USARStarkey

Generally I'd agree, but for speed etc to matter you have to have enough of it. The Dora is only about 5mph faster than the 51 at low alt, maybe 10mph medium, and over 20k the mustang begins to be much much faster-over 30mph at 30k. Bottom line is, you have to have a big enough advantage in speed in order to be able to run and control the fight. With the 190 you dont. You can outpace a pony if you start from high speed, and you are outside of gun range, but otherwise you are in trouble. Same with climb, the only why you'll escape in a sustained slow speed climb is if you have significant range between you and the mustang, otherwise your just a slow climbing target who isn't going anywhere fast. If the games ballistics get fixed, this will be even more true. The Dora and the 51 are evenly matched overall, at least down low. Up high its a one sided affair- Pony wins.

Except that my tests were against humans....and the average was 117, the highest was in the 190s.....

so when I run DCS is doesnt seem to be reconizing the rift. In non-extended mode nothing happens at all. In extended mode, the head-tracking isnt working and the screen is too high. Auto detect is on. The config on is and it sees the rift and the camera. The demos and tests scenarios work. Cant figure out what the deal is ive already tried every usb port.

Hi guys I just got my DK2 today and I cant seem to make it work. I downloaded the runtime and SDk and the demoes work, but when I start dcs and enter a mission it acts like the rift isnt there. I have the auto detect on. How do I fix this? I have one HDMI and 2 DVI ports on my GPU. I have the hdmi plugged into the montiro and and rift through an adapter into the gpu dvi port.

interesting, because aside from one generalized airfoil document from the opposition, nothing has been presented, sources cited etc, documents posted, to contradict me. Ive posted several images or documents, more than anyone else in here. I'm busy compiling more, which takes time. 90% of what has been said on both sides has been un-sourced. Don't single me out. Especially when the game shows the Dora performing worse in turns, meaning the calculations of some very knowledge people who made this game are in favor of what I am saying. I do not consider flight sims definitive sources whatsoever, but this post was about the game originally, so the burden of proof here is less aimed at me as it is with those saying the game is wrong.

First off, the British knew exactly what they were doing with slats. Handley Page had experience with them assisted with the understanding. More importantly, the CLmax of the 109E was well documented when testing was done on that aircraft, vs the CLmax without. It is clear from those previous tests that the british knew what slats were for and how to test them. The insinuation that the allies were too stupid to figure out slats has not basis in reality is a internet fiction posited by those wishing to discount allied tests. To be exact, they specify turn time at 1000m without height loss. They dont go into detail after that. We have no idea how many circles they went in before declaring something the turn time. The fact that the Finnish achieved nearly higher turn time with a obviously un-sustained turn indicates that the tests weren't necessarily well controlled. I stated the mustang CLmax as between 1.5 and 1.8 depending on what test you go off of. Without flaps. Obviously not all sections of the wing are equal. Im not being hung up on 2D anything, the rest of the wing was only just mentioned so I feel like making claims as to my understanding are quite silly.

I didn't bring this up. Im just here like you. In which case I could say, since its moot, why argue with me?

I have shown quite a bit of evidence. I haven't seen very much evidence to the contrary yet... I also don't see the point of having a "who can post more pilots opinions war" it would go on forever, and we'd end up with thousands of pages of post. It also takes time to scrounge up every piece of info I have on this. Some of it isnt on my computer, meaning I have to re-find it. Some of the stuff that is buried somewhere on my hard drive. I will post quite a bit of it once I dig it up.

Modern testing is irrelevant. Nobody flys these planes at max power due to their age and rarity. I'm fairly certain I didn't mention the British testing, oh wait, no I am 100% certain. But since you brought them up, those planes are performing fine, which most people dont realize, because they are operating at lower boost settings equivalent to the era they were captured in. Everyone just see's the designation and applies other stats. I'm well aware of what a 3G turn is. The Russians don't specify the exact conditions of their tests, such as speed at which they entered the turn, or whether flaps were used etc. So we know about as much about them as the Finnish testing. Interestingly enough, for a 3G turn its remarkable how close it is to the Russian figures, perhaps they were not sustained turns? :music_whistling: Lol. Normal wings eh? Remarkable technical analysis of airfoils that. Most ww2 fighters, including the mustang, achieve over 2.0 with the Flaps down. You'll have to excuse me if I take NASA and the AAF's opinion on this over your own. Furthermore, did you know that much of the wind tunnel testing is subject to quite alot of error during the 40's? Measurements of things like CLmax and CDo are subject to error due to the need to compensate for the nature of the tunnel itself in the tests, from which errors arise. There is also the issue of the accuracy of the models uses, or what material they were made from, or the lack of airflow altercations due to the absence of a propeller etc. There is alot of data on this, quite a bit of it produces different numbers. Gee, I wonder why with so many flight sims out there, none of them seem to agree on each airplanes flight model. DCS being the most advanced of the ww2 sims, I feel like it has by far the best chance of accurate representation of these aircraft. Its hardly definitive, being a sim, but its also the best one so far as fluid flow calculation is concerned for a ww2 combat sim. Yes, because I should make vague cursory analysis of turn performance via landing speed without actually doing any of the math. Heaven forbid if ED did the same. I believe I mentioned that there were no specific numbers. But there doesnt need to be to know that 23 seconds is not a slight disadvantage or so similar as to not be distinguishable. Also, Im not going to post hundreds of encounter reports or other anecdotes I've read. It would take too much time for one, and it wouldn't fit in this forum. Disagree if you like. I've posted plenty of other data in this thread and others, we may disagree about this but I think its safe to assume I'm not making things up, even if you disagree with my interpretation or use. This is a moot point, so i feel like arguing about it would be pointless.

