DCS

[Wulfen]

5 hours ago, Wolf8312 said:

 

Does it work well with touch? Do you have to take off the controllers to go back to the Hotas and fumble around with it? Or is it seamless like wearing gloves, so the controllers can stay on while using the HOTAS? Can you also actually see the pilots arms reaching out for the buttons, or is it just a hand or a cursor? Downloading now, though no hope of it working well with the Vive's wands!

That`s really what is needed, a haptic glove. Otherwise it`s a bit too award picking up controllers and then switching back to hotas. too much fluting around and takes too long, the mouse is handier.

Edited December 20, 2018 by Wulfen

[Jade_Monkey]

Very nice video indeed. I would love to see something like that for IL2 although I dont think sinking the devs time into that is the best use. Maybe a community made vid?

 

The F16 is a nice surprise. Im not too excited about F18 or F14 but for whatever reason F16 sounds awesome to me.

 

On 12/19/2018 at 7:55 PM, Wulfen said:

A mention of some talent transfer to DCS from a competing company with an already extensive damage model is an interesting development if true, https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=194540&page=26.

I imagine yes, the DM would have to be across the platform for it to work properly.

 

Is that a reference to IL2? which is the "sim that shall not be named"??

[Danziger]

5 hours ago, Jade_Monkey said:

Very nice video indeed. I would love to see something like that for IL2 although I dont think sinking the devs time into that is the best use. Maybe a community made vid?

 

The F16 is a nice surprise. Im not too excited about F18 or F14 but for whatever reason F16 sounds awesome to me.

 

 

Is that a reference to IL2? which is the "sim that shall not be named"??

War Thunder is the only thing I can think of that shall not be named. Not a sim though so not really sure.

[Picchio]

Quoting Yo-Yo: "If you mean abandoned sim with the same name that is not to name - it's true."

Pretty obvious...

Edited December 21, 2018 by Picchio

[Wolf8312]

3 hours ago, Danziger said:

War Thunder is the only thing I can think of that shall not be named. Not a sim though so not really sure.

 

No it's Il-2. They are very strict over at the DCS forums about anyone making posts about the competition! So it's just known as 'the other sim' or the one that cannot be named!

[Sokol1]

12 hours ago, Jade_Monkey said:

Is that a reference to IL2? which is the "sim that shall not be named"??

 

Probable an former Russian programmer of OM/Luthier team who work in IL-2: CloD.

Edited December 21, 2018 by Sokol1

[Guest deleted@50488]

I really can't tell about which sim he was referring to, but for sure I do like War Thunder's damage models / effects. 

 

Are they ultra-precise systems wise ? Probably not, but still do a very convincing job, IMHO … As much as WT as a whole actually does - after years refusing to even push the installer into my rig, last month I decided to give WT a try, and was amazed buy the true joy playing it can be.

 

Yes I still prefer DCS, or even in some aspects IL-2 BoX, but I became a fan of WT too.

[Lusekofte]

15 hours ago, Jade_Monkey said:

Maybe a community made vid?

I have seen community made videos here matching this. And they are in general much more convincing than the official cgi trailers. I see in other forums that more and more DCS pilot have bought or consider buying GB series so videos will not hurt in that regard

[wowbagger]

I agree that GB could use some more videos, not necessarily developer made ones.

 

One thing I have noticed is that DCS community videos offer far more examples of mission play-throughs, tutorials, and testing the aircraft in various aspects.  This is obviously because of the sand-box nature of DCS (though I really would prefer the game itself to offer far more by way of campaigns and missions which tell a story or set a stage in which to be immersed). But far too many of GB videos are of the "Ace in a Flight!!! ", gun-cam footage , or 'online-e-peen-bragging rights ?' type of video - which hold no interest for me. 

 

There are a very few good ones which detail mission play-throughs, or discuss tactics, or are really just a stonking good music video with gorgeous planes misbehavin' in GB's beautiful scenery.  I really enjoy those type and think they do more to lure in new players who are curious about what GB has to offer.

[sevenless]

Looks like 2019 will be a good year for us WW2 fans. Also DCS announced some new stuff to be released. Let´s see how it will turn out:

 

Coming next year, we have new AI air units like the P-47D, Ju-88, Fw 190 A-8, A-20G, C-47, Bf 109 G, Mosquito, C-47 and others taking to the skies of DCS World War II. Of these, we are already at work making the P-47D, Fw 190 A-8 and Mosquito flyable. In parallel, the new damage model system is now being applied to all our warbirds.

