OutOnTheOP

What, because there aren't any plausible near-peer foes out there? I mean, it's totally inconceivable that NATO and Russia could ever come into conflict over, I dunno, territorial disputes in Ukraine? Or Maybe China/ US-ROK-Japan over claims to fishing/ mineral rights in international waters? I mean, by that logic, everything (EVERYTHING!) in DCS other than Mustang-Dora is completely ridiculous. After all, when is the last time F-15s, A-10s, or any other NATO jet operated against WP gear over Georgia? No, you're right, anything involving two sides with capable air forces is just silly fantasy :megalol: Seriously, though: I think it's important that we have *plausible* match-ups, but that doesn't mean they have to be re-hashes of actual historical engagements. After all, if you follow that argument to it's logical conclusion, then the only fights worth simulating are actual historical dogfights between two specific tail numbers flown by two specific pilots on a specific historical day, replicated turn for turn and move for move... and at that point, you might as well script it instead of trying to fly it

You notice each of the waist gunners had managed to kill two German fighters? Looks like one to the cheek gunner (bombardier) as well, and three others to other gunners. It always seemed to me people don't realize just how deadly the bombers really were to the fighters attacking them.

MH-60L DAP/ MC-130P combo?

..... Are you seriously telling me to cite sources for an OPINION, or do you take exception to the assertion that the visible glass reflector surface of the K14 was significantly larger than that of the EZ42? And the assertion that a boresight reference is critical to good shooting with a gyro sight should really not need a citation; it's pretty common sense, when you consider the nature of a gyro sight (IE, it doesn't actually KNOW the external forces acting on the target, and having a reference allows to you more accurately pull the pipper along the target's vector, thereby increasing the odds of hits). In my opinion, each of these features is more significant in combat effectiveness than "20% greater accuracy" (20% of what? and is that at equal angles off-center, or at the edge of the field of view in each, in which the K14 would be at a higher-deflection shot?) But you're welcome to disprove that either the K14 had a larger sight window, or that it had a fixed-and-gyro setting while the EZ42 did not. I think each of those factors are more important than slightly higher accuracy claimed in your equally unsourced document (you reference an unsourced, third-hand source, NOT a primary source. They could have been blowing absolute BS, for all we know) Also, point is pretty moot: as I've said all along, it's a bit crap that the DCS Dora even HAS an EZ42; only ~200 EZ42 made it into service in the entire war, and most of those in Me262, NOT in Doras. Probably around 40-50 (*edit* another forum indicated 27-28, but I don't know what primary sources they used to get that) Doras (out of 1800!) ever mounted EZ42. 8,000+ out of 8,136 P-51D had K14s. Take for what it's worth :doh:

The larger sight glass on the K14 also makes it a better sight just by merit of having a wide enough field of regard that you actually CAN pull proper lead on targets that are pulling combat g-loads (compared to what seems to me to be a tiny, tiny sight glass of the EZ42, and resultant tiny angles of lead available before the reticle is off the sight). That alone makes it a superior sight in my eyes.

I think it's an urgency issue: for the Thunderbirds crash and the Blue Angels weather anecdotes mentioned, there was little urgency: none of the aircraft were in imminently dangerous positions (barring the Tbird that had already crashed, of course!), so there was little urgency. However, if aircraft get dangerously close in ACM practice, or get below briefed altitudes in low visibility, or similar, you would call it multiple times to ensure it was heard and understood. Same reason for the AAR breakaway: you need a response RIGHT NOW, because it's an immediate danger of collision

I'm curious if there was an overall DCS systemic reduction of piston engine failures; it seems to me that the Merlin is quite a bit more tolerant of bad handling than I recall it being a few months ago. I would chalk it up to my increased experience, but I'm pretty sure I was randomly blowing engines before when my temps were still in the green and power settings were at 50" or below, while now I can run for extended periods with 61"+ (provided that I still keep the temperatures no more than 10 or so degrees above the green)

That would be great, but it's too late; if it were about an accurately simulated match-up, the Mustang should have the 72/75" boost 44-1 fuel available; particularly since the specific sub-model that is in the game was only used in the Pacific theater in the late, late war and only *ever* used 44-1 (or higher!) grade fuel. And, for that matter, the Dora really shouldn't have the EZ42, as relatively few ever had it. But they're there, and it's for the sake of "balance", and ED staff (or mods, at least) have already said as much.

I am quite sure they DID change the Fw190 AI model, though. And not "nerfing", they went the other direction with it. I think they decided the last Fw190 AI model was too docile, so they appear to have "fixed" the broken AI flight/ tactics model by reverting to the previous, even more broken model. It's now back to accelerating straight up like a TIE fighter; 5000 foot zoom climbs from a 200 mph start. As to how that affects the human AFM, I'm not sure- though it seems to me they've gone out of their way to give the FW every bell and whistle it ever had (including now giving it the fairly-uncommon separate gun triggers; a solution to a "bug" that doesn't exist), while the Mustang still suffers the same ridiculous bugs/ poor modelling it always has (such as losing the governor immediately to a single hit from dead astern). ED, fix the glaring flaws with the Mustang BEFORE you go giving the Dora yet more unnecessary optional features, please.

