Endy

I think you overestinate the amount of work related to increased engine performance with better fuel. It's not the same as a changed wing shape for example which could change several parameters. Sure, it is some work of course as everything else, but this is what this sim is all about, having proper FMs etc. Also, it was done in another game which I shall not name, for Spitfires and later the 109 :) Trust me, like I said, if that was only some minor gadget somewhere in the plane, its absence changing nothing major, then I would not object. I realize stuff like limited budget etc. But it's not some minor thing, it's also not some kind of fuel they put somewhere experimentally once and accidentally got better performance. This fuel was used, in operational squadrons in 1944. It was normal procedure in many cases and common, not some garage modification by some crazy mechanic that someone heard of once. It's of the same value to the P51 as MW50 in the Dora or Spits achieving proper boost levels. I just can't imagine the FW190, Spit IX with weaker performance than reality. The sim stops being a proper sim then if it does not reflect real aircraft performance. DCS is great exactly because of that, it's attention to detail and systems modelling. That's why the latest update was awesome, Yo-Yo showing the huge amount of work that went into modelling all the forces and internal systems of the pony. Now if you model stuff like battery loading under different conditions or icing then you can't miss stuff like 150 Octane fuel that was used for it. If it stops pursuing to model important stuff like that we might as well fly with simplified flight models because that would save a great deal of money etc. But I dare say it's not what most of us are looking for in DCS and we love it exactly because it's the best thing we can get on the market.

This is not some useless gimmick, some spare screw somewhere in the back of the cockipt but something that changed the aircraft performance very very much - speed by several mph and rate of climb by a couple hundred feet per minute. Now this is pretty darn significant and if the true aircraft, used at that time was able to use the fuel and achieve such results then DCS being a proper study sim should allow for that. You're treating this is a petty whim of a thing that some players would like to see in the game while this is something that was used normally for this aircraft operation in 1944 and which changed how the plane peformed by A LOT. It's the same case with Dora and MW50. This just has to be in. Can you imagine a situation where it's not modelled because it would upset the balance?

It isn't the same but serves the same purpose, in this case artificially preserving the balance. If you want to discuss then discuss the whole argument, don't just cut out one sentence you can pry your fingernail under ignoring the sense and context of the whole thing... I hate when people do that on the internet. You put some effort into explaining your position on a certain matter writing a long post about it, and then someone comes, cuts one sentence out of context completely ignoring the rest and is all happy that he caught his "opponent" off guard... Anyway, I'll put it in a simpler manner with some highlights so you don't have any doubts Echo :) Any changes or omissions to flight model, loadout, damage model and other aircraft performance factors in order to artificially preserve balance between 2 or more aircraft and which do not come from lack of appropriate data or technical difficulties have no place in a study sim such as DCS. The aircraft should be modelled up to the limit which the current technology allows, according to available historical data etc. So far it seems to have been the case with most aspects of the A10, KA-50 or the Mustang. You don't see ED nerfing A10 or not modelling something because it would upset the balance against Su25T right? Sure, some systems might not be entirely correctly modelled, like ECM, but that's the technical difficulty and lacking documentation to do it properly, not "balance" issue.

No, my implication was not that 130 is incorrect. What I meant was that both fuel types were used, 150 as well, and thus should be in the game as a choice in the editor. If the mission maker then decides to disable it for a certain mission it's his choice, but don't cut the option to use one of historically correct fuel types out of the game completely because of perceived balance issues. there will never be balance between planes nor should there be. Each was unique and if we want to have the 100% historical sim then the only concern should be the historical accuracy of the plane models. Balance then is up to mission makers only on how many planes there are, what types, what fuel etc. But the game should have all the correct types modelled. I hope it's more clear now. If you wanted balance then 262 should not be available but it will be, even as AI if strech goal is not reached. That does not mean it should be cut out (because it's imbalancing) but rather that a mission maker can choose to allow it or now. Simple as that. Exactly, it should be a loadout option. Same as armament or fuel quantity. Not really. If the other fuel type is in game then having an option in the editor to use it or not is simple. Same as with weapon types. If it's modelled in the game then the ability to choose it as a loadout option is pretty straightforward. The thing is it just needs to be in the game first. Again, planes should not be handicapped, having flight models/ammo/abilities changed to preserve artificial balance. Balance is always up to the mission makers and in a hardcore flight sim like DCS all should be as historically correct as possible. So the choice you present is very far from simple. For plane enthusiasts that buy DCS: Mustang to be able to experience everything in that plane, as historically as possible it's a very touchy subject. It's also similar to the dicsussion when Spitfire's in another game were not able to use historically correct 100 Oct fuel. Anyway, taking away a plane feature because it upsets perceived balance is simply the same as lowering plane performance, nerfing some ammo type ahistorically etc. and has no place in a hardcore flight sim. Balance is only up to the players and mission makers and how they use the historically correct planes, with what loadouts etc. as per the Me262 example. I trust Yo-Yo as well as so far everything he modelled is nearly perfect. That's why I trust 150 Octane fuel will not be omitted and will be in the game as a historically correct feature of the Mustang. Especially that he also mentioned the Spit as being able to use the same fuel with the same engine.

