DD_Fenrir

Right, well, you guys enjoy your little "K-4 elevators were l33tz!!!" circle jerk Cosmic facepalm. Go find it yourself. Hint: IT'S LIERTALLY IN THESE FORUMS. Christ I understand that pigeon chess analogy all too well now.

Tell me, since you're so sure, what is the difference in area, and horn balance area/mass of the the K-4 vs the G series? And here is where we get to the crux. Spitfire and P-51 elevators having different profile, area, different positioning in airflow relative to wing, differing moment arms on the CoG, differing horn balance sizes etc, etc, etc. Jesus. BECAUSE HISTORICAL DOCUMENTATION - I.E. E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E - TELLS US SO. IT'S THAT SIMPLE. You want the DCS K-4 to not have the stick forces of a G-2? Then find a stick force chart for a K-4. GET DATA. Your uneducated suppositions are useless.

Ok... So the A6M was used exclusively by the Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN) and as far as I am aware never by the Imperial Japanese Army (IJA). "Zeke" was the Allies official reporting name for the A6M; "Zero" was the Japanese nickname (Reisen) but this also became a common colloquialism among allied flyers. There were land based variants of the A6M produced without a tail-hook, because despite being Navy owned and operated, the IJN found itself with less and less carriers as the war progressed but still had island airfields to defend. The Ki-43 Hayabusa (Peregrine Falcon) was given the reporting name "Oscar" was used exclusively by the Imperial Japanese Army (IJA); however, given the similarity of layout (close cowled radial, low wing, bubble canopy) both types were frequently confused for each other.

Which only proves you failed to grasp my point. At higher air speeds the movement of the elevator is airload limited- whether it moves further or not is irrelevant; whether you ask the elevator to move 1 degree or 15 degrees the same stick force is required. It also shows you fail to understand the function of the mass balance.

Tell me again how difference in elevator travel changes results in a change in stick forces - really, I'm intrigued as to the physics you use to reach that conclusion.

What also needs to be borne in mind is that the A-4s used for Aggressor training are very different beasts to the A-4E we have in DCS; they were often stripped of their avionics and their pylons, reducing the aircrafts weight significantly and thus increasing their Thrust:Weight and reducing their wing loading. Some also had uprated engines, increasing the T:W even further. That said, bleeding your E in an A-4 dogfight is going to be an inevitability; with no afterburner you can't brute force your way through manoeuvres like the dedicated air superiority machines can. As Hiob says, you'll tend to nose low during sustained turns to try and mortgage some altitude for E but you'll have to fly smart and aggressive - and hope your opponent flies dumb - to be victorious. If your opponent hits the vertical anytime you try to force an overshoot or look like you're gaining angles, it's going to be a tough fight for even a hotrod A-4, let alone for you in a fleet standard jet carrying a lot of black boxes.

These, though made for the B will fit the A: Here: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3304485/ Here: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3304408/ Here: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3307715/

Maybe, if the elevator wasn't airspeed limited as seems to be the case.

These values are dynamic and hugely dependant on (a) the speed and altitude of the launch aircraft and (b) the aspect and closure rate of the target. There are no fixed values for these.

Gunpods ys MW50 tank is a weight and stability issue. If the profile and area of the elevator is unchanged, it will still generate the same amount of down force for a given stick deflection at a given speed, and there will be no change to stick forces. True, a rearward shift in CoG will reduce the moment arm of the elevator, reducing effectiveness, but will in no way effect the actual stick forces required to deflect the stick.

For those new to the discussion/issue of 109 elevator stick forces and control: 1. At this time there is no diagrammed stick force against airspeed chart currently known for the Bf 109K-4. 2. Data pertaining to the Bf 109G was used, from both German and Soviet period tests.* 3. There have been arguments that the elevator control system changed in the 'K', the claims were that this allows the pilot greater mechanical advantage but so far what few docs have surfaced have been reviewed by the lead FM programmer and after review he has stated that what changes there are cannot have the claimed effect. 4. ED have allowed for the virtual pilot to apply two-hands when displacing the virtual stick at these higher stick force regions. There is debate as to whether this is effective enough. Ultimately it's down to EDs lead FM programmer, Yo-Yo, with his wealth of experience, aerodynamic expertise and understanding of the DCS physics engine to decide what data to use/or extrapolate from; assume that he knows more than you. If in doubt search the DCS: Bf 109K-4 sub-forum for the evidence thus far presented. You will not have far to look. Unless you are able to provide unequivocal, substantive evidence that something is amiss, no amount of 'feelings', out of context anecdotes or suppositions will get you particularly far in getting anything changed. *the G-6 and 'K-4' are so close in tailplane-wing coupling, wing shape and elevator profile that it is not only logical but necessary at this tage to use some B 109G-6 data in the calculation of the FM.

