DefaultFace

There is currently 1 server in DCS. 1! Lets not kid ourselves and say that BS is a full mission server like WOL in the other sim or like the campaign missions on the Case Blue server when that was still up. Sure there are a few ground targets, but IMO they almost seem like more of an afterthought to me. While making a larger more "realistic" big picture mission might be possible currently in DCS under perfect circumstances, but even then there are nowhere near enough players to make flying something like that fun, let alone the variety of aircraft (something other than fighters) that we see in other sims to really make it happen. And thats ignoring the fact that even placing the AI assets available in the sim now causes all sorts of performance problems and can make the game unplayable. No matter how much people want it to be something different, BS is and always has been airquake/dogfight server, and I really don't see it changing any time soon. It doesn't need to be ridiculously close (like the Novo-Anapa map, which was good with maybe 5-10 people online but with 20 it became base-rape-athon) but I think the previous mission (the coastal one on Normandy) was more or less the optimal distance. On the current mission its ok when there are a decent number of players online as everything converges at CQ23 but with less players I've had plenty of flights just toodling around the map only to find someone to attack right as I run out of fuel. Don't get me wrong, everybody is free to enjoy what they like and play the way they want, but at the moment BS is the only option for MP WWII in DCS. You say a dogfight server is boring and has no purpose, thats fine. For me, I like dogfighting, I want to shoot down planes, that is the purpose. I'd fly on a duel server if there was one, although I definitely prefer what BS and previously ACG also was where there is a little more room for tactics and team flying as well. You say you don't want airfields 20nm apart, I say I don't want to chase scaredy cats who fly pretty formations at 25000 ft and run away to hide in the flak at the first sight of a German all night. If this was IL2 thats fine, we can go fly on the server that fits what we like, but its not.

IMO it’s the opposite. ID is No Problem with good communication and at the latest in VR ID at shooting distance is very much possible. I don’t think coloured labels are needed. But without any labels be it in VR or on a monitor it’s totally horrible. Everybody flies 5m above the ground trying to see anything. The fact that the mission is currently way bigger than it needs to be for the players we have doesn’t help. Even if you know where everyone is (CQ23) it’s easy to get messages about enemy and then look out the window and see nothing at all far and wide. Flying around chasing ghosts for an hour just to have 1 dogfight after which the loser quits and the server is empty again is boring as all hell.

Unfortunately ignoring bug reports is nothing new for DCS. Some 109 bugs that have been in since early access release only got fixed months ago, others not at all.

Whatever change was made to the labels since last time I flew, the ones that were in use tonight were totally useless for VR.

Old joke (sort of) about the 190 in flight simulators.

Nice flying MAD! :thumbup:

I compared to some pictures and I agree with Saburo RLM 66 is definitely correct. The thing is it depends alot on lighting. The lighter parts look alot like the RLM 66 FS you posted and the darker areas with a bit more shadows or less glarey look very similar to the other RLM 66 you posted.

Very nice!

Very interesting!

Kurfürst do you know how much weight the MW-50 system added when the tank was empty or used for fuel instead? Other than that and maybe the large rudder and Erla canopy which may not have made it on to all late G-6s (but don't significantly alter flight performance as far as I can tell) there doesn't seem to be much difference as you say. I still think if we DCS wants to continue to develop the era in which its already in (which would make the most sense tbh) which is late 44 to 45, a low altitude G-6/G-14 would add the most to the simulation. A G-10 or an AS model would be pretty much the same as a K-4 but with the option for a 20mm cannon. Certainly the 1945 109s with ASB/ASC engines are very similar in performance to the K-4. While the 44 ones are a bit slower its still IMO not a huge enough difference that Id want to see one of them before seeing something new added to DCS (like a Tempest or a P-38 or a Me 410 etc etc, some aircraft which we don't have at all yet). I'd love an F-4 too, and while I'd probably still fly it against Spit IXs and Mustangs, by the time we get the appropriate oponnents and maps etc we'll all be old men.

