[DBS]TH0R

At what speeds? Just like Echo38 pointed it out to you earlier, this quote is useless without some numbers behind it.

Same here. I'll dust off my MSFF2 just to see the difference.

Thank you! TBH I wasn't planning on doing the tests in this scale. First I put one container at 1000 ft to see if there is a connection (TEST #1), when the plane took off right on the mark I knew I had to do more of them. One of the reasons behind the "container ruler" was to prevent me from pulling back on the stick when I saw the container (mark) approaching.

One word: catapult. :) Here, I googled it for you:

^^ Seconded. Oh, thats right. I messed up my reply when removing non essential quotes. That was Otto's post. Apologies. Please define "slower speeds" for me. Also, the report says no more than 40" were used which unless I completely misunderstood the conversion means no more than 1.4 ATA. In your tests you are well above that value constantly throughout the video.

Another vote :thumbup: for the stiffening up the controls.

:thumbup:

Control stiffening was just one of the explanations offered. IMHO how much stick travel, or in other words how effective the elevator is - translating into required stick deflection is also a key to understanding what was posted in the thread you mention. Before we discuss stick stiffening, it would be interesting to know how much stick travel was required to enter an accelerated stall at speeds 380-420 km/h before this feature was implemented.

Did you give it a try with less power? Unless I am mistaken, 40" in 109 equals about 1.4 ATA? If so, this is the maximum power this plane was flown in the flight test report you linked earlier. It mentions 30" being used on several occasions and 40" for take off: And that is exactly what Echo38 is talking about. For me (Hog extended 7cm), the plane is rock solid and only "ham-fisting" the stick will cause it to stall. By all accounts, Spitfire will be even worse since DCS from what I understand is trying to model realistic stick travel distances:

Thanks for clearing this up. Yeah, I can see you pulling no more than 1/3 through out the travel distance in one direction. Would be interesting to read comments on how much stick movement was required in a real 109. Have you tried powering back a bit in your turns? I can see your throttle remains the same throughout most of the maneuvers. Based on that report linked earlier here and in DCS this plane is reluctant to lose speed. AI FM is "wishful", at best. They fly on rails and can sustain much more hits that human pilots can in MP. :)

Fixed the link for you: Unless we have been flying two different planes I see no such thing in DCS Bf-109K4?? Just to be clear I've tested all three planes again and I can ride that 109 on the verge of stall all day long. It is so easy to anticipate it and counteract it. The same can't be said for the P-51 and Fw-190. The stalls with those planes are violent and one needs to be very careful. Especially P-51. When you run out of energy in the turn the thing becomes a brick. I get both the buffeting and mild wing drop. Can you show us how you fly the thing? If I was to do that I a P-51 I'd end up in those trees below. The buffeting effect is visible just before you stall. Perhaps the effect could be increased?

Recently I've stumbled upon the F-51D manual and had a closer look at it. Amazon link: Pilot's Manual P-51D Mustang Flight Handbook 1F-51D-1 formerly AN 01-60JE-1 (Reprint of 15 July, 1952 Edition) In there you can find an interesting chart which contains data for various TO distances in relation to the plane gross weight, altitude and temperature. In addition, TO parameters are clearly defined. I was curious to find out whether there is a connection between these values and our DCS P-51D. So I built a mission and went on testing... TEST PARAMETERS (game ver.: 1.2.16.38741) On the current DCS map there are only two airfields that match rounded values of 0 and 1000 ft elevation and feature perfectly flat runways (with no difference in elevation on both ends). The first one is Batumi @ 33 ft and Mineralnye Vody @ 1050 ft. First I opted for SL tests on Batumi, and built a "ruler" out of available containers. Since lining them up accurately was a pain to say the least, I ended up only doing SL (Batumi) tests - GROUND RUN: (the skin used is Gunfighter by VH Rock) Large red containers denote every 500 ft, white containers stand for 100 and gray ones for every 50 ft in between. TESTING METHODOLOGY: Flaps UP unless otherwise noted Trim: 5-6° right rudder & 1° nose down No brakes, power up from stand still 61" Hg and 3000 RPM TO power Weight matching the chart as close as possible Temperature according to individual column QNH set to 760 for standard atmosphere Zero wind Selected tests shown here: TESTS NOTE: From the values shown below it was possible to shave off ~50 ft by pulling up too soon. That resulted with the loss of directional control and sometimes even a crash (especially on #3 where flaps were used). Only controllable take offs with full directional control were taken into consideration. Each test was performed several times until I was happy with an average value. TEST #1: 9000 lb | 1000 ft | +15° result: MATCH TEST #2: 10000 lb | 1250 ft | +15° result: MATCH TEST #3: 10000 lb (flaps 20°) | 1100 ft | +15° result: MATCH The purpose of this test was MINIMUM-RUN distance as described earlier in the manual on pages 32 and 33: TEST #4: 9486 lb | N/A | +15° result: ~1050 ft The purpose of this test was to find out the distance for almost full wing tanks, the maximum I would use when flying online. TEST #5: 9000 lb | 850 ft | -5° result: MATCH TEST #6: 10000 lb | 1050 ft | -5° result: MATCH Perhaps ~ 15 ft longer, but enough to round it up as 1050 ft. TEST #7: 10000 lb | 1450 ft | +35° result: shy ~20 ft On each test I was few feet over or under the distance, but in this one I was consistently lifting off before the 1450 ft mark. Perhaps this has something to do with my trim settings. All in all, it still is in the ball park. TEST #8: 11914 lb | 1950 ft | +15° result: MATCH The heaviest loadout possible was 11914 lb. This is the result. CONCLUSION All tests I performed almost perfectly match the values from the chart. I am not sure how well other sims fare in this regard but it seems ED & Yo-Yo did their homework. Color me impressed. Here are the tracks for anyone interested: P-51D TO TESTs (right click and save as)

