OutOnTheOP

Good missions, too! I'm particularly enjoying the new Drei Schweine mission you guys added to the rotation- the objectives are far enough away that you have to work to get to them, but action is easy to find because it's concentrated over a couple easily ID'd target areas, the friendly and enemy front lines (and therefore flak) is close enough to each other that if someone bounces you, but you have trouble getting them on visual, you can drag them into the flak field for help spotting, and the ground target density is about right for a challenge. Good fun! I also noticed the other night that the Dogs of War and Winter Wars maps seem to populate AI fighters if the other side has no players, which is a very nice touch. It looked to me like they only spawn if there are NO players on the other side (I may be mistaken!) Is it possible to have them spawn to equal the difference between the teams? IE, if there's 10 guys on blue, and 4 on red, have it spawn 6 AI on red? Or even better, spawn TWO AI planes for every missing human player, because the AI are, well, pretty easy to kill (damage sponginess aside). In fact, you could consider having a few AI aircraft around even WHEN the teams are even- that way, there's a few "easy" targets around, so new players have a chance at bagging a kill against "rookie" enemies (the AI) who are currently under-represented. In truth, even the greenest of us online pilots have more dogfighting experience than the vast majority of the real pilots went into real combat with (and we can practice more gunnery in a night online than many of them got in the whole war!), so it'd be nice to simulate those "fresh out of flight school" easy pickings =P. It also can greatly ease frustration on those nights when you just can't seem to best the other player pilots. Lastly, to people who are looking to play on the DoW server: by all means, go to their forum and ask for the TS3 server IP! It's much, MUCH more fun to play when you have wingmen to talk to (and much, MUCH more successful. Expect your kill/death ratio to *easily* triple if you have someone to coordinate your attacks with. At least, mine did.)

As realistic as DCS may be, it IS still a game. The primary goal is to be fun. If they had to bend reality to make it less frustrating, I'd agree, they shouldn't. But they have such an easy option (44-1 fuel!) to keep things historical, but even things out a bit. After all, they gave the Dora the EZ42 to be "fair", even though very few Doras had it, so why not give the Mustang the fuel? I understand positional and energy state. I'm not talking about when they BnZ someone and extend straight out with an energy advantage, but rather when the Dora pilot comes in for an attack, get spotted, makes the mistake of trying to push the attack, engages in a turning fight, and ends up co-altitude and co-speed with the Mustang: at that point, when they belatedly realize "oh, hey, I really shouldn't have done that", they STILL have an out, because they can just open the throttle and drive off.

I find this endlessly irritating. The FW190D9 should have greater acceleration than the Mustang at low altitudes, but all the sources I've seen indicate it should have better top-end speed, even at sea level, even with wing racks and the low 67" boost levels. Yet I can spend 10 minutes at 1,000 feet, chasing a Dora, with my throttle full open, ball centered and no slip, only 30 gallons in my tanks, half load of ammo, no wing racks, the Dora making minor jinks and maneuvers, while I fly completely straight with (in theory) no energy loss... and he still just easily pulls away. Even when I have greater initial speed by a good 50 mph. The .50s are currently too weak to get a fast kill, any half competent pilot will make it tough to get many hits on him quickly, and if they just open up the throttle and extend, there's nothing you can do. It's not a lot of fun playing when, any time you "win" the dogfight (get in a position of advantage), they just pack up and go home.

Unfortunately, the poor spotting/ visibility range trends to favor the energy fighter over the angle fighter, and at the altitudes most online missions tend to dictate (because of close defense of our attacking ground targets, as well as short flight distances), the Dora does have some situational advantages.

As best I know it, they are 950 and 600 rpm, respectively.

I agree that the 20mm (like the .50) seems to have damage model problems. However (!) The more post - mission debrief I see, the more I think the number in the parenthesis is some kind of damage factor, NOT the raw number of projectiles hit. Consider that the MG131 has talmost twice the rate of fire, yet you scored, by your count, half again more 20mm hits than 13mm. I think the real problem is that damage appears to be tracked by hit points in discrete sections (left outer wrong, left inner wing, left stabilator, vertical stabilizer, etc), rather than by the damage that each projectile does. This seems to result in situations where, say, if you hit with ten bullets in the left inner wing, it reduces hit points to zero and breaks the wing - but if you hit five in the inner wing and five in the outer, it only takes half the hit points from each, but NEITHER breaks. Realistically, it should have the SAME probability of hitting (and breaking! ) a wing spar either way.