We also have a new and exciting World War II map in development.

 

DCS: P-51D Mustang - Blue Nosed Bastards of Bodney Campaign

Developed by Reflected Simulations, this campaign is the perfect setting to fly the newly updated Mustang!

[SOLIDKREATE]

Where do you order the P-47 from?

[9./JG27golani79]

I don´t think you can preorder it yet.

Edited December 22, 2018 by 9./JG27golani79

[JG5_Zesphr]

>DCS mossie 

 

[edited]

Edited December 23, 2018 by SYN_Haashashin
Rule 7

[Lusekofte]

21 hours ago, Guccigang_Zesphr said:

>DCS mossie 

 

[edited]

 

No thanks. 

But I understand that is ai only

Edited December 23, 2018 by SYN_Haashashin

[Thad]

DCS: DCS:Combined Arms Campaign 

[Field-Ops]

That trailer is probably the best thing to come out of DCS's youtube channel. Really well done. Hope IL-2 can do something like that with their ingame engine some day.

[JimTM]

4 hours ago, LuseKofte said:

 

No thanks. 

But I understand that is ai only

 

The latest news indicates that they will make an AI version but are working on a flyable version.

 

Ah, sevenless posted the pertinent news section above.

Edited December 23, 2018 by JimTM

[Wulfen]

15 hours ago, Thad said:

DCS: DCS:Combined Arms Campaign 

I just bought it today along with the campaign. It was the only DCS module I didn`t have, so due to the 50% off I just picked it up. Hopefully it will get some attention in the future. I only play in VR and it`s not really compatible, but things may improve. it`s seems it`s also useful for mission creation.

[BeastyBaiter]

On 12/19/2018 at 5:51 PM, Wulfen said:

Great video, and looks like the F-16 will be next year as most of the work has already been/is being done developing the F/A-18. The new detailed damage model is close to completion too reading from some of the dev testers on the DCS forums. I think the quality of the IL2 damage model has put the pressure on ED to develop a comparable one for DCS. Looks like competition, as usual, is good for the consumer. Gives us a great excuse to continue to support both dev teams.

 

I'd be shocked if it were released before 2021. The F-16 won't be next, or next from next or next from next from next from next.... This is basically the formal announcement of it, which means they are just now seriously considering maybe doing it at some undetermined point in the future. More immediate releases from ED include the Mi-24 and about 4-5 aircraft nobody asked for or knew were in development (see Yak-52).

[DD_Arthur]

2 hours ago, BeastyBaiter said:

More immediate releases from ED include the Mi-24 and about 4-5 aircraft nobody asked for or knew were in development (see Yak-52).

 

Hey!  Don't forget Flaming Cliffs Four for chumps like me.   

[Guest deleted@50488]

But, but... at the end of the day, I always get back to "the unique feel of flight" IL-2 gives me :-/

 

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

Is that so ? Because you say exactly the same thing on ED forums about DCS: 
https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3718822&postcount=1600

[SOLIDKREATE]

Just waiting for DCS: F-14 ?

[JG5_Zesphr]

19 hours ago, BeastyBaiter said:

 

I'd be shocked if it were released before 2021. The F-16 won't be next, or next from next or next from next from next from next.... This is basically the formal announcement of it, which means they are just now seriously considering maybe doing it at some undetermined point in the future. More immediate releases from ED include the Mi-24 and about 4-5 aircraft nobody asked for or knew were in development (see Yak-52).

TBF they openly said the yak-52 was developed like the A-10 and KA-50 where it was done at the request of a 3rd party for actual simulator use and then ported to be an actual module (plus it allowed them to develop their modelling of props)  

[Guest deleted@50488]

On ‎12‎/‎25‎/‎2018 at 11:12 AM, =362nd_FS=Hiromachi said:

Is that so ? Because you say exactly the same thing on ED forums about DCS: 
https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3718822&postcount=1600

 

Yeah, you got me there at the other side of the Moon ?

 

It's not unusual with your's trully - even here at the WT Forums if you're interested to read :~)

 

https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/432939-what-is-so-special-about-this-flight-sim/

 

They're both great ( DCS and IL-2 ), each on it's own, but overall the ww2 ambience feels more realistic at the present state of affairs in IL.2 BoX.

