Solty

Agreed, the current spoting system "update" made things way harder. From what I saw, one can spot P-51D from 25km, Fw190from around 15km and 109 from 5km. And that is using zoom in and out all the time with great focus. And still you will have problems finding them.

I agree with you and Bounder. What makes 190 loose its edge is the sound system of DCS, which makes avoiding an attack much easier. When we get a new DM, it will prove even more effective.

By assuming that the company has a long term plan and actually has shown work on some radial engined aircraft that is supposedly a Japanese plane, an enemy to the Venerable F4U-1D.

It souds like a sound bug. Sound disapears completely. It could be doubted if any sounds remained, but the engine just goes silent, even though it still works.

Here is my research on the .50cal ammo used by the USAAF. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=143224

I think that hearing any other airplane outside, is nearly impossible, especially with cannopy closed. The way that sound in DCS works makes suprise attacks hard, because mostly the enemy knows you are there, before you can actually start shooting. At the same time, I would like the in cockpit sounds of guns and airframe (buffeting, hit sounds etc.)more pronounced. IRL the pilot has vibrations and feels impacts/shots. In game sound helps to mitigate that lack of feedback. In conclusion, I would like to see the sound design reworked, so that we have more vivid sounds of our own airplane, while sounds outside the cockpit are nearly impossible to hear.

I've also read that the German Luftwaffe was using blue/white tracers. We should definitely get realistic tracers for Germans.

I like the new taxi-touchdown sounds for the P-51D. Much more vivid.

I don't see why assume they were not used. It just might be not well documented, but their existance is irrefutable, therfore I assume ED will add them. Sadly, just as the new DM and P-51D model, that might take a while.:(

Fw190 has a red tracer on MG151/20 in DCS.

@Little D I just want to point out that the K-14 Gunsight uses feet as unit of measurment, so the 600 means 600ft=182m The convergence of the .50cal guns is set at 1000ft=304m. NVM this is Fw190 thread :P

Difference will be around 10mph. We will also see a bit better acceleration and Rate of Climb.

Are you realy trying to compare the Me109K with a Bush plane class? 109G6 (which is lighter than K4) empty wight is: 2,247 kg loaded: 3,148 kg Wing Loading: 196 kg/m² The Bushcaddy L-162 Max empty weight: 567 kg loaded: 1,202 kg Wing Loading: 68.5 kg/m2 Not to mention different design of the wing and airframe. Sure, airplanes, especially STOL and Acrobatic ones, are realy good at low speeds and are capable of flying at high AoA, but 109 has only slats at the lenght of the ailerons, not full wing. And again, the 109 stalling speed is way higher than the Bush class, while our 109 plummits without stalling below its stall speed.

My friend made another test with power off: https://youtu.be/MKexcVYbY04

It would be great if people that own the module actually did their own research and knew what they are talking about. Also, we can clearly see the stick travel in Scharfi's video, it's fully deflected back and right and the airplane is gaining speed because it is pulmeting but still holds its attitude. The airplane clearly doesn't stall, and my friend couldn't make the thread because he is already banned. If you want to buy me a copy of Me109, please go ahead, but as long as you do not, we will have do that stuff through proxy. Anyway, both Scharfi's and my friend's videos show clearly that the plane doesn't stall even with the nose up attitude and stick held back, nearly acomplishing Cobra maneuvers of the Su27.

It doesn't matter, the airplane is capable of flying in the air below stalling speed and at very high AoA at that. It recovers in level flight and never even realy drops a wing. The only thing that makes it roll is the torque of the engine. It just falls down to the ground. if there is not enough speed. Stall and spin do not occur.

My friend who owns the module, but is not able to write here, has noticed that the Me109K is impossible to stall. The airplane only falls down when not enough speed is available. He used full stick deflection during the test. It doesn't look right at all.

Through the war on the eastern front, most of the fighting happened at alt below 3000m.

