

Echo38
Members-
Posts
2063 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
2
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Everything posted by Echo38
-
Not all dogfights had more than two combatants. Most did, yes, but not all. Furthermore, mock combats regularly occurred which closely resembled the type of duelling I engage in. You can't pretend that this never happened, in order to sneer at my simulated dogfights.
-
In real life, one does what one has to do to stay alive, to win a war. This isn't real life. You don't have to be a complete dick to your opponent in a multiplayer simulator/game. Indeed, you shouldn't be. So, "anything goes" may be a great idea in a war, but it isn't good for multiplayer.
-
Aircraft quality variation is not portrayed in DCS. We all spawn every time with fresh, identically-replicated examples. Yes, I (and Eagle Dynamics) are aware that real examples could vary dramatically in performance, even when factory-fresh (and especially after seeing extensive use). DCS, however, models an ideal situation, not actual wartime conditions (in which e.g. the late-war Me 109s tended to have shoddy construction due to factors such as material shortages and use of slave labor). I think you'd find that any flier capable of holding his own in duels with the best duellists in the world is already quite capable of dealing with varying conditions. The only area in which a dedicated duellist (such as myself) struggles compared to the average pilot is in teamwork. I don't work very well with allies, due to lack of experience flying in groups. But I was quite comfortable with the full range of starting positions. Indeed, on normal missions, I tended to fly NoE, for visibility reasons, meaning I was quite accustomed to beginning the fight at an E disadvantage. But I also was comfortable with high-altitude (e.g. 25,000+ ft.) dogfighting. You must remember that even dedicated duellists, in flight sim-games, spend a lot of time in normal missions. Even if we wanted to exclusively duel, the fact is that, in any sim-game, at any given time, the option to duel a pilot of equal or greater skill usually isn't available. So we duellists aren't some sort of rare and elusive breed only seen in its natural habitat of the duelling server. : ) As a result, skilled duellists are quite proficient in other mission types, as well. For example, I managed to indefinitely keep a 21 to 0 kill ratio on a full-scale historical-style mission (17 of them while flying "underdog planes"), on the most popular public server in Rise of Flight at the time. Yet I'm more far more happy in the duel servers—even though I had little more than a 1-to-1 K/D there—because that's the single best way to maximize rate of learning about the art of dogfighting. And, to me, that's what it's all about. In a simulator, there's more to be proud of in losing well to a great pilot in a fair fight, than in shooting down all of the poor blighters in the world in battles stacked in your favor.
-
Possibility of other 109 Models as an addon?
Echo38 replied to IronJockel's topic in DCS Core Wish List
Whether an "upper-end" or "lower-end" G-6 would be the best fit, in multiplayer, is the big question. Our resident 109 expert consistently refuses to answer my query on this point; I don't know if it's because he doesn't have any idea which would be a better competitive match, or if it's because he doesn't like the idea of improving competitive balance without reducing historical accuracy. The complete silence each time would normally incline me to suspect the latter, but I'd like to be charitable. Although the 109 does have the upper hand in multiplayer, I'm sure it's a complete coincidence that most of the people who resist the idea fly primarily or exclusively 109. But I digress. The solution to the hypothetical question, "If another 109 were to be added to the sim, which would be the best match for a 67" WEP P-51D," is rather simple. If I were developing the sim, what I'd do is make (in a test environment) a quick, crude adjustment to the K-4, an extrapolated estimate of how the lower-end G-6 should perform, and then a second one for the higher-end G-6. Have the best pilots in the community have at it in standard-protocol duels, switching aircraft back and forth (X vs. X, Y vs. Y, Z vs. Z, X vs. Y, Y vs. X, X vs. Z, Z vs. X) until it becomes clear which of the two extrapolated G-6 variants is the best match for the 67" P-51 in multiplayer. This is how I used to balance my planesets in sim-games which had many variants to choose from. The method works well. The only flaw in that test method is that it can't account for the scenario in which both are true: A) one of the fighters is easy to push to its max, while the other fighter is difficult to push to its max, and B) the pilots are more familiar with the easier-to-fly fighter than with the harder-to-fly fighter. In this situation, the results can be misleading, as one of the fighters wasn't pushed to its max (and thus is potentially better than it appeared to be in the test). In other words, you can have two fighters appear equal, but one of them is actually better, because neither pilot was accustomed to it sufficiently to push it to its max when it was his turn to fly that one. However, a sufficiently broad pool of highly-skilled pilots can solve even this problem. You just got to make sure you have enough pilots who are experienced with both aircraft. -
Very little is random in DCS. Accumulated stress damage seems more plausible.
-
Not ~1800 hp. ones renowned for being tricky to take off & land! Militaries still use prop aircraft during fighter pilot training, but these modern prop trainers are much easier to fly than the high-powered WWII fighters were (and are).