Neither 20mm HEI nor Minengeschoss is at all likely to break structural members. Blast effect is a very poor damage mechanism against spars. Both 20mm AP and .50 API (or even ball! ) is more suitable for that. HE blast effect is only efficient against low - strength, high- surface - area targets (like the thin skin, or in the context of HE bombs, it works against building walls but was poor at destroying the machine tools INSIDE the factories). Totally different damage mechanisms.

...and what load weights are those takeoffs made at? Mustang takeoff weight and fighting weight are a good 2000 pounds apart (assuming drop tanks). Dora takeoff weight and fighting weight are only like 100-200 pounds apart. So performance comparisons on takeoff are not necessarily valid in the context of fighting. *edit* derp, just saw that you were talking about Dora/Anton, not Dora/Mustang.

I think they have (after player feedback and referring to the stress limits and safety margins) increased the Mustang's wing strength: I have pegged out the G-meter at around 10 during a pull-out from a rocket run at around 400 IAS, and not lost the wings. Granted, I started with 60% fuel, and I think I had earlier expended a small amount of MG ammo, so I wasn't at full weight, but still, it pulled 10 just fine.

Oh, I like all the maps; they're certainly more impressive than anything I could manage. ...but players always find some exploits, and features always have unintended consequences. This is true even of games/ maps made by monolithic gaming corporations with dev teams in the hundreds and a year-long test cycle. I'm not trying to bust anyone's balls, just provide feedback on what I've observed

That's a shame... contrails would fix SO much. Regarding the TS info, could you please PM it to me? I must be a bit dense; I've tried all three IPs and the only password I can find on your site and forum, and none seem to work. Either I have the wrong IP, wrong password, or I just don't know how to set up Teamspeak =\

...and don't forget the AN/M2 aerial gun has close to 50% higher rate of fire than the ground mount!

Which table are you going by? There's a table that has "destructiveness per shell", a table that has "destructive efficiency as a function of damage vs weight of mounting", and a "overall effectiveness for the full loadout"... which does not include the Dora's 2x MG131/ 2x MG151/20 loadout. The problem is that the first two do not normalize for rate of fire. Yes, 1 20mm hit is worth 3 .50 hits... but the .50s have a significant rate of fire advantage (both as single guns and taken cumulatively) over the Dora's loadout. Something like twice as many projectiles fired per second. All told, the Mustang's armament should be fairly close in effectiveness (damage done per second) to the Dora; maybe 75-85% as good. ...now, if only ED could fix the damage models so something OTHER than the sight and prop governor ever took damage. I swear, it seems like every shot (even those from behind) kills either the sight or the governor, and those two targets are, cumulatively, the size of a shoe box.

No, I agree, the Blue team consistently wins (or at least is well ahead when time runs out), but it would be nice to have some manner of design feature that prompted high-altitude fights (IE, some bombers of some kind), and it would be nice if the flak wasn't quite so one sided- it's a brilliant idea to use it to point players at enemies, but the problem is that the guy that *doesn't* have the flak working to his advantage is still stuck with the really terrible spotting distance inherent to the game. Which means the player defending his side of the map can set up a good BnZ from a range where he's a single pixel (if that), and the other player can only spot the BnZ coming once it's too late; even if he's looking in exactly the right direction, he can only see the guy in the last couple kilometers, by which time the BnZ is probably already in his rear quarter, with a good 100+ mph overtake. Not much to do then but go defensive. If there was a way to vastly improve spotting distance to even things up, that'd go a long, LONG way. Can contrail altitude be lowered to the deck? Aircraft trailing smoke (or contrails) are fairly easy to spot, and that also solves the "it's a single pixel, how do I tell which direction he's going and what attitude he's in?" problem.

That's the problem, though... it's not terribly satisfying. With no better options, that's exactly what I end up doing; I'd rather fight a dogfight, but it's impossible to find one- it's either getting surprised by a plane you can't see coming because the flak warning gives them a huge SA advantage, or they just run away and nothing you can do can ever catch them. ...but it gets a bit old carting rockets out to the ships, making one pass, RTB, rinse, repeat. The inland map on the DoW server (I don't recall the name, but the one NOT on the coast) is a bit friendlier, because for whatever reason, the Axis team seems more intent on raiding into the allied territory (or at least, they did when I first started), and the proximity of the Axis/ Allied target areas at Maysky/ Arik means if you get bounced attacking ground forces at Arik, you can drag the fight over to Maysky, lead your attacker into a flak trap, and use the flak bursts to spot him. Actually, I think that's a good start: make the flak burst areas overlap a bit (a couple kilometers?) at the front lines on the coastal map, and maybe add one 23mm AAA at the ground attack areas; it'd make ground attack more challenging, and make baiting guys into flak traps more effective. I suspect that access to the Teamspeak server would improve things vastly; a singleton ground attack force covered by a couple high cover aircraft would solve most of the surprise issues, I think.

