Discussion of Fortresses and Focke-Wulfs Announcement

[Buzzsaw]

2 hours ago, Dagwoodyt said:

TFS has had a beta test team for 18 months now. When was the most recent beta build submitted for testing? It has been more than a year now since TFS admitted that they were unable to add Speedtree 8/9 to their private beta. Adding a public beta would not prevent TFS from accepting input from current beta testers. TFS would not be obligated to wade through discussions from a "public" beta. Why does TFS insist that the VU has to have finalized trueSKY and Speedtree 8/9 implementations before they can provide a public beta access? By that time a public beta would be irrelevant. Certainly their current beta testers have become used to game crashes. Why wouldn't "public" beta users be equal to that challenge? TFS has not indicated anything new they can offer over the next several years if they are unwilling to provide a public beta access.

Lots of incorrect claims here.

 

- TF regularly updates the VR Beta.... the last approximately a month and a half ago.  We update as we accumulate enough material to justify a patch.

 

- We haven't added Speedtree to the VR Beta because that addition is still in Alpha phase and it would just clash with the graphics in the existing VR Beta installation and present all kinds of anomalies.  Speedtree will be added once our version is more compliant with the existing programs in the VR Beta.

 

-  The VR Beta is in place with a focus on testing VR... not the other elements.  Once we have the other elements integrated in the Beta and working well, then we will consider opening the Beta to the general 2D users.

[Blitzen]

Good news-thanks!

[Bussard_x]

27 minutes ago, Buzzsaw said:

Lots of incorrect claims here.

 

- TF regularly updates the VR Beta.... the last approximately a month and a half ago.  We update as we accumulate enough material to justify a patch.

 

- We haven't added Speedtree to the VR Beta because that addition is still in Alpha phase and it would just clash with the graphics in the existing VR Beta installation and present all kinds of anomalies.  Speedtree will be added once our version is more compliant with the existing programs in the VR Beta.

 

-  The VR Beta is in place with a focus on testing VR... not the other elements.  Once we have the other elements integrated in the Beta and working well, then we will consider opening the Beta to the general 2D users.

Is trueSKY working fine in current VR Beta? 

Are the bugs in VR Beta the current bottleneck for the progress of the visual update? 

Which trees do we see now in the 4k and VR Beta update video's?

Are there problems with the 4k update? 

 

[No.54_Reddog]

12 hours ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

Sure, no problem, Boo, let's wait for more precise informations from the devs.

 

 

 

Almost like I asked the question to the devs wasn't it. Oh wait, I did. You decided as per usual to throw a load of waffle and ass-umptions into it. Why is it when ever someone you don't agree with posts an assumption it's always "no no, you can't do that, the devs haven't said that" but when someone asks a direct question to the devs you opt to reply on their behalf with nothing more than assumption. 

[BOO]

17 minutes ago, No.54_Reddog said:

 

Almost like I asked the question to the devs wasn't it. Oh wait, I did. You decided as per usual to throw a load of waffle and ass-umptions into it. Why is it when ever someone you don't agree with posts an assumption it's always "no no, you can't do that, the devs haven't said that" but when someone asks a direct question to the devs you opt to reply on their behalf with nothing more than assumption. 

At least he replied........:-)

[343KKT_Kintaro]

16 minutes ago, No.54_Reddog said:

when someone asks a direct question to the devs you opt to reply on their behalf with nothing more than assumption

 

 

No. Boo and I didn't share the same reading of the devs' statements and we, he and I, simply exchanged our respective views. That's all.

 

 

[No.54_Reddog]

On 9/28/2023 at 12:16 AM, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

 

 

My understanding is that the owners of "Blitz" alone won't possess the map of the Channel in the summer of 1942. I think the latter, the Channel in 1942, will be a different item in the list of available maps in the series and that it will be necessary to possess the Dieppe add-on for having it as an unlocked element in the game.

