Tomsk

Absolutely. I actually work in software development, and yes sure everything will be done eventually, but what's the priority? For the people interested in DCS WWII what do we want most? Also working in software development we are very focused on finding out which features are the most important to our customers. We work on the features that the most customers want. That's just good business sense. When our customers actively tell us they want us to focus on something that's pure gold dust! Does ED not do the same? Is it pointless when their customers actively tell them "we really want you to focus your efforts on this"?

So here's my perspective. ED has built some the finest WWII plane models, their fidelity is completely unmatched. They are all fantastic to fly ... but truthfully I find the experience is a bit lacking because there's not much else to do in them. In fact, I'd say that's a bit of a trend with DCS in general. ED seem really good at pushing out planes. Since the P-51D they've released the SU-25, F-15C, F-86 Sabre, Mig 15bis, the FW 190 Dora, the Mig 21bis, the C-101 Avrojet, the SU-27, the Bf 109 Kurfurst, the Hawk T.1A, the L-39 Albatros, the Mirage M2000, the F-5E Tiger II, the Mi-8MTV2, the UH-1H Huey, and the SA243 Gazelle. I realize some of those are made by partners not directly by ED, but still it's a lot of planes. They also very recently released 1 new terrain and some campaigns, but for ages there were no new terrains or campaigns apart from the small campaigns that came with some modules. For me personally lots of planes does not by itself make a great flight sim. I really believe in DCS, and love the fidelity of the planes ... but I sort of worry that ED has in the past focused a lot on making planes, often with not much else. Now maybe it's just me that's thinking this, but if lots of people are sat here thinking the same thing then maybe that's worth talking about ...

*nods* on AI bombers I think there's huge potential "bang for buck", if ED do a little then modders can maybe do a lot. The Normandy map seems more like ED would have to do it. Is it even possible to create fan-made terrains in DCS?

They look awesome, but as I understand it the problem is that right now the DCS AI can't really cope with bombers armed with guns that fly in formation and don't dogfight. At least not without some really nasty hackery. Ha, I don't have high expectations, but worth a shot right?

Well, when we've asked we've been told ED is focusing all it's WWII development effort on the Spitfire. So it seems likely that it's not a priority right now.

Agreed they are not necessarily (or even likely) to be the same people. But ED is working on quite a few other projects not are not focused on WWII. It's up to them how to allocate the resources within their team to the various projects. If the community here says "We'd be more interested in AI bombers, the Normandy map etc than planes" then that might affect how they allocate those resources.

Agree or disagree: after ED finishes the Spitfire the next priority should be on creating AI bombers, the Normandy map and period ground units. I'm sure ED is currently pushing hard on getting the Spitfire ready, which is awesome. The question is what should they do after that's finished? My opinion is that ED should focus on the "other assets" needed to make DCS a great WWII air combat simulator with an active community. In particular AI bombers, the Normandy map and period appropriate ground units. I think these are more important that new planes such as the Me-262 and P-47 (even though I'm a big fan of the P-47). Lots of people on the forums appear to share this opinion, so I thought I'd do a poll to see if that is indeed the consensus. Edit: Gah the forum clipped my poll text ... anyone know how I edit the question? Maybe a moderator could help here? Maybe change it to 'After the Spitfire ED should focus on AI bombers, Normandy map, and ground units.'

Ha, your sim-pit looks awesome Cripple, I guess you're looking forward to the release of the Spitfire Mk IX soon? :-)

So I thought I'd have a go at learning the Dora. In terms of the take-off I'd say it's quite a bit more difficult than the Mustang which I am very familiar with. The take-off in the Dora seems to be much more 'dynamic' and you have to keep on top of it a lot more. I also found I don't like the suggestions in the manual much. In particular I find that I prefer the plane to have full nose down trim (i.e. about 1.5 degrees). The manual suggests zero elevator trim, but I find the plane wants to take off too early and that leads to all sorts of trouble. You can learn to counter it with the stick (of course) but I just find 1.5 degrees nose down is much smoother and it naturally (for me) leads to a take off at 200 kph. A lot of people suggest centering the stick at about 170 kph (e.g. Chuck's guide, which is excellent), but personally I'm finding that to be much too late. Again the plane wants to take off too early without enough speed. I find starting to center (gently) at about 140 kph gives better results. Of course I'm using a FF stick, so it just naturally starts wanting to center itself at that kind of speed. So here's my suggested procedure, it works well for me. Incidentally I'm using neither auto-rudder nor take-off assistance. Check flaps are set for take off. Elevator trim at full nose down (about 1.5 degrees) Make sure tailwheel is locked by holding the stick full aft IMPORTANT! Power to maximum, gently but firmly Watch the horizon, or even better (if you have them) watch the clouds out the front dash. Correct any deviation from straight with gentle stabs of the rudder Glance down at your airspeed repeatedly, when you hit 140 kph start gently moving the stick to neutral Now you must watch that horizon like a hawk! Keep on top of any wobbling with stabs of the rudder. You may also need to use tiny bits of right aileron to keep it level. Rotate at about 200 kph, you'll barely need to pull the stick back at all to get off the ground Gear up, flaps up, trim to zero, engine to 3000 RPM for climb out.

