OutOnTheOP

I'd be all for a couple historical presets, as that would avoid what I most want to avoid (ED spending a ton of coding time on making an adjustable convergence app); set for 250, 300, and the K14 (1000-1100 foot) setting. My personal advice remains the same, though: get used to the K14 and shooting a bit further. The further in you pull your convergence setting, the shorter your maximum effective range becomes. Generally speaking, about 2.5 times your convergence distance is the most you can expect to get any effect whatsoever on your target (because that far out, the spread is actually worse than if the guns shot parallel), and about 1.5-1.8 times convergence is maximum effective range. That means that if you went with some of the very short 600-foot convergence ranges, you wouldn't have much any chance of damaging a target in the 1200-foot range. Don't expect any effect on ground targets. Besides that, if you don't get used to shooting at slightly further targets, you're probably letting pass on opportunities to get hits in. I've never particularly found the Mustang to be short on ammunition; it has a TON of firing time. Long shots often pay off for me. If nothing else, you can often startle the target into doing something stupid that burns off energy and allows you to maneuver into a better firing position. Quite frequently, I've driven guys into stalls or had them dodge right into the ground because they yanked the stick too hard dodging. ...that's all assuming human opponents, though; AI just calmly ignore your fire.

Hardly. Tanks require re-boresighting more often than aircraft, and I can tell you with certainty that is not done anywhere near daily. It's an even easier task than setting convergence, too. Even assuming you had a convergence target to work with, which, if you were setting custom convergence, you would not. Glad you think I'm "inexperienced", but I still have fantastic results with tracking shots in the 1000 foot range. The .50s really slay 'em at that distance. But the gunsight has *everything* to do with what distance you can effectively engage at, and *that* has lots to do with the choice of convergence settings. Wow, do you think maybe that had something to do with being one of the leading aces in the entire air force, and a ranking officer, to boot? There was lots of hinky sh*t pulled, but that doesn't mean we should have the option to do whatever silliness we want with the aircraft in DCS.

I call bullsh*t. There is a difference between, say, changing the sight setting on an M4 to 800- which is a DESIGN FUNCTION OF THE SIGHT, versus, oh, I dunno, taking a barrel nut wrench to your M4, pulling off the barrel, and putting on a longer one (which is quite easily done, but is most emphatically NOT operator-level maintenance). Changing the sight settings on the M4 is akin to the twist grip on the Mustang, used to set the sight range setting. NOT to custom convergence. I never claimed they were ABSOLUTELY never adjusted. I claimed it was not operator-level maintenance, and was not authorized. Putting M1A1 bazookas under the wings of L4 grasshoppers sure as hell wasn't authorized either, but I know of one example where it happened. That does NOT mean that I think bazookas should be a loadout option for Piper Cubs in DCS, though. The onus isn't on me to prove it NEVER happened, it's on YOU to prove that it happened SO frequently that it should be allowed in DCS. If you so desperately want to change your convergence, get on the LUA scripting, and experiment around with it. Personally, I echo Yo-yo's thoughts in the other threat (I think it was Yo-yo, anyhow): there's not much point wasting time on convergence settings just to find that the optimal arrangement was already discovered 70 years ago.

Wow, perhaps you have missed the part where I, before you and Solty said anything, pointed out that just because the guns *could* be adjusted (and in fact *must* be, to get them onto the correct point on the harmonization target), does not mean that they were "custom converged"? And your point about the K14 is frankly stupid: the reason that the K14 is even cogent to the discussion is because with the introduction of the K14, a different harmonization pattern, optimized for greater ranges due to the K14's accuracy, was implemented. Therefore, the harmonization routine used for aircraft WITH a K14 is not the same as used on an aircraft WITHOUT a K14. None of this means that a quote referencing "calibrating the sights" has anything to do with custom convergence. Even if it *did* have anything to do with boresighting, you can boresight for 50 yards or 500 yards, either is boresighting, so saying that it was done proves nothing whatsoever about the ranges that were set. *edit* oh, and at no point in that video does it show them ever adjusting the convergence settings. It shows them MOUNTING the guns (wiggling them back and forth without having them even in the mount pins), and it shows them mounting (or more likely checking for proper fit of) the firing solenoids. No adjustment of zeroing. Particularly obvious considering that the pattern on their target does not correspond even vaguely to a harmonization pattern, and one wing's guns appear to be hitting visibly higher than the others

Calibrating the K14 has f***-all to do with setting harmonization of the guns. Calibrating the K14 would have to do with setting the current strength or magnets so the gyro displaced the proper angle at the proper sideforces. And again, I refer to a written-by-combat-vet book that just claimed the 90mm gun tank destroyers were rampaging through the panzer corps in June-July 1944. Demonstrably false. Not all quotes can be taken at face value; they may be intentionally or unintentionally incorrect.

