Foul Ole Ron

Yes I get the same - when you're wearing a headset and turn your head the sound changes quite a bit. It's like one part of the full engine sound filters out so you can hear something else much more distinctly that you wouldn't normally hear properly.

The Mig is beatable - mainly want to concentrate on not following him up unless you're going at least 320 knots. But there seems to be some screwy things going on with his energy - I've attached a Tacview track which shows it. At 9.02.51 he's at 3492m and going 524.9kmh. By 9.03.04 he's after diving from 3492m down to 2338m while actually managing to lose speed and be going 515.7kmh. I tried to replicate this in the Sabre extending out speedbrakes and cutting thrust to zero and came nowhere close. There's other little oddities that you come across when reviewing in Tacview e.g. the Mig very rarely goes over Mach 0.5 no matter what for some reason. But I guess these are to be expected with a very early release model that was probably rushed out to make the Sabre release date. I'm sure it'll improve over time. Tacview-20140821-145422.txt.rar

It's presumably set for the speeds that real Dora pilots would mostly have been cruising around in given that they wouldn't be abusing the engine where they could avoid it in order that they could make it back home. Sim pilots often don't fly within these parameters. We're never that far from a combat zone so it's max continuous (at least) all the way and then fully max once in the fight. So the historically correct settings are generally useless for us. If we were flying long distances on patrol we'd probably appreciate the current settings more.

Yes you paid your money to ultimately receive the finalised Mig-21 product which you will be getting shortly so all obligations will be fulfilled. As a backer were you entitled to receive an unfinished promotional copy? If not then I don't see you have any cause for complaint.

Well if there's one thing that 15 years work experience has taught me it's that new implementations very seldom go smooth. At this point I'd just settle for the implementation even if it is a bit rough.

I've no problem with the 262. That was around during that timeframe so it should be there. Just think that if you're going to release a late '44 / early '45 variant of both the 109 and the 190 that logically you should match these up with their historically accurate opponent i.e. a 72" Mustang. Anything else is just nuts.

Kind of hope that isn't the case. The correct historical opponent of the FW190 D-9 with MW50 giving 2100 PS is a 72" Mustang.

Well when ED made the Mustang originally I think they either weren't thinking ahead to where things would lead or hadn't decided on the future opponent models. With the late '44 Dora out now and the even later 109 K-4 coming it's unfortunate that we're stuck with an early '44 Mustang for the moment. I'd hope that ED will take the time at some point to revise the Mustang to 72" so we have the relevant historic match-up. Hopefully the fact that the USAF & RAF were both using 150 grade fuel during this time period will mean that the Spit IX and P47 will have their historical boost levels as well.

If you're looking solely from the point of view that you want the best plane then of course it's inferior to the F-15 and the Mig might not be your cup of tea. But as a simulation of a fighter plane I think it's fair to say that the Mig-21 is going to be a better and more accurate simulation than what we have currently with the F-15. The Mig looks to be a proper A-10C oh god how in the name of Jebus will I ever learn all this stuff type of simulation. So it's whatever takes your fancy really.

Just give him the key and when he installs the module he'll need to input that key.

It could use a bit of a bump but 20km is not realistic. You'll see a fighter size aircraft at about 8km. Possibly more if the sun was able to shine off something reflective. We'll just have to wait and see how it plays out in EDGE though as can't see ED working on this until after that's released.

Pretty sure it's the same in the Mustang. You want to set it to zero there too.

Ok I checked this just now and the GW at the start of the mission was 9550lbs which would make my maximum safe g = 6.7g. Looking at the flight I did a series of 5.2-5.7 maneuvers early on, then a series of 4g maneuvers followed by a 6.9g maneuver 9 mins into the flight which caused my wing to snap off. Not sure how much fuel I would have burned off in 9 mins - probably not all that much so I guess I breached the maximum safe g limit by a little. Would have expected that there'd be a bit more tolerance built in though or was I just unlucky that time maybe? I'll do some more tests this evening and check it out - thanks for the additional info on the weight and max safe g.

The turn advantage is definitely not a minor detail but personally I'd gladly trade up turning ability for an advantage in acceleration, climb, top speed, duration of max engine output & roll rate. Gives you options to control the fight and decide if you want to be offensive or defensive - even if you get bounced by more than one EA. If you're a turn fighter and get bounced by more than one EA you're in deep trouble - they'll just take it turns to bleed your energy off until you're flopping around and then you're dead. If somebody told me my life depended on the next online fight I wouldn't hesitate in selecting the Dora.

