Zimmerdylan

Hey guys. This problem has plagued me from my first days on the forum, I am only now getting around to asking in this section about it. Sorry about that. Whenever I create a thread or respond to a post, if I take more than 30 seconds to create a response, I get a message that I do not have permission to do this because I am not logged in. Sometimes it directs me to a log in window and I just type in my info, and other times it makes me go back to the log in at the top of the page (where it says I'm already logged in) and retype my info there and I lose whatever message I was typing. I have tried all of the suggestions given to me by other forum members but nothing seems to work. I know that I'm going to have to copy this post in a few seconds or I will lose it because when I go to post it, I'll get that message and have to log in again. Thanks: Mark

Not at all trying to be difficult about this. I'm only trying to understand all of this. If the 109 was so vastly superior, then why do I see interview after interview, read account after account, and documentary after documentary saying that the 109 was outclassed, and out maneuvered by the P51? If you watch the two documentaries that I posted (they are only two of many), both say the exact opposite of what you are saying. One of the most memorable things I had seen on the P51 was said by a Red Tail pilot who said that the P51 would do whatever you asked without hesitation. I only wish I could find that documentary just now. Please understand that I am by no means an aero engineer. I can only go by the two things I have at my disposal: What I read and see, and my own personal experience. I'm still struggling with how I end up stalling at 300 mph while in a dogfight. :smartass: I'm not disputing anyone here, nor am I questioning ED's design models. I guess I'm just trying to come to some kind of terms with all of the seemingly bajillion different opinions about this. :helpsmilie:LOL None the less, it is an interesting argument and I'm certain that there are good answers to my questions. And I'm sure that there are plenty of you guys out there thinking " This guy's not the sharpest tack in the box". It's all good. But unfortunately, it's going to pray on my mind until I implode from confusion. In the end, I know it's only a simulator that's designed to have fun with (be it frustrating fun), and if it of any consequence, I'm not beating my head against any walls and I take it pretty lightly. I do enjoy and appreciate all the responses.

OK...So I did as Sith suggested. And the results are astounding to me. Now...I did take tracks. Problem is that When I play them back, it's not the same mission. Everything goes haywire and planes just fly into the ground. Very annoying. So posting the tracks would be pointless at this point. I will however post what happened. I flew 4 escort missions. 7 bombers (C130s in this case) with 4 P51 escorts at 30,000 ft. There were 4 109 intercept AC coming in from the east @30,000. The first mission I set up I had the 109's assigned to take out the bombers and look for and destroy other AC. Upon mission start, the 109's immediately took the fight to the deck, ignoring the bombers. The fight was over within 5 minutes. All 4 P51's shot down with 1 of the 109's taking some damage. The 109's then went home and ignored the bombers. 2nd fight, I set the 109s to only focus on the bombers. Again, they immediately took the fight to the deck. Things went a little different this time however. I lost 1 p51 and 1, 109 to a mid air collision. Of the remaining AC 2 of the p51s were streaming, the other was pretty beat up, and the remaining 109s were clean as a whistle. Again, the 109s took off and the p51s headed toward the bombers. 3rd fight, same scenario. Again, fight went straight to the ground. This time, lost 2 p51s, and 2 109s. The remaining 2 p51s were streaming, and the remaining 109's too some damage. Last fight, I put myself in the cockpit of a p51. And what happened was pretty amazing. Within 3 minutes all 3 of the p51 had been shot down and all 4 109s were on my behind. I had set to immortal for just such a scenario. They had at me for about 25 minutes. Doing things that seemed to defy logic in my mind. What I am going to do is get some capture software this week so that I can post these fights. It is absolutely clear that in the DCS AI world, the 109 is head and shoulders above the P51. I am not being a bad guy here. I'm only posting what happened in these 4 scenarios. And my conclusion is that DCS suffers from the same thing that almost every game, sim, or whatever suffers from. The AI world is just not set up in reality. This is most probably due to technology. And the fact that since these planes are set up to act like their real world counterparts. The p51 uses it's strengths in the AI world but the problem is that it's strengths are trickier to use and the AI model cannot compensate for that. But I am still convinced that the 109 AI is overstated. But again, this is most likely due to the simplification process and the fact that it's not complicated to regulate only to exploit the strengths of the AC. I will however get some recording software so that I can post some of this stuff. Thanks guys, I think I understand why things are as they are now and am OK with that. I'm going to spend some time in servers against real people in the next few weeks and see where that goes. They can't be any tougher than the AI planes.

