Echo38

Funny, though, that this thread is special enough to get a "low rating," while dozens of other suggestion threads have similar numbers of people disagreeing with the suggestion (or disagreeing that it should be high priority), without anyone becoming emotional about it enough to smack the thread with a one-star rating. Hence my conclusion. : )

I would just like to point out that, while I think that "rating" threads is silly and I normally do not do it, I noticed that this thread has a "two star rating" and frowned. My assumption is that certain people wish the thread to be overlooked. So, of course, I rated it 5-stars, to reflect my opinion that it the O.P. brings up a perfectly reasonable and valid concern, and was surprised to note that this insignificant act of mine brought the rating from 2 stars to 3. This indicates to me that a very small number of people have rated the thread (most of the few giving 1 star). My point is that, for those of us who recognize that—for ****'s sake, people—it's 2017, and sexism in the cockpit is so 1917, it may be a good idea to give the thread a high rating, to counter the low ratings given by the "vocal minority" of those anxious that their "male space is being invaded."

That's odd—I've heard several times that female pilots are better able to withstand G-forces then male pilots, on average. No idea if that's true, but observing cockpit videos of female aerobatic pilots leads me to suspect that it is; they don't seem to look like they're dying, the way we guys look when we're pulling Gs.

BoS has no full sim mode. I would never call it an arcade game, and it has some strong sim elements (notably the general flight model), but BoS is a game first, and all simulation is subject to the primary role. It was never meant to be a training tool, unlike DCS: A-10C (and, by extension, I would say, the other high-fidelity DCS modules). Which, of course, doesn't mean that DCS is correct and BoS is incorrect, in any given area, but you definitely should not assume that DCS has it wrong merely because it was portrayed differently in BoS or other "semi-sim" games.

Just a reminder: if you can bring a wingman, then so can he. This, and also what BuzzU said: you can't count on the other guy being less experienced than you. That's really quite out of your control. Even if you're so good that there's no VFP in the world who is better than you, that's still no guarantee that the other guy isn't just as good as you. So, suggestions like "fly better than him" and "bring a wingman" aren't actually solutions to the problem of one ship being superior to another. If the other guy flies as good as you, and brings a wingman, then you're back to square one: losing because the other guy is in a better fighter. Not that I'm berating you for suggesting them, mind; sometimes, bringing a wingman and hoping the opponents are less experienced is about the best you can do. Just, bear in mind that such tactics don't actually solve the core problem, and can't even function as a workaround if the opposition matches them.

It can happen, if you look for it hard enough. Back when I was simming "full-time," I used to specifically seek out (and successfully find) duelling partners who were very similar in skill to myself. The trick is to use a "mirror" duelling protocol (e.g. fight starts co-alt, both at max level speed, equal off-boresight angle, similar fuel states, etc.), and make sure both pilots are spending equal time in each of the two aircraft, in addition to doing same-bird matchups of each type. Lemme explain with some examples. If Jack is flying Spitfire and Bill is flying FW 190, and the Spitfire always wins, one might be temped to make an assumption about either the relative pilot skill or the relative aircraft performance. But if they trade ships and the Spit still always wins, now we know that it's at least partly the airplane. At this point, the two pilots should have a few duels Spit vs. Spit and 190 vs. 190. If these duels tend to end in draws, or take a long time and have a roughly one-to-one win/loss ratio, then you have effectively equal pilots. Now that we've established that Jack & Bill are equals, then the fact that the Spit always wins their duels could tempt one to assume that the Spitfire is the better fighter (at least in a dogfight). However, it could be that the Spitfire is simply easier to push to its max, and/or that both pilots are more comfortable flying Spit than Focke-Wulf. The best way to find out is for each pilot to then spend large amounts of time in the losing fighter, against many different fighter types, with various pilots of high skill levels. Eventually, when both Jack & Bill have effectively mastered the FW 190, they should once again perform their Spit vs. 190 duels. If they still can't beat the Spitfire with a Focke-Wulf in a "fair fight," then they can draw an accurate conclusion that the Spitfire is the superior dogfighter. Additional note: a mirror duel doesn't necessarily have to be a traditional dogfight with various close-range maneuvers (e.g. combat turns, scissors, Immelmanns). The fighter which is less capable at dogfighting can decline the initial merge, extend & gain altitude over the course of several minutes, and then attempt to re-enter gun range with a sufficient altitude advantage that the pursuing fighter cannot achieve gun solution without stalling. Thus, a fighter with superior speed & climb can (very slowly) gain an advantage and win a duel over a fighter which has superior turn & roll, even when the fight originally started with the two on equal terms and they never left visual range of each other. However, with some matchups, the faster fighter is only slightly faster, while the more maneuverable fighter is much more maneuverable (including superior acceleration and perhaps even climb). In this case, I don't think there's really anything the faster fighter can do. An example of that last problem, which I've seen in various sim-games, would be P-38 versus Spitfire; the former is generally faster, but only by a small margin, while the latter has vastly superior acceleration (as well as general maneuverability). I've had many such a fight where I, in the faster fighter, had no option but to climb all the way to ceiling, and even then the Spit kept roughly co-alt. I could simply leave the fight for good, but I couldn't ever gain an altitude advantage or otherwise enter gun range without giving the Spit a shot opportunity. And if I entered gun range ... The P-38 can stay out of gun range, if the pilot sees the Spitfire from a sufficient distance, but once the P-38 enters effective gun range, he isn't going to be able to get away before the Spit gets a shot opportunity. This is mostly because of the acceleration (combined with the Spit's ability to turn on a wing, so to speak). If the Spit holds fire, the '38 will eventually exit gun range, but it takes forever and there is often (e.g. if the P-38 had reduced its speed below the Spitfire's corner turn speed, before choosing to extend) a long period of time where the Spitfire is actually getting closer during the chase, due to its superior acceleration, and only once the P-38 has slowly accelerated past the Spitfire's max speed does it finally start to creep away.