-
Possibility of other 109 Models as an addon?
Echo38 replied to IronJockel's topic in DCS Core Wish List
For the record, I never said that. Now, to get closer to the actual thread topic: I'd like to conclude by reiterating that I don't think that adding additional models of 109 would be the best use of development resources at this point in time. However, if another 109 were to be added, I believe that a G-6 would be the best match for a 67" P-51D. This would allow standard multiplayer missions to be made which could contain all three fighters (Me 109G, FW 190D, and 67" P-51D), without any of them being at a serious disadvantage. Not sure how the G-6 would fare against the Spitfire, though. Based on portrayals in older sim-games, I would assume that the G-6 would be at a general disadvantage, but you know how accurate the older sim-games were. Maybe it wouldn't be. -
Possibility of other 109 Models as an addon?
Echo38 replied to IronJockel's topic in DCS Core Wish List
Is there a language barrier thing going on here, or what? It's as though aren't even reading my posts—just skimming them over and then making bizarre assumptions about what I meant. If English isn't your first language, I understand the difficulty. If it is, however, then I don't know what to say, other than that it's looking more and more like you're trolling me, instead of honestly trying to engage in a discussion. Prime example: you quoted me as saying "Even a weak example of a 109K is stronger than a 67" P-51," and suggested that this contradicts something else I said. However, what I originally wrote was, "If even a weak example of a 109K is stronger than a 67" P-51 ..." You even quoted the "if" in your previous post, here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3117356&postcount=141 In the middle of yet another inaccurate accusation of self-contradiction, no less! "If X is true" is not the same thing as "X is true." Just so you're aware. : / -
Right—if nothing else, flaps = more lift = more G-forces, at a given speed.
-
Were you rolling while pulling? Rolling increases the G-load of the rising wing, which can make that wing go from "almost at G-limit" to "over G-limit."
-
Err ... those don't seem like they mimic the A-10's characteristics very well. : )
-
Looks like it's story time? Oh, joy. So there was a guy named Peter, in Rise of Flight. I trained him—kinda. It feels more like he trained himself, really. Anyway, I walked him through his first takeoff ... later practiced dogfighting with him all the time. I had more flight experience (several times as much, even today), but he had more natural talent. By the time we stopped duelling regularly, maybe a year later, he was a slightly better duellist than me. Peter & I duelled each other so often, so many dozens (hundreds?) of hours, that when we picked two similar fighters (our primary matchup was Sopwith Camel versus Fokker Dr. I), for the majority of our duels, the outcome was roughly fifty-fifty. That is, most of the time, on any given day, we'd win and lose approximately equal numbers of times, regardless of which of us was flying which of those two fighters. Since we almost always flew at the same fuel loads as each other, the most common factor determining who would win more on a given day was who was more tired (or who had a headache, or who hadn't warmed up yet, etc.). That's what I mean by "highly-skilled pilots duelling in sufficiently similar fighters." Anyway, the major plot point: one time, we did our usual duelling practice session, with Peter in the Camel and me in the Dr. I. In that matchup, usually Peter would win in the sustained turn, forcing me to utilize scissors & stall climbs to try to gain the upper hand. However, that day, I found that I was slowly but steadily out-turning him. I said to him (on voice chat), "Peter, are you sure you took 20%?" He replied, "Yes, as we agreed." But I kept out-turning him, and eventually forced him to attempt scissors, instead. As the Camel was inferior in scissors, I shot him down. I said, "Peter, you felt heavy. Check your fuel." So he did, and guess what? He had accidentally taken 25% instead of 20%. I felt it, from how my fighter was beating his in a sustained turn, in a matchup where the inverse was usually true (but by a narrow margin). I don't know exactly what that was in terms of total aircraft mass, but of course it was much less than 5% (because, obviously, the fuel mass isn't 100% of the total aircraft mass). For comparison, a P-38 taking 25% instead of 20% fuel would have a (very roughly) 1% increase in total aircraft mass—although I doubt that's the best comparison, because I think the P-38 had a higher ratio of fuel mass to total mass than the Sopwith Camel. But, you see the point: Peter's fighter was less than 5% (and probably less than 1%) heavier than usual, and I was able to notice this in a blind test. When two pilots are experienced enough (Peter and I were both statistically in the top 1% of the community, at the time), and using a familiar fighter matchup which is also a close match (which Camel versus Dr. I was, in Rise of Flight at the time), a <5% difference in aircraft performance can be a larger factor than any other in the duel. Granted, this is an unusual example (most pilots don't practice competitive duelling, and even most competitive duellists aren't so close in skill & familiarity), but you see my point, I hope. I'm speaking from solid experience, not simply "theorycrafting."