Sustained climb rate doesn't mean the aircraft is going to be good in a zoom climb. Sure, if both 190 and Spit get slow, the Spit can follow easily in vertical. But if they are entering a dive and reach 700kph the 190 will get ahead, gets some separation and zoom climb, he will be impossible to catch.

It's Solty. And read rel4y's post if you claim "no one is saying". Secondly, the Spitfire was made an interceptor. It was suppose to fit the RAF doctrine of fast and hard hitting aircraft. The British air doctrine was certain that if one puts enough fighters, with enough guns in a formation against enemy bomber formation, their massed firepower will be enough to stop the bombing and put to rest the myth of "the bomber always gets through". The problem was, their whole doctine of close formation flying was usless in real life air combat, and when they realised that, the Spitfire could show it's true potential. It was not designed to go over enemy territory and do low level fighting. The airplane had a very good Supercharger and was capable of good performance at altitude and more importantly, its range is so short it can hardly do any sweeps, not to mention bombing, with its very low bomb load. In case of our IXc and P-51D both of those airplanes have the same exact engine Merlin 66. I do not see how one is strictly for high alt and the other for low-medium. Especially that Merlin 66 was made to boost the low-level performance of the previous version. Also, as I said the Mustang is faster at SL than the Spitfire, about 40mph. If thats the case and its only about SA, why do we see this occur: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2927768&postcount=243

@rel4y Real life data confirms that most air combat 1944, occurred during US 8th AAF bombing campaigns. Real life data confirms that Spitfire is 40mph slower while using the same engine as the Mustang and even if Spit used a 25lbs boost it still would be slower. P51 has better dive acceleration and energy retention, therefore better zoom and is a more stable gun platform with better high speed maneuverability. It shows how limited your understanding of air combat is. The Spit IX will dominate the horizontal plain and many 109 pilots that only go for turn as both offensive and defensive tactic will be in big trouble. Those that fly fast and extend after an attack will be safe.

Spoken like the true 109K player. Actually that real life flight data comfirms that allied aircraft should have more powerful engine settings. So your point is moot. Secondly, you are not the one that makes rules on what people should talk about. And I am only pointing out that the truth is, that it requires less skill from the German side to win a fight against an allied airplane. Doesn't matter whether it's the Mustang or the Spitfire.

I like the DCS P-51D theme the way it is. I think that all planes should have this unique feeling in their music.

Or you could just check the data avaiable for the Bf109K and Spitfire LF MkIX 18lbs. Although, you should actually know how the fight looks from other simulations. I agree with Talisman, people may be hyped, and I am glad we are getting a new airplane for DCS, but the Spitfire will not be an airplane that tips the balance. Though, it will certainly bring a breath of fresh air. For those that like to pull on the stick untill they see enemy tail, it will be the perfect choice :P

I have extensive knowledge and experience with the 109. The Spitfire has a light elevator, but stiff ailerons and rudder. Those two are the most important to evade an attack. That was mitigated by the cliped wing variant, which will be less susceptible to such attacks. Still, the 109, if not seen, will be able to execute the attack. 109 was used in B&Z approach during combat. Most "experten" used this tactic on every front of WW2. Was Fw190 superior? Yes. Does it make the 109 usless in this regard? No. Especially that we have the K4, which is so much faster than the Spitfire. The P-51D 67'hg is barely keeping up with it and Spitfire IXc 18lbs is much slower. Therfore, if the 109K player keeps his speed and separation after an attack, he can be nearly untouchable, even if he is spotted. His attack might be thwarted, but it doesn't mean he is not able to dominate the fight. Would it be possible for the K4 to turn with a Spitfire? If the 109 had low fuel and Spit was full? Maybe, but I wouldn't bet on it. In pure 1v1 Dogfight, the Spit can hold its own, but the bigger the odds, the more it sways towards the 109. The faster airplane always has the advantage of just running away, and the slower is on his terms. If you know how to keep your speed, and fly calm and disciplined, you will come on top. Also, the 109K is better in a sustained climb than the Spit IX 18lbs.