You know, I'm starting to think that maybe I *don't* like the current Dora-Mustang balance, after all. At least, the sim doesn't actually support them in a way that balances them. See, thing is, while very technically impressive and immersive, the map has a fatal flaw: by making scoring based primarily on ground attack, it FORCES you to low altitude. Sure, the Mustang pilots could go high, but then the Doras would just strafe everything, and game over. Unfortunately, I've found fighting Dora players is, frankly, BORING. The setup brings out the worst in them: the flak, while cool and perhaps historical (though in that kind of density, at every singleton in the sky?), is a beacon that there is an enemy in your airspace. Cool, it makes it easier to find a target... well, it makes it easier for the Dora pilots to find targets, anyway, because they don't ever bother to do anything but circle around their own airspace waiting for a Mustang to try ground attack.... and let's face it, if BOTH sides just hung out in their own airspace, that'd make a really boring game. So the Mustang players always go offensive and fly primarily ground attack, the Allied side almost always wins the match on points, but it's a bit unsatisfying because all of the air combat encounters seem to be "get completely surprised by a Dora you didn't even know was there, because they can see you from a zillion miles off due to the flak, but you can't see them for beans because the sighting distance in the game sucks, and they never come to the Allied side of the map". So it always seems to come down to a choice between a) attack enemy ground vehicles and get bounced by the Doras because they can see you way better than they can see them, b) try to go A2A, and... still lose because you have to go find them over their own base and they can see you way before you can see them, or c) wait in your own territory hoping they'll come in where you have an advantage, then go land when you're bingo on either fuel, or patience. Not that I hold any of this against the Dora players, it's a smart way to play, but it's boring. I never, EVER see any form of dogfighting. It's all complete surprise BnZ... and since the surface targets force you down low, even if you DO manage to beat them in BFM, they all just kick the spurs and zip away at low altitude the instant they're in a disadvantageous position, and without higher boost, there is nothing, absolutely nothing, the Mustang can do to catch them. ...Unfortunately, I'm not sure I have much in the way of suggestions to fix it, though. Perhaps make the points needed for victory lower? Add AI bombers (Tu95 set to lower speed? Preferably at contrail altitude, so the players have warning) that will carpet bomb the airfields if not intercepted?

I think he means he'd like both a fixed reference AND the floating reticule simultaneously. I can see where he's coming from, I too like to have the fixed gun cross (with the circle blanked) on the Mustang; it helps you judge whether the K14 looks like it's computing things right (and also helps me determine whether I have the same slip angle as the target!)

Plenty of people have commented on the rarity of the KA50 and therefore it's weirdness as a selection for simulation. But there's a good reason it came to be: there's no instructor-in-the-left-seat check ride in a single-seat helo, so the Russians ordered a professional-grade simulation No one COMPLAINS about it, because unlike the FW190D9, it's not a module that's used in direct competition with some allegedly contemporary model. It just does it's thing, and it doesn't matter if it's a newer or older version. More akin would be the "we need the newest version of the Su27" crowd or the "gimme an F-15 with AESA" folks, and there's plenty of that in the FC community.

If no one ASKS for one, then no, there WOULDN'T be any chance of seeing it. I don't anyone (except maybe Luftwaffe players that are shouting the loudest that the Mustang should never, ever get higher boost, and that anyone asking for it are wimps and cheaters) wants to see the old IL2 "German and Russian planes outperform everything else in every aspect" song and dance again, though. We want historically accurate performance, as shown on the testing data sheets, issue documents, and supply and maintenance records. And just because you've seen the argument before, does not make it less valid. It just means that people still see issues. As for the .50 cal thing, I'm leaning more toward it being an AI issue: the AI Mustangs seem to soak up a fair bit of 20mm, too.

2S6 was prohibited from using the gun system (using only the missiles) for quite a while. I don't recall off the top of my head what the cause of the problem was, but the symptoms were unacceptably high rates of stoppages and runaway guns. I'm *quite* sure the Russian army didn't forbid use of the gun because of "one video", which, incidentally, seems to have been caused by a flaw in tracking and engagement software, NOT the gun itself anyway (assuming we're talking the same video). Pantsir may have slight modifications to the gun (or may even be continuing to use the same gun unmodified; it wouldn't be the first time a system with known major design flaws continued in production by a major power) As to high rate of fire, I would disagree, particularly with regards to area targets. Also, the 30mm caliber is only marginally effective against concrete structures (like average urban high-rise facades), so you'd need a high volume of fire to either weaken/ chip away the structure, or to ensure a round or two snuck in through windows or other gaps into interior areas where they'd be effective. Short, short bursts, but ROF is always good.