More said the Anton was slightly better. The original thing I posted was the general impression of JG54. When you have a great many more people saying one thing is better, and the ones who dont are mixed between them being the same or it being worse, that adds alot of weight to the former opinion. Doesnt prove it, no, but we'd be hard pressed to prove anything about this without getting out the real planes and testing them at full power with all the right fuels and setups under highly control conditions. Which we cant do, and has not been done to that level of detail. So we go with what we have. Take for example the DCS crowd. I doubt most have done testing with tacview, but just about everyone on here knows the Dora, in game, is less agile in turns. This decides people tactics. There have been a few odd remarks about people staying with mustangs in turns in game, but the overwhelming community would say the mustang turns tighter. Once again, this makes a big difference in how people fly. Individually, signular anecdotes aren't worth much, but they are cumulatively. If they hadn't been no ww2 pilot would have have been able to fly his plane to it strengths because nobody would have known anything about the enemy planes.

Just about every plane is inferior in some way to just about every other plane..... Your putting words in my mouth based on your own assumptions about what I say. Ive spelled out why I dont like the TSAGI testing, which doesnt involve the P-51s were talking about anyhow. I didnt start the thread, so dont preach to me about this wont change anything one way or the other when you are talking this thread as well. Perhaps you should take your own advice. As for documentation, here is some of the data I was referring to earlier. "The Projektbüro estimate from 19.1.45 assumes 9-12159 propeller, and a weight of 7,496 lbs. Documentation listed below demonstrates that newly delivered Me 109 K-4's were equipped with a DB 605 DB engine operating with 1.80 ata/2800 rpm engine limitations beginning approximately mid January 1945. Various engine and propeller configurations were experimented with. The 9-12159 propeller was the standard production propeller but various German curves are extant showing estimated performance of the Me 109 K-4 with 9-12199.10 and 9-17018.10 thin blade (Dünnblatt) props and Projektschraube with 4 light-metal blades. The 452 mph figure often cited as the top speed of the Me 109 K-4 derives from an estimate assumming an experimental 9-12199 Dünnblatt propeller." Regarding the D model mustangs speed with racks: quote from test "Performance was obtained up to an altitude of 35,000 feet in increments of 5000 feet in a clean configuration. The clean configuration included one external bomb rack on each wing. " link to source http://www.spitfireperformance.com/spit14v109.html

German pilots do not say otherwise. Many considered the Dora to be less agile than the Anton. And what I said about the turn times is true. Spitfire HF. Mk IX (1945, 3,338kg, 1,475hp Merlin 70, 2 x 20mm + 2 x 12.7mm): 19sec Bf109F-2 (2,780kg, 1,160hp DB 601N, 1x15mm MG 151 + 2x7.92mm MG 17): 19.6 sec By .6 seconds. This is within a margin of error and is ridiculous. Every other account and allied test states this should be otherwise. There are several other spitfires with high 18 second turn times and 109s that get 19ish times. Too close to be taken seriously. The 109 also does not out perform the 190 in every test: http://imgur.com/Tkw9I4o 109 G-2 "Finnish tests, also at 1,000m, 1,3 ata, sustained 22 sec, speed 360 km/h 3G)" "FW 190A-5 (1942): 21 - 22sec" Interestingly enough, the russian tests you hold in such high regard show the Anton-5 and -8 beating the Dora, and the A-4 as exactly the same. There are other tests which give far different numbers, which is one of the issues with the tests, that they are not consistent with other tests on by the Russians, or the testing other nations, or the bulk of pilot accounts. As for the air foils, I have seen the P-51 CLmax rated at everything between 1.5 and 1.8. NASA rated it at around 1.68-9. The Fw190 airfoil is usually rated around 1.5ish as well. Given the offset in wingloading, and the P-51 being less draggy, it stands to reason the the Mustang turns better. Regarding the mustang in the test: First off, it was a XP-51 or Mustang Mk1 in British service. It only had a 1150bhp engine. Later A's would have a 1400bhp engine. The wing also received some redesign between the A and B and D models. The XP-51's only had at P/W of .13-.14 whereas the B and D models are in the .17 to .18 range. The XP-51s also only had a 3 bladed prop as compared to a 4 bladed prop. All of these things mean that the XP-51 was not representative of the P-51D or B. As to being damaged, this is clear from the testing itself. I have more information the P-51A's used in the test but I will have to re-dig it up to substantiate it. However it is obvious from the performance in the tests that something is not right with those mustangs. In flight testing in the USA, the XP-51s routinely reached between 386 and 395 MPH. The best speed achieved by the russians was only 364mph- so between 20 and 30mph slower than it should be. So it is either a question of the air-frame not being maintained properly, the engine not being up to snuff, improper AV gas being used, or shoddy operation of the aircraft. Any of these would account for the abysmal performance of that plane in Russian hands. In addition, while they don't give specific numbers the American tests appears to be in in direct opposition to the russian testing regarding the A's turn, at least when compared to the Russian P-40 and P-39 testing. "The turning characteristics of the subject aircraft are substantially the same as the P-39 and P-40. None appear to have any definite superior turning characteristics......in close dog fighting......the P-40 is considered to have a slight advantage. The Russians gave the P-40 and 39 turn times of between 17-19 seconds. The 23 they gave the mustang would be obvious difference in turning performance. It could not be rated as a slight difference, or as having no clear difference by anyone in their right mind.

