Gunfreak

The AI has several aspects. All whìch are off. 1. The preformance, AI over G-ing with no effect, energy retention in turn and upwards movements etc etc. 2. Omniscience, AI can see through clouds. Can spot you flying low over the terrain, know when you are behind them etc. ED is working on this. Particularly the cloud thing. 3. AI are stupid, they might be overpowered but they are stupid. That's why you beat it in a 109. A 109 would indeed beat the MIG21 if the 21 pilot decided to get into a turn fight. Even a bad ww2 turn fighter like the Anton out turns any jet(except possibly those with thrust vectoring) If you do a ww2 vs jet dog dogfight with a human, and force the human to get into a turn fight. Then indeed you can beat any dcs jet with a ww2 prop plane. In real life the MiG21 pilot would just shoot into the sky or dive away, come back and blast you at 1000kmh. But AI are stupid. So they don't necessarily do that.

Now AI used to be able to spot a tank in the woods from 6 miles away, that was bad, and good it has been fixed. But now the AI is the reverse, they can't see aircraft unless they are right on top of them, even though the cons make them visible for miles and miles, they often can't see round targets until I've attacked them first(this also goes for Jets) And today I was attacking some ships in the twilight, I saw them from 10 miles away, but even right on top of them, the AI said they couldn't see them, even after I attacked several times and the AI were on my wing, flying just 100 meters from the ships

People are complaining the Anton is slow. The Hellcat-3 has similar preformance in speed. It doesn't have water injection. It can only use bombs, not rockets. I think people will be disappointed in its preformance. That it can turn better then an Anton isn't much help. It's not the turn rate that people complain about, it's it speed. And the Hellcat isn't that fast. Especially without water injection. So yes I think people will complain about it. The Hellcat was never great even in real life. It was just good enough, easy to handle and available when needed. Stuff many sim pilots don't care about.

Part 4 of the battle of Saipan series. The day is growing long. 3 waves of Americans have been put ashore. The fleet has defended itself from a torpedo attack. Now the Marines are getting ready to take Aslito airfield. But first the need to clear out a patch of jungle on their left flank. Corsairs are sent in to support the Marines in this project.

Part 4 of the battle of Saipan series. The day is growing long. 3 waves of Americans have been put ashore. The fleet has defended itself from a torpedo attack. Now the Marines are getting ready to take Aslito airfield. But first the need to clear out a patch of jungle on their left flank. Corsairs are sent in to support the Marines in this project.

I too have noticed this.

M2000 in Syria actually sounds interesting, but I would be hesitant to do anything with the Razbam modules.

We aren't talking 1 ans 1 bullet, 80 bullets every second. First ten bullets go so far, the next go so far etc etc. If you fire a 2 second burst. Then yes by the 160th bullet it will have past any armor, the pilot and continued on.

I think people might be disappointed in the Hellcat. I think it's preformance will be quite close to the Anton. And we all know what people think about that "in a competitive multiplayer environment "

The Zero will be a bit like the Spitfire, when in doubt, turn and turn, it's very unlikely the Hellcat or Corsair will be able to follow a Spitfire, let a lone a zero. I find the Spitfire the easiest to fight in, once you get low and slow, and you can keep turning at 100mph, while the Germans will stall at around 150mph or more, you got them. it's also easier to get in close and shoot in a turn fight then hitting an aircraft as you come in from the vertical.

That's mosty down to the fact that the Corsair and especially the Hellcat almost never met any pilots that could actually fly the Zero to its advantage. The Zero could always outturn any allied aircraft, with the seafire being the only one that got close. But the Hellcat pilots mostly met pilots that could barely hold the aircraft straight. And this should always be used as a caveat when you see the Hellcat's 19:1 kill ratio be used. Those few times the Hellcat pilots met a Zero flown by an ace. It usually didn't end well for the Hellcat pilot. Party because the Zero was flown well, and partly because the Hellcat pilot didn't except a hard fight. On a raid over Iwo Jima in 44(so not the battle) some Hellcats met a Zero, flown by an ace. Two Hellcats were promptly shot down in short order. The 3rd one was flown by a high scoring navy ace. Who described the fight as the hardest he ever fought. And he said he didn't know the zero could do that. The Corsair met somewhat more resistance in the south Pacific during the Solomns/Rabaul campaign. But still far between the really good Japanese pilots vs in 1942.