Thx Sith.

Yes. From all that I have seen and heard, the German fighters were not at all inclined to engage the American escorts. They would come in from above the bombers and the escorts who were flying above the bombers because they were aware of this tactic. They would come in clusters and dive right through the escort formations and get as many shots in at the bombers before the escorts would attack them, and they would beat it out of there as quickly as possible, avoiding engagement. This is possibly part of the reason for my confusion. The German pilots even knew that the odds were stacked against them. In the early parts of the war, the American pilots were instructed to stick close to the bombers no matter what. They were not to give chase. The Germans were well aware of this. And indeed the success of the bombing raids was limited. It wasn't until the Americans were instructed to chase the German fighters and kill them at all costs that the bombings became more effective, and the losses started dropping. The Americans were chipping away the German's air power. I've seen quite a few interviews with American Aces where these (brave, insane, arrogant, probably all of this) American pilots would say that there were 5 American planes in a gaggle of 30 German planes and inflicted heavy losses at a cost of 0 Americans shot down. Although I am positive that much of this had to do with the superior training and moral of the allied pilots (there is no doubt there), the plane itself had to have had a something going for it over and above the German planes. I'm, going to take some time to set up the scenario that you suggested. I'm interested to see what the end result would be. I'm still truly not understanding exactly why the 109 out performs the Mustang in DCS. Please keep in mind that I'm not by any means undermining ED or the sim. I'm just curious as to the reasoning of the difference. Thus far, many of the cases where I've been frustrated by something in DCS, I found that it was due to my own lack of knowledge, or that there was a reason ED put whatever it was there. I'm fairly certain that this may also be the case. I'm just looking for other input from more experienced fliers than myself. For all intents and purposes, I'm just a weekend warrior, and like many other casual DCS pilots, I struggle with things like power management, Aerodynamic properties, and combat tactics. So I'm not at all surprised that the AI planes can run me ragged like they do. But the AI p51 doesn't seem to stand a chance at all against the German AI. I at least can survive the fight, and about 25% of the time, get a kill.

Although this is great news, and we're all happy to hear it, don't be so sure.......I remember sitting here at this same time last year reading the same kind of stuff. ED makes a great sim but Santa Clause...they are not. lol:music_whistling:

Yeah......this 109 vs P51 really confuses the daylights out of me. I know that there are many opinions (especially on the forums) about the performance differences between the two. I know that every time I go 1 on 1 with the 109 in a p51 I get either chased into the ground, run out of gas, or just shot down. Everyone attributes this to the AI not having a complex flight model. I can go for that answer most of the time. So last night, I went into the MI and set up head to head between the 109 and Mustang. Both AI. I set up at different altitudes with different loads. Out of 6 rounds, the Mustang didn't win a single fight. In fact, the 109 made pretty short work of it every time. In 5 of the 6, the Mustang never got the chance to fire off a single shot. It spent most of it's time and energy playing defense because the 109 was all over it. My problem is that every time I watch any pilot who has flown against the 109 in a P51 talk about it, they say it was like shooting fish in a barrel. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBLjYGLlklo Check right at 9 minutes in to about 12 minutes. Start at 14 minutes and 24:30 Both of these videos tell you the same thing I see in every video. The P51 was a superior fighter. In some videos they say that they were pretty evenly matched but none of them say that the 109 was superior. I just don't understand why the 109 is so much better in DCS. I know that this is an old argument. But everything I'm seeing and reading is telling me a complete different story than this version of both planes. I know that some of you can kill the AI 109 pretty easily. Possibly because you have learned it's habits in DCS. It kind of seems that ED favors the 109 itself. Call me crazy, but the 109 kills the P51 in DCS. I took my lousy flying out of the equation and the 109 still beats the P51 down pretty easily.

Yeah, makes perfect sense. Hence, DCS allowing them to be loaded as in real life. The guy I chatted with said that it was just never done, not that it couldn't be. He was pretty impressed with the cockpit. I only have the X52 HOTAS and he was saying all that stuff about everything being right there at your fingertips in the actual AC. I told him that there is a HOTAS and stick designed after the A10 specifically but I wasn't willing to go the price for it just now. My wife is already on me a little about how much $$$ I put into toys. He'll be back next week so I'll prod him a little more. I don't think it will take much to get him to go full in to showing me a bunch of specifics. He likes the sim.