Yeah, I don't know where they got that, either. I just pointed out that the standard harmonization is particularly effective in a range band from 900-1200 feet, not that it's the precise harmonization point. ...Though I would have sworn that the smallest pattern on the harmonization chart was around 1000 feet. Either way, the P-51 with K14 wasn't converged at any range; it was designed for an optimal pattern in a roughly circular/hexagonal pattern at around 900-1100 feet.

And? Which P-51? With gyro sight? Also, I don't take every quote at face value, even if from a veteran; they can (and often do) remember incorrectly. Just today I was reading a memoir of a platoon leader where he very pointedly claims that the US tank destroyers (in Normandy) were so handy because they had 90mm guns. You know, the 90mm guns that weren't actually introduced until September, way WAY after the Cobra breakout. You may see earlier where I pointed out that the guns could in fact (and needed to) be adjusted with set screws and all. But, again, that was done by the ground crew, and the standard procedure (for K14-equipped Mustangs, at least) was for a harmonization pattern prescribed by the USAAF

The higher boost pressures in USAAF aircraft is anything *but* cherry-picking. When you consider that by the Normandy landings, an order had already been cut that ONLY 44-1 fuel (and the accompanying higher boost pressures) was to be used for ALL USAAF fighters in England. It would be more cherry-picky to go with anything *but* 44-1 fuel and higher boost. The "ebb and flow of advancement" also (rather inconveniently for the Luftwaffe) included standard mods to the engine ratings of the V1710s, V1650s, and R2800s. Any argument for either "historical accuracy" or "standard settings" for late '44 must, by definition, accept these higher ratings. Now, if you want to argue that DCS WW2:1944 is supposed to cover the Normandy landing period, then I suppose there is slightly less impetus to model the higher boost... but in that case, they would have to remove the Dora and Kurfurst outright, as the models didn't even exist at the time of the Normandy landings; neither even *started* production until August. Not to mention the precise marks of K4 and D9 depicted are significantly later models than the initial production runs.

That was tongue-in-cheek. The point is that the Dora has come out just fine and seems to (barring those little niggling details) match real-world performance data quite well. Considering that, and that there are way more flying P-47 (IE, *some*), worrying that the number of flying P-47 equates to some kind of difficulty in modeling, is kind of pointless.

It's not strange at all. Yes, the guns could be physically boresighted by the ground crew. This does not mean the pilot was authorized to have some kind of custom convergence set. Particularly considering that the aircraft would often be expected to be flown by several pilots. Yes, there are set screws and all to physically adjust the boresight of each gun. But there are also adjustments on the carburetor, etc, etc, and the pilot wasn't authorized to have those screwed with, either. Personally, I don't see why you'd want to screw with the settings; the current harmonization is super effective from about 900-1200 feet, which I have found to be almost exactly the distance you settle into when in a turn fight with a Dora (albeit the Kurfurst sometimes forces you to get closer, in around 800-900 to be able to see him under the nose when pulling lead). If you screw with the super-close convergence settings, your guns are all but useless in ground attack, because you have to hold fire until you've practically crashed. Same is true with trying to get a shot on a target pulling away from you: the super-close convergence setting which is marginally more effective at shorter dogfight distances becomes absolutely useless for long-range shots against bombers, or parting shots against faster aircraft pulling away from you.

I don't think he was, either, but a lot of the initial responses were pretty quick to lean that way. Personally, I agree that a heavy daylight bomber, AI-only or flyable, would be the one single item that would bring the most benefit to DCS:WW2 right now. AI would be the most logical way to go for now, to get it in-game quickly.

I would guess "a lot more accurate than the Dora", considering that there are a lot more flying P-47 in configurations a lot closer to wartime, than there are FW190D9s in flyable wartime configuration. ED did fine with the FW190D9 it seems (despite some early gross performance errors and one or two minor ones that are being ironed out... just part of the beta process), so I'm sure they'll manage the P-47.

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the OP as a troll; the point has merit. If I remember correctly, B17 II Mighty Eighth only had like 4 flyable fighters, and 1 flyable bomber... and I don't recall any "AI-only" fighter or ground vehicles whatsoever. The point being that if you add a properly modeled bomber, there are sufficient mission-design opportunities to make for an enjoyable campaign with very little else needed. ...well, ok, WWII appropriate map and proper flak would be good. If DCS remains completely fighter-centric, though, the fight tends to be low altitude CAS-vs-low-fighter-sweep missions, and then the need for a litany of ground vehicles, AA guns, and map objects (WW2 appropriate tentage, log bunkers, artillery positions et al) becomes more of an issue. I agree that the addition of a B17, B24, B29, or perhaps even B26 would have a disproportionate impact on the game compared to the addition of another fighter, CAS, or light attack aircraft. ...and no, I'm not excluding the German or British or Russian bombers out of any kind of nationalism; it's that the German bombers doctrinally performed more like light attack aircraft in most cases, which would be only marginal change from fighters operating in CAS role, and the Brit bombers were almost exclusively night bombers (or, again, light attack). While night bombers open up interesting options on their own, they would also require a lot more additions to DCS to make functional: night fighters, GCI guidance, searchlights, etc