I'm using 25 curves no saturation on pitch and roll. I don't find it particularly sensitive. But then I'm used to the Spitfire (that I don't use curves on) so it's odd that the Corsair would be MORE sensitive then a Spitfire.. Today when I repeatedly missed the wire(because it even at 70 knots the Corsair just floats in the air with full flaps) i was going around repeatedly to land on the deck. I was turning at 70-80knots. The stall lamp blazing and my force feedback stick shaking like crazy. Still managed to hold it like that, not sure if that would be possible in real life.

Yes. Read any account about American in p47s and P51s from 43 to 44. Many descriptions of 109 and 190s blowing up. A second long bust of .50 would eat through the aircraft until it hit something that goes boom. The .50 cals would also simply shot of wings either through hitting ammo in the wings or simply causing so much structural damage on the wing roots that the wing fell off. 1 second burst from 6 .50 cals is 1.6 million joules, that's 1.5 dynamite going off in energy. Without adding the energy from the incendiary effects. It's not a perfect analogy. But tells you some of the energy involved. 1 million joules of also a 1 ton car hitting a wall while going 100kmh. It's enormous amount of energy going into an aircraft that is mostly thin skin with a few plates to protect the pilot, ammo and fuel. And those plates would buckle and warp after a few hits. Saving the pilot or fuel tanks from a few stray bullets. They were never made to withstand dozens of hits. And again double that for the 20mm Hispano.

Except once the bullets go though the tail it mostly empty space. Until the bullets hit the fuel tanks, the pilot, and then after the pilot the engine. No amount of self sealing fuel tanks or armor plating will stopp 100+ armor piercing and incendiary .50 cal. Those .50 regularly exploded 109s and fw190. This is impossible in DCS So is ammo detonation, can't be done in DCS. This of course goes doubly for the 20mm Hispano

Battle of Saipan part 2 is out. Lots of shooting, lots of missing. But did a decent landing. Heavy fighting between Marines and the Japanese.

Battle of Saipan part 2 is out. Lots of shooting, lots of missing. But did a decent landing. Heavy fighting between Marines and the Japanese.

Don't hold me to the 60gal limit. I know if I use half a tank. I got maybe 15-20 minutes of high power use before the engine quit and I need to select reserve tank. I know you aren't very far down the "left side of the fuel gauge" gauge before it happens. But I don't remember right now if it's 60, 50 or 40 gallons it happens.

You need to switch to reserve tank once you have some 60 gallons or so left. I've had this happen a few times.

The HMCS can be disabled in the ME but only for you. Even your wingman will still be flying with the HMCS. Let alone pure AI flights.

My favourite aviation historian of late is Thomas McKelvey Cleaver, he has an a like 6 or 7 book series on the Pacific war. From Pearl Harbour to the end. With books covering the beginning, middle and end. He has his own book for the South Pacific from Guadalcanal to the pacification of Rabaul. The last book in the series cover the home islands and the last campaign on Japan proper. And does cover and give credit to the FAA and Royal navy. He uses sources from all combatants, his books on Korea kills a few scared cows, he's not one to let his nationality dictate. And he used American, North Korean, Chinese and soviet sources. And his Korea book dealing with the Navy again gives due credit to the royal navy and FAA.

The problem isn't the convergence but DCS lacklustre damage modeling. Much of the systems that could be shot apart aren't there. First hand accounts are quite clear, just a few hits to a German wing from .50 cals would usually make the wing fall off. A second long burst would eat its way into the aircraft until the bullets hit the fuel tanks and blew the aircraft apart. Stuff like that can't be done in DCS. In this case it's not so much the convergence being correct. But that the late war combat mix for the Corsair has more correct damage potential than the .50 cals in the P51 and P47. My bullets sliced through the aircraft and hit the fuel tanks. The ED .50 cals seem to be lacking in penetraton. And just because .50 cals should be able to disable Japanese tanks, doesn't mean that would be simulated in DCS. Many things aren't simulated in DCS. Shermans would be overkill. The humble 37mm on the M3/5 Stewart, Lee or Greyhound would be more then enough in most cases. HE mortar rounds did the trick too. And I wouldn't be surprised if some Gurkha used a Kukri once to slice open a Japanese light tank.

Both the Japanese tanks are vulnerable to the .50s from the Corsair. At least with the latest combat mix. This seems realistic. Given the very light armor these tanks generally had.