 

And there's that "feel" of flight I can't explain better than this...

 

And see bellow in this thread if you care to...

 

Edited December 26, 2018 by jcomm

[Field-Ops]

How will you feel when the DCS P47 feels incredibly similar to IL-2's?

[Guest deleted@50488]

12 hours ago, Field-Ops said:

How will you feel when the DCS P47 feels incredibly similar to IL-2's?

 

Well, we don't yet have a P-47 in DCS...

 

I'm not a good reference in terms of flight simulation. I keep comparing, and messing around with my sims with the exception of one which is so so perfect and near-real that I  can't even complain about at all - Aerowinx PSX !

 

When I have more than one flight simulator ( the only games I ever used in a PC ) that cover the same type of aircraft, like FSX, P3D, X-Plane, Aerofly FS, ELITE IFT, … I try hard to keep just one, and intiate a complex process of sim elimination that takes sometimes years ? and never really comes to an end because in the between new versions of this or that sim get released, and the cycle restarts ?

 

It happened with IL-2 and DCS, including in between CloD which I also tried and liked, and recently even War Thunder, which actually surprised me very positively, and almost caused a total addiction because of the immersion of flying online that WT brought to me, and even because of some details of the aircraft modelling, specially in the damage area, that I really liked... But DCS is still the most complex and attractive in terms of deep systems simulation with actual possibilities of interaction / control of those systems, while in terms of "feel of flight" and of "being there", IL-2 BoX wins easily. Even if certain details of the flight and ground handling characteristics of some aircraft may seem simplified / tamed down in IL-2, truth is that in fact in DCS there are also aspects of modelling that don't appear so realistically modelled as I find them in IL-2. So, I keep alternating between these two sims.

 

I was waiting for the K-4 to get released, as well as I waited for the Spitfire IX. Both happen to feel different in some phases of operation, like ground handling - always easier in IL-2 due to the good effectiveness of the tail surfaces even at taxi power settings and speeds, while in the case of the 109s in IL2, always requiring excessive rudder input ( right rudder ) all of the time, but OTOH in DCS the 109 K4 and the Spitfire feel "wheightless" / "inertialess" - I do not feel the heaviness of a loaded / fuelled 109 or IX in DCS as I do feel in IL-2.  Inflight again there are subtle differences, although not quite so many. Engine modelling surprised me in IL-2 when it comes to the K-4 because in DCS I can use the Ethanol ( MW50 ) mix for a much longer period of time without killing the engine (?) while in my IL-2 furbals I am sometimes surprised by the early end of play due to engine damage ?

 

The wobbling ( mostly in pitch ) problem is yet another "characteristic" absent from DCS and still very present in IL-2, and one that I find annoying and would really like to see "solved"... but may well be tightly tied to the flight dynamics engine, see bellow, and it's BeT-approach, like we have in X-Plane ( ? )... My RL experience of more than 38 years flying gliders tells me that DCS and even War Thunder as I picked  it at v1.83 for the first time, react more pausibly to abrupt pitch inputs, like my gliders IRL that do not wobble at all, even when a bit out of trim, but heck, I know these powerful ww2 fighters have that "spinner" in the nose... and I can't say for sure if it's because of that, and also, the Spitfire IX in IL-2 appears to replicate quite plausibly the neutral pitch stability of the real thing.

 

I look fwd for the P51-D in IL-2, which will be yet another term of comparison, but truth is that while I find the subtleties of systems and some physics characteristics more accurately portrayed in DCS, the overall feel of flight comes from IL-2 and that, in the end, and along my "frenetic" quest for the "perfect" flight sim, tends to always bring me back to play it a lot more than I do DCS...

 

In terms of flight dynamics modelling I believe that IL-2 is closer to X-Plane's approach ( Blade Element Theory - BeT ) and DCS to the typical parametric / table-based approach followed in FSX / Fly! / Flight-Unlimited / FlightGear / ELITE IFT / P3D / Aerofly FS / Aerowinx PSX... and even War Thunder ?

 

Well, long post, but I couldn't express it all in a different way ?

Edited December 26, 2018 by jcomm
typos...

[DD_Arthur]

43 minutes ago, jcomm said:

Well, long post, but I couldn't express it all in a different way ?

