USARStarkey

say what?

Thanks for the the info. Does this issue possibly affect other aspects of the FM? Such as level speed, turn or acceleration?

Ok, but as I stated earlier I dont think this is a projectile issue. Its a DM one. Do I think ED should just materialize a ultra sophisticated DM tomorrow? No, and I said that in this thread. However, the existing damage model could use some tuning. For example, why is it that I can kill a F-15 or Su-27 faster than I can kill a Bf109 or Fw190 or P-51? Because the DM on the modern jets is very different from all of the ww2 planes, or Korean war planes. They act largely like flying hunks of aviation-grade granite. Given that I have already modded the DM myself with absolutely no game development or programming education, I can imagine that ED can at the very least make a the current damage model less tough.....

This is like the 3rd or 4th Thread someone has started about the damage model. Knee Jerk that does not make. Why make insinuations about people egos and pilot skill? I dont recall anyone expecting ace in a sortie status? If wartime testing, gun cameras of actual combat, pilot accounts, and the opinions of the the actual air-forces involved are not sufficient to convince you then what is?

109 an 190 gun cameras: American propaganda film that contains alot of general gun camera: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z2FFtu441s&list=LL9p_QEwysGYhs3YDKN0f60w&index=18 Also, keep in mind were talking about fighters. The Germans considered 20 20mm hits sufficient to down a 4 engine bomber......

Those times are both extremes, not the norm. If you peruse gun camera footage, watch the effects of these guns on various targets in tests, or simply read the encounter reports of pilots that amount of time spent hosing down targets was brief. In most gun camera footage a fire or other noticeable damage occurs quite rapidly in most cases. Just look at the damage caused in the 30mm test on that spitfire. That damage greatly exceeded what would be needed in most cases as it ruined several control surfaces and would mostly likely have caused wing loss if the plane had been in flight and not resting on the ground. Sensational stories of how airplanes came back with extensive damage were sensational because they were not normal. I dont expect a zero to routinely take 74 hits, especially since the most common perception is that they were easily destroyed. Nor do I expect a P-47 to take hundreds of 30cal and over 20 20mm hits. Because that was the exception, not the rule. The most casual look at gun camera footage will show that it did not take many strikes to bring down a plane. What you are saying also goes directly against what the Luftwaffe stated their weapons could do. 5 20mm = typically sufficient.

Given that the Luftwaffe deemed 5 20mm hit sufficient for a fighter, I find it hard beleive that fighters routinely absorbed multiple 30mm hits. I single hit to either wing would almost certainly destroy the spar or spars which would cause the wing to fail. That same explosion would also probably take out a fuel tank, severe control lines and whatnot. The proof is in the pudding. Just look at the british tests. Its not impossible to survive more than one hit, but its not routine.

Effects of 20mm cannon on engine. Effects of 50cal, similar to 13mm in MG 131.

Yeah I feel like the German 30mm should be a 1 hit kill in nearly all cases. Especially in hits to the wings. I think it is mostly damage model though and not the rounds. Same with the 50 cals. The current damage model seems to break the plane into sections and each section has a certain number of hit points. Nothing happens to a component until the section reaches the end of its hit points. So if you have a 30mm cannon that does 6 damage to a wing section and it has 7 HP, nothing happens. Im certainly no expert a reading configs but I modded the 109 and 190 by reducing the critical damage point on the various part of the planes and got much better results. However, I dont really consider that a fix. What we need is a sophisticated DM that is based on something more complex than HP. That being said, I dont see why the planes couldnt be made weaker till something more complex is doable. I see no reason that the planes need to be built from solid granite. Engines are another big culprit. I saw a video on youtube which I will try to find again where 3 50cal AP rounds started a engine fire in a non running car. Just 3. Imagine what a Mk 108 would do! Im not sure how accurate the decal placement is on the planes, but I see alot of hits on engines and no real damage. The DM has some real oddities to it. Like how the prop governor seems to be the most easily hit thing on the engine. Just guessing Id say 90% of all the engine damage I take in MP servers is the prop governor. Why the the prop governor? You hardly ever see engine fires or other effects by comparison.

Strike flashes can be seen here: Also, Im referencing this for the purpose of relating to the Mk108 discussion regarding damage effects. This should also apply to the MG131's as well. This is not meant to be about the 50 cals. Just about strike flashes.

This as well. There are impact explosions for the Mk108, the 50s, and the MG's on the 109s. With the exception of the MK108, there shouldnt be explosions unless you hit something that then explodes. There need to be strike flashes instead. The real rounds are designed to give off a flash when they strike.

First we need good tracers. The ones we have now are very hard to see at certain angles and distances. In short, they dont look anything like tracers and I find them very hard to use. The tracers in the ultra grainy ww2 gun cams show up better than the ones in DCS.