All of which would not be noticeable in game in any way as we do not take care of the aircraft maintenance etc. I think all the historically correct systems, fuels etc. should be modelled, for all a/c in the game be it FW190 or P-51. I'm just afraid detailed simulation will be pushed aside in the name of artificial balancing, like cutting out 150 Octane fuel because that would make the pony too powerful compared to axis planes... Please don't go this route...

Well, it depends what the ultimate aim here is, balance or historical accuracy :) Speaking of which 109K should not even be in Normandy but oh well, I can understand the documentation reasons and hopefully 109G will be made as well. Though one might wonder if there are not balance reasons at play here as well then. Same as with the choice of Spit MkIX and not MkXIV. Anyway, there could be options to use the 150 Octane fuel or not so people concerned with balance could choose to disable it while others might choose to use it or allow in a multiplayer session. Choices are always good :)

So if the FW190 is getting MW50 then does it mean P51D will get access to 150 Octane fuel? Afaik it is not currently modelled in DCS Mustang. Sorry if that's not related to FW190, just jumping on the occassion to ask that question :)

Actually, for me it sounds nice when viewing the aircraft from outside, but once I'm in the cockpit there's a sort of repeatable sucking sound (sorry, can't describe it better) while using this mod which is not present in default sound samples. It sort of destroys the whole thing for me...

Does anyone know why a site like SimHQ seems totally uninterested in the Kickstarter campaign despite commenting all the time on IL2:BOS progress for example? Is it about money?

Except we're talking about WWII sim here, not a helicopter sim where it's an issue. You WILL NOT be flying through trees most of the time. Most fights will take place way above tree level, as high as 25000 feet, even more. Sure, there'll be also ground attacks but given the terrain - mostly fields and bocage - you will not even notice the problem, same as it's not much of an issue in A10 over Georgia. Sure, it'd be a bonus to have collidable trees, why not if it's possible in the engine, but it is by no means a game changer in this particular game. Also, I'd much rather have more detailed FM and DM then care about trees which will be way below me most of the time. Hence why I prefer to have it this way then switch to some other games, less detailed, but oh wow with collidable trees :)

I'm baffled as to why lack of collidable trees is such a problem for some people. I played DCS or Clod Multiplayer a lot and it's very rarely an issue. Most dogfights take place at at least a few hundred feet, more likely a couple of thousand. Sure, it might happen someone will run to the deck and, if you don't have a "gentleman's agreement" on the server not to fly through trees, then he might attempt to hide in the forest. But that's very, and I mean very rarely an issue, perhaps 1-2% of the total fights? So I don't understand why this is a deal breaker for some and they prefer games with much worse FM and DM just because you can hit a tree...By that logic War Thunder is a better sim just because it has trees collision...

Su27 please. I'll be there :)

I believe I may have found a problem with the Su27 damage model during our last MP event. A Su27 which was turning into an enemy A10 got hit by Aim9 missile. The missile exploded not doing ANY damage at all and the plane was fully functional. This got me curious whether it was an accident or a hitbox issue and I was able to replicate similar missile explosion conditions by toying around in the editor. What seems to be the case is that if the missile explodes slightly in front of center of mass, more or less below the cockpit, the plane suffers no damage at all besides some minor decals on the wings. It seems to be a hitbox issue because I don't believe it's intentional for the plane to suffer no harm at all from an Aim9 which hit like that. I was so far unable to replicate the effect on any other plane or in different hit conditions. I can't say if that only applies to SU27 or all lower fidelity aircraft. I also can't say for sure whether it's only Aim9 but R73 seems to be a better missile in this regard. I attach the relevant track. aim9 test 8.trk

Well, me and Trooph would like to join Red side as usual, Su27 pref. PS. Happy New Year to you as well Greg :)

I'm happy there were no freeze/crash issues like in last mission. Maybe it was something in the previous ones, or the amount of players. Thanks to the mission maker and to the F15 pilots for awesome dogfights. PS. Would love to see the Tacview file from yesterday if anyone has it.

