Endy

Well, if they're 50 Ohm then no problem of course. The Takstars I'm using are 60 Ohm and using them on SB Z you have turn the volume waaay down for them not to blow your ears. So if these Sennheisers 50 Ohm will not be a problem and you definately don't need an additional amp. I took the 150 Ohm value from some online spec, did not know that's changed.

No worries :) They're quite a bit more expensive than mine but I guess you will not regret it, they seems nice too if a bit more game oriented than for music. I wonder if SB Z will be able to power then seeing as they're 150 Ohm. SB has a built in headphone amp though so I guess it should be able to drive then decently.

I can definately recommend Kingston Hyperx Cloud. The thing is, they're based on an amazing closed headset Takstar Pro 80. Takstar makes really great quality headphones (also for professional use, studio microphones etc), and this headset sounds like something 2-3 times the price, and costs only around 60 USD. And they're also very good headphones for music, with great, balanced sound. You can either but Pro 80 and then buy a microphone to add to it, or just buy the Kingston version with a detachable microphone included. Also, I am using them with the same card you have, SB Z, and it just sounds amazing both for gaming and music. The microphone is not great quality in the Hyperx Cloud, so perhaps buying Pro 80 and a separate mic might be a better idea. But it's ok, so it's not necessary. Here's a nice review of the Takstar Pro 80: Anyway, a great set of headphones, great sound quality and a very good price, they're definately worth way more than they cost. Awesome bass, treble and amazing sound stage. Ah, and they're wired, but there is a cable extension so you can have it at least a few meters long. With SB Z there's also no need to reach behind the PC once you connect them since you can use one slot for headphones and the other for speakers. Anyway, I always prefer wired because of sound quality and price and with a long cable it's not a problem. Also, I would stay away from most "Gaming" headsets. You usually pay for the brand and the gaming stamp on them. The only reason I'm recommending Hyperx Cloud is that I know what headset they're based on and it's quality in sound both games and music. Kingston did a quality job by using Takstar's headphones and they're also not really more expensive than the original Pro 80 (depending on country).

Well, of course new planes are always fun to play with, but the problem is, without some sort of DC, just "like Falcon4" it will remain pretty sterile, limited only to scripted missions. And while I agree that the editor in DCS is pretty powerful, it still requires a lot of effort to create missions for servers or single player. This also severely limits online play and only dedicated groups and individuals have heavily scripted missions that allow for some kind of dynamic multiplayer gameplay. With a working DC that all could be done by the program and you could create single or multiplayer missions in a blink of an eye for you and your friends, in a changing, dynamic environment full of AI doing their stuff on the ground and in the air. Just like Falcon :) As for spawning, that needs to be sorted out if that is indeed a problem. I have not noticed the whole server lagging when someone spawns but perhaps I have not played online for a while. Also, I think spawning new units (for example by using a script) also doesn't have this effect, but again I might be wrong... Anyway, I think it is possible to create some sort of bubble system similar to current spawn/despawn via scripting method. But of course that's up to ED to do their coding magic. The whole poll idea and the inclusion of DC option gives me some hope that they're at least considering it.

Got my extension yesterday and played with it for a bit. Nice quality, the cable comes already adjusted to proper length. In my opinion an extension seems almost a must have for Warthog. It allows you to make smoother, more precise movements and due to the lever effect you don't need to fight the stick so much. Keeping it in one place is also easier and if you let it go for just a bit you don't need to be so careful for it to spring back too much. The Warthog spring force is very strong out of the box and the extension brings it to more acceptable levels for me. Because of this, dogfighting does not feel like an arm wrestling match anymore :) Oh, and I got a 7,5 cm extension. I have not tried any others, but I think longer ones might make the spring force too weak. Perhaps for helicopters or WWII planes that would be desirable, but for jets and some WWI simming, the 7,5 cm seems like a good compromise. Another plus is that you can then easily use the stick in a central position and make yourself comfortable :) The extension also allows for a twist offset to make this position more comfortable.

Well, since there was an option to vote for DC in the recent poll and it also won by a large majority of votes, perhaps we can count on this being worked on. Of course, people's opinion can be purely informational for ED, but the fact this option was included at all gives me hope that it's on their schedule anyway. Something like the Falcon BMS DC would be really great, and of course the ability to just jump on the server and create your own mission plan, waypoints etc.

Voted multiplayer, but Dynamic Campaign is also very important provided it means the kind of DC that Falcon BMS has. Meaning an ongoing 24/7 war even without player input and the ability to create single or multiplayer missions at any given point in time during the conflict. So sort of what some other guys mentioned. Anyway, it'd be nice to know what DC option means in the poll, because if it's only like a random mission generator just with changing frontlines, base ownership etc. then not really...

Hey, no worries, the plane looks great anyway. I guess for datalink we'd need version 2000-5. Thank you for the reply.