No, I don't. That isn't what I said, and I don't know how you got this out of that. At this point, I really can't tell whether or not you're deliberately twisting my words. And I'm too old to be stressing out over something ridiculous like this argument, so: have fun, people!

It's okay for you to cry about how you have a hard time finding players for historical-style missions, but then you mock me when I complain about having no way to have a balanced close-airfields mission? Double-standard, much? And it's okay for Coopes to insult me, baselessly accusing me of being an inexperienced VFP, but it's not okay for me to tell him he's wrong about that? What the heck, dude?

I suppose it is your right, technically speaking, to make this foolish, false assumption about me. It does not concern me unduly. When I said, "Do a search," I didn't mean through this thread. I meant a forum-wide search, which would turn up many similar conversations about the P-51 and, within them, answers to the questions you asked. I certainly am not going to waste any more of my time doing that search for you, or restating once again, because you've demonstrated that you've made up your mind prematurely and are not the kind of person who is willing to listen to reason. Good day.

Was that the one that EagDyn specifically fixed after the interview, because of his input? Somewhere, they mentioned that they fixed a problem that he talked about. Don't remember where or which. It does look to me as though something's wrong, if the the sim pilot is unable to obtain full rudder deflection at greater than 160 KPH.

Do a search. It's been discussed to death, undeath, etc.

Excuse me? That's three incorrect & baseless assumptions/accusations you've just made about/against me. Please refrain from this poor behavior in the future.

If it is wrong, it should be corrected, whether or not it is noticeable by the average pilot. How noticeable an error is should not be a factor in considering whether or not to fix it. However, is there actual evidence that the behavior is incorrect? From this thread alone, I'm not seeing it. 160 KPH does seem rather low to me, but there may be factors that you & I are overlooking.

An exceptional pilot can make an inferior fighter do well, when faced with less proficient pilots. That doesn't make the aircraft an equal to its opponent fighter. You who are making that fallacy should know this.

If you recall, my initial point concerned a problem with the choice of matchup, which is preventing my preferences from being a viable possibility. I'm having even more difficulties simming my way than you are simming your way. You could, hypothetically, host a historical style mission, and play it with like-minded players who likewise enjoy incredibly long transit times. I, on the other hand, cannot host a mission with P-51s equipped with their (historical) late-war WEP ratings, to be better able to fight 109s at low and medium altitudes. So, no, I can't fly what I like online. I pointed out a problem preventing simmers like myself from doing our type of hardcore simming, at which point you (pl) start throwing disrespect my way with the whole "gamer not simmer" thing, suggesting that my problem isn't a problem because my hardcore simming supposedly isn't hardcore simming. Hence the complaining.

I never said I was; in fact, I specifically stated that I'm not. I'm simulating something very specific: dogfights between WWII fighters. No more, no less. I have no interest in war; I'm interested in dogfighting. If I am a "gamer" because of this, then so are the real pilots who enjoy similar mock dogfights in real life, but who (like me) have no desire to re-enact historical missions. Hey, guess what? If you're simulating historical battles for entertainment purposes, you're gaming. A war game is still a game, no matter how accurate the simulation. If you're going to throw the term "gamer" at those who prefer accurately simulated dogfights in a non-historical context, then you're going to need to put that term on yourself, as well. I myself prefer to call us both "simmers," because while both terms (simmer and gamer) are technically accurate to describe both groups, "simmer" implies a desire for maximum fidelity, while "gamer" implies a desire to reduce the fidelity because of a lack of genuine interest in the subject. And while I do not like war, my interest in real WWII fighters, and in mock-dogfighting in them (in the real sky), is absolute. Says who? Who are you to tell me that I should be simulating missions in an actual war, rather than simulating dogfights for the sake of dogfighting? What makes you think that simulating a real war makes you more a simmer than the guy who prefers to simulate just dogfights between real fighters? There's some real egotistical thinking going on here, and it isn't from me this time. I recognize your preference as legitimate; it is you (pl) who refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of mine. Imagine, for a moment, that the problems of health and finance were removed from the picture. At this point, now, I would own a real P-38 and a real Me 109 (exquisitely accurate replicas), and a friend and I would (in real life) fly them in mock dogfights with each other at 10,000 or 15,000 feet, every day, for as long as we could tolerate the G-forces. At this point, would you still think me a "mere gamer," who somehow isn't serious about flying real WWII fighters? Do you see my point yet?

