DefaultFace

Somehow I don’t think their other market is interested in the P-47... ;)

Works for me. Even on Mobile...?

Thanks Orso! Glad you enjoyed it :)

The webpage seems to be stuck.

You mean all those things that they delayed release for?? Yeah would be cool if that stuff worked..... Isn't the whole point of the map that it looks like it did in 1944?? Doesn't constitute non essential to me.

Why was this moved to the wishlist section? Seems more like an error to be fixed than a nice to have....

Drag and Weight do not affect the same things in aircraft. Yes the increase in drag will affect turn performance and climb performance and generally everything in one way or another. However it wont necessarily affect it by the same amount. Maybe if you were saying that a 3% increase in thrust would perfectly offset a 3% increase in drag although I would wager that this is also too simple to describe reality. Also remember that a decrease in mass with the same amount of thrust (better prop, more or less same engine) will also affect accelleration. Will this balance out the increase in drag? I don't know but since these are all fairly minimal changes all counteracting each other, one could presume that the difference will not necessarily be huge. Certainly not huge enough to shift the balance in a turnfight. For about the 100th time I am not saying that less mass is more important than more drag. They affect different things, which are needed for different types of fights. You can hypothesize whatever you want. Speed is more important in a long chase, turning is more important in a turnfight. I'm not going to argue this with you any further. TBH its pointless anyway because we aren't going to see these aircraft in DCS anytime soon. also +1@ onlyforDCS and Otto

I never said one is more important than the other. Just that they don't necessarily balance each other out as you are trying to suggest. Nowhere do I claim to be an expert on aerodynamics, or aircraft physics or performance in general. But drag and weight affect different things. This is fairly basic and doesn't require a degree in engineering to understand. (F=ma) An increase in drag will generally have more of an effect on top speed and accelleration. Weight on the other hand has more of an effect on turn performance and climb performance etc. (this is also simplified, obviously weight indirectly affects Top speed etc etc etc, just not directly or on the same scale) I don't care if you are a rocket scientist or not. Just stop trying to make up pseudo science to argue your point. Yes the G 109 has an increase in some areas of performance and a loss in others. This doesn't mean that those are linearly related by the equation you made up on the other page. Edit since you keep adding things to your post: Yes I do mostly fly 109 but I've flown all of them enough. No I am not against a change in lineup. Give me a G 109 I'll be the first in line to fly it. Im also 100% for the Mustang getting its engine improvements. What I am against is people who don't understand how airplanes work making statements that don't make sense. TBH I also have no idea what a 0.0812m^2 difference makes. But I can tell you from flying the K in DCS that a 100-200kg difference in weight (burning 200l of fuel) definitely makes a difference. And If you look at top speed performance charts you can see what the difference is. Yeah it will be important in some fights, and less so in others. None of what I'm writing here is intended to be a 'hahaha you are dumb, look how much smarter I am than you lololol'. Just saying that your argument is an oversimplification of a very complex topic which doesn't accurately describe what we are talking about. None of what rel4y, Kurfürst, I or many others are posting here is necessarily an exact scientific analysis of the subject either.

This makes no sense, and that is not how airplanes work. As far as having a better chance against a G-6 (once again whatever that means...... Turn fight? BNZ? High alt? Airshow? Prettyness?) if you talk about being able to just run away with high speed then sure in this field you have a bit more of an advantage. But what you gain in being able to run away (which the P-51 can already do anyway) you lose in a dogfight. Same deal for the spitfire. You might be able to catch someone flying straight lines all the time (which most 109 pilots do against the spitty, because it is very diffcult to dogfight with) but if you come against someone who knows how to fly their life got a whole lot easier when they are flying high yo yos and shooting you to bits. The Mustang in DCS really doesn't suck that bad. With a little bit of brain you can rule just as well as you can in a 109. Most pilots in DCS are clueless anyway. No matter what you fly if you fly well you can pretty much kill any aircraft.

Ok this is starting to get silly but lets try it once more. Relative aircraft performance is not just a sliding scale on which the K4 is a 10 the Mustang is an 8 and a G6 is a 7,6. Just because one aircraft version was made after another doesn't mean it is superior in every way to the version before. Designing aircraft has alot to do with Compromising and Optimising certain things. For example reinforcing the aircraft structure to deal with higher speeds or to stop wings falling off at the cost of turn performance or optimizing engines and Propellers for high altitude combat at the expense of low altitude performance. Just saying that a K4 is better than the G6/14 because it came after is an oversimplification. This is what the last few pages of this thread have been trying to tell you. Isn't the P-51 we have a 45 (or Korea?) Mustang anyway? By your argument it came later than the ETO version so it's obviously better isn't it?