-
I don't know what you mean. The only area in which I am aware of having erred in that discussion was my oversimplification of the relationship between thrust and drag, and even that was more like a bit of an overstatement. The basic point I was trying to make was valid, despite my shoddy phrasing of it. I'm afraid this is simply incorrect. When two highly-skilled pilots duel in sufficiently similar fighters, <5% differences in fighter performances do make or break the fight. Which is why we agree on fuel loads when duelling. I am not "theory crafting;" this is backed up by my thousands of hours of virtual dogfighting experience. It takes a very long time to become sufficiently adept at virtual dogfighting to be able to recognize the importance of such "small" differences in fighter ability, and—unfortunately—this means that those without that experience generally can't see it. That you can't see it does not mean that it is not true, however.
-
Too many levers! If I had to choose one of the DCS fighters to fly in real combat, with my life dependent on it, the choice would almost be a toss-up between the P-47D and the FW 190D. But the sheer complexity of the P-47's engine management (compared to that of the FW 190) causes me to suspect that the FW 190 was, overall, the superior fighter (if range isn't a consideration, anyway).
-
Possibility of other 109 Models as an addon?
Echo38 replied to IronJockel's topic in DCS Core Wish List
I almost never do this, but I stopped reading your post at this point. Please, think about what you're saying (and what I'm saying!) more carefully, before you post such a reply. There's simply no logic to this accusation of yours. I'll address this one point of yours, about contradictions, but not the rest in that post. If you don't get the logic of this point, you won't for the rest of any responses I give to them. "A weak example of a 109K is stronger than a 67" P-51" and "Superior pilot skill can allow an inferior airplane to emerge victorious over a superior airplane" are not contradictory statements. Can you not see this? Do I really need to explain why? -
3% more speed is nothing to sneeze at, and that's only part of it. 72" will also mean a significant reduction of the disadvantages in climb, sustained turn, & low-speed acceleration versus the 109. Because there's less drag at those speeds, the actual gain % there will be closer to the power increase % than it is in the high-speed regime. Taken together, I would expect the improvements to make somewhere around a 10% increase in the average success rate of a good pilot. So, if he gets 5 kills per loss, maybe 5.5 kills per loss instead. (This estimate is based on my extensive experience with similar increases in fighter performance in other sim/games.) That'd be an extra kill every ten kills, due exclusively to the power increase. ... in speed, perhaps. Not so much in climb etc.
-
Uh1h Weapon Systems and Autopilot Status
Echo38 replied to tlcwodsembarqmail.com's topic in Bugs and Problems
I—ahem—I'm pretty sure they didn't have Hueys in the Second World War. ; ) -
Which explains why you've never experienced it; at low and medium altitudes, the air is too dense to enter compressibility. (Which is why it always drove me crazy when the older sim/games portrayed the P-38 as going into compression at 5,000 feet; that simply couldn't happen IRL.) As to your question, I don't know; I'm not much of a test pilot, and I don't remember if I ever properly tried to enter compressibility in DCS. All I remember specifically testing for was to see if it happened below 15,000 feet, which it doesn't (which is correct).
-
Yes. I'm putting the "stick" back into "stick & rudder man." Clubsmanship is a dying art, you know.
-
Strictly speaking, yes, that's the effect of compressibility on a prop fighter in a dive. It's confusing because even real pilots (often even test pilots) use the term "compressibility" to describe accompanying effects as well as the primary one. I've been known to do this as well. TBH, I'm not 100% sure even as to how accurate my assessment of the terminology is. The idea is, "true" compressibility effect is simply the loss of lift during a transonic dive, which will cause the airplane to fail to respond to attempts to raise the nose. Meanwhile, because of the high speed of the airflow over the elevator, the stick forces also are quite high, meaning that the pilot can't pull significant back-stick without trimming. But even should he trim full positive (reducing stick force and allowing him to pull more back-stick), he still won't be able to raise the nose, because the wing is stalled. As the fighter enters denser air, usually between 15,000 and 20,000 feet, lift begins to return. If the pilot still has the stick pulled back far (with positive trim), when lift returns, the aircraft can abruptly begin responding to the "commanded" pull-out, resulting in excessive G-forces and airframe failure (this is what killed Milo Burcham, IIRC). So, the compressibility effect is technically just the "Mach tuck," the loss of lift resulting in the high-speed stall while diving. The stick forces are an accompanying phenomenon (as are the transonic shockwaves from the P-38's wing trapping the elevator in place). Each of these phenomenon independently fights the pilot's attempts to pull out of the dive, but don't share the same root causes (other than all being a result of the high Mach number). Feel free to correct me, aerodynamics experts. This is just my hazy understanding of it based on recollection of my moderate-level research bender ~ten years ago. : )
-
Actual compressibility is a problem with the wing, not the elevator. Larger control surfaces mean higher stick forces, all else equal, but not greater problems with compressibility. (The P-38's extreme compressibility problem was a combination of the wing shape and that of the rear of the gondola, which had unintended aerodynamic effects.) Again, I'm not sure what the P-47's actual compressibility situation was. The critical Mach would be the defining factor, and I don't have a good source handy for that. Anyone?