Cool Thx guys!!

Anyone know if Belsimtek is going to re-implement the ability to pick up troops? This was (IMO) the most fun thing ever. Going into a hot L.Z. trying to rescue troops. I was disappointed when it went away, and have been told by various people on the forums that it'll be back in 2.0. :hmm:

I stated in another thread that I happened across an A10 pilot from Davis Monthan AFB not too long ago and that he was taking music lessons from me (yeah....even pilots have to have hobbies). So anyway. He was very curious to check out DCS and the A10A and C (he has flown both). So when he was here yesterday I brought him into a training mission that I had set up and he was pretty excited about the whole thing, but he instantly, (without hesitation said) "That's wrong" when he looked at the configuration of the armament. I was a bit puzzled but when he elaborated on it, he did make sense. He told me that they never load 3 Mavs per side on an A10. He said that the inside Mav will burn the flaps when it's launched. I was just curious about this. I'm pretty sure that ED probably knows this but maybe lets you set it up that way for the obvious effectiveness and fun factor. I remember there being some to do a while back about the rocket configuration being too overstated, so I was just wondering if anyone here has any knowledge about this. Overall, the guy was pretty impressed with the A10. He did not however fly it at all because he was kind of pressed for time and was straight forward and said that he'd be embarrassed if he (a pilot) couldn't actually fly a simulator. I can honestly relate to that. I am a very accomplished musician on several instruments but won't touch Rock Band or any of those games. He really liked the P-51 by the way. He knows several pilots that fly it and when I showed him the start up procedure, he said it was pretty spot on with the exception that I didn't pump any oil prior to starting up. Anyway, if this guy tells me this about the Mavs, I tend to believe him because it's his job. But I also believe that DCS is privy to this info too but lets you set them up that way for effect. It's all good with me. Those extra Mavs save me from having to get close to two less targets. :joystick:

LOL....I stand corrected. However, you hit the nail on the head. The cities are most probably all there as you say but again, all generic buildings. And I'm not trying to bash DCS or ED. I completely understand that it's just not possible to reproduce every building and have functionality. It's a common issue with all flight sims. And FSX and Xplane both have the cities where they're suppose to be. But....landmarks are again Generic. And OK....there probably is a "parade park with a monument" somewhere. But I'm not going out of my way to find one or two landmarks in a land full of generic landmarks just to sight see. I have 0 issues with how DCS has set up this place. I love it. But......when it comes down to reality VS fiction, 90% of DCS users don't really know or care about the scenery here. If they did, it would be posted all over the forums like many of the other alleged "short comings" that people think DCS may have. I think that they understand completely, as do I. It's just not practical or really even possible. As for the VFR routes and such. Again, not really relevant as you could plaster any names on the charts and mark them and people could follow them. People can follow fake names of fake places created the same way just as easily. And again....I have never heard of 99% of the places mentioned in the map so I'm none the wiser. It's pretty much a non issue. So again...And it's only one person's OPINION in a sea of OPINIONS. It would make no difference to me at all. And as I said before, you could put me on Mars and call it anything you like because I have never been to most ( ok...lets be honest....any) of these places and would not know the difference anyway. And I doubt that many who come here would. And why would they??? It's a sim, not a real world mission.........It's for fun.