I would certainly agree with that. Id even wager to say its 90% damage model 10% projectile for both the 50s and the Mk 108.

Actually, a 50cal HE round was field tested but did not find favor. But it did exist

You are incorrect about the F-15/Su-27 Thrust. At all heights at equivalent fuel weight the F-15 has a better T/W. Over 10-15,000ft, the F-15 starts to gain a significant advantage. So if you put them into a climb the Eagle will stall later. It is general common knowledge the the Eagle is the climber and the flanker the turner as a generalization

Havent had an issue with that. Tried doing it myself in both planes, and so did the other person. slight yo-yoing did help a bit. Without flaps the 109s came around quite quickly though.

Both of us attempted Yo-Yoing. No advantage to either.

The Flaps on the P-51 seem to be much better than the 109s in my opinion. I did a bunch of flying with someone yesterday at various altitudes to test performance. We switched roles several times to keep the pilot variable to a minimum. Regardless of who flew, in dogfights below 10,000ft the P-51 with flaps was able to maintain parity with the 109 in turns. I was in several fights just off the deck where we went round over 10 times without anyone gaining purchase...with both pilots deploying flaps. If either plane has an advantage, it is very very small. In situations where the turning began after then merge, it was damn near impossible to gain on each other. If one of us somehow got in behind before the fight, it was damn near impossible to shake him. One thing I can say for sure is that the flap system in the Pony is much easier to use. It takes a long time to crank out the flaps in the 109, and just as long to get them back up. The airspeed at which you can deploy them is higher for the 51 as well. I find myself not wanting to use the 109s flaps because once i get them down, my opponent can put his back up very fast for whatever reason he might want to. In addition, I lost several fights, (and vise versa) because the 51 got around during the first few high speed turns because he could deploy at speeds as high as 400mph.

I agree, 670 is not a significant number. The king tiger had about 470 made. Is this now a significant AFV? I think not.

I am responding only to what I quoted, so I havent read past this. I would like to point out that 150 grade was in operational use for units in England, not just the 8th AF. However, lets not debate this as the next point is my main: More importantly however, there were more P-51s operating at 72-75 in the 8th than their were K4s, especially considering that the K4 didnt get into the field till mid october and they constituted a 4th of all 109s at the turn of year 3 months later. To my knowledge, outside of england (or the 8th, whichever you prefer) 130 grade was still the only fuel. If I am wrong and 150 was used elsewhere, someone feel free to correct me. My point though is the improvements in 109s were more than matched numerically by improvements to Mustangs. K4s certainly ran into P-51D's running at 67, no disagreement there. But it is just as true that 67" ponies ran into G-14's and G-6s.

Sorry man wasn't sure how else to say it :) Perhaps "largely" defeated is a better term. As milo stated, they certainly still had teeth. Things has certainly swung in the allies favor in late 44 however.

They didn't have quality pilots or fuel ETC, because the Luftwaffe by october 44 was a defunct an defeated animal. You cant directly compare things like that. You also need to keep in mind that the K4 only made up a 4th of 109s around the turn of the year, and that it faced P-51's at 72-75" not 67. Furthermore, had the K4 been in service before it was too late to matter(which is a what if scenario) then you could just as easily surmise that perhaps something like the P-51H might have been pushed into service faster. Need tends to result in procurement. However, none of that matters. In actual fact, the fighter arm of the Luftwaffe was for all intensive purposes defeated well before the 109K came out.

escaping does = winning. Especially in a historical context. If in 10 fights I only engage when I have an advantage, ie: altitude, and I run or dive or whatever to escape in any scenario where I do not, then I will be successful overall. If my aircraft has a ability that makes this possible, say speed or dive, then I have the superior plane. Fight when I enter from an advantage, run when I do not. What is more, in many vs many engagements, speed is what matters. If you have a 2 ship element fighting a 2 ship element, and one element is slower, then that element will loose if the faster element performs properly. If the faster element picks up a bandit on one of them, they can run and clear each others tails. However, while all this running is going on, the wingman of the pursuing slower fighter element wont be able to catch his wing. IE: faster fighters can always catch up to the fight, slower ones cant. In Summary: Run when its not advantageous-Fight when it is.

1: 109 2: 109 3: 109

Its not quite as bad as you say. With regard to speed I did some runs and they are aboue the same at all heights, the mustang is faster at some and the 109 at others. Over 20,000ft you can definitely out turn the 109. Below that not so much. Between 20-10k it is about the same. Ive been in several human v human dogfights with 109s between 20-10k and we went around in circles forever without anyone gaining any purchase. Below 10k it definitely will out turn you though.