That's awesome Shahdoh, sadly there's no way I can regularly make 10pm eastern as it's 3am UK. Is anyone doing something similar at a European friendly time?

I can definitely understand ED are busy. It would be great if they could focus on making some small changes that would allow the modding community here to fill in the blanks. The work that's been done on an AI B-17 has been incredible and I think modders will happily flesh out all sorts of WWII units, but at the moment there are some issues with the AI. If the devs could fix those I think people could start having fun doing WWII things in DCS. Would be awesome for growing the community.

Wow!! Those look amazing, I'm always astounded by what the modding community achieves. So does that mean DCS WWII "Bomber Nights" are now possible?

It also dives better, zooms better, performs better at high altitudes, handles much better at high speeds and of course has much longer range. Sure if you insist on taking a P-51 into a low-medium altitude co-E dogfight with a 109 K4 he's got a huge advantage. Which is why it wasn't done that way. If instead you climb very high, and boom and zoom your opponent then it doesn't matter that he'd win a dogfight. If he has the advantage, dive away a 109 K4 won't catch a P-51 in a shallow dive. Or sucker him into a 400 mph game of scissors, where the P-51 should absolutely cream a K4. The K4 definitely climbs, accelerates and turns much better and those are really nice advantages to have. But the P-51 has its advantages too, it's about who uses their advantages better.

Something I found really helped make my turns better coordinated was flying the "Nevada Tour" (the one with the big green hoops in the sky) lots of times ... as fast as possible. Having the hoops as reference I found I got a really good feel of when I was sloshing the plane around, developing the reflexes there then allowed me to spot the same thing in normal flight (it's there, it's just much more subtle). Was really good for my rudder skills in general, I feel like my landings are much neater now.

So it's not actually all that obvious what's happened in that video. The Typhoon thinks he's co-E with the FW-190, or close to it, because he's at a similar altitude and speed. However, in reality he's at a big energy disadvantage, probably around 3000 feet. Why? Well the starting altitude is the same, but if the FW-190 points his nose up and converts his speed to altitude he'll go much higher because the FW-190 zooms much better. From this we can conclude the FW-190 has much higher energy. Moreover the higher the speed the bigger the difference and this fight was conducted at fairly high speed. So really the FW-190 is attacking this Typhoon from a position of energetic superiority. He's booming and zooming the Typhoon, it's just not obvious. Now what the FW-190 would like to do is just point his nose skywards, zoom high, and then drop down on the Typhoon. But there's not enough separation to make that work it'd give the Typhoon an easy shot. So instead, he uses his superior energy to gain horizontal separation from the Typhoon. That gives him enough space to perform his zoom climb safely, and bounce the Typhoon. It's actually the same story with the Spitfire. It looks like the Spitfire has an energy advantage, but that's because the FW-190 is hiding a lot of his energy in his speed. Having a superior zoom/dive is a big advantage. If a good zooming plane stays fast he's carrying a lot of energy in his speed. The only way to safely attack him is from a really big altitude advantage, and it's not easy to make those shots work with that much altitude to burn before you get a shot, and by the time you get there you've burnt a lot of your advantage. Worse still, if the better zooming plane decides he doesn't like the situation he'll just dive away. If the attacker follows it's an energy trap: the BnZ plane will just keep diving to higher speeds rapidly bleeding energy from the attacker. This kind of trick is doubly effective. Firstly the BnZ plane is better at converting his altitude into speed in a dive, and at not losing that excess speed to drag. Secondly, the speed is worth a lot more energy to the BnZ plane than his attacker. If after the dive chase both planes are travelling co-alt at 500mph then that is a huge energy advantage to the BnZ plane, even though it's not obvious.