 

I may be wrong (TFS will tell) but for the moment my assumption is as follows:

 

- Possessors of "Blitz" will have one map (Channel map 1940)

- Possessors of "Blitz" + "Tobruk" will have two maps (Channel map 1940 and Tobruk map)

- Possessors of "Blitz" + "Dieppe" will have two maps (Channel map 1940 and Channel map 1942)

- Possessors of "Blitz" + "Tobruk" + "Dieppe" will have three maps (Channel map 1940, Tobruk map and Channel map 1942)

 

The above mentioned maps are considered each the "main" in its respective game, obviously everybody will keep all the free maps in the game: Channel autumn of 1940, Channel winter of 1940/1941... plus all the online "dogfight" maps.

 

Again, this is nothing but an uncertain second-guessing of mine, but the TFS communications give me the impression that there will be two separated maps, one for 1940 and another one for 1942, and that the 1942 Channel map will be traced (though adapted) onto the one we already have which represents the Channel in 1940.

 

 

So this wasn't you replying to me? This was you replying to Boo?

 

Uh-huh. 

[343KKT_Kintaro]

1 hour ago, No.54_Reddog said:

So this wasn't you replying to me? This was you replying to Boo?

 

Uh-huh. 

 

 

I quoted you Reddog, but it's Boo and I who started discussing if whether or not the "Dieppe" map fully is a new map. My reading of the annoncement's text is that the map won't be a completely new map. I think it will be traced onto the Channel map, but both will present corrected tints, terrain reliefs, 4K, new scenery, etc. So, again, following my interpretation of the announcement, there will be a summer of 1940 map and a summer of 1942 map: two distinct items in the list of maps in the mission builder.

 

If my reading is wrong, the devs will tell, but the announcement is here and there's no reason we can't quietly discuss about what it really refers to.

 

 

[9./JG52_J-HAT]

@No.54_Reddog

 

This is the closest to the answer to your questions that I've seen. 

 

I honestly think your question got lost in the clutter of posts. 

 

@Buzzsaw, can you comment on Reddogs question regarding different maps and differences between 1940 and 1942 Channel? 

 

From what's written below I infer it's the same map, probably as a variation for 1942 (like we have a winter version of the 1940 map). So same map, just with added stuff and corrections as stated by Schneemann in the convoy posts made by Mystic Puma (which for the life of me I can't find anymore). The 1940 map must be getting the corrections too, since it must have been the base for this development. 

 

Question was asked on ATAG Beta forums. I am posting this here because it isn't any secret or something that shouldn't be common knowledge, so others can see it too. 

 

All the new aircraft & objects in TF6 will be available to use on the existing maps with the existing aircraft & objects. Only if you own the relevant modules... if you don't own TOBRUK, of course you won't be able to use the TF 6.0 aircraft on that map or vice versa.

IL2: FORTRESSES AND FOCKE-WULFS – DIEPPE will presumably require the base game IL2: CLIFFS OF DOVER:BLITZ to play Yes it will require at least the base game.

 

[Blitzen]

More good news :

Just posted by Major Setback over at ATAG, new screenshots of early and later "car-door" Tiffy's.Pay attention to the MG equipped solid rear canopy  early Typhoon.

[Blitzen]

Oh and another possibility just posted:

[343KKT_Kintaro]

37 minutes ago, Blitzen said:

Oh and another possibility just posted:

 

 

Well, I think Buzzsaw said that the Swordfish won't be included in "Dieppe".

 

 

[BOO]

I take these announcments with a good dose of salt. This is an early days model. Given the often quoted "burn out" of TFS members and the personal passion nature of many of these side projects there are no guarantees. 

 

I do however hope it does dome to fruition. 

[Buzzsaw]

3 hours ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

 

 

Well, I think Buzzsaw said that the Swordfish won't be included in "Dieppe".

 

 

?  ...no, I said:

 

1)  It may be included... but won't be flyable initially... only AI

 

2)  If the AI version is not included in the initial release, then it will be released as a patch

 

3)  It eventually will be flyable, but this may not be until another module is released

[Buffo002]

20 hours ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

 

 

Well, I think Buzzsaw said that the Swordfish won't be included in "Dieppe".