Good points, I didnt know all of that about vision. But I wonder, if we can do smart scaling to compensate for the human eyes acuity vs pixels on a screen, could not something artificial be done by the game engine?

For me I think scaling would only be part of the solution. Personally I think the issue is mainly with contrast. Even when planes are within DCS visual range, they can be unreasonably hard to make out due to the current engines method of rendering contrast. Sith would be possible for you to post a image of a 190 or 51 agaisnt the ground in EDGE from like 1-3 miles away compared to the current engine?

Right I got ya, I was just clarifying why I responded to it.

Yes it is a generalization man, however that doesnt make DCS even close to realistic. No, you wont always seen planes at 6 miles out, and a P-51 or 190 is much smaller than a F-15, but the current modeling is just plain nonsense. As has been pointed out, the engine renders too little contrast to make out planes against any background and it is far too difficult to see things at distance. Getting into an argument over generalization vs specifics seems silly to me though so Id rather avoid it :) I just jumped on your statement because I feel that anything that sounds like defense of the current render is a step backwards.

Just clarifying that normally you can see planes quite far off. For example , the F-15 and F-16 are rated as being easily visible at over 6 miles. I know your being specific, I just want to make sure were on the same page with this issue. :)

and yet, i can make out fighter jets at 30,000 from the ground.

As Milo pointed out, some of the aircraft characteristics are 1945 era. However, nothing that is modeled is August 1944, if you are referring to other planes in DCS WW2 that is. Both the 109K and the 190D entered service after august, the 109 in Oct, and the 190 in Sept. The 190 with MW50 didn't appear till October. As for the MW50 system in the Dora, it was only issued in minuscule numbers in 1944: "The Junkers technical field service visited III./JG 54 monthly. In October the number of Fw 190 D-9s on strength with the Gruppe rose to 68. Of these, 53 had been converted to 1,900 h.p. and one was delivered by Focke-Wulf with the MW 50 system. The remaining 14 were in the process of being converted and completion was imminent. [...]In its November report, Junkers noted that all the aircraft of the three new Gruppe were being converted to 1,900 h.p. and that the work was significantly more difficult at frontline airfields where there were no hangers. By the end of December 1944 there were 183 Fw 190's in operation with the increased performance modification, and 60 more had been delivered with the MW 50 system and were at the point of entering service. *"

As a personnel note, I don't even consider the P-51 as it is in game as out classed. For me is this is solely about authenticity.

what program did you use for that and where can i get it

yep default conditions no wind.

Just went and retested this stuff in game. We can debate the RL stuff all day long, but in Game this is what I got FW190D-9 855lbs of fuel: 16.3 deg/sec sustained at 500m = 21.8sec 1100ft radius P-51D at 1097lbs of fuel: 17.5 deg/sec sustained at 500m. = 20.5sec Radius 977ft. No flaps used.

Unrealistic based on what exactly? your experience in flight sims? Noone in there right mind takes the TSAGI testing serously. It is well documented that the aircraft tested were typically in disrepair. There is enormous discrepancy between the turn times quoted in those tests. In some of them, they have 109s pulling off 17-19 second turns and matching spitfires. In some tests the 109 and 190 are the same in turn, in others the 109 wins. Either way, a damaged XP-51 does is not representative of a B-D model. The 23 turn time is completely unrealistic. The 190 does not have a higher lift airfoil, they are both in the 1.5-1.7 department. The Spit 9 had more like a 16-17 second turn time, not 19 second. The Dora turned worse than the Anton. Evidence for this was stated in other threads. The Dora has a higher wing loading than the Anton and a worse lift coefficient.

Curiously enough, I wonder if any mission designers will have a daring to put 190s without MW50 in missions, since they didn't originally come with MW50 boost, even after its introduction there were still many doras flying with the 1900PS update.