilots themselves; any pilot could be flying any airframe within the same squadron. They were already busy enough as it is. Some famous pilots may have requested specific convergences but I don't think that was the norm at all. I've yet to find sources that claim that custom convergences were the norm for RAF squadrons.

Last edited by Charly_Owl; 05-12-2018 at 02:27 AM.
Charly_Owl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2018, 09:11 PM   #35
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Portsmouth UK
Posts: 205
Default Convergence question

this is an interesting subject and one that is steeped in the unknown, anecdotes and little written facts. I did come across the following:

The mission of the RAF would be to intercept bomber attacks over England...and because of the distances involved, that tended to rule out the bombers being escorted by fighters. Few imagined that the Luftwaffe might operate from bases in France and the Low Countries, thereby permitting the use of fighters over England.

During 1940 the official standard for convergence was reduced to a more acceptable 250 yards, the RAF's sgt pilots were not allowed to change their guns settings.

However the officers were allowed to change the guns convergence, some of the higher scoring aces had their guns set to converge at 50 yards. (maybe 50 yards was the absolute minimum?)
source - http://www.rafcommands.com/archive/02487.php

There is a written description in the last post of this thread.

Desktop PC:
Intel i7 4760K, Gigabyte MOBO, 32 GB RAM , GPU Nvidia RTX 2080
Windows 10, TM Warthog, Crosswind rudder peddles, Occulus Rift.
Bluethornton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2018, 12:35 AM   #36
Sokol1_br's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,252
Send a message via MSN to Sokol1_br

Originally Posted by DeepDrummer View Post
Did the LF MK IX not have a latch to hold the brake lever?
Yes and this latch is (3D) modeled in DCS Spitfire, but their function/command is not programmed.

BTW - Until last update "Lubber Line" in compass still wrong, turning with Course Setter scale instead be fixed in 12:00 o'clock position.

From compass description in DCS Spit manual - under 'Navigation Equipment':

"Under the glass is the Lubber Line - a thin wire, against is set the compass rose. This line serve as index for determining the course.

What is impaired if the Lubber Line turn together with 'compass rose' (Course Setter), like happens actually.

Last edited by Sokol1_br; 05-15-2018 at 12:41 AM.
Sokol1_br is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2018, 12:27 PM   #37
DeepDrummer's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Canada
Posts: 408

Thanks Sokol1_br. That is all good information. Much appreciated.
Win 10 pro 64 bit. Intel i7 4790 4 Ghz running at 4.6. Asus z97 pro wifi main board, 32 gig 2400 ddr3 gold ram, 50 inch 4K UHD and HDR TV for monitor. H80 cpu cooler. 8 other cooling fans in full tower server case. Soundblaster ZX sound card. EVGA 1080 TI FTW3. TM Hotas Wartog. TM T.16000M MFG Crosswinds Pedals. Trackir 5.
"Everyone should fly a Spitfire at least once" John S. Blyth
DeepDrummer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2018, 08:27 PM   #38
OperatorJack's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: UK
Posts: 392

How about we get the feature for those that want it, and then if you're too constrained by realism then just keep it set to the accepted historical value?
/да бойз/
OperatorJack is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 03:27 PM. vBulletin Skin by ForumMonkeys. Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.