Dora has most of the significant advantages which isn't surprising as the Mustang isn't operating using the fuel that it actually used when the Dora with MW50 was operating. A lot of it comes down to the pilot of course but remove that variable and the Dora, for me, does better in the main attributes that late war fighters looked to use to fight. Haven't had a dogfight at 30k yet but with the fights online lower down and if your life really depended on the outcome you'd be mad not to select the Dora in my opinion.

It peaked at 6.9g. Each horizontal line is 1g and it's 2 lines above 5g where the final catastrophic damage results. I'll post the acmi file later so can see the exact times and G forces pulled when you play it back in Tacview.

The first screen I never hit 7g at any point during the fight. But I need to double check the GW later this evening. I'll keep tracks next time it happens too.

I'll have to check when I get home later. It's a 1v1 mission I setup and think I have the Mustang set up with 70% fuel and. 50 cal ammo only. In the first Tacview screen there were no hits on the plane. A series of just over 5g maneuvers followed by a series of 4g maneuvers and then the wing came off at 6.9g. But I'll check the approx weight I would have had later. I might have modified a Sabre vs Mig scenario and accidentally left the fuel at 100% which would go some way towards explaining things.

Sithspawn would it be possible for ED or testers to see if something has changed recently which might have lowered the Mustang's wing tolerance for g loads? At the moment following a 190 through a series of climbs and dives can be a bit of a lottery as to whether you keep your wing or not even if you make sure not to breach 8g while the 190 doesn't seem affected by this at all.

Without knowing more about how the code works it looks like there's a bug to me and I thought that the wing was more a bit more resistant to high loads in earlier builds. The first Tacview screen I posted is the weirdest. A series of just over 5g maneuvers followed by a series of just over 4g maneuvers and then the wing broke clean off at 6.9g. That really shouldn't happen.

Haven't seen this posted elsewhere but I hadn't played combat in the Mustang for a while until recently and I've noticed that the Mustang loses a wing even before the official 8g structural limit (which even itself would definitely have had some margin built into it). Has something been changed recently? I've played a few fights yesterday and today and lost a wing in nearly half of them without once hitting the 8g limit at any point during the fight. I thought it might be down to cumulative g force but in one 9 min fight I was mostly pulling just over 5g and then the wing came off right before 7g. I hadn't been hit at all during that fight either. Few screens from Tacview showing the g forces reached during each fight which ultimately ended in wing loss:

The 190 was supposed to be landed with three points. That's what I've seen in the manual and in other places. Landing on the front wheels alone was a bit more risky I believe.

What works for me is: 1. Throttle back until 400kmh 2. Lower a little flap and then some more as speed bleeds off until full flap and gear down at 300kmh. Trim up maximum. 3. Line up with the runway and come in with enough altitude and angle so that I can see the runway clearly for most of the way in. Going about a constant 250kmh at this point 5. Descend towards the runway threshold, lowering the throttle to keep speed at 250kmh 5. Lower the throttle some more as near the runway threshold - it might out of sight by this point but keep your frame of reference and it should appear in the side windows pretty quickly. Will be pulling back on the stick a bit all through this point as trim won't stop your descent enough 6. Should be going about 220kmh now as over the runway threshold and chop the throttle adjusting with rudders some more to keep straight 7. Just glide then over the runway while keeping the stick back a reasonable amount - you'll then gently flare and lose speed before touching down with all three points at 190-200kmh. This can take a short while to happen which isn't a problem - the runways are plenty long 8. Like take-off be ready to be lively on the rudders initially to keep straight and once you get back to 100kmh or so you can pull back on the stick to lock the tailwheel and then tap the brakes to slow down and lightly use differential if needs be to keep straight

It's handy to re-map the camera cockpit up, down, etc. to the arrow keys so you can get your gun sight aligned easily. They'll be mapped by default to pitch and roll but presumably you don't need them for that purpose. I don't find it necessary for landing though once you come in at the appropriate angle.

Would it be possible to clarify as well what we're seeing in the AAR and the recorded hits? Is each individual hit recorded just a single time or can a single hit result in multiple penetrations and / or fragmentations and be recorded multiple times in the AAR as a result? If the latter that would go some way towards explaining the high number of .50 cal and 20mm cannon rounds planes seem to be able to absorb. I'm just struggling to see a plane absorb 25 of these and still be hanging together: The occasional time might be possible but by and large a plane taking 25 20mm grenade hits anywhere is going to be out of the game.