 

 

He said that the development of this plane was so fast that he didn't expect it himself and if it didn't happen before the release of the new DLC, then a patch will be released (after the release of the new DLC) when this new plane and the Atlantic map and maybe other new ones will be included things...

[Volant_Eagle]

On 10/1/2023 at 11:57 AM, Buffo002 said:

He said that the development of this plane was so fast that he didn't expect it himself and if it didn't happen before the release of the new DLC, then a patch will be released (after the release of the new DLC) when this new plane and the Atlantic map and maybe other new ones will be included things...

If I'm reading the announcements correctly I think you have the Swordfish and the MS.406 a little mixed up.

 

My understanding is as follows:

 

The MS.406 was not originally intended to be in Dieppe at all. However, the progress was faster than expect so it will now be included (at least as AI, possibly flyable).

 

The Swordfish was originally intended to be a part of Dieppe. However, because of unforeseen circumstances with the modeler, it will not be finished in time. Although it may be complete enough to be AI only which is the hope. Since the Swordfish is applicable to the scenario (unlike the MS.406) and it was originally intended to be a part of Dieppe, even if it isn't included in the initial release of Dieppe they will still patch it in separately at a later date.

[5th_Barone]

Question to @Buzzsaw,

 

do you plan to improve ground handling to give realistic differential brake and turning radius for TF6 or it's something you don't have in plans for now?

 

thanks in advance for the reply

[Buzzsaw]

8 hours ago, 5th_Barone said:

Question to @Buzzsaw,

 

do you plan to improve ground handling to give realistic differential brake and turning radius for TF6 or it's something you don't have in plans for now?

 

thanks in advance for the reply

Our only focus re. ground handling is the issue of wind moving aircraft... "slippery terrain for initially parked aircraft".

[5th_Barone]

Ok got it, thanks.

Hope there will be possibly of improvement when possible.

[343KKT_Kintaro]

11 minutes ago, 5th_Barone said:

Ok got it, thanks.

Hope there will be possibly of improvement when possible.

 

 

Sorry Barone, but with no appropriate computer for more than a year now, I'm not playing the game for a long time. What do you mean by "realistic differential brake and turning radius"? To me, all of this seemed to work correcly in the "Dover" series, at least until two years ago. Was there any change in this game? I always liked ground handling in DCS and Dover, I always hated it in Great Battles...

 

 

[5th_Barone]

8 hours ago, 343KKT_Kintaro said:

 

 

Sorry Barone, but with no appropriate computer for more than a year now, I'm not playing the game for a long time. What do you mean by "realistic differential brake and turning radius"? To me, all of this seemed to work correcly in the "Dover" series, at least until two years ago. Was there any change in this game? I always liked ground handling in DCS and Dover, I always hated it in Great Battles...

 

 

Trying to semplify at the maximum: differential brake is not at all effective on clod. Turning rate is too much wide.

On a plane with a taxi speed as soon as you use differential brake you get instant turning. In clod you need huge spaces for simple turns.

You can simply check few warbird taxi video to understand what I mean (a visual example I think it's the best way to got the concept).

Also in clod you have that strange "anchor thing" that once you stepped on the brakes at a certain speed (almost zero) you get the right turning rate but the plane feels anchored on the ground on one side.

Hope it's a bit clearer now.

 

Back in the day (don't remember if it was untill 4.3) you could taxi with a realistic turning rate but not using the brakes, it was just done using the pedals like if planes had steerable wheel.

Of course not realistic but it worked.

 

Actually since you mentioned I really liked the GB "friction on the ground model" it was as the best I could compare with my experience in real small planes.

Edited October 4, 2023 by 5th_Barone

[343KKT_Kintaro]

Ok Barone, I think I get it, but the Dover series never gave me the impression that the aircraft need a lot of space to turn at taxi speed. Would need to double-check in the future, as soon as I get access to the game again.

 

Thank you for the clear response. I'll retain what you said about version 4.3.