-
Ah, but is the P-47's critical Mach lower than the P-51's? Was its VNE truncated by compressibility because it has a greater tendency toward compressibility effects, or because its greater structural strength enables it to reach higher speeds? The P-38 had a much lower critical Mach than the P-51. (IIRC, 0.67 and ~0.8, respectively.) How about the P-47? That's the key figure here. As I understand it, a P-47 reaches compressibility "sooner" (in terms of time, not critical Mach) than the P-51, due to superior acceleration during the dive, and might enter deeper into the realm of compressibility, due to higher VNE (resulting from superior structural strength). But that's still a higher VNE & less overall vulnerability to compressibility effects. Is this understanding wrong? I don't actually know the P-47's VNE (or the P-51's, for that matter), or its critical Mach, but everything I've heard suggests that the P-47 could out-dive the P-51 under all conditions (excluding being damaged), even without the dive flaps. The critical Mach is the thing that matters when determining how much a fighter is limited by actual compressibility. Other problems, such as natural control stiffening or the P-38's bizarre shockwaves-trapping-elevator problem, aren't technically compressibility effects, but are accompanying problems resulting from other transonic phenomena etc.
-
I think he can just put his chair behind hers IRL for the same effect. : ) One technique I've found invaluable when teaching, in person, someone how to use a flight sim-game, is to put their hand on mine, or mine on theirs, as I move the joystick, so that they can feel how little I'm moving the stick during the maneuver. It weirds some people out, but I'm guessing one's wife won't mind.
-
All high-speed prop fighters had problems with compressibility at high altitude. The Thunderbolt was one of the ones least affected. The P-38 had (by far) the hardest time with it, due (in large part) to the aerodynamic shape of the rear of the gondola. The 109 I'm not sure about; it did have a harder time with recovering from dives than the P-47 and P-51, but that could have been natural control stiffness rather than actual compressibility. Off the top of my head, I'd place them (from least to most hampered by compressibility) like this: P-47, FW 190, P-51, Me 109, P-38. That's an educated guess from a dodgy memory. Take it with a chunk of salt. It is fact, however, that none of them (not even the P-38) had a problem with compressibility below ~15,000 feet (depending on weather conditions), except when flying over terrain that is high above sea level (e.g. Maj. Ben Kelsey's bail-out from a P-38 during a compressibility test dive over the Rocky Mountains—he'd have been fine in that dive, if the mountains hadn't been in the way of his pull-out). The dive flaps on the P-47 & P-38 improved lift during the dive, preventing the compressibility stall. This increased safe diving speed. Secondary effect (not intentional, but a natural result of the dramatic angle of the dive flaps) was greatly increased drag, which helped prevent exceeding VNE. It must have reduced dive acceleration, but I'd wager that this effect was minimal.
-
Possibility of other 109 Models as an addon?
Echo38 replied to IronJockel's topic in DCS Core Wish List
The argument put forward in this thread has been for a better P-51 vs. 109 matchup. There are two ways to do that: bring in a better P-51, or bring in a worse 109. Either one could work to solve that problem, although I favor (for reasons already given) the introduction of the 72" P-51D over that of the 109G-6. That makes this argument academic, but I'll humor you, for now. Ignoring? To the contrary, I addressed that point, in the very post you quoted. I wrote, "Even a thousand videos of Fighter X shooting down Fighter Y in multiplayer (or even in real life!) is not actually evidence that Fighter X is better than Fighter Y. Superior pilot skill (or an initial energy advantage, etc.) can allow an inferior airplane to emerge victorious over a superior airplane." Once again, it is deeply flawed logic to suggest that being able to win in a fighter makes a statement about that fighter's combat effectiveness relative to any other fighter. Any fighter can be "flown successfully," if you're fighting unskilled opponents. Doesn't make it a good match. [sigh] "Less underpowered" is better than "more underpowered." I don't know how you [pl] come to the daft conclusion that still being underpowered after an improvement makes the improvement not worthwhile. Here's what I wrote yesterday about that: "That's a 7.5% power increase. The average pilot may not be able to notice it, but the good ones certainly can. To recycle the analogy I just used yesterday in another thread, ask an Olympic runner if he's cool with the idea of carrying a weight that weighs 7% of his bodymass, during the big race, while his opponent runs unhindered. You think he'll be agreeable to the notion that it isn't that big of a deal? I'll give you a hint: he won't be. At the highest levels of competition, 1% can mean the difference between win and loss. [...] To any fighter pilot worth his avgas, 7.5% more power is a large improvement, more than noticeable to a good pilot. 72" is that big of a deal."