I have 2 flight simulators. DCS and Xplane. DCS focuses on a country that I have never been to and I don't really know where it to find it on a map (Georgia is my only reference point). All of the man made scenery is fictional and in all probability, nothing like what I would see if I were actually flying over this country. I give that a 100% fact. In Xplane, you are flying over scenery that is geographically accurate to a point and it encompasses the globe. However, all of the scenery and geographic specifics in areas that I know are not detailed all that greatly and if I did not know what I was looking at, I probably could not really tell you where I was on the map. The buildings are all generic, and the configuration of vegetation and landmarks are vastly different from it's real world counterpart. And even though the roads are taken from Google Earth, you still cannot tell the area because of the lack of landmarks. It is hard to distinguish anything unless you actually know the area your in from memory or whatever. I cannot imagine that it would matter to me one way or another as far as reality or fantasy. I know that the Nevada map is suppose to be pretty spot on ( a few copyright issues aside) so maybe it might change my mind on this. But as it stands......I'm not particular. I own the custom Xplane Las Vegas scenery but it's so cartoony that it's hard to take seriously unless you fly it in the late part of the day to hide the overstressed colors and boxy look of the buildings. On a last note: I got to fly several commercial flight simulators that a company called Arizona Flight Safety owns. They are designed to simulate any and all situations that commercial pilots might face. They are complete cockpits on hydraulic systems that are insanely accurate. However, the ones that I flew had scenery from all over the world, but it was very vague and other than the geography, you absolutely could not make heads or tails of the city you were landing or taking off in. They did have a Bell 400 scenario where you could land on an L.A. Freeway that was so realistic that it was intense. But it was a small geographic location and each scenario from a different location had to be loaded into the simulator. I imagine it would take a boatload of memory to have all scenarios and locations loaded up, It was the only sim that I had ever flown in, Including the $40 million ones from Arizona Flight Safety that I could actually go to the location and easily identify the area. So I'm not particular. Imaginary or not. You could locate the sim on Mars, call it Russia and I would be none the wiser. Don't get me wrong on this. I understand that technology cannot recreate this stuff without eating tons of memory and making even the fastest gaming rig run like a brick. I get that. So until that technology is available. I'm perfectly content flying in Easter land, or that crazy country in "Duck Soup" so long as the planes are making me feel warm and fuzzy inside...... Ah....Freedonia. That's the country from Duck Soup. If your a kid and haven't seen it. Great comedy.

Yeah....pretty awesome now. Thanks Belsimtek!!!!! You guys have really come through with the goods!!!!

Yeah......when you are in a tank or vehicle while playing CA, you notice this kind of stuff, but it's been like that from the beginning so far as I remember.

I'm kind of thinking......this is what he was posting about........... That being said: Myself, being a person who has behaved very poorly on this forum at one time or another cannot say enough good things about ED, the 3rd party developers, and the mods here. Having been permanently banned at some point, am very fortunate to have been allowed back here. And after writing a long apology letter to the people at EA for my unacceptable behavior, not asking to be unbanned at all, they lifted my ban. Hey........you can't beat that kind of professionalism. I have seen some pretty terrible replies to perfectly innocent posts and questions here. But I have also seen the way these things are professionally handled and dealt with. You cannot ask for a better team of people to be around. Many other forums for games or products do not have the support that this forum has. You don't get your questions answered by developers and testers. So I really appreciate and value this forum. And am very glad to be a part of it. DCS is the best sim out there and they do their best to address problems and issues. The forum itself is also a great source of information and knowledge about how to have the most fun and be the best you can with the planes. So my hat goes off the ED, the developers, the mods, and people who give so much to those of us who can't offer a lot in the way of knowhow. More power to the OP for his words. I get it...........

Mark as solved or delete. It was a button assignment issue on my X52. I was just using the in cockpit cursor and had no clue that it was also assigned to a slider that I accidentally bumped.

The wingspan adjust is at 120 ft and cannot be adjusted. Anyone else have this issue: P51 problem.trk

I was told that activations are added or renewed over a certain period of time. Is this true? Something like every 90 days. I could be completely wrong but have been told that several times by different people. I guess I just want to hear the real deal from the horses mouth. If this is really the case.....you guys have nothing to apologize for as far as I am concerned. WOW!!!! I just went into the user agreement section and read the whole document and it does not address the issue. So now I'm really curious.

I never pay attention to those red boxes anyway. I have gotten several because I expressed myself about certain problems and issues with modules and indeed I must have been correct because these issues were all addressed through updates over time. But there were people who did not seem to agree with me. Or I had asked questions that some found to be silly so they berated me and gave me a "box". The whole system of giving just anyone the ability to rate others based on disagreement or how they feel that day is just juvenile IMO. I have never given anyone any kind of rating in this forum, or in life for that matter unless they gave me a very good reason. Disagreement on a forum is never a good reason. It's just a way to create tension and alienate people. Good moderators are the key to that, not any Tom Dick or Harry that comes to the forum. Thus far, I feel that ED can trust the current mods with this task. So the rating system is beyond me. I don't know you from Adam, but you say that you made a mistake and admit it. That's good enough for me. It's more than most do in their lives. :music_whistling:

Yeah...I sure wish they could or would fix the whole semi invincible AI problem. I went round and round with a Mig until it finally ran me out of fuel. I was right down on the deck with this thing.There were times that I wanted to see just how hard I could push it and I was cutting in so tight that 80% of the screen was totally black and I could barely see the Mig in the center of the screen. I sustained these turns for 20 seconds at a time and the d@mn mig was still cutting to my inside. It's crazy. All of that while he was streaming white and black smoke. I am guessing that to give the AI a more complex model would seriously cut into game performance. So I suppose it's a sacrifice I'm willing to live with. But It's pretty disheartening at times.