... and in Steel Beasts you will also learn that AT10/11 is practically useless, and laugh at the enemy when they use them, because all they're doing is giving you a nice stationary target for your much faster, much more lethal sabot that will kill them before the missile is halfway to you. ...and if you miss your sabot shot, still plenty of time to pop smoke and reverse behind cover

However, both of those aircraft has a *much* higher proportion of their total wing surface remaining than the DCS Dora does in the OP; both are at 60-80% of their wing remaining, while the Dora is at... maybe 35-40%?

Also, it's worth noting that there are two major causes of speed loss in sustained, level high-speed flight: 1) sideslip. If the ball's not centered, the fuselage will slide through the air partially sideways, and generate a TON of drag 2) radiator doors open farther than needed. While a lot of players advocate manually opening them all the way in a dogfight (because it's usually a low-speed, high-engine-power-setting scenario), if you keep them fully opened all the time, they create a lot of drag. Also (not sure if this is modeled), if the radiator doors are open too far, the hot air exiting the radiator does not have sufficient pressure when it exits the radiator door to provide the "jet propulsion" effect that gives a small extra boost.

Minor quibble... the K-14 does NOT remain fixed when used as intended (in the "gyro" or "both" setting on the dial to the left of the front canopy rail, and with the gyro switch just to the left of that in the down/right "on" position), it calculates lead exactly as the EZ42 does. The difference is that the K-14 can simultaneously display a fixed AND gyro reticle, while the EZ42 can only show the gyro reticle.

Ooh, a speaking of night fighters, a DCS P-61 black widow would be absolutely wicked! ....though it's got a big crew (3), which might be a problem. As I understand it, the thing maneuvered like a much smaller aircraft. And who doesn't want 4 forward 20mm AND 4 turreted .50s? :thumbup:

I suspect you would be slightly less glad, if ED gives the Mustang the proper fuel it would be carrying in the period the K was fielded. ;)

Fairly certain that's correct behavior: the vertical stabilizer for some aircraft of the period (I'm fairly certain including the Mustang) was twisted slightly to one side, so there was a "zero trim" speed that it was optimized for. At that speed, the aerodynamic forces acting on the tail would be perfect to balance out the engine torque and propwash effects- I would imagine most aircraft had this set for cruise speed (and on the Mustang, it seems to be around 250-270 mph, right around cruise speed). Below that speed, the engine torque (and effects of propwash) push the tail one direction, while above that speed, the slipstream pressure on the vertical stabilizer overcomes (and then exceeds) those forces and pushes the tail the other direction. There's a reason they had rudder trim!

The problem being (at least from what I've seen) that the ZU23 (and, for that matter, M163 VADS) gunners are REALLY bad at applying lead to a target with any lateral motion whatsoever. On several occasions, I've led an enemy strafer over the airfield over, and over, and over (I was RTB with no ammo!), and the AAA just couldn't seem to hit him... in like 6 passes. Even though I had managed to make the guy spend all his airspeed. As to happy mediums... that's the one thing about Drei Schweine I don't particularly care for; the airfield insta-kill flak is so sudden. There needs to be some warning that you're getting too close; the flak should get heavier and heavier until it finally insta-kills you... but the one time I wandered too close (and not even all that close!) it was the very first "shot" fired. My airplane just suddenly vaporized. Not exactly awesome. Is it possible to do a "time in zone" counter? Like, it would allow you to stay within a km or two of the airfield, but only for 2 minutes? That way you could theoretically make a pass, but if you hung around vulching, the flak would get you

First, comparisons to F/A-18 are silly. If all you're comparing are vague "performance numbers" like top speed and ceiling... well, then, most 1960's era interceptors "outperform" most modern fighters. Higher short-duration dash speed does not a superlative fighter make. That said, the Arrow did nothing special for it's day. The US F-102, and particularly F-106, were comparable or superior in those performance specs, with the F-106 fielded before CF-105, having a slightly higher ceiling, and significantly higher dash speed. Does that make it a "better" fighter? I don't know, but it certainly shows the CF-105 wasn't any groundbreaking super-interceptor. As regards conspiracy theories of what political entity was out to get who: do you even read the big red banner at the top of the forum?

