DefaultFace

I think he meant corrected ballistics as per the change in rounds. To which I believe the answer is that depends.... As I understand the round is a M-Brandgranatpatrone, which is correctly modeled, ballistics wise anyway, just not labeled properly. So yes. If the question is has the normal Brandgranatpatrone been modeled and or the belting been changed? Then no. On yet another side note, I wonder if the round we have doesn't have the ballistics of a M-Brandgranatpatrone but the damage of a Brandgranatpatrone, since the 2 rounds do seem to have quite different effects in the sim. Would have thought that the M-Brandgranatpatrone and the Minengeschosspatrone have a fairly similar effect.

Don't think there is anything as far as proper mil hold but there is this: http://rafiger.de/Homepage/Literatur/Schiessfibel.pdf The table in here is fairly simplified and only valid for a certain round at a certain speed etc etc. Basically its a very rough guide. However it is worth reading, important part is understanding that lead needs to be varied depending on the difference in direction of travel between yourself and your target. Try to get a feel for what angle corresponds to what distance from the middle of the sight. Having a mental picture of an aircraft at 30° and knowing that means xyz radii from the middle of the sight. Eventually you'll just look at the airplane and know the distance needed. Takes alot of practice though. Here is the USAF version of that document. see page 23-25 for some nice drawings on the topic of lead angle. http://memory.loc.gov/service/gdc/scd0001/2010/2010_01/20100404008fi/20100404008fi.pdf Edit: rel4y that link doesn't work, or at least not for me...

razo+r nope, there is another table for the normal Minengeschosspatrone which has 500 m/s v0. Both rounds fit the info in the tables.

Ok. Now that you mention it I think we discussed in another thread that the table was mislabeled as well, seems I had forgotten. S!

So am I missing something or don't the values in the lua correspond exactly with the ones from the Schußtafel? Obviously if the Brandgranatenpatrone is actually Minenbrandgranatpatrone then that would be incorrect. Which round is supposed to have a v0 of 540m/s? Side note rel4y do you have a Scußtafel for the M-Brandgranatpatrone? I can only find tables for the other 2 rounds.

I don't think drop is really the key thing to be talking about with aerial gunnery here. The travel time of the projectile to reach a certain distance would have a more of an effect on how much lead is required, which is part of what makes the 108 difficult to use.

190 seems to allow you to adjust the sight for different altitudes. Not sure if it works though.

+110 ;) also we don't even have the map yet so who cares where it fits :P

Sure but I doubt that the extra 200HP and corresponding speed difference will make a hugely noticeable difference. Those who bnz now with enough energy advantage will still survive the ordeal, those who don't won't. The only place I could even imagine that it would make a noticeable difference would be in a chase on the deck. When we get the new fuel I doubt people will stop saying 'Mustang sucks ED screwed it up etc etc' That and theoretically multiple fuel types will be available for all AC. That means 109s with C3 fuel and 2000HP instead of 1850. Assuming it is something set in the mission editor it then depends on who is designing the mission.

Pretty sure the new fuel has already been confirmed. And a whole new mustang..... Hate to break it to ya but I'm pretty sure the main downside of the P-51 is not the fuel it uses. Try out the TF-51 in a mock fight and see for yourself...

Might be a few days late to the party but only just saw this thread so I thought I might weigh in. Like everyone else said easy depends on the definition. If you are talking about combat flying and in which aircraft you'll be able to fight in the fastest when starting from 0 experience and knowledge I would say without a doubt the Spitfire. In terms of easy to fly around and look good then it would be the Mustang, solely because it has much easier ground handling than the spit. Other than that the Spit beats the rest for a new player. IMO there are 3 big things that make the Spit so good for new players: 1) The way you fight well in a spit is much more Intuitive than with some of the other aircraft. If you put someone whos only experience with air combat is watching top gun in a merge I'm fairly certain that 99/100 people will look at the enemy aircraft and go into a hard turn straight towards them. If 2 'noobs' go into a fight and do this the guy flying the Spit will win. 2) The Spit is IMO the easiest to fly cleanly and maintain energy with. Balancing the rudder and flying a clean hard turn is easier to learn and do well in the Spit than the other aircraft. 3) The guns on the Spit are awesome. After 2 days of flying the Spit I shoot way better with it than with any other aircraft in DCS or in other sims. Convergence is set perfectly, the rounds are fast and don't require too much lead and the 20mm tears things apart nicely. The one downside here is how little can be seen over the nose when in close but you can learn to get around that. Big downsides compared to other a/c are poor ground handling, and the engine takes a bit of getting used to so as not to blow it. Generally if you avoid prop hanging I haven't had many problems. You are also slower which means less energy and a vulnerability to bnz from German aircraft. TBH it may have changed recently but a couple weeks ago I didn't have huge problems with this. The 109 is hard to bnz with and if I kept my eyes open I could time a hard turn or barrel roll to ward off any 190s coming at me for long enough to get to safety. Don't get me wrong here, the Spit isn't gonna turn a noob into an ace, and it also takes time and effort to master. As a beginner you won't necessarily win but you might last a little longer and feel like you might have had a chance if you hadn't done this or that or had just a little more practice. IMO if you are learning to dogfight and fly online in DCS the experience will be marginally less demoralizing in the Spitfire than in the other aircraft. In the end no matter what you fly, if you want to tangle with the best you need to practice. And the best way to practice is to get killed. Over and over and over and over and over............