 

 

[PO_Baldrick]

47 minutes ago, 5th_Barone said:

Trying to semplify at the maximum: differential brake is not at all effective on clod. Turning rate is too much wide.

On a plane with a taxi speed as soon as you use differential brake you get instant turning. In clod you need huge spaces for simple turns.

You can simply check few warbird taxi video to understand what I mean (a visual example I think it's the best way to got the concept).

Also in clod you have that strange "anchor thing" that once you stepped on the brakes at a certain speed (almost zero) you get the right turning rate but the plane feels anchored on the ground on one side.

 

I would have thought the "slippery terrain" would explain what you are saying. At speeds much above stationary the braked wheel is able to slide forward (just like a locked wheel on your car in slippery conditions without ABS), so this increases the turning circle significantly plus the non braked wheel will slide laterally.

 

When at a stop the braked wheel doesn't rotate forward but slides around on its axis, at which point you can turn the aircraft within its own wing span. Maybe the terrain is too slippery just as it can be moved by the wind when parked but grass isn't the most grippy of stuff (as most sim racers will testify!)

[5th_Barone]

1 hour ago, PO_Baldrick said:

I would have thought the "slippery terrain" would explain what you are saying. At speeds much above stationary the braked wheel is able to slide forward (just like a locked wheel on your car in slippery conditions without ABS), so this increases the turning circle significantly plus the non braked wheel will slide laterally.

 

When at a stop the braked wheel doesn't rotate forward but slides around on its axis, at which point you can turn the aircraft within its own wing span. Maybe the terrain is too slippery just as it can be moved by the wind when parked but grass isn't the most grippy of stuff (as most sim racers will testify!)

I understand what you're saying but I can ensure you by personal experience that even in summer taxing on grass can require quite a good amount of power if the terrain has some moisture in it (I'm not talking of mud).

Because of the friction between the terrain and the wheel.

 

However for me it's not the problem. On clod it's like the brakes don't have the right strength to let the wheel turn.

Unless you almost stop and then there is the anchor bug/feature (don't know how to call it honestly) where you do instant turn. But in real life it's all smooth, in game feels scripted.

Maybe it's a limit of the game engine I don't know.

[Volant_Eagle]

Could someone clarify here whether the game currently models varying degrees of breaking? I currently don't have rudder pedals so I've just been using two buttons on my stick (German planes) or one button on my stick (British planes) to activate the brakes. Obviously this is very far from ideal but it's the best I can do without pedals. I can only get 100% or 0% braking using a button. With the British planes I can at least have discriminate control over the split between the left and right brakes (The rudder does this. Stick twist in my case) but I can still only fully hold down or fully release the brake lever. Never having used pedals with CloD before, I actually don't know if it would allow discriminate levels of application or not. I imagine it does but I thought I should at least ask.

 

I find the taxiing experience between CloD and DCS to be vastly different (especially in the Bf 109). In DCS it seems almost necessary to have discriminant levels of brake application to taxi the 109 with anything that even resembles control. In CloD it is rather easy to taxi the 109 using only buttons (one for left brake one for right). Maybe this has something to do with the fact that in CloD I'm nearly always on grass and in DCS nearly always on a hard surface. The 109 does not have a controllable tailwheel (very common for early WW2 fighters) which is why precise differential braking is absolutely necessary. Deflecting the rudder should do absolutely nothing unless there is enough airflow over it (throttled up). And even when there is in sufficient airflow, its effects should be delayed since the plane won't actually change direction until the free castering tailwheel finally decides to swing. From my experience between the two sims (I'm pretty new to DCS) I would have to speculate that the DCS model is far more accurate than the CloD model (just for ground. DCS flight model seems a little funky at times). However, I can't really ask for CloD to work in exactly the same way since that would make the 109 nearly unplayable for dingus's (dingi?) like me who haven't gotten around to buying some proper pedals.