Great stuff, thank you!

:doh: In short you and a couple of others are fine with it. No wonder why we haven't seen a solution to the problem from you - since you don't seem to have one. Funny how "some" equals the vast majority. It has already been established that what we have now in DCS is not realistic. So where is your point?

In the mean time, has anyone here seen the upcoming B-24D for IL21946? Norden modeling there is completely re-done. It also features for the first time a working copilot in COOP mode, together with a bombardier. There is such a sim already. And a people who actually fly bombers (online) only. :)

I didn't say I have a problem with 1100 ft convergence, just that I find lower distance more suitable for my kind of flying. With P-51 you need to keep your speed up. Because of that most of the engagements I try entering will be with my speed higher than target's one. I too have years long experience in online dogfights, be it at a lesser realism than DCS but it still is there, and I have always used 200-250m in combination with the tactic of getting in close, pulling the trigger at the last second and saving my ammo (IL21946 video from the sig). With the wing mounted guns like on P-51 if you get too close, then you can't put all guns on target rather one wing only. It is different for LW planes with mostly nose mounted guns - they need to pay attention to vertical drop or rise if too close. As such, I find pulling deflection shots with a Mustang easier with a shorter convergence. For the example, the scenario where I would be more comfortable with 1100 ft is bomber escort at high altitude. Slower closing speeds and less maneuvering targets. Absolutely. Only historical stuff. No slider to fine tune your convergence, but a separate loadout setting would be ideal.

While the convergence or harmonization, how ever you prefer it, is much more realistic than in other sims perhaps this video can explain why we would like to engage targets at optimal range less than 1100ft: Unless engaging bombers or someone who wasn't checking his six, very rarely will you get such an ideal opportunity to fire from 1100 ft. Two reasons: a) planes we currently have simulated and b) poor spotting ability in DCS which makes diving onto a target very difficult. Having a historical convergence option for a closer range (250-300 yards as stated in the DCS manual itself, page 50), would be most welcome.

I suppose for that one ought to read the thread in question. And there was a plethora of suggestions and examples how it could be done. We are all open for suggestions, especially if a better solution comes. I know several guys that use notebooks in absence of something better. But TBH for this sim you need something more powerful. And it renders things not normally visible under default FoV. Other sims feature the same thing, yet in DCS the ability to render things when fully zoomed in vs. out is by far the most drastic one. Could it have something to do with TGP modeling I wonder...?

You can ignore the poll as much as you like, the fact of the matter is people here voted in sufficient numbers to present large enough sample of voters i.e. what people would like out of their sim for which they paid money for. As for your comment about reading the whole thread, seems to me you have been reading it from the beginning and still do not understand what was suggested here or what people want. And it was done over and over. In short: a compromise for those with super high resolutions and those with less than latest hardware available. No one here asked for the ability to be able to cheat, and no one is asking for something unrealistic. We all provided some examples how it was done in other sims and how it could be done. At the end of the day we want a realistic compromise that enables us to spot targets at or near ranges as we would be able to in real life. There is no hidden agenda behind such wishes.

Any yet, one of the arguments Wolf Rider made earlier is camouflage. It is entirely possible to lose a target right in front of you if he is diving to avoid getting shot at. Clutching at straws now? You can not have a perfect solution with hardware today. As it has been said, I am happy to live with a very small possibility of certain individuals who would lower the resolution so much to help them spot you easier. Also, last I checked, lowering ground detail to a minimum coupled with disabling AA also helps greatly. :music_whistling: :thumbup:

As it has been said, the sight enabled higher precision at a greater range. Presumeably that is the reason behind the 335m harmonization / convergence. Interesting. I would like to see the document for 335m figure. Personally, harmonization between 250-300 yards as stated in the manuals I would be most comfortable with. Definitely fixed & historical. No 'gamey' slider options.

+1

I am referring to posts #20 and #59. Unless there isn't a discrepancy between said posts and yours then my question is indeed unfounded.

I am well aware of why and how leading edge slats work and what their purpose is. Besides, it has been explained how effective they are earlier in this thread. Perhaps you ought to re-read it again to better understand my question. EDIT: Thank you for the document non the less.

Any documentation to back this theory up?