 

A very reasonable analysis.

[Field-Ops]

Reasonable analysis. I mostly align with many of your views aside from War Thunder having a much more wobbly pitch in my experience than any other sim I've played. Granted, War Thunder is where I honed my simming reflexes and muscle memory and I appreciate it for that. However after 3 years of nearly every day flying in the now dead Sim Battles (replaced by enduring confrontation) I gradually felt the simplistic nature and copy-paste feeling of their newer planes, as well as un-historic matchups. Anywho, topic for another day.

 

The basic feeling of "weight" I get out of IL-2 might be due in part to the control surfaces stiffening up at higher speeds as well as the lazier momentum changes in slower speeds than DCS feels. DCS seems to not incorporate the control stiffening anywhere near that degree, which causes me to stall much faster and feel much more twitchy in DCS's FW190 compared to IL-2's 190's. It also makes me think I should be light on the stick when stiffening should occur when the opposite should be the case, feeling very unnatural to me. 

 

I own both sims and enjoy each for what they are. Neither see eye to eye in what they strive for but that just makes it better for the consumer choice.

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

Flying both IL-2 and DCS, WT is for tanking only. I did compare the DCS Spitfire IX against IL-2´s Spitifre. DCS Spitfire IMO portrays the plane a bit better than what IL-2 does in this department. In IL-2 the Spitifre flies more or less like on rails requiring no to maybe a fraction of trimming, no rudder in turns etc. Slight curve adjustment and you can throw it around like no tomorrow in IL-2. In DCS the Spitfire is a hot blooded race horse. Sensitive in controls, requires trimming and use of pedals. But when you adjust the response slightly and do fly it proper the purebred nature comes out, it really is a delight to fly. 

 

I do not get the sentence that 109K does not wobble in DCS? It sure does and requires to be flown where you want it to go, kind of forced to the direction. Controls get stiffer in DCS, easy to see for example in aileron deflections in various speeds. Less at higher speed and slower rate of roll than at lower speeds. Applies to the Fw190D-9 as well. Fw190D in DCS rolls better than it´s cousins in IL-2 and feels more responsive. D-9 throws itself in a nasty stall if pulled too hard, but you can do surprisingly tight turns if "reading" the plane right, as one can not feel the G forces.

 

Why people wonder about the K-4 performance issues in these games. In DCS there are no stupendous timers after an engine blows. You can push the limit as long as the temperatures, rpm etc. stay below maximum allowed. Really have to watch the gauges. In IL-2 the Fw190A can blow an engine even oil temperature is 60´C or coolant temperature within limits in the 109 because of the timers. In this area DCS is more close to the pilot reports how they did fly the planes to the limit and kept watching gauges while doing so, not the watch. And cooled off the engine + had to report to the ground staff. They for sure were not happy about an engine being strained, meant a lot of work in form of checks, maintenance, overhauls, engine replacements etc.

[Herne]

On 12/26/2018 at 8:38 AM, jcomm said:

 

Well, we don't yet have a P-47 in DCS...

 

I'm not a good reference in terms of flight simulation. I keep comparing, and messing around with my sims with the exception of one which is so so perfect and near-real that I  can't even complain about at all - Aerowinx PSX !

 

When I have more than one flight simulator ( the only games I ever used in a PC ) that cover the same type of aircraft, like FSX, P3D, X-Plane, Aerofly FS, ELITE IFT, … I try hard to keep just one, and intiate a complex process of sim elimination that takes sometimes years ? and never really comes to an end because in the between new versions of this or that sim get released, and the cycle restarts ?

 

It happened with IL-2 and DCS, including in between CloD which I also tried and liked, and recently even War Thunder, which actually surprised me very positively, and almost caused a total addiction because of the immersion of flying online that WT brought to me, and even because of some details of the aircraft modelling, specially in the damage area, that I really liked... But DCS is still the most complex and attractive in terms of deep systems simulation with actual possibilities of interaction / control of those systems, while in terms of "feel of flight" and of "being there", IL-2 BoX wins easily. Even if certain details of the flight and ground handling characteristics of some aircraft may seem simplified / tamed down in IL-2, truth is that in fact in DCS there are also aspects of modelling that don't appear so realistically modelled as I find them in IL-2. So, I keep alternating between these two sims.