Er....

More misdirection, no attempt to address the points actually raised. Amazingme modus operandi.

Bullshit - you called anyone who adjusts their curves in the DCS Spitfire a cheat. YOU LITERALLY SPELT THAT OUT ABOVE. HOW IS THAT NOT AN ATTACK? If you had even the faintest idea of what you were going on about you might have a leg to stand on, but time and again, and as so recently displayed by previous outburst you prove nothing but your biblical ignorance. I end up insulting you because time and again reasoned rational discussion fails to get through and I'm sick and tired of dealing with your stubborn ignorant ass. More inflammatory Bullshit. He's here and been posting regularly. A pretty feeble attempt at at pot stirring, I must say, given the ease at which the veracity of your claim is dispelled. WoW! Trying to adopt a veneer of respectability by calling for On Topic after taking your own toxic little tangent to go after the DCS Spitfire community? That's a level of hypocrisy that is just astounding! What a performance! You are a poisonous, deceitful little weasel. It's enough to make me hope the Bf 109 never gets fixed just to provide you an endless source of frustration to the end of your days.

Turning a discussuion on stick forces of the DCS Bf 109K into a attack on the Spitfire community. You really are an insufferable pillock.

A known bug Phil, the visual effect 'sprite' (for want of a better word) for the 88mm flak explosion at some point in the recent updates got changed to that of the 37/40mm effect. It used to look like this: I asked about this on the ED WW2 Discord server and Bignewy said the bug was reported.

The usual suspects are the Electric Fuel Pump and the Fuel Tank Pressure switch, but I see you have those covered. The next thing to ask is what RPM are you using trying to get that high? Because at some point to maintain enough Manifold Pressure (AKA Boost in RAF parlance) to generate the necessary climb rate you will have to have higher RPM settings...

You may have some fair points, but all of these have been answered elsewhere time and time and time again; As for F/A-18 radar features/functionality the Hornet is still in EA right? Until they declare the module as complete and state definitively they have the radar finished, it is reasonable to assume that some of this requires polishing. You also claim a lot of things about the real radars capabilities or lack thereof but present no data to prove you're correct. Time and again it comes down to supposition on your part. As for EW, I think everyone round here understands that EW in DCS is a problem child and that, yes, that puts FC3 aircraft at a disadvantage currently. But jamming effects are on the roadmap for inclusion in the FF aircraft. Having siad that, I've never used it as it seemed to have such a negligible effect on the outcome of a fight (burn through was always achieved well before RMax giving plenty of time to make tactical decisions based on the emerging picture).

The MiG-29A data could have come from any number of non-Russian sources; they were widely exported. The MiG-29S could simply be an estimate based on the numbers generated for the -A; weight of fuel and avionics + publicly available figures on the uprated engines applied to what is essentially the same airframe. As for avioinics, I don't think you get just how simplified the FC3 radars are... compare the FC3 F-15 to the DCS Hornet or F-16 radars, the latter are light years more complicated in both modelling, functionality and complexity, despite the F-15s being on a paper a more powerful and capable radar. Yes they obey certain specific -but generic - principles (PD notches etc) but these radar characteristics are widely and publicly known. Pigeon-chess analogy. And you ain't the pigeon...

Oh my gosh, you guys are right!!! All this time! ED must be a part of the western global-nexus that drip feed capitalist propaganda to the masses! How did I not see that before?!?!?

But Nealius, that's not useful data. How many other German aircraft engaging the bombers suffered damage but landed, or crew injury that didn't render the aircraft a loss? Those would still count as percentile hits, no? At some point, you want to calculate the probability of whether the gunner will hit the target; whether that target is brought down or not depends on (a) the number of rounds landed and (b) the Damage Models calculations on the damage those rounds have done. Ergo whether the target is downed or not is kind of irrelevant when discussing calculations for gunner accuracy. You want to do it right you need a controlled test.