Influence of Bombs on top Speed Currently the Spit IX will still achieve its top speed of ~325-330 mph with Bombs loaded. After dropping said Bombs the Spit IX can achieve a maximum speed at sea level of about 380 MPH (612 km/h), which is significantly more than the real Spit IX could achieve at sea level (~333-336MPH). I've attached a track below, as well as a video showing the issue.

Ok. Ill upload it anyway. Not like it can make them fix bugs any slower.... :music_whistling:

Just tested. 612 kmh (380 mph) at sea level. And 330 with the bombs still on. Its as fast as a Dora! Ill try to make a video with a bug report in a few minutes.

Yes I read this in the Russian Forum as well. But there they are saying 50mph! Havent tested it in the new patch but I haven't seen any mention of it anywhere so likely the devs are not aware.

100% definitely not the case. You can and always could get away with significantly worse Rudder work on the pavement than on grass in DCS.

For the 2 Cannon version there are 475 RPG for the MGs and 250 RPG for the cannons. http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a8-glce2.jpg For the outer wing cannons apparently 140 RPG. It is hard to read and almost looks like it says 440, but considering that that would be way more than the inner wing ones, and that the Gondolas carry 145 RPG I think it says 140. http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a8-level-speed-13nov43.jpg

After a while every thread here is Deja vu :lol::lol:

There is no 1943 allied set... The Spit IX came into service then and flew till the end of the war. The P-51 we have is a 45 model and the Thunderbolt is a 44 model.

I have some pictures of a section of 190 Cockpit on Display in the Technik Museum in Berlin. IIRC the plaque said it was a D-9 but the instruments resemble the A-8 layout much more closely than that of the D-9 in DCS. They are a bit glarey, but you can make out the colours quite well. The other question is if its been restored "Correctly" by the museum. If you'd like, or if you think they might be useful I can PM them to you Coyote.

I totally agree, but a late G-6 is the same as a G-14 with the exception of how the MW-50 system is pressurised. Obviously alot of G-6s toward the end of the war (or even all 109s in general) were not always built to exact model specifications but more or less were put together out of whatever bits and pieces were on hand. Modelling every single one of these however seems a bit pointless. While the G-14 is a tad late for the very start of normandy (even though its the same as a 109 with MW-50 that flew in that period), it fits well for any later scenarios which we might get. Yes that would be awesome. I guess we will have to wait and see what the Flying Legens pack brings but I think the Mustang upgrade and the P-47 in combination with what we have now + the A-8 are a good start towards a planeset for Germany/Austria 1945. As others have said the A-8 was originally also only AI so maybe a late model G-6 (which is essentially a G-14) and the Tempest/Typhoon (I cant remember which was listed in the assets pack) will get the same treatment. Add the Mossie and a Me 410 and I think one could definitely make some very interesting multiplayer scenarios. IIRC the Spit 14 never flew with +25 operationally. Maybe we will see one in a simulator someday, but I highly doubt the one from VEAO is ever going to happen.

The best option for ID at close range is to bind a button to toggle the labels on and off. I did this with the old and new labels.

Honestly I think a non AS G-14 would be the best option. It fits for Normandy as well as any scenario after that till the end of the war. If ED sticks to what they said about making WWII maps that fit for the current plane set it would be the best option. Also it covers the low altitude 109s while the K-4, which is not significantly different to late AS models, covers the high altitude 109s.

Doing a dcs repair never hurts either. Especially if you ever used cockpit mods. Although the reflections are pretty horrible for me in the Mustang as well.

Yes but what is meant by airframe? Different models/blocks of F-14 or do I get a unique aircraft each time I spawn. Like flying an aircraft with a different serial number of the same model etc.

Cobra could you elaborate a bit on the "Dynamic Cockpit" feature mentioned in the video posted today? Does this just mean that the A will have a different pit to the B or is it really every time I jump in an F-14 the aircraft will be slightly different?