I think he was referring to the difference between the K-4 and a non AS version (ie with bulges). I don't recall the speed difference between the 2 engine cowlings but there is data for it somewhere (17km/h comes to mind but maybe this was for the gondolas? 8km/h was the difference for the tailwheel I think). I know I am also not Kurfürst but I think what rel4y says here makes alot of sense. 'Better' or Competitive depends on how you define it. The big problem in my eyes with the Mustang in a dogfight is just that it is too heavy (Try flying the lighter TF-51 against a K4 in a knife fight and you'll see a big difference). Unless you get a significantly lighter P-51 I doubt much will change on the dogfight front, especially not against a lighter 109 with a low altitude propeller etc etc. In the big drawn out boom and zoom high speed high altitude things that are starting to appear in DCS (and are probably closer to historical air combat than duels on the deck) then the top speed difference might make more of a difference, but the Mustang isn't bad at this as it stands anyway. TBH I wouldn't say its bad at dogfighting either, it just requires an understanding of dogfight maneuvres other than a hard level turn to win (against good pilots, bad 109 pilots can still be handily outturned by a good Pifty-one driver who uses flaps correctly). Obviously you can talk about AS or non AS but everything you gain in advantage at high altitude you lose down low. And obviously removing MW50 (a 40% reduction in engine power) will make a big difference. IIRC it appeared around early-mid 44 but in what numbers and whether it can be considered standard is not necessarily a simple question to answer.

MG vs Cannon is not really what I would label as guesswork. There were certainly various theories and analysis behind why certain aircraft were equipped with the weapons they were or the layout/positioning of such weapons. I'm sure all sides conducted plenty of testing in an attempt to optimise these things for their intended purpose as well. Upping "damage" of any weapon for balance is a bad idea imho. Obviously there isn't data for every aspect of everything but I would think that a developer who is familiar with the subject matter should be able to make an educated guess. As long as the assumptions are made in a consistent matter there shouldn't be any need for balancing any part of aircraft performance. Edit: also yeah pretty much what Kurfürst and JST said

_Mods is for JSGME. Normally it would be called Mods but since DCS already has a folder titled Mods you have to name it something different in DCS.

What's the deal with the land bridge between London and Bruges....... Last time I checked that wasn't a thing...

Aha ok. Yes that might help. IDK what the ai is set to in the standard missions but the 1v1 setup in the Single missions is probably about the same as any mission you'll get anywhere else.

I would say don't RTFM. It wont help you at all as far as learning to fly or fight in the 109. As far as something easy it doesn't get much easier than the AI Mustang in DCS for dogfighting. There isn't much in the way of missions or books that will help here either. I've heard In Pursuit is good for learning the basics but I've never read it myself so I can't say for sure. There is also a single mission called 1v1 which starts in a head on as opposed to the weird setup in the instant action mission. http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/lento_ohjeet/inpursuit/inpursuit.pdf TBH the best way to learn is just to keep trying and sooner or later you'll do something right. Then just remember what it was and keep doing it. Obviously it helps to have someone who knows what their doing teach you. To start with focus on keeping the ball in the middle with the rudder and never pulling too hard on the stick. Smooth clean flying is key to maintaining energy. Get used to how the aircraft feels in a hard turn, how far you are allowed to pull the stick before you get into buffetting etc. One stripe of flaps usually helps against Mustangs as well.

I always got the impression this was more to do with the slats and or some amount of input lag because of the high control forces on the 109. It certainly behaves differently but I don't think it's a different system on the 109. Didn't Yo-Yo say its the same for all DCS aircraft?

+1 Well said Torso.

Anyone post these yet?

I completely agree with everything that Art-J says. I would give you +rep if I hadn't already for another post somewhere.

I believe the intention is to start modelling different fuel types for all aircraft anyway as a ME optioin. C3 for the German ones and the 150 octane stuff for the Mustang. Maybe by the time the P-47 is closer they will be far enough to have these options implemented from the get go.

If it didn't require skill to win there would be a problem. Regardless of aircraft or mission type.

Obviously not as it's being offered as a bundle for $60.

I don't necessarily think any of them are bad so to speak. I actually quite like parts of alot of them. However I would agree that most of them don't quite sound like a DB605 to me.