Aw, ok, I guess it's only in the newer 2000-5 version then. Well, thanks a lot for the answer.

Sorry if that question has been asked already, a lot of pages in this thread... but, does this Mirage version have some kind of data link to see other planes /teammates/flights and their position on the HSD/radar and will it be in the sim? Thanks!

Sorry if that question has been asked already, but, does this Mirage version have some kind of data link to see other planes /teammates/flights and their position on the HSD/radar? Thanks!

Well, I don't have this one so DCS Ka-50 Blackshark 2 please :)

Sure, that's why an option in the editor whether to use 150 octane fuel or not for the Mustang and Spirfire MkIX and 1,8-1,98 ata for the 109 would be best. Then you could make missions correct for the time period/squadron etc.

Well, I wanted to be "generous" because if I compared the 150 octane pony to 1.8 ata 109 only (as both planed were mostly used in late 1944) the Mustang's advantage would be quite visible both in speed and climb rate and that might cause a heart attack for some people :) But here goes 1.8 ata then: Level speeds (note: thick lines depict level speed with improved VDM 12 199 propellor. For perfromance with serial production VDM 12 159 propellor - or "Serienschrb", see thin lines). Climb rates :

Except that what you're saying is not true...again I might add... Let's compare both planes at their best performance, 109 at 1.98 ata (and this is introduced very late 1944, early 1945) and the Mustang using 150 grade fuel (since the middle of 1944). Climb tests for 109K-4 (note: thick lines depict level speed with improved VDM 12 199 propellor. For perfromance with serial production VDM 12 159 propellor - or "Serienschrb", see thin lines): And compare it with this: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/P-51B_24777_Climb.jpg You will notice that the climb rate of both planes is almost the same, with one plane or the other having a very slight advantage depending on altitude. And that's comparing with 1,98 ata 109 because obviously if you used 1,80 ata you would have worse performance than the Mustang flying on 150 Octane fuel. And that's just one of the tests because if you take the below one into account the gap in favour of the pony. Manufacturer's Tests There are also other tests you can find but all of them show these aircraft were very similar in climb rates after the introduction of 150 grade fuel. As for speed, the 'stang should be slightly faster on 150 Octane fuel, 375 to 388 mph with or without wing racks and depending on the test compared to 375 by the 109. It seems you like the 109 a lot, which is good, because it was a fine aircraft and should be fun to fly in the sim, but you seem to seriously overestimate its performance or underestimate that of the allied aircraft. I don't know if your mistake was deliberate or because you have not read the tests chart carefully but I assume you looked at the climb rate test for the Mustang at 60.5 available here http://www.spitfireperformance.com/mustang/mustangtest.html instead of checking other performance tests and MP used. Anyway, it might shock you but your claim of 109 outclimbing the Mustang by 1000 feet is a bit ridiculous to be honest and it'd be best if we dicussed comparing real test data and not how you feel your favourite plane should perform in comparison to others... PS. It's going to be a similar case with the Spitfire, which, if it's gonna be using 150 grade fuel, will be only slightly slower than 109K but will be able to outclimb it by a fair margin with some tests showing a climb rate of over 5000 ft/min. PS2. Thanks Julian, I did not want to write in this topic again as it might cause another flamewar but thanks for correcting some of the stuff posted here.

Ah, I know what you mean mate and I partially agree with that but the context is now quite a bit different. That discussion regarded the P51 as it exists now actually, in DCS World, which is without historical background etc. More like you're flying a historical plane for the heck of it but in modern conditions etc. I also understand why some guys were against it, because the game simply laced proper context. For leisurely flying the Mustang in modern conditions nothing more than 130 grade is needed. But now we have DCS: WWII planned, with a historical setting and more or less historical opponents. If the game is simulating mostly the second half of 1944 (sure there's Normandy but there's also Dora and 109K which are both second half of 1944, even late in case of K-4) then historically, at that time - since July, all 8th AF fighters were converted and were already using 150 grade fuel. That also goes for the P47 btw. So it would be reasonable to expect these planes' performance to reflect that, ie. the Mustangs to be able to use up to 75" pressure and P47 to use at least 67" inches, possibly 70". Anyway, I just think that if the game simulates that period then there should at least be an option in the ME to use planes with 150 or 130 fuel for Spit IX, Mustang and P47. Same thing for 109K and 1.98 ata that Kurfurst noted. Something like Yo-Yo hinted at might work, ie. different plane versions in the editor instead of a loadout option for all these planes. Also, according to what Yo-Yo said, the engine is perfectly capable of simulating same planes with different manifold pressure capabilities, so I really hope it will be there in the final game.