 

I was waiting for the K-4 to get released, as well as I waited for the Spitfire IX. Both happen to feel different in some phases of operation, like ground handling - always easier in IL-2 due to the good effectiveness of the tail surfaces even at taxi power settings and speeds, while in the case of the 109s in IL2, always requiring excessive rudder input ( right rudder ) all of the time, but OTOH in DCS the 109 K4 and the Spitfire feel "wheightless" / "inertialess" - I do not feel the heaviness of a loaded / fuelled 109 or IX in DCS as I do feel in IL-2.  Inflight again there are subtle differences, although not quite so many. Engine modelling surprised me in IL-2 when it comes to the K-4 because in DCS I can use the Ethanol ( MW50 ) mix for a much longer period of time without killing the engine (?) while in my IL-2 furbals I am sometimes surprised by the early end of play due to engine damage ?

 

The wobbling ( mostly in pitch ) problem is yet another "characteristic" absent from DCS and still very present in IL-2, and one that I find annoying and would really like to see "solved"... but may well be tightly tied to the flight dynamics engine, see bellow, and it's BeT-approach, like we have in X-Plane ( ? )... My RL experience of more than 38 years flying gliders tells me that DCS and even War Thunder as I picked  it at v1.83 for the first time, react more pausibly to abrupt pitch inputs, like my gliders IRL that do not wobble at all, even when a bit out of trim, but heck, I know these powerful ww2 fighters have that "spinner" in the nose... and I can't say for sure if it's because of that, and also, the Spitfire IX in IL-2 appears to replicate quite plausibly the neutral pitch stability of the real thing.

 

I look fwd for the P51-D in IL-2, which will be yet another term of comparison, but truth is that while I find the subtleties of systems and some physics characteristics more accurately portrayed in DCS, the overall feel of flight comes from IL-2 and that, in the end, and along my "frenetic" quest for the "perfect" flight sim, tends to always bring me back to play it a lot more than I do DCS...

 

In terms of flight dynamics modelling I believe that IL-2 is closer to X-Plane's approach ( Blade Element Theory - BeT ) and DCS to the typical parametric / table-based approach followed in FSX / Fly! / Flight-Unlimited / FlightGear / ELITE IFT / P3D / Aerofly FS / Aerowinx PSX... and even War Thunder ?

 

Well, long post, but I couldn't express it all in a different way ?

 

 

I'm not sure about the pitch wobbling you are talking about ? I can't say I've noticed it, but I tend to mostly fly alternate sides depending on TAW campaigns. I did however take an F4 and an E7 for a spin on WoL last night. 

I wondered if part of this wobble may be something to do with you generally needing more right peddle in a climb, and reduced or even some left peddle in a dive, something that you will not be used to with gliders. Even most single engine piston pilots, will not have experience with such powerful engines and torque.

[Guest deleted@50488]

44 minutes ago, =11=Herne said:

 

 

I'm not sure about the pitch wobbling you are talking about ? I can't say I've noticed it, but I tend to mostly fly alternate sides depending on TAW campaigns. I did however take an F4 and an E7 for a spin on WoL last night. 

I wondered if part of this wobble may be something to do with you generally needing more right peddle in a climb, and reduced or even some left peddle in a dive, something that you will not be used to with gliders. Even most single engine piston pilots, will not have experience with such powerful engines and torque.

 

I meant the pitching moment due to pitch rate. Not those pertaining to directional stability.

 

You perturb a trimmed aircraft - very noticeable in the 109s even if tamed a bit since a long time ago released patch... - from it's stable flight state and return the stick to neutral and the immediate return to the trimmed AoA  is huge.

Edited December 27, 2018 by jcomm

[Herne]

40 minutes ago, jcomm said:

 

I meant the pitching moment due to pitch rate. Not those pertaining to directional stability.

 

You perturb a trimmed aircraft - very noticeable in the 109s even if tamed a bit since a long time ago released patch... - from it's stable flight state and return the stick to neutral and the immediate return to the trimmed AoA ( static stability ) is huge.

 

Ok I think I understand, your talking about the aircraft settling down back into it's trimmed state, once you deviate with elevator from the trimmed state ?

I'll have to give this a try, the 109 and FW 190 were kind of unique with their stabiliser trim though. The entire horizontal stabiliser would adjust a few degrees, rather than just the elevator. I've never actually flown a real AC with Stabiliser trim, so can't really comment on it's expected behaviour.