Here we go again. Tom, you've been throwing that line at me, whenever the two of us discuss this subject, since 2013 (or was it earlier?), and each time you've totally ignored my counterpoint. Some real pilots (yes, the kind that fly real airplanes, in real life) do practice dogfighting in real aircraft, in a manner similar to the one which I favor in high-fidelity simulators. North American Top Gun was one company which did so, and there's still Air Combat USA (which, regrettably, uses a less sophisticated ballistics simulation* than NATG did). In these mock dogfights, real pilots take up students in real airplanes, and they engage in pre-arranged one-on-one dogfights at low/medium altitude, just like I do in flight sim-games like DCS. Are these pilots (real pilots, remember) "mere gamers," who aren't interested in the reality of flight? By your logic, they are. And if you would open your eyes for one damned minute, you'd see why that's ridiculous. I am no less a simmer than you are. I aim to simulate my scenario with the maximum amount of realism possible; the only reason that I'm not doing it in real airplanes is that I cannot, due to medical and financial reasons. When you (again, and again) imply with snark that I am a "gamer and not a simmer" because I'm not interested in recreating historical wartime missions, you fail to make the distinction between a realistic simulation of a fictional scenario, and a realistic simulation of a historical scenario. Both are high-fidelity simulations. Neither one is any less of a simulation than the other is, and neither one falls into the realm of a "mere gamer." Give it a rest. We've been over this too many times since our time in Rise of Flight. It's getting old watching you make that jab and then ignore my counter, every damned time. It's almost as if you were trolling. Look, it isn't that I think you're a complete jerkbag. I don't. You have a good head on your shoulders and I've seen you use it plenty. I just don't get why you consistently refuse to use it whenever the issue of non-historical max-fidelity flight simming comes up. * NATG used T-6 Texans with on-board radars hooked up to computers. The radar would feed information to the computer, which would calculate (but not show to the pilot!) the lead necessary to hit the other aircraft. If the pilot's aim matched the correct firing solution when he pulled the trigger, the computer would register a "hit," at which point it would transmit this to the other aircraft, the computer of which would then turn on the black smoke generator. It was really quite brilliant. Unfortunately, ACUSA uses a much more simplistic solution which does not account for lead, bullet drop, or dispersion. With ACUSA, the pilot only needs to put the opponent aircraft in the center of the gunsight, regardless of speed or deflection angle.

Unfortunately, this is really the only thing that can work for P-51 pilots in DCS, given that we've got the lowest of the historical WEP ratings. I say "unfortunately" because the nature of multiplayer flight sim-games is such that it is neither reasonable nor practical to expect users to fly up to 30,000 feet every time they want a fight. You're going to very seldom find a fight up there, and even when you do, your combat-to-travel ratio is going to be appalling (which means that your ratio of learning to not-learning will be just as low; in effect, one cannot ever become truly proficient at dogfighting when burdened by such a poor rate of learning). Real fighter pilots, by the way, became (and become) proficient at dogfighting by regularly practicing it under artificial conditions (i.e. extensive pre-arranged mock-dogfights with allies), not by wandering around the skies for hours, waiting for a rare fight to try to learn from. This is why I object to the method of "just fly up to high altitude for every fight" being suggested as a viable solution to the problem, even though it's currently the only way the P-51 can be on anything approaching even terms with the 109 in DCS. (It also doesn't account for the common situation of the enemy having already been in the air for a while before you took off, and intercepting you with his E advantage while you're still at low altitude; the 109 can turn the tables if it's in this position, while the P-51 cannot.) I don't think that's accurate. As a low and medium altitude dogfighter, the 109 was generally superior to American fighters, it's true. But wars aren't won exclusively in the dogfight. The 109 had a couple of fatal flaws, from a strategic standpoint: short range and difficulty of landing. Germany lost the war on a strategic level, not a tactical level, and both the 109's short range and the difficulty of learning to fly the 109 (e.g. the extremely high rate of landing accidents) were problems that contributed to the overall loss. It was strategy and logistics that lost Germany the war (things like Hitler's downplaying of the Me 262, and Germany's inability to keep up with attrition), not fighter quality or pilot skill. Still, those two of the 109s flaws were serious in the big picture, even while they didn't matter during the dogfight itself.

[silent glare]

As the one of the "Big Three," it's definitely called for.

Our current post-war P-51D was released years ago, but the DCS: WWII wartime P-51D has not yet been released. Evidently, our current version is a post-war combination of blocks which isn't appropriate to Normandy. As the ED rep mentioned in the other threads linked a few posts back, they have plans to amend this problem.

Huzzah! This is the best news since the announcement of DCS: WWII.

I'm afraid I don't understand half of that. What's CD?

Yeah, I was afraid of that. So I guess we all agree that this craft would be unable to skip and would inevitably enter a nosedive (or at least be uncontrollable) as-is. I wonder if this part of the problem could be solved with an RCS and perhaps an unusual CoG, well aft of normal. Yeah, this sort of thing would be the most helpful in answering my main question. Does anyone know how to do this (assuming it's interesting enough to do for a lark)?