No one said its the only cause. No one is demanding changes be made. It's just speculation and discussion in a forum, sort of what is supposed to happen here. I was just throwing an idea out there about something I ha noticed and it seems others noticed it too. Maaaaybe at this point the next step is look for charts and submit a bug report after testing.

Nice videos! Could it be that this has to do with how prop wash over control surfaces is modeled in DCS? I know someone will lose it at this comment but in the 'other' sim this effect is much more pronounced. Noticed in several videos with 109s in particular that they use alot of rudder when taxiing whereas in DCS its pretty useless. I always taxi 100% with brakes in the 109.

+1

The 262 is a piece of history. Regardless of it's useability in MP I think it will be awesome to have one modeled in the amount of detail that DCS aircraft are. That is part of what I think attracts alot of people to DCS. To sit in the cockpit and push all the buttons and to experience the nuances of it's handling in a way that you can't from a book or from a documentary on the history channel. Even if I never fly it online the 262 is definitely something I'm looking forward to.

Of course it's weird. Did I say it wasn't? That was never my point. My point was that your claim that the 109 is unfairly advantaged by the DM in a way that the P-51 isn't is not true. If any aircraft is disadvantaged at all it would be the Spitfire, which seems to have the most believable Damage Model so far. Even then It's weaponry has proven fairly effective against the 'Immortal' German aircraft. Hopefully the new DM will be here soon, but I'm afraid it's another case of '2 weeks' as is everything in DCS. I'll believe it when I see it. On to something that may be slightly offtopic here... You mentioned only tracers showing hits on enemy aircraft. I noticed this as well with both the .50 and MG 131. I've shot down aircraft without ever seeing a hit on them before. Just going off of guncam footage there seems to be a fairly noticeable 'sparkle' or at least smoke/debris when an aircraft is hit. In older DCS videos this effect seems to have been more visible. Does anyone know if it was changed/removed or if there is a bug report open on this?

Damaged control surfaces certainly do affect the 109. I already mentioned this. Also I and many others here have seen mustangs do things just as if not more suspect... So what is your point? The 109 is no more broken than the Mustang, arguably less so IMO since damage has at least some effect on the handling characteristics of the aircraft, even if these effects are only partial.

There is no way those 2 rounds ripped the wing off. Looking at the distance and the angle at which you wwre flying a collision seems much more likely.

Completely new is a bit of an overstatement. And not too distant future is probably also an overstatement as well but I guess that remains to be seen.

Haven't seen that particular break before but there are plenty of weird LOD bugs where wing mid sections are missing and then you zoom in and they aren't. Once again AI Damage model is different to the Player one and this is well known. Secondly visual damage model =/= actual damage model in DCS.

If that is an AI aircraft you can pretty much forget any comments about the DM. It's pretty well known that all ai aircraft in DCS WWII have some 'interesting' damage models. The player aircraft are generally much better, although still far from perfect. It is known to ED and a new system is being worked on. As far as the 109 being the most resilient in DCS, well.... Not really. The damage model has had some interesting progression in the last few months. Any hits near the radiators usually result in overheating and eventually large coolant leaks and engine failure. This happens much more frequently than it used to. Hits in the tail section (anywhere aft of the wings) often cause sloppy controls and a reduced turn rate, generally make the ac a pain in the a$$ to fly. (I believe this may be supposed to be for hits on control surfaces, which sometimes aren't shown visually, often it's just random hits in the tail structure and it flies wierd) Good bursts at convergence tend to break a lot of stuff when the Mustang hit's you. It's just that most people don't hit in bursts, but rather on or 2 hits in a snapshot and then again and again. The Spitfire on the other hand has surprisingly effective weapons. While it won't blow up the aircