Gunfreak

Which is a bit odd. While the K4 is very powerful and light. The A8 has no more power than the Mk IX but is a lot heavier, so should be less affected by the torque.

Trying to take off the Spit or k4 with max power seems needlessly dangerous. Luck for the Spitfire. You bearly need power to take off. You can take off with 2400rpm and boost 4 if you feel like it and you'd still be airborne before half the short grass runway is used. The 109 doesn't have the insane light of the Spitfire. So it will eat into that runway before it takes off at lower power.

This is my most boomer aspect. I don't like dark mode. Having grown up with Internet message boards. I've grown accustomed to old school light mode.

Haven't tested MIG killers yet(but naturally I have bought it) but in general DCS has terrible medium range spotting, not sure exactly what DCS does to make this happen. But like details get darkened and blend into the environment. It's extremely noticeable when flying WW2, especially since you can easily compare to other ww2 sims. A very typical example would be the yellow noses of the German fighters. The yellow colour gets grayed out and only at very close range can we clearly see the yellow. In the two other ww2 sims I fly. Those yellow noses are clear and easy to spot even at some distance. Much like first hand accounts describe. So it's something DCS does that just removes details as relatively close range. Even telling the difference between the rounded wings of a Spitfire and square wings of the German aircraft. Are far harder than it should be.

Sadly I can't get out of the grocery store without spending $150 for a few days of food. And given I've spent thousands on flight sim hardware the last few years.(including a winwing F16 HOTAS just for F16) I can't spend 100 bucks on a tiny little thingy like that.

DCS preformance (especially in VR) goes up and down all the time. So it's kinda rutine. Quite different from a portion of map just deleted with no warning. My preformance has also taken a dive the last few patches. But it's just what it is.

The F16 wasn't really in the state to be used in Campaigns until relatively recently. There's 3 Campaigns out now. And a 4th on the way

The MiG15 and MiG21 er the outliers. Most of the jets even if they somewhat over preform has been nerfed by the BFM AI that was added a few years back. It made stuff like MiG29, Su27, F18 behave more realistically based on their aircraft advantages (F18 preferring 1 circle vs F16 preferring 2 circle) the MIG 15 and 21 did not appear to have been affected buy this update as their behaviour is same as it was before the BFM update. MIG21 is made by mag3, the MiG15 was made by a semi independent party thar now doesn't exist anymore. While all AI aircraft over preform. The 21 and 15 are in their own league using star trek impulse drive.

Just use any vehicle. And set it to explode on mission start with trigger. And you got yourself a perfect simulation of the cyber truck

But the AI handle based on what the aircraft stats are(or Spitfires would go Mach 2) There's obviously something wrong with the preformance of the 21. Which us Mag 3's responsibility to fix.

Sorry for quoting an old post. But how do you find the raked one. I'd like to try it. But with shipping and VAT it comes to $100

I wanted to practice some ILS landings in the F16. But does the ILS work at Bodø? I know it didn't in the beginning.

Any chance the problem of ground units not rearming from trucks being fixed soon?

Grim reapers did a test several years back. And the chipped wing spitfire had a few(like 3-5mph) speed advantage over the regular one at sea level.

I would have tought ED to do something about rivers with the Helmand province having that Helmand river going through it.

1. At minimum make the flight use the same helmet that you use. I was flying with NVGs but my wingman was using JHMCS 2. Ideally you should be able to select helmet type for all F16 AI. So you don't have AI flying with JHMCS in 1994 missions. And since many F16s didn't use NVGs well into the 90s. It would be nice to make sure they don't use that either in historic missions

Lack of WW2 support from ED would naturally affect modders too. Would you spend thousands of hours making a free mod only for it to exist in a half baked environment? I applaud the guys making the Lanc. But it will almost be as much a duck out of water as the I-16. There is no ground work for ww2 night operations. No ww2 night fighter system. No real German night fighter (the A8 being the closest) the Lanc did do a few days time mission but those were rare. IndiaFoxtEcho and FlyingIron can make ww2 aircraft for MSFS because you don't need any environment around them. It just aircraft to fly in. And people wanna fly WW2 planes. In DCS the aircraft should fit into some time and place. I'd love the 109G from FlyingIron in DCS. But there is so much lacking in WW2 DCS, it feels very unsupported. So they probably don't want to get into that can of worms. As of now it seems at least 3 of the warbirds,(Spit, 47 and D9) have unexplained engine failure. This limits their use online, but you can just forget about doing paid campaigns with them. I'm not spending 2 hours doing a meticulously made campaign mission, just to fail because of some engine bug.

How do you do that? And how much weight?

I'm glad Ma3 had the 21. Or at best we'd have a 21 that looks as terrible as the 23 and 25. Or no 21 at all. I own the 21. But rarely fly it. So I mostly use it as an AI. Which is fine if you're in a 4th Gen aircraft. But gets decidedly less fun when you fly a 2nd or 3rd generation fighter and the AI overpreform something awful. Now this is partly an ED thing. But I think mag3 could have done something to the AI logic. While we quietly wait for that new general flight model ED showed 3 years, that apparently will fix all AI related problems.

Probably a chicken and the egg thing. WW2 isn't big enough in DCS, so it doesn't sell well. It doesn't sell, so WW2 never gets priority. WW2 doesn't get priority, so it doesn't sell, and 3rd party developers are not interested in getting into into something that doesn't sell and doesn't get priority. I'm sure WW2 DCS could be a big hit. Talking the place of that other sim. That's now going to Korea. But it would require a major investment in time and money from ED and we aren't getting it. Half the time half the warbirds have engine breaking bugs.

Since many ground units are now incapable of rearming from logistics vehicles. This is a very good idea.

I've shot down my own Sparrow with another Sparrow in my F14. You you can definitely lock on to air to air missiles under the right circumstances.

Jupp, sadly mods can never replace ED assets. Because they can't be used in campaigns, generally aren't used on online server, can cause random bugs, can cause crashes.

Expansion were far more common than what happened to Bob Johnsons P47. In DCS Bob Johnson is the default. And explosions are impossible. A few 20mm in the wing would often detonate the ammo, of goes half the wing and down the plane goes. A few 20mm or a good burst of .50 cal and they would dig into the aircraft and detonate the fuel tank. In the book clean sweep. You get descriptions of hundreds of engagements from the 8th fighter command. From 42 to 45. The number of times those .50 explode a 190 or 109 is quite common. Remember we are talking enormous amounts of energy from these projectiles are relatively small aircraft. 10 20mm Hispanos rounds has the same energy as 1 stick of dynamite. Or the energy of a 1 ton car slamming into a wall at 100kmh. 1 second burst of .50 cal from a p47 is 1.5 sticks of dynamite (in pure kinetic engey, not taking chemical energy from the incendiary rounds into account. ) Fighters aren't tanks. Saying the A8 is well armored doesn't mean it can shrug off millions of joules in energy deposited into it. I've been doing a series that test the AI of the warbirds in a medium engagement and the silly amount of damage the A8 take is just wrong. You'll have 10 A8s riddled with holes and still fighting like nothing has happened. You'll have A8s flying around that are so damaged the aircraft would literally just have dissolved as they are 90% air at that point. Taken hundreds upon hundred of .50 cals. Can it happen? Once in a million perhaps, like with Bob Johnsons. In DCS that 1 in a million is the norm not the exception. Saying stuff like hitting from perfect 6 o'clock isn't effective. Because you have to hit the pilot or engine. Just isn't true, firing from a perfect 6 o'clock in real life is perfectly(and the most common way ww2 aircraft got shot down) If you hit the back of the aircraft you'll chew off the tail in a fraction of a second or your bullets will dig into the aircraft and explode the fuel tank. Or if you hit the wings. They'll usually fall of after a few hits and they really aren't made to handle that kidna energy delivered into then. Unlike human casualties were you roughly can count 1 dead for every 3 wounded. In air combat between fighters. Destroyed will often outnumber damaged. Because once a burst lands. That aircraft is often out of combat. If you really whats under the red box. I don't think anyone will say the 20mm on the Spitfire has an effect on aircraft that can be described as "frightening " There are other sims were indeed the effect of 20mm hispano could be described as frightening. In DCS you can fire and fire of 20mm and unless you hit some very specific places on the aircraft. You can just fire of all 500 and have little effect.

I know they can break under G after damage. Never seen it ever happen without a lot of G load though. While sources show this to be quite common from relatively few hits. Wings breaking off appears to be just as common as engine damage, fire or explosions. Yet in DCS it's is as rare as a unicorn. If they are in fact modeled then ED has either made them to powerful or the damage from the projectiles is too low(which appears to be true for the 20mm Hispanos at least) air combat in ww2 was quick and brutal most of the time. In DCS it feel more like battleship flinging ineffective shells at each other. Much like AAA in DCS. DCS doesn't match the sources (Granted ED has acknowledged the problem with ground AI accuracy) I'm sure ED has gone over all the technical manual of weapons and aircraft. But if the results doesn't match primary sources then something is missing from the pure number crunching.