Edited December 27, 2018 by =11=Herne

[Lusekofte]

Like the new and wonderful PO 2 in GB, I chose this one just for the delight of flight

[Herne]

do you have the gazelle lusekofte ? I had a couple of opportunities for hands on flying in army life, and cyclic in the hover was incredibly sensitive, the tiniest of movements could lead to over control and pilot induced oscillations. Just wondered how it behaves in DCS.

[Lusekofte]

2 minutes ago, =11=Herne said:

do you have the gazelle lusekofte ? I had a couple of opportunities for hands on flying in army life, and cyclic in the hover was incredibly sensitive, the tiniest of movements could lead to over control and pilot induced oscillations. Just wondered how it behaves in DCS.

It is extremely sensitive   There are instant action mission for it   You must fly under 20 meters altitude following a track and it really improve your abilities. I use it once a week just to fine tune my chopper senses. I do love to fly it, but I got a very good chopper cyclic and collective 

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

A custom made trailer for DCS campaign. I wonder why campaign did not have official trailer like The Big Show Campaign had.

 

[Picchio]

Hmm, what I find strange is that it's showing snowy Caucasus (?) footage.

Edit: I've just read the description in the Store page... Ardennes?

Edited December 27, 2018 by Picchio

[Wulfen]

5 hours ago, LLv34_Flanker said:

S!

 

Flying both IL-2 and DCS, WT is for tanking only. I did compare the DCS Spitfire IX against IL-2´s Spitifre. DCS Spitfire IMO portrays the plane a bit better than what IL-2 does in this department. In IL-2 the Spitifre flies more or less like on rails requiring no to maybe a fraction of trimming, no rudder in turns etc. Slight curve adjustment and you can throw it around like no tomorrow in IL-2. In DCS the Spitfire is a hot blooded race horse. Sensitive in controls, requires trimming and use of pedals. But when you adjust the response slightly and do fly it proper the purebred nature comes out, it really is a delight to fly. 

 

I do not get the sentence that 109K does not wobble in DCS? It sure does and requires to be flown where you want it to go, kind of forced to the direction. Controls get stiffer in DCS, easy to see for example in aileron deflections in various speeds. Less at higher speed and slower rate of roll than at lower speeds. Applies to the Fw190D-9 as well. Fw190D in DCS rolls better than it´s cousins in IL-2 and feels more responsive. D-9 throws itself in a nasty stall if pulled too hard, but you can do surprisingly tight turns if "reading" the plane right, as one can not feel the G forces.

 

Why people wonder about the K-4 performance issues in these games. In DCS there are no stupendous timers after an engine blows. You can push the limit as long as the temperatures, rpm etc. stay below maximum allowed. Really have to watch the gauges. In IL-2 the Fw190A can blow an engine even oil temperature is 60´C or coolant temperature within limits in the 109 because of the timers. In this area DCS is more close to the pilot reports how they did fly the planes to the limit and kept watching gauges while doing so, not the watch. And cooled off the engine + had to report to the ground staff. They for sure were not happy about an engine being strained, meant a lot of work in form of checks, maintenance, overhauls, engine replacements etc.

The warbirds in DCS are a lot more unstable than their IL2 counterparts. They demand 110% attention on takeoff and landing in comparison. I thought I had a half decent handle on things from my experience in IL2, turns out I`m pretty poor in the DCS versions. As these planes weren`t exactly easy to master in real life, I have to accept that DCS sims are more realistic and definitely less flattering to a sim pilots ego.

Edited December 27, 2018 by Wulfen

[Herne]

16 minutes ago, Wulfen said:

. As these planes weren`t exactly easy to master in real life, I have to accept that DCS sims are more realistic and definitely less flattering to a sim pilots ego.

 

I'm not so sure. Take the spit for example, there were no two seat trainers. Pilots would basically learn to fly in bi planes, then get a bit of cockpit familiarisation, read the pilot handbook, but would basically have to get a feel for the aircraft through there own experience. I think pilots were going to front line units with only ten hours on type.

 

Basically if you can fly a tail dragger with no problems you should have no problems learning to fly a spit. I remember an american who flew spits on recon in the war saying that he had no problems with it in the air or on the ground. His unit just received the spits and they had to fly them with no type training.