So that's a completely different scenario. I'm only talking about zoom climbing (which is primarily based on climbing using inertia), not powered climbs which are mostly based on power to weight ratios. Yes, for a powered climb the lighter plane will climb quicker. But engine power is not the dominant factor in a zoom climb, that's what makes it a zoom climb :-) So based on simple energy conservation, no not really. It definitely does take more energy to accelerate a heavier aircraft, however it also has more energy. Much as in the GPE vs KE question the difference cancels out. However, it is the case that heavier planes tend to have higher wing loadings, and planes with higher wing loadings tend to lose more speed in turns. So if the question were "If you fly along level and then zoom up by making a 15G turn" this might be important. However, assuming that the turn is reasonably gentle then the difference in speed lost in the turn is small. It absolutely does take more energy to get a heavier plane to the same altitude. Of course it also has more energy than a lighter plane at the same altitude. But the question is not which can get higher for the same fuel load, the question is given they are at the same altitude and speed already if they zoom up which will go higher. The answer is the heavier one will go higher. The fact it burnt a lot more fuel to get to that initial altitude isn't really relevant. The question is definitely more complex than my simple illustration. Most zoom climbs are not power-off climbs, so engine power relative to weight does play a role. A lighter plane gains some advantage here, although typically heavier planes also have heavier and more powerful engines to compensate for their additional weight. More importantly, for a zoom climb power-to-weight is not a dominant factor, planes can use zoom climbs to temporarily climb much faster than their power-to-weight ratios would allow. Another factor, as you point out, is that if you make a very hard turn into the vertical then that will bleed a lot of energy and the heavier aircraft will likely bleed more. However, if the turn is reasonably gentle then that isn't going to be a big factor. I think we can both agree the issue is actually quite complex. However, what has been found in practice is that when all things are considered, heavier planes with good aerodynamics such as the P-51 (about 3500kgs empty, 4300 kgs loaded) tend to zoom much better than lighter ones such as the 109 K4 (about 2700kgs empty, 3100Kgs loaded). This effect can be used in combat to gain an advantage.

So heavier planes with good aerodynamics really do zoom higher (and dive better) than lighter ones with similar aerodynamics. Seems counter intuitive, since as you say purely looking at it in terms of energy you'd think it'd cancel out. After all If we have a plane flying along level, and then we point the plane straight up and convert all the kinetic energy into gravitational potential energy then all the kinetic energy becomes gravitational potential energy and: Here mass is on both sides of the equation so it cancels out, this equation is independent of mass. A faster plane has more energy, but takes more energy to climb to a given height. Exactly as you say. If planes travelled in a vacuum this would be the end of the story, QED. However, planes don't travel in a vacuum and this changes things. The key difference is air resistance. So let's look at the forces acting on a plane in an engine-off straight up vertical zoom. The first force is the force of gravity pulling straight down on the aircraft (nose-to-tail). The second force is air resistance, resisting the plane's motion through the air, again straight down in this case since the plane is zooming straight up. We can calculate the total forces acting on a zooming plane as: We can calculate the Gravitational force using simple F = ma. It's more complicated to accurately calculate the air resistance but fortunately we don't need to. The key thing is that air resistance only depends on velocity as well as shape (cross sectional area etc.) it does not depend on mass. We'll say that the air resistance at velocity 'v' is R(v), i.e. some complex function of velocity based on shape and drag coefficients and such. So now we can express the total force acting on the plane as: We can now use this total force to calculate the acceleration that applies to the plane, again using F = ma. Rearrange to get the acceleration (in this case 'deceleration' since the plane is zooming up): Here we can see that as the mass gets bigger the deceleration due to gravity doesn't change. However, the deceleration due to air resistance gets less. R(v) doesn't vary with mass, and as the mass gets bigger R(v) / mass gets smaller. The result is a heavier plane decelerates more slowly when zooming up than a lighter one, assuming the planes are both the same shape. Because it decelerates more slowly it will reach a greater height. You can use the same maths to show a heavier plane also accelerates more quickly in a dive (and will reach a higher terminal velocity) than lighter planes of the same shape. The WT physics engine definitely has its problems, but it does model both gravity and air resistance well enough to get approximately correct behaviour here, and this effect is well known. Heavier planes zoom higher and dive faster than lighter planes (if they have the same shape and thus same air resistance). You can do the same experiment in DCS and you'll get the same result.

@Pandacat: So the P-47 has much better zoom abilities than a Spitfire. This is because the P-47 is a lot heavier than a Spitfire, but not hugely dissimilar in aerodynamic efficiency. In practice what this is means is that if a Spitfire is doing 400 mph in level flight, then if it zooms straight up it might gain 2000ft. In contrast if the P-47 is doing 400 mph in level flight then if it zooms straight up then it might gain 3000ft. It zooms much higher for the same energy. So if a Spitfire is following a P-47 and they both zoom up, then P-47 will end up 1000 ft higher than a Spitfire. That's quite a big energy advantage, and the P-47 might be able to use that extra energy to defeat the Spitfire, even though they started at the same altitude and the same speed. Similarly with diving. If a Spitfire dives 1000 ft he might gain 100 mph, but if a P-47 dives 1000 ft he might gain 150 mph. Again because a P-47 is much heavier, but has similar aerodynamics. Although they started at the same speed / altitude, the P-47 is much better able to convert that altitude to speed (or vice versa). A really nice example of this I saw is from a Warthunder Youtuber called ramjb who explained the concept really well. So caveats, it's a WT video and it's not even the most realistic mode of WT. But War Thunder's modelling of energy is accurate enough that the correct principles apply - even with all the mouse aiming shenanigans. The execution in a sim like DCS is a little different, but the idea is basically the same. In the first half of the video he defeat a Typhoon of similar energy by using the better dive & zoom abilities of the FW-190 (which is an amazing BnZ plane) to build a significant energy advantage over it in what looks like a simple chase. Once he's gained enough separation he can convert this energy advantage (in terms of speed) to an altitude advantage over the Typhoon and use that to defeat it. In the second half he fights a Spitfire of superior energy, and uses the zoom ability of the FW-190 to zoom much higher than the Spitfire would expect he could. His FW-190 zooms much better so it hides its energy well, even though it looks like he's at an altitude disadvantage that can easily be made up for by the excellent ability of the FW-190 to convert speed into altitude.

