Pandacat

Oh the manual is wrong about only having 5 min under WEP?

I heard about that f-15 story. But that's not comparable cuz modern jets are designed very different from old WWII planes. For starter, F-15's fuselage is designed to provide lift in addition to what wings can give you. While losing 1 wing will undoubtedly upset your balance, the lift generated from the fuselage will help to mitigate the effect. The same cannot be said for WWII fighters.

The damage was substantial, visually. I would say at least 2/3 of the wing got ripped off. Also, I was hoping to see the initial snap roll when the wing suddenly broke off (cuz pilot wouldn't know when exactly the wing was gonna fall off and to balance control to compensate). In video, it was blocked by P51's windshield rim. But I got the feeling it didn't occur. While it is true that there is no fear for life in sim, there is also no financial, political or disciplinary motivations to save a seriously crippled aircraft in sim. ;)

This video shows failed physics modelled in DCS. One winged 190 not only didn't flip out of control but also kept on flying level and straight for minutes. In real life, that aircraft would have been spinning out of control long time ago.

But I think as a smart business planning, ED should go Korea after completing WWII 44. There are several benefits with Korea theatre: 1. Small map size (compared to Russian front or pacific theatre) 2. Fewer aircraft types (honestly, you only need f86 and mig15 and we already have a good working F86. Air to air combats occurred very little to other types such as F80, F4F and p51 etc) 3. Probably easy access to accurate plane info and data. (come on, famous Mig15. There gotta be pages and pages of data out there for this jet) 4. Easiness to achieve completeness of this theatre and campaign (Korean war was shorter and smaller in scale compared to WWII.) One disadavantage about Korean war theatre that I can think of is that the conflict was pretty dominated by infantry fighting on the ground. So far I haven't seen anything significant on putting infantry into DCS (well, no flight sim so far paid a lot of attention to modeling infantry anyway). But this concern is very minor. Just my 2 cents.:thumbup:

Nice videos, Chuck. :thumbup:

109k is coming, nice progress, ED I really like the progress so far. It seems that ED has suddenly picked up their speed in churning out WWII warbirds. Keep up the good work:thumbup:

I would rather see a pacific theatre before Russian one. WWII carrier ops and sea battles are my favorites. Also, the sims focusing on Russian theatre are already very well portraited in Il2 series.

First ever MP from p51 perspective. Nice manuvers. Kinda feel 67' stang is under power.

It'll be great if someone can help Solty to solve his video recording issue. He has done a fantastic job recording replays and I always enjoyed his youtubes.

I thought at the current stage of the game, the damage model is limited. It doesn't matter where you hit the guy, it's just X number of hits to kill a plane.

Dudes. Let some online plays recorded. I really want to see how P51s fare against D9 in a MP settings. Good or bad stories are fine.

I see. Now I just want to see some online dogfights from P51 perspective. Haha, just can't wait.

It always sounds like P51 slots are pretty tight. There are more stang fliers than D9? I thought P51s has an edge over D9 at 30k?

+1 on the ID part. I remember back in IL2 days, I always end up shooting down some friendlies without label on. Hard to spot/id friendly or foe is not a big problem for MP cuz everyone is in the same situation. Not like in SP, where AI has super eye sight, while human players are limited by their pixels.

I am most interested in seeing some MP p51vsD9 videos. Especially from experienced pilots like Solty. (I was a big fan of his WT videos). I am also interested in the stats of online plays such as kill ratios for each side. Statistically speaking, if you sample enough encounters and ratio is in the vicinity of 50-50, then I would say the 2 planes are pretty evenly matched.

I saw a whole bunch of Dora shooting down stang videos, but not the other way around. Just wonder how these 2 planes are matched against each other in real player's hands.

Dude, don't get me wrong here. I am on your side here. My point is some people are afraid 75 boost of pony will upset the balance, but the reality is totally opposite of that. I am not understating the performance of 75 boost. However, I do have doubt on how much WEP can help you at low alt. Probably you are right that the manual is incorrect on that. Also, I am not a big fan of balancing. All I want, like many of you, is historical accuracy. Not only plane performance but also the logistics aspect of the warring nations. What I don't want to see is a few late war machines that had never been produced in sufficient quantities got thrown in online battle as if they were always built in large flocks. Also, I wasn't critisizing the comparison between performance of 75 boost and performance of Jump E and Ta152. What I do have issue with is the arguement that "hey now you have 75 boost, can I get Jump E or Ta152" because 75 boost is just a fuel change (that is not something extra) but bringing on Jump E and Ta152 IS asking for something extra.

Please post any video of 51vsD9 in the hands of human pilots. Thanks:thumbup:

Even with 72 or 75 boost, I wouldn't say P51 can dominate D9 from deck all the way up to 30k. MW50 is basically an engine that drinks regular fule but feels like high octane. Also, WEP is useless at low alt for pony, so with or without that extra boost, it won't make any difference. Also, someone earlier compared 72 or 75 boost due to high octane fuel with Jump E engine and Ta152. That's just a lame comparison, worse than oranges against apples. 72 or 75 comes from high quality fuel. The basic plane and engine are the same. In addition, did Jump E and Ta152 ever get produced in sufficient quantity to supply to the frontline units? I believe the sim/game should focus on those historical planes that actually were standardized, supplied to front line units in sufficent numbers and fought in actual battles instead of some late war wonder weapons that look great on paper but were actually plagued numerous uncorrected development faults. If you want Ta152, then how about bringing in P51H? This debate can go back and forth on and on.

LOL, what is the point of 109T? While I love all these 3rd party participation to churn out more planes, I do feel sometimes 3rd parties miss the point big time.

F-86 module got anounced. This is great. I'd love to see some Korean war actions. Has ED thought about letting 3rd party participate in DCS1944 project. Probably they can help build other potential popular planes such as 190A8, 109G10, P38series and bombers. I am sure WWII planes are easier to churn out than things like Mig21 or F35.

I read in Wiki that those k4's that use DB605DB engines can't use C3 and MW50 together. Only DC engines allow C3 and MW50 together. Not sure which engine DCS is modelling. Also, k4 is not a popular brand among pilots. Most expertens prefer G10 while novice pilots assigned to k4 can't really demonstrate its potentials.

That's good to know. After flying so many sims, I realize that what makes the game really fun is the dynamic aspect of it.

Or we can probably do something to the campaign instead of each individual plane modules. For instance, the war progresses based on some victory points mechanism which in turn depends on the player(s) acutal performance in game. If Germans could achieve certain level of victory points (i.e. the war progression in their favor) then they can get higher quality fuel or less failure rate etc. Higher performance by better quality of fuel or less failure rate should be modeled in each module, but make it something not available immediately, but rather something you have to earn along the way. However, for this kinda thing to work, you probably need a Dynamic Campaign generator. However, to have dynamic campaign will be a big hurdle for ED or DCS. Just some thoughts.