And here I was just wondering if the P-51/ F-51 ever received modifications to carry Hydra or Mighty Mouse rocket pods in foreign service... I mean, it stayed with some (mostly South American) countries until the 80s for COIN. That said, the Cavalier and Piper Mustangs are pretty low production and quite a bit different from the aircraft we have in game.... But if, say, Honduran Mustangs carried 2.75" FFAR...?

Yes, an F-35 strike package, like an F-117 one, requires some support. But we're talking a KC-135/ KC-10 and E-3 that supports the entire region, *maybe* a standoff jammer. They wouldn't likely take AA escort with them (unless it was F-22 or other F-35), same with SEAD. While they would enjoy the protection of the local BARCAP/ OCA fighter sweeps, so does everyone else. So, you're looking at maybe 8 dedicated aircraft, but more likely 6 F-35 for a modest strike package. 2-4 to deliver ordnance, 2 with something like JSOW for SEAD. Self-defending with their own AMRAAM. Keep in mind that the size of the corridor they must conduct SEAD/ fighter defense in is much, much smaller- obviously it'll take a lot less assets to defend that corridor; assuming they need to at all. F-117 missions were rather smaller than F-16 or F-15E ones. Compare to conventional strike packages running in the dozens.

Good news! Though the engine dying so quickly and suddenly is a pain in the ass still

if by "interesting", you mean "deliberately misleading politicization of the topic to invoke controversy and sell ad space", then yes. Very interesting.

If you understand the relationship between AoA and drag, and the resultant impact on airspeed, then stop complaining that the Bf109 isn't maneuverable enough. If you use it inefficiently and stick to a band of the performance envelope in which you are unlikely to gain an advantage, that is no fault of the aerodynamic performance of the aircraft

The truth was quite the opposite: with the Soviets and Western Allies facing off against each other in the cold war, *both* sides lionized the Germans as a propaganda tool. By making the Germans look stronger than they had actually been (in numbers, martial prowess, and quality of equipment), it made the forces that defeated the Germans look stronger, too. The idea seems to have been "we beat the Germans, and they were WAY stronger than those dirty reds/ filthy capitalists, so those guys will be pushovers". Why do you think there was such a spate of war movies in the 40s-50s? Unfortunately, the end result is now we have people that grossly over-rate German equipment

Hardly; I agree that there are plenty of factors that probably should be included, but I suspect that automatically de-installing DCS when the virtual pilot has had too much practice, or has burned through all the fuel the third reich had available, would not go over well with the player base. Good luck even getting German players to agree to play under allied numerical superiority. Right now we can't even get the fight to happen at typical combat altitudes >.<

Well, you're welcome to delete your Kurfurst module after 18 hours, if you like. In the meantime, some of us would just like to at least see the proper engine ratings for the Mustang, since all those factors that you have so kindly pointed out (and more, besides, such as German fuel shortages and shoddy last-ditch construction) are not represented in the simulation.

Hardly; reference my point about the rapid turn ability of the Bf109 being self-defeating because of the high drag that accompanies it. I may not have explicitly delineated that high alpha= high induced drag= huge speed loss, but I thought that could be assumed to be implied in a forum specializing on combat aircraft. Perhaps I should not assume this, considering the last person that tried to argue why the Bf109 should be better at turning didn't understand that AoA in a flat spin is NOT, in fact, zero :music_whistling:

Holy crap, way to still miss the point. Let me break this down real simple: Bf109 turn fast. Fast turn cost speed. Fast turn cost speed regardless of wing type.

The P-51 DOESN'T come close to the turn rate of the Bf109 in DCS at low speed. Unless you are a particularly incompetent pilot, or have not actually *flown* the P-51 in DCS, you would have noticed this. At *high* speed, the Mustang can turn with (or inside) the Bf109. This is completely accurate. Conversely, if the Bf109 chooses to turn tighter than the Mustang can turn, it may do so, but does it at the cost of extremely high airfoil drag due to the high alpha. Mustang can't follow this turn, but would be stupid to try. Blow through, go high yo-yo, and get the Bf109 while it wallows in low energy state.

Hellhorse, I don't think I've ever seen your tag, fly exclusively on the DoW servers, and run generally 5:1 kill ratio in the Mustang, with probably 2.5:1 or 3:1 if you exclude AI kills. Not that any of that has any bearing whatsoever on the argument at hand, constituting, at best, a sad attempt to set up an ad hominem.