USARStarkey

:megalol: colored charts eh? I guess only your SWAG is evidence then.....lol. Perhaps if it was in black an white you'd understand it better.

Pilum also ran the math, its doesnt agree with yours, and unlike yours it was the product of careful computer simulation....not SWAG

LOL I am taking nothing personally..... This Dora does not meet the 41-4400fpm performance data layed out by Focke-Wulf and.......everyone who isnt yo-yo or you. It is wrong, end of story. Its over-performing, understand yet? 5000-5500 fpm isnt even withing the 10 percent margin of error. Which by the way, is not a minimum, but is WITHIN 10 percent. Regardless of which, does not put a climb rate of 5-5500 fpm within that tolerance. Not even close. Your accepted methods for calculating performance are clearly only your own. How is it that everyone else calculates the performance of this plane differently? ED is hardly the first group of people to make a FM for this plane, or do the math in general. Funny how none of their figures agree with ED's.....

No, there arent any IRL tests, but that is hardly carte blanch to simply make up whatever climb rate you want. I am quite confidant that the Germans were quite good at estimating the performance of the planes they designed. Some variance is allowed, but not an exorbitant additional 1500fpm higher than the German estimates, Pilums estimates, and the estimates of every other FM made for this plane. Case in point, the estimates for 2.02ata dont even come close to the rates we see in game. You seem to be under the impression that a 20 percent margin is somehow close enough for a flight model. Seriously? I could do whatever I wanted with that much wiggle room. 20 percent is a MASSIVE amount of difference. With a margin of error of 20% we could have a P-51 with a climb rate of 4400fpm WITHOUT 150 grade. You ok with that too?

Yeah, at the difference is so large you get massive performance boosts :lol:

No the Germans did it for me, better than you could ever do, and lo and behold, every other point of data except this game agrees with them

Then it is 11% wrong, obviously.

The weights are close enough, especially since they give basically the same numbers in every paper regardless of the small weight changes. The 2.02 ata 190 couldnt climb at over 5000fpm, so the D-9 with 1.8 ata sure as hell wouldn't. None of the german tests or estimates show anything remotely close to a over 5000fpm climbe rate. No previous sim as modeled a 190 at such a climb. Pilums estimates dont agree either. So how is it that Yo-Yo as suddenly discovered such a massive climb increase? Nobody elses estimates agree Crump. Interesting how the same estimates almost exactly predict the non-MW50 performance compared to the IRL flight tests. Yet suddenly were to believe that with MW-50 all the German data goes out the window and magic takes over.

Yes, because slight adjustments in max weight result in 1500 feet per minute climb rate increases...... Not to mention the weights in the German documents are more or less the same.

My point is to show precisely what the difference is. Obviously we all know its different. However it goes a long way towards productive conversation if we have some references to work from. People have already made posts quoting pilots are their spotting stories, so Im giving images that show people exactly what it looks like to support the conversation. Where is your response to others telling them their posts are pointless?

I am quite interested in seeing what EDGE does. Perhaps it does alot to fix this. However, like many many others here, I would like to see some scaling implemented (as a start) to fixing this issue as a whole.

Who is saying its easy? Or that a game would not need artificial mechanisms to make these things work? Nobody is saying that.

Its what were talking about.....

No camouflage works that well. Soldiers wear camo, but we dont just disappear except under very specific conditions. Largely, camo just makes you a little less easy to see unless your literally inside a bush. They do not blend in even close to the extent you see in this game, or others. Its just not a easy as it would be if the plane was painted orange.

At one mile I can see a plane yes, but not that easily. At one mile in DCS a WW2 fighter is about .5 miles from being invisible. Im not saying you CANT see one at 1 miles in DCS, im demonstrating how different it is to IRL.

3 miles

2 miles

From 7000ft

Far aircraft is a 1 mile

At 2 miles according to pilot

Another issue not being mentioned here is contrast, or at least what appears to be a contrast issue but is probably several factors. Especially in DCS, but in sims in general, aircraft blend in to their background far too well. Sometimes DCS planes even seem to blend into blue sky. However, when planes in DCS are against the ground, even when close they can be damn near impossible to make out. Ive placed AI on fixed flight paths below me at varous distances and then spawned over them. Even knowing where the aircraft was, I found it hard or impossible to find.

I assume you are talking about seeing a fighter at 18miles (30km) in game, to which I respond: no you cannot. @everyone talking about res as a fix: This has limits with the current rendering system. 4K is not a reasonable demand for everyone to have for one. Also, good luck seeing a single pixel ona 4K monitor. Part of the advantage of a high res display is that it is very hard to pick out single pixels. So while DCS might choose to render a single pixel at that res, you probably wont see it.

Funny how my F-16 pilot friend who also flys the P-51 and other war-birds doesn't agree with you. Ive showed him images of DCS on my 2560x1440p monitor and he has told me multiple times that its ludicrously unrealistic. In fact, every pilot Ive consulted as said spotting distances in practically every sim are worse than they are IRL. What is really interesting is that the distance he and his wing would spread from each other is about 2 times the distance I can see a plane in this game.........

Since wind seems to effect it, which makes it nothing kind of speed then. But its not GS or TAS.

I looked at the pictures you posted. Are you looking at mine? A Plane going straight down would have a GS of zero (or near as makes no difference). Has it occured to you that either there is an error in the A-10s instrumentation in game or that you are mis-reading the guage somehow? It hardly matters. We now have proof that it is True Air Speed, end of story. Unless you think it switches from GS in horizontal flight to TAS when going straight down just to play tricks on you...... Tacview gives me the same speed......you think they are both lying?