 

I personally don't have too much issue with how CloD models ground handling. The only thing that annoys me on a regular basis is the jittering, bouncing, or sliding when at very slow speeds or parked. Those things don't really affect gameplay but they are extremely annoying since they are a complete emersion killer and make the game feel really cheap and unfinished. It seems though from Buzzsaw's post that those things are supposed to get ironed out soon. If that happens I'll be fairly content. The way free castering tailwheels work in CloD does seem incorrect to me, but right now I can't form a solid opinion as I have next to no real life tailwheel time not mention fighter tailwheel time. I don't really regard all my real life tricycle gear time as very informative in this issue.

 

Barone, do you have any tailwheel experience or only tricycle?

[PO_Baldrick]

28 minutes ago, 5th_Barone said:

I understand what you're saying but I can ensure you by personal experience that even in summer taxing on grass can require quite a good amount of power if the terrain has some moisture in it (I'm not talking of mud).

Because of the friction between the terrain and the wheel.

 

However for me it's not the problem. On clod it's like the brakes don't have the right strength to let the wheel turn.

Unless you almost stop and then there is the anchor bug/feature (don't know how to call it honestly) where you do instant turn. But in real life it's all smooth, in game feels scripted.

Maybe it's a limit of the game engine I don't know.

My experience of driving cars from the 60s with crossply tyres is that even on nice dry tarmac they had extremely little grip, so I would imagine tyres on 40s aircraft on grass weren’t great. Pure speculation though!
 

My first ever aircraft flight was from a wet grass airstrip with a 19 year old pilot next to me, so sliding seems quite normal ?

@Volant_Eagle I have both an analogue brake lever on my flight stick for the British planes and rudder pedals with toe brakes for the German ones (and others). It does give for very granular control in CloD (and DCS for that matter) for differential braking.

 

Given most of flying is off the ground they aren’t a total necessity but for ground handling it is similar to the difference between having a wheel and pedals for race sims compared to using a keyboard or digital controller.

Edited October 4, 2023 by PO_Baldrick

[Gunfreak]

I'm curious why take-off are so vastly different between the 3 sims.

In IL2 all planes are super easy to take-off with.

In clod the 109 can be very tricky(especially on the short desert strips) 

But Hurricane and Spitfire are quite easy to take off with, ease the throttle up and some light rudder work.

In DCS even the P51 which is quite easy to take off with can be tricky.

And the spitfire is just insane, you need massive rudder work and the plane wanna flip around and kill you if you do the slightest thing wrong (granted the IX has like 600HP more than the Mk1, so that might have some effect) 

But in DCS, I sweat on each take off in the Spit. In Clod I don't have to concentrate at all. 

[Mysticpuma]

Annnddd any news if the vehicles can finally cross bridges... seems to have been forgotten again? 

@SCG_Schneemann

[Dagwoodyt]

The DCS I-16 is great fun to TO and land. No trim settings to learn  ?  I notice that it doesn't necessarily go on sale when the other warbirds do. After getting acquainted with the DCS I-16 the GB version seems very ho-hum to TO and land.

[PO_Baldrick]

5 minutes ago, Dagwoodyt said:

The DCS I-16 is great fun to TO and land. No trim settings to learn  ?  I notice that it doesn't necessarily go on sale when the other warbirds do. After getting acquainted with the DCS I-16 the GB version seems very ho-hum to TO and land.

I have no idea which sim is right but I find the DCS warbirds more exciting to take off and land than the others. There is a common observation amongst sim racers that we equate difficulty with realism and it may be the case here too. Regardless the challenge does make it more fun IMHO

[Dagwoodyt]

30 minutes ago, PO_Baldrick said:

I have no idea which sim is right but I find the DCS warbirds more exciting to take off and land than the others. There is a common observation amongst sim racers that we equate difficulty with realism and it may be the case here too. Regardless the challenge does make it more fun IMHO

When I first got the DCS I-16 I decided the flight model was deficient. I bought the NTTR map on sale and decided that the map had a negative influence on my ability to fly the I-16 from airfields like Mesquite and Pahute Mesa. Finally I accepted the reality that I needed to learn to coordinate all control inputs at any given instant or I would never be able to control the plane. That included being able to coordinate aileron inputs with toe brakes. I see the module as a gem. Apology for off-topic!  ?