I see your Chicken -Egg point ref: night ops, and it is valid. I'd love to see a Mosquito NF.XII/XIII, a Lancaster B Mk.I and a Ju-88C-6/G-1/G-6 as an introduction to night ops, but you really need all three concurrently to make it worthwhile. And would it be worthwhile? Would the investment on EDs part generate enough sales to cover the costs? As pointed out before the WW2 night fighting idiom is a niche calling within our already niche community - no previous sim managed to garner the community hype to see development through, despite some passing interest. And all the development time on these takes away from making the daytime operations more cohesive and reflective of the prototypical experience; I mean, the Hawker Typhoon was the RAFs default Ground Attack aircraft of the period, used in hundreds over France & Belgium - yet no sign of one in DCS, not even a WiP 3D model. Too often we've seen a promising doorway crack open in DCS then ED run off on a tangent to something else shiny and new and leave us with the embryo of a simulated theatre but never flesh it out; the Korean Era aircraft are a case in point; for 6 years we've had the F-86 and MiG-15 but there's been no prototypical map, and certainly no '50s era assets to flash out scenarios with, and there are many of us clamouring for these. But it doesn't have to be that way, and with the WW2 asset pack roadmap and maps, we are starting to see some cohesive cogent vision in providing a fleshed out historical theatre (if with some bumps) to fit(ish) with the flyable planes we have. So, I personally think ED would be much better served spending their development time cementing the WW2 daylight operations environment first. Get that complete (or as complete as possible), then look at the possibilities that the WW2 night-fighting domain could bring.

Whether you like it or not, DCS WW2 is simulation of daytime aerial combat from that era; there is little to no infrastructure to support the simulation of night bomber/interception operations. That's strike one against the Lancaster. Whilst the Lancaster did see limited daytime use there are many, many more aircraft that use in daytime operations in the ~1944 period in the ETO that would be infinitely more useful if added to the DCS assets: Hawker Typhoon Douglas C-47 Focke-Wulf Fw 190F Messerschmitt Bf 109G6/14 North American P-51B Mustang Republic P-47D-22/23 Thunderbolt Lockheed P-38J North American B-25C/J Mitchell Martin B-26B/C Marauder Consolidated B-24J Liberator Bristol Beaufighter TF Mk.X All of these were used almost exclusively in daylight operations in large or significant numbers, much more so than the Lancaster. There's Strike 2. Would a Lancaster be nice? Sure. But if some sense of historical relevance in regard to the almost exclusive daytime operations focus of DCS WW2 is used in the development roadmap of WW2 Assets to be added, then rationally all of these aircraft take priority.

This is a tricky subject as there seems to be very very little data to actual model from; I have not seen one single document from any air force that specifically analyzes the effectiveness of the air-to-air gunner in WW2. The truth I feel is that they could more effective than sometimes given credit; many a Hurricane or Spitfire pilot rolling in behind a German bomber confidently thinking "you've got one gun, but I have eight!" had their balloon of assuredness well and truly popped by a well trained gunner with armed with only a single 7.92mm. Bob Tuck had his aircraft hit by a Bf110 rear gunner; Peter Townsend's Hurricane was shot down attacking a Do-17 from the rear. Ginger Lacey was obliged to bailed out after being hit by return fire from a Heinkel He 111. So too Paul Richey during the Battle of France. Needless to say, the Luftwaffe during the Defence of the Reich Campaign didn't refine the Head-on attack technique or develop Sturmböcke for no reason; the firepower of the B-17s was at the very least respected and apparently enough to drive the Jadgwaffe to some fairly serious thinking. That being said, I believe the OP is correct. I suspect at longer ranges, high angle off and high speeds the gunners are too accurate, particularly at the "average" skill level. The trouble is proving it. It might be interesting to run an analysis of the aerial gunnery hit rates in sims for human controlled gunners against aerial targets to provide some kind of benchmark; admittedly they do not suffer some of the vestibular and 'G' effects that would a real gunner, but for level bombers these are minimised. Also the sim gunner, unless in VR, has little/no depth perception, though out to 2-300 yards this would probably be of little value in real life. Have them work through several scenarios of aerial targets attacking from various aspects and various speeds and see what their hit percentages are; then see whose are best and use any apparent stratification to begin to work out a model, based on target parameters and gunner skill level. This, I feel, is the only way that this problem could be adequately addressed.

You mean "violate". The fact you spout this nonsense shows you aren't interested in truth, discourse or any form of cogent, logical or reasoned application of intelligence to solving an issue. You're here to simply elicit a reaction. Trolling of this nature indicates you've run out of any data to support your argument. So, ultimately, all this posturing, mud-slinging and acerbic jibe making ends up being little more than a considerably undignified effort on your part to win an argument whose aim is based solely on assuaging your over-sensitive ego; "I get shot down a lot and I don't like it." Awww. Poor little Teknetium. We'll make all the other kids play nice with you, we promise. Furthermore it also excellently highlights the fact that you haven't been trying to operate with AMRAAMS in the recent patches - which in and of itself, is not that relevant, except surely if you're going to attempt to resolve an issue of this nature, the scientific method would be to experience the issue from both sides to truly understand the limitations or advantages each has before making an analysis and coming to a considered, rational opinion. So all told, welcome to my ignore list. Your brand of peurile worthless input is no longer a factor in my life.