There definitely are issues with the AI. It uses a simplified flight model and damage model. As a result it almost never loses energy and can take an insane amount of damage that would leave a human pilot struggling to keep the bird even flying, never mind combat effective. It's however not surprising the FW 190 is the worst at dogfighting, that's what you'd expect. It is, however a boom-and-zoom monster. Dives and zooms really well, amazing high speed handling especially the roll which no other plane can even get close to. Also has great weapons and great cockpit visibility. But yeah it turns like crap and definitely doesn't climb like a 109 (after all what does?).

So in a low-speed turning contest at low to moderate altitude between a P-51D and a 109K4, the 109 has a lot of advantages. It turns betters, it climbs better, accelerates better and is slightly faster. The P-51 of course has its own set of advantages. It dives and zooms better, it handles much better at high speeds (rate of turn and roll), and it should start to out perform the 109 at high altitudes (25,000 ft plus). If you meet a K4 at medium alt and co-energy probably the best bet is to sucker him into a 400mph+ game of scissors, the P-51 should have more advantages in that situation. If you don't like the way the fight is going, and still have altitude, then dive away; the 109 would be foolish to follow as the P-51 dives and zooms much better, and is much happier at high speed than the 109. Not that this is unusual for the P-51, it wasn't known for being a great turner or climber. It was known for its amazing dive and zoom, its high speed, good high-speed handling, its range and its high-altitude performance. Until now the only play partner for the P-51 has been the FW-190D9, and that aircraft is atypical because it's even worse at turn fighting than the P-51, so you could get into a turn fight with one and win.

Ah I see, I missed that bit! From the pictures it looks really interesting and fun, are there groups that do this kind of stuff in DCS (in English)?

So the pictures in your post look really interesting, but sadly I have no idea what you're saying because it's not in English. Which is probably true for most people here, seeing as these are the English forums ...

That I think is the key problem. We have some of the community in War Thunder SB ... I used to be active in that community but Gaijin kept making increasingly stupid decisions and I lost interest Then we have the people doing things in CloD. That community seems to be still going strong despite the fact that CloD is essentially a dead engine, partly due to the amazing work of Team Fusion. Then we have IL2 BoS, which should be "the next big thing" ... and some people love it, but some of us find it misses the mark. Then we have the WWII planes in DCS. Which have a simply amazing fidelity and feel, and the DCS engine which seems to be getting better and better in a way the others just can't match. But no WWII maps, no WWII ground units, so no WWII scenarios. That sounds fun :-) Are there tools available for modders to build their own maps and ground units and such like? Currently the only mods I see in the mods channel are graphics mods.

So I own Battle of Stalingrad and in many ways it's a really good game. It has a good map, good period units, a good selection of planes. There are multiplayer servers that are usually populated with interesting stuff happening on them. I take it for a spin once in a while, usually in the FW-190A which is one of my favourite planes. However, it always ends the same way ... I fly it around for a bit ... then I land .. then I go fly the P-51 in DCS for a few hours. My interest is first in flight sims and second in WWII combat, and for me BoS just isn't a satisfying flight experience. It's hard to exactly point to why ... it just "feels wrong", they don't feel like planes to me, they are too light and floaty. I should love BoS, but in practice I don't play it much. I also don't see it as a great long term investment, for me that's mostly because their engine is DX9 and so it can't support VR. As a person who is first about the flying and the immersion I really do see VR as the future. DCS for me is a more compelling experience now, and I think it will be doubly so when I eventually get my hands on an Oculus Rift :-)

Is that why no one makes FFB sticks any more!? Urgh patents! Personally I love my MS FFB2, for me it makes a huge difference to the sense that I'm flying a real plane. Wish there were more FFB sticks available. As a FFB user I obviously don't mind as long as the FFB implementation stays as it should :-) However my 2 cents for non FFB use is that I agree with IvanK, the important thing is that you have to react to the pitch trim change ... the fact that you manually will have to make the stick move when in reality it would move itself is not a big problem IMHO.