Well, as to each point: 1) Nice idea, although in SP you can use replay track and then "Take Control" at the point you choose. You could play a mission differently from that point and it basically acts like a save game option. Does not work well for MP sessions. The tracks often break and you can't replay them at times, the game just crashes. Maybe it's too much information or something. 2) Yeah, would be helpful perhaps on open servers. Not really needed in private sessions assuming you got decent and honest people. And it's easy to spot. 3) By all means yes :) Having a DC in DCS would be the best thing ever.

If Su27 is there I might show, not sure due to other obligations.

Well I'm out if only Migs are available. Not really looking to get into another flame war here but it's not comparable to F15 in any way (flight characteristics, radar, weapons, range, hardpoints number and setup) You're basically pitting a short range fighter vs air superiority fighter here so... Anyway, I assume that is the mission design so I'm not asking to change it, I'll just wait till Greg's next mission then :)

Petty disagreement is up to a point when both sides discuss using arguments. When one side starts trolling and spewing bullshit and veiled insults (all of which I can quote but that's neither here or there and will start another flame war) the other sides' patience ends as well as being polite. Simple as that. Ah, and not other players but a player. One in particular. Don't try to water it down :) And Greg, good post, keep up the good work on the missions.

I'd rather say your sheer idiocy, inability to discuss using logical arguments, falure to admit mistakes about stuff you pull out of your ass and not being able to comprehend even the simplest ideas is what's clearly visible in all your posts here. Tbh not sure if ****ing troll or retard.

Looool, as if I only played FC3, hahaha. You really are a ****ing moron aren't you? I already told you I played A10 for a long time as well in DCS, not to mention an even longer history of other sims. But yeah, the fact I played FC3 here for 3 weeks in 3 missions makes me a point and click FC3 guy... I can't even find words that describe how stupid you have to be if you make such assumptions...REPLY TO THE ABOVE LINE AND WHY YOU MADE THAT ASSUMPTION. HIGHLIGHTED FOR VISIBILITY. Will I see apologies for retarded assumption or is it too hard for you? Read what I wrote again. Because it seems like comprehension and logical thinking seems to be out of your reach. Maybe you can achieve some by repeating. Ah, but I expect you'll find a one liner again, quote two words from this post taken out of context and ignore the rest. C'mon make my day.

And where's your reply to what I said about it being one of multiple ways of balancing things, the other being willingly going into more historical scenarios with more limited weaponry, but that's too hard for you right? Too many difficult words? Again, I don't know if you are retarded or only pretend to troll better but I've given plenty of arguments, examples of how losing SOME weapons is used in multiplayer campaigns on a larger scale than what DCS does but since you're under your little troll bridge you obviously can't comprehend that. I also gave you something to look for on the internet. Search for Battle for Sinai and Red Flag for Falcon BMS. But you just conveniently ignore it right? I told you multiple times, it's not about banning willy nilly. I told you why as well. Still you ignore all the arguments and go around it by derping. Really, how dumb do you have to be...

Listen you ****ing retard, again you're doing the same, not understanding a single bit of what's it all about and concentrating on out of context stuff. I write some stuff, explain, argue about pros and cons of different stuff onto which you choose one line and come up with a derpy reply...WTF? Here, I'll crack your post as well for clarification since there is no other way to speak to you: It's as ridiculous as war in Gerogia that we're playing. As realistic or as unrealistic depending on points of view. Both are imagined. Scenarios. Gameplan. Fiction. Movie stuff. NOT true. Imagined. Possible yet not probable. Not genuine. Mock. Here, I'm using multiple very simple terms for you to comprehend but I doubt you will anyway. Got that or no?

It seems like some people are working hard to make the scenarios involving, difficult and fun for ALL 20-25 people involved, try to balance the best they can using limited resources and without breaking the gameplay but there is one or two persons trying to undermine that effort, spewing bullshit without thinking and not even trying to use proper logical arguments, not derpy one liners. If you have other ideas how to balance the game, keep it real, keep it fun for EVERY person on the server by all means tell everyone. It will be appreciated. But not the kind of derpy crap you're trying to pull here.

And speaking of balancing. We can do it also in another fashion by giving both sides F15 with Amraams. "OH but it's not realistic!" you will cry. Oh, but yes it is, exactly as realistic as a war scenario between russia and nato in georgia on a large scale like we play. It could perhaps be Israel or Saudi Arabia involved on Russian side. They both have F15. But yeah, I'll imagine you'll cry foul then not knowing which F15 is on what side and you will cry that you can't play then. You will cry it's not realistic. Because it seems you do that when someone tries to take away from you, whether real or imagined advantage. So think hard which way of balancing and STILL KEEPING IT REAL is better for ALL players, not just you. Giving them all new shiny stuff or trimming the weapons a bit. I'm definately in favor of the second way which was presented over and over again with derpy reactions from you like "DUUUH, let's all use clubs mwahaha".