Finally, after years of resisting the temptation, I made the jump to Trackir. I do not think that I can even begin to come up with words to describe the difference. Well.....yeah, I can. Where's my DCS???? The flight sim that I have been flying for 4 or 5 years now is gone and has been replaced with an intense, fun experience. I have never enjoyed any computer sim or game this much. I am however a little curious about a few things though. There are some differences that I cannot figure out. First, when in any combat situation when I'm gunning something. No matter the AC I'm flying, I am probably at least 50% more accurate. I can't quite grasp the reason for this. I put the star or pip on the target and let fly. It seems (to me anyway) that it would be identical with the mouse. The dot is on my target no matter whether I'm using the mouse or head tracking, but more rounds seem to land on the target with the head tracking. I can easily see this happening, and I'm using fewer rounds to take out targets. I never would have thought that it would make this much of a difference. In air to air it is like night and day. In the P-51 especially, the target lines up much quicker and in the past few days, it seems that I'm using much less ammo to take out other planes. The first time I got up and took out a 109, it took a very quick burst and the plane was on it's way down. I thought the guy was taking evasive action when in fact he was dead. But again, when I use the mouse, the flower lines up on the target but it just doesn't seem or feel accurate. I guess that I'm just stumped because in my mind, when it's lined up, it's lined up but head tracking seems to line everything up much more efficiently. Also, I got all of the adjustments down pretty well and have the software working pretty nicely. I was just wondering if there are folks out there who set up their X, and Y axis completely different from their Yaw, and pitch. Having that much freedom on all of them makes it extremely easy to get completely disoriented from time to time. None the less, DCS just completely changed for me. Such an awesome experience.

I honestly wish that I got more out of CA. I have had it from the beginning and don't know what DCS is like without it but I have been told that it's much better with. I guess that I'm not patient enough to go through and learn all of the particulars. I know guys that spend hours creating mission and the like. I guess that I am glad that I have it but I don't know enough about using it to get the full benefit of it. When 1.5 came out, I didn't notice all that much of a difference from 1.2. This is only because I didn't really use it in 1.2.

A few tips from someone who was once in your shoes. Patience! There is a steep learning curve to many of these planes. Any of the modules that were not part of Flaming Cliffs or Cliffs of Dover , P-51, F86, any of the WWII German planes, the A10C (it's a bear), any of the helis, Migs, and the leatherneck stuff are set up to be as realistic as possible and there is a lot to remember for anyone who has not used a flight sim before. You may find yourself overwhelmed because it's not like a video game. You can't just jump in and fly. These planes have parameters that they have to follow and limitations. To a novice, it's very frustrating and you could get discouraged very easily. Luckily this forum is GREAT at helping newer pilots. But don't have a cow when whatever module you pick up doesn't work the way you think that it should based on video games. As realistic as you may think games like Battlefield and their AC may be, they're nothing to DCS. It's like comparing apples to a vegetable garden. The planes associated with the Flaming Cliffs or Cliffs of Dover are the easiest and probably the best for some beginners based on their patience and desire to really learn flying. The A10C is not a good plane to start with simply because it takes some time to learn all of the systems. Oh...The KA50 can be pretty challenging also for the same reasons as the A10C. The F15, SU27, and 25 and A10A have been simplified and are much easier to get use to. They have simple setups and everything can be done just by touching a few buttons. But as people stated earlier, it's pretty much up to you. If you just want to get in and fly, the Flaming cliffs stuff is better. If you want to take time, practically go through basic training and flight school (metaphor) the other planes are waiting for you. Of the more complicated planes, the F86 and the Mig15 have the simplest systems and dynamics. P-51 is pretty simple but there is the torque and other challenges. The German planes are much more challenging to fly. Good luck, hope to see you in a server soon. Don't shoot me down, or at least wave while your doing it.

Thanks so much!