[5th_Barone]

2 hours ago, Volant_Eagle said:

Could someone clarify here whether the game currently models varying degrees of breaking? I currently don't have rudder pedals so I've just been using two buttons on my stick (German planes) or one button on my stick (British planes) to activate the brakes. Obviously this is very far from ideal but it's the best I can do without pedals. I can only get 100% or 0% braking using a button. With the British planes I can at least have discriminate control over the split between the left and right brakes (The rudder does this. Stick twist in my case) but I can still only fully hold down or fully release the brake lever. Never having used pedals with CloD before, I actually don't know if it would allow discriminate levels of application or not. I imagine it does but I thought I should at least ask.

 

I find the taxiing experience between CloD and DCS to be vastly different (especially in the Bf 109). In DCS it seems almost necessary to have discriminant levels of brake application to taxi the 109 with anything that even resembles control. In CloD it is rather easy to taxi the 109 using only buttons (one for left brake one for right). Maybe this has something to do with the fact that in CloD I'm nearly always on grass and in DCS nearly always on a hard surface. The 109 does not have a controllable tailwheel (very common for early WW2 fighters) which is why precise differential braking is absolutely necessary. Deflecting the rudder should do absolutely nothing unless there is enough airflow over it (throttled up). And even when there is in sufficient airflow, its effects should be delayed since the plane won't actually change direction until the free castering tailwheel finally decides to swing. From my experience between the two sims (I'm pretty new to DCS) I would have to speculate that the DCS model is far more accurate than the CloD model (just for ground. DCS flight model seems a little funky at times). However, I can't really ask for CloD to work in exactly the same way since that would make the 109 nearly unplayable for dingus's (dingi?) like me who haven't gotten around to buying some proper pedals.

 

I personally don't have too much issue with how CloD models ground handling. The only thing that annoys me on a regular basis is the jittering, bouncing, or sliding when at very slow speeds or parked. Those things don't really affect gameplay but they are extremely annoying since they are a complete emersion killer and make the game feel really cheap and unfinished. It seems though from Buzzsaw's post that those things are supposed to get ironed out soon. If that happens I'll be fairly content. The way free castering tailwheels work in CloD does seem incorrect to me, but right now I can't form a solid opinion as I have next to no real life tailwheel time not mention fighter tailwheel time. I don't really regard all my real life tricycle gear time as very informative in this issue.

 

Barone, do you have any tailwheel experience or only tricycle?

For me only tricycle

[Gunfreak]

1 hour ago, PO_Baldrick said:

I have no idea which sim is right but I find the DCS warbirds more exciting to take off and land than the others. There is a common observation amongst sim racers that we equate difficulty with realism and it may be the case here too. Regardless the challenge does make it more fun IMHO

 

Well, first hand accounts do say planes like Spitfire and Me109 will flip on their head because of the torque of the engine if you put too much power in too fast and if you don't counter with correct trim and rudder. But I'm unsure if it's as extreme as DCS makes it out to be. However they do base this on what actual current pilots say. And i definitely feel IL2 and most of the time clod makes it too easy (there's a reason take-offs and landings killed more ww2 pilots than bullets did.) 

But DCS warbirds seem very wild while il2 planes are basically cessnas on take-offs. And clod is kinda in-between (with 109 quite wild and Spitfire probably too tame)

[SCG_Schneemann]

Puma, not forgotten. I've been out of town for a week. Sorry, that thing called "real life"...

 

So are you commenting on the sinking in and floating on a bridge? Or unable to cross it at all? I get vehicles to cross bridges both in the vanilla game and in the "special" development version. Keeping them from sinking and floating is on the list to investigate. My guess is they are following a spline over a river instead of bridge geometry, if that is what your issue is.

[=FEW=Hauggy]

I have to say I'm very much hyped for the B-17. Can't wait for VR to revive this game.