Not a discussion really but facts, with plenty of historical documents to back it, take a look yourself, that's interesting stuff :) 8th AF fighters were converted to 150 octane fuel in July '44 and remained this way until the end of the war, that's a fact :) Which means both P51 and P47 should be using it in DCS:WWII or do you not agree? Of course, it all depends on the devs but it seems that's a reasonable thing to do is it not? Anyway, here's a little fragment: It was decided that Grade 150 fuel was to be the only fuel available for AAF fighter airplanes in the United Kingdom. 24 Successful service tests led in May 1944 to the Eighth Air Force Fighter Command requesting that it "be supplied immediately with grade 150 aviation fuel for use in P-47, P-51 and P-38 planes". 25 Deliveries of Grade 100/150 aviation fuel to AAF Stations commenced within a week of the landings in France. 2627 The change over to 150 grade fuel necessitated the resetting of all aneroid switches on the P-51s. 28 By early July 1944 the 8th AF fighter aircraft were operating at the following power settings: 150 grade fuel continued to be used by 8th AF units through 1944. The WER engine limitation for the P-51 continued to be 72" Hg. There's a lot more but I'll not be quoting everything here, you can read it yourself if you're interested, along with stuff quoted earlier like fuel supplies, orders, engineer notes etc. :) http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/150-grade-fuel.html

Indeed, especially if Normandy is only a "starter" map with the planeset being essentially from different periods and not all of them really fitting there. So it seems Spit IX squadrons from ADGB and since January also these converted in 2nd TAF (additional 25 Spit IX squadrons?) should have that option. There's also some interesting info here: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/1-supply-23nov44s.jpg It seems US VIIIth Air Force was using 20,000 tons of 150 grade fuel in November as opposed to 2,000 used by RAF. It also seems, according to the article there, that VIIIth AF switched its fighters to 150 grade fuel pretty much since July 1944 until the end of the war, with February-April '45 being a temporary switch to “Pep” fuel (100/150 plus 1.5 T’s ethylene dibromide), and due to some maintenance problems reverting back to normal 150 grade in April. That would mean that using 150 grade fuel should definately be an editor option for the Mustang and P47D as well, or even the default state actually, as it seems all VIIIth airforce fighter units were using it since the middle of 1944.

Ah sorry then, my bad. I based it on info from June when they had 11 x Spit IX, thanks for pointing it out :) Anyway, I'm still for an editor option though for Spit, 109 and the Pony :)

Well Kurfurst, according to this: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/150-grade-fuel.html "By 12 August 1944, 16 Squadrons in A.D.G.B. had been modified to to operate with 150 grade fuel." and "By mid August the V-1 threat was largly eliminated with the advance of the allied armies beyond the launching areas. The ADGB squadrons that had converted to 150 grade fuel now found more time to operate over the continent. The Spitfire IX Squadrons were permanently pulled off anti-diver duty on 10 August and went over completely to escort work, sweeps and armed recces." It also seems that (according to the information I found) ADGB had 11 squadrons of Spitfire Mk IX in June 1944, all (or most) later converted and supplied with 150 grade fuel and at least some were operational over France (afer being relieved of V-1 interception duties) though based in England. 2nd TAF group (which you probably had in mind) usage of 150 grade fuel is November/December but that's a different story. So it seems Mk IX using 25 lbs boost by aircraft belonging to one of ADGB squadrons is perfectly within the time frame of the game, since around August 1944, depeding on group and squadron. That's rather more than just 2 squadrons and much earlier than you mentioned because from the middle of 1944. I agree with Sithspawn though, it could be an option in the editor, same as for 109 ata and Mustang 75" boost.

Well, we might yet see the +25lbs boost for the Spit, I think Yo-Yo was asking if anyone had materials about how exactly the engine modifications looked like in another thread. That would definately make the Spit not a pushover with around 360 mph speed and better climb rate. And if we see the 25lbs boost for the Spit we might as well see the 150 Octane fuel used in the Mustang. 390 mph speed for the Pony, hmmm, that would be interesting :) Who knows. That would definately even things out but it all depends on the dev team and is up to them of course.

Thankfully anyone can manipulate the joystick curves in DCS in any plane to suit their preference so there shouldn't be any problems. Just a matter of adjusting a bit.

By the way. Since this is a Dora thread after all. Just look how important it is for some people is a small bar on the bottom of the armored screen, the discussion is 15 pages long already. This is how such historical details are important to people, especially in any DCS sim. So don't be surprised some people want to have the historically correct loadouts and fuel available, especially if their planes are affected in a significant way. I know you might not care in the slightest for such details in your game but for many people it's rather important to have this stuff in a study sim that is DCS. There, I can't say it clearer I think.

No this is not what I'm implying, but go ahead, don't let me stop you. I don't even know how to explain that to you anymore and I've tried quite a few times... Yet of course you ignore what's being said and you have your mind set on some other idea and stick to it. Whatever...Thankfully it's not you that needs conincing here.

I think you're in the wrong discussion, flexing epeen and "my ride is better than yours" is that way -> :)