Apparently gunnery tips are like a**holes: everyone's got one =P Because some will say "get as close as you can", while others will point out that "if you get too close, your wing guns will miss to either side- so it's better to shoot at harmonization distance". For everyone that says "use the fixed site and trap lead with no G on", another will say "a steady tracking shot with a smooth hand on the stick makes the gyro sight worth it's weight in gold". Me? I like the 900-1200 foot steady tracking shot with the gyro. Online pilots can make it hard to get more than a quick burst in, though; they rarely fly straight long enough to do more than a little damage per trigger pull. But in a BnZ against an unaware target, that smooth track (and a nice long 3-5 second burst- I advise against shooting short bursts against a target you have high overtake on!) will really chew them to pieces. I think a lot of it comes down to your preference, what works for you, and the type of tactics you use. And, of course, certain methods are better in certain situations. The fixed sight is definitely better for super-short-range shots against high-crossing-angle targets (such as in a scissors), though

That's simply not true. The AI often takes a 10-15 second burst to down each other. This is also true of the AI FW190 firing at the AI P-51. As to human players, I know *I* have taken a LOT of hits before without going down (or even any significant trouble!). I think both the .50 and the MG151/20 are about half the strength they should be... but the .50 suffers a lot more for the loss of power. The biggest problem is that hits appear to be tracked against hit zones, and do not track (or run a probability table to adjudicate) hits against specific components. Basically, it might be possible to put 100 bullets in a wing without hitting the wing spar, but one hit in the wing spar is likely enough to snap it and kill the plane- and similar holds true for engine blocks, pilots, and (in the 190's case) cannon ammo storage. They need an actual interior ballistics model, or, failing that, a probabilistic damage model, instead of a component-fails-at-X-hitpoint-threshold model. If the model already IS probabilistic, it needs some serious tweaking.

Yes, fuel load is HUGE. If both are at 100%, the Mustang is carrying 850-some pounds (!!!!) of extra fuel. The Dora carries 388 kilograms of fuel at 100%- the Mustang carries the same amount at 53%. Most maps seem to start at 68% for the Mustang (full wing tanks, empty fuselage tank). I recommend 35-40% for the Mustang on most maps. You'll find you accelerate, maneuver, and climb MUCH better, and can, in fact, pretty much climb right with the Dora. If you're doing A2A missions, I would say: consider dropping your ammo load to 80% or so, if you're confident in your marksmanship. That's a lot more weight you can leave at home, and chances are you'll run out of fuel, patience, or airframe before ammo anyhow. If you DO start with a higher fuel fraction, keep in mind that sometimes if you're fighting a guy you just can't seem to get a shot on, you can probably force him to break off (and give you a shot!) simply by staying in the fight long enough. The Dora seems to burn through fuel faster than the Mustang by a considerable margin (makes sense; it's a much less aerodynamically pure fuselage and wing design, and higher horsepower engine= more fuel burn per second; compounded by smaller tanks to start with). On several occasions, I've forced down my opponent just because they didn't have fuel to stay and play. ...not that I'd recommend this as a go-to tactic!

More complex issue than that. More players own the Mustang, so sometimes the Dora teams are horribly outnumbered and get slaughtered. Sometimes there's 2:1 or even 3:1 advantage on the Dora team... and the Mustangs get slaughtered. And when it's roughly even, the Mustang team (or part of it) often loads up with rockets and bombs to attack ground targets (as the mission sets often require), and when loaded with A2G ordnance, the Mustangs are at a huge disadvantage. That said, I've found that the Mustang gives *generally* about as good as it gets, but I've run into PLENTY of players who, playing the Mustang, have flat-out said "this isn't even fair, the Dora is way easier to get kills in", and I've heard numerous Dora players on teamspeak (when both sides were in the lobby and could hear each other) laughing about how the Dora, below 10K, can disengage at will so easily as to be, in their opinion, "untouchable", when used for pure BnZ. Now, when the Dora pilots commit to a turning fight, it's generally about even. Possibly slight edge to the Mustang... but frankly, I think the comparison is skewed, because the only Dora pilots that commit to a turning fight are rookies, so it's less a comparison of aircraft capabilities, and more of pilot experience (when a pilot continues a flat turning circle for 3-5 revolutions, even while their opponent slowly comes around the circle on them, they obviously have no clue what they're doing). ...or, very rarely, experienced players trying to finish off a hard-to-kill Mustang they have outnumbered will descend into a low-altitude turning fight, when they think there's no other Mustangs around. But then, if they're being surprised, it's not really consequential WHAT aircraft they're in- they're screwed either way.

Yes, V as a variable, rather than constant C (which is a value FOR V, still). The 1/2 is arbitrary, and scales linearly- it's not necessary in the equation. The point still remains that energy scales linearly with mass and squares with velocity.

Right, but to do that, you would have to intentionally make the AP round slower (technically, draggier- they'd come out the muzzle at the same speed, but would lose speed more rapidly). As you yourself identified, the AP round relies on kinetic energy for penetration. Kinetic energy is E=MC^2. Energy squares with velocity. Faster is mo' bettah.

Exactly. Big, dense DU bullet will lose speed slower than low-density HE ones. You would have to INTENTIONALLY make the AP rounds slower and draggier to match the ballistic profile of the HE round. Why would you go out of your way to make the gun weaker, just to make them have precisely the same ballistics? The only time the impact points significantly diverge is at very long range (mile plus), low-angle shots anyway.