[Art-J]

10 hours ago, Gunfreak said:

And the spitfire is just insane, you need massive rudder work and the plane wanna flip around and kill you if you do the slightest thing wrong (granted the IX has like 600HP more than the Mk1, so that might have some effect) 

But in DCS, I sweat on each take off in the Spit. In Clod I don't have to concentrate at all. 

 

We're getting way off topic here but if you use that much rudder in DCS Spit on takeoff, you're already doing it wrong.

 

With full right trim, the plane only requires about half rudder initially when throttling up to takeoff boost (8? 9? I don't remember, but he pointer should be flat) and then pretty much no rudder during the rest of takeoff roll (just a couple of 1/4 short kicks to compensate). Using any more of it is always recipe for trouble, because it's just very sensitive and thus prone to causing overcontrol issues (which I believe might be happening in your case).

 

And of course it's always worth checking if the game hasn't turned takeoff assist back ON during one of the updates.

 

Ironically, I find CloD Spits to be the most difficult to takeoff of all three sims, but I admit I don't fly them much over here and muscle memory developed from my favourite Beaufighters doesn't transfer well to Spits .

 

Speaking of Beaus, I wonder if TFS plans to bump up the poly count on engine nacelles a little for v6, 'cause the old 3D model starts showing its age compared to newer offerings (especially when looking at these engines from cockpit). Can't wait for higher res textures either!

Edited October 5, 2023 by Art-J

[PO_Baldrick]

2 hours ago, Art-J said:

 

We're getting way off topic here but if you use that much rudder in DCS Spit on takeoff, you're already doing it wrong.

 

With full right trim, the plane only requires about half rudder initially when throttling up to takeoff boost (8? 9? I don't remember, but he pointer should be flat) and then pretty much no rudder during the rest of takeoff roll (just a couple of 1/4 short kicks to compensate). Using any more of it is always recipe for trouble, because it's just very sensitive and thus prone to causing overcontrol issues (which I believe might be happening in your case).

I think the key point is the DCS Spitfire requires more rudder work and is more sensitive to engine torque changes than the equivalents in CloD and IL2:GB. Whether this is purely down to tyre grip and surface maybe the primary reason but possibly other aspects.

 

With sufficient experience I can take off the DCS Spitfire without drama without using any trim, after all that is just moving the rudder too. I have no reason to think @Gunfreak can’t do the same or better, it is just an observation of the differences between sims.

[Gunfreak]

Just now, PO_Baldrick said:

I think the key point is the DCS Spitfire requires more rudder work and is more sensitive to engine torque changes than the equivalents in CloD and IL2:GB. Whether this is purely down to tyre grip and surface maybe the primary reason but possibly other aspects.

 

With sufficient experience I can take off the DCS Spitfire without drama without using any trim, after all that is just moving the rudder too. I have no reason to think @Gunfreak can’t do the same or better, it is just an observation of the differences between sims.

Yes I usually do get the Spitfire up, with correct take off trim or not. 

But you do have to concentrate. 

You have to work it. In clod you can just go full rpm and full boost. Do some minor rudder movements and your in the air. 

But again the Mk1 does have 600 HP less and I assume that will affect it somewhat?

On the other hand the 109 has always been hard to take off with according to sources. Doesn't matter if it's an E or a K model it will flip on its head if you do the take off wrong.

So maybe the Mk1 was just as demanding on take off as the MkIX.

[9./JG52_J-HAT]

4 hours ago, Art-J said:

 

Speaking of Beaus, I wonder if TFS plans to bump up the poly count on engine nacelles a little for v6, 'cause the old 3D model starts showing its age compared to newer offerings (especially when looking at these engines from cockpit). Can't wait for higher res textures either!

Agree. Those nacelles are really blocky atm.

[Dagwoodyt]

2 hours ago, 9./JG52_J-HAT said:

Agree. Those nacelles are really blocky atm.

I remember reading a post suggesting that higher res textures will not cure polygonal appearance of rounded structures in CloD/Blitz.