No one else has built a "Terminator" because no one else has lost dozens of tanks at a time in urban terrain. The US has had no issues using Abrams in urban terrain so far, and the gun elevation on the Abrams (and particularly on the Bradley) has been sufficient to engage upper-story window targets. The Terminator was built solely because the Russians found that in fighting in Chechnya, the T72-series tanks had neither enough elevation on the gun to engage upper-story targets, nor sufficient depression on the main gun to engage basement-level targets in nearby buildings. Frankly, re-militarizing ZSU 23/4, or using 2S6 in an urban role would be more effective anyway. Well... maybe not the 2S6; it's guns have been shown to be less than reliable, and prone to failure or runaway. But if they worked right, they'd be perfect for the situation. Remember what I said about "soft" stat advantages of the Abrams series (IE, gun elevation?/ depression)? Also, why on earth would you need (even more) specialized trucks and trailers to move a tank like Terminator? It's built on a T72 chassis, and doesn't actually weigh any more. Besides, you would want an urban tank to be, if anything, lighter than a traditional main battle tank. At least, unless you like being stymied every time you come across an under-rated bridge, overpass, culvert, or other span.

I seem to recall the US putting Merlins through a 7 1/2 hour no-fail requirement when they were testing the new (as of mid-'44) 100/150 octane avgas. I'm not sure if it was at full mil, or full WEP, but I believe the latter. (*edit* it was 7 1/2 hours at 75" WEP, see http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/44-1_Fuel-16March44.pdf and http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/75inch-clearance-v-1650-7.jpg ) I am pretty sure it was hooked up to a much larger cooling system than employed on the actual aircraft, though... and the same is almost certainly true for any test-stand running of the Jumo.

First, yes, you are high-horsing like mad. Your post was one big insinuation that anyone that made an argument that the P-51 should have higher boost is just a whiner who can't win and/or wants every advantage. You fail to even acknowledge that there is sound historical reasoning to have 75" boost available as an option (yes, an OPTION, so the Mission builder can choose whether to go for historical accuracy or game balance). Then you used a historically inaccurate statement about "using what you have on hand" which does not actually support your argument, considering that historically, the Mustangs that faced FW190D9s had 100/150 octane and 75" boost available. Oh, and there's absolutely no contradiction in my post, whatsoever. Mission builders will balance the mission as best as they can- WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF WHAT IS AVAILABLE TO THEM. If the Me262 is available, they can choose to include or exclude it from their missions. However, they CANNOT choose to include the 75" boost Mustang, if it is not available in the game, now can they?

First, get off your high horse and drop the intellectually superior "oh, I'm so frustrated by all these whiners" act. You're right; the real pilots went into combat with the planes they had, against the planes the enemy had. In reality, when the plane the axis had was the FW190D9 with MW50, the plane the allied pilots had was the P-51D with 75" boost, That's the problem: right now, the P-51 pilots are going into combat with the plane they had in early-mid 1944, against the plane the Luftwaffe had in early 1945. Things are NOT terribly historically accurate right now. As to the 262, I think you'll find it will not cause the "demise" of the WW2 multiplayer, because most missions won't include it, and if it's modelled accurately, it'll have plenty of mechanical and handling faults that will hamper it plenty enough. Devastating to bombers, sure. Huge threat to fighters... not as much. If they use the one advantage they have (speed), the closure rate will be so high they can't get good guns solutions. And if they slow for a good shot, they'll be eaten alive by the prop jobs. Besides, if you assume mission makers will be happy to play a perpetually anachronistic set of match-ups, then I suppose the US side will just have F-86s to counter the Me262s. Or, hell, why not F-15s?

Yes, it would make the Mustang faster and vastly improve climb rate... but in the end, that would mean that instead of having slightly inferior climb and top speed (IE, slightly inferior energy-fighting resources) and significantly better turning radius and rate (IE, significantly better angle-fighting resources), the Mustang would have slightly superior energy-fighting ability, and still have significantly superior angle-fighting resources. I think the style, tactics, and method of fighting against the Dora wouldn't significantly change. And while more horsepower does matter a lot in an angles fight for sustained turns, I'm not convinced it would really change the dynamic from what we have now. As it stands right now, I already have no fear of taking the on the 1.8 ATA D9; I know I can consistently out-turn it and out-dive it. I agree that the higher-boost Mustangs should be an option in the Mission Editor... but if we don't get them, I'm not all that worried about it; the Dora doesn't overpower the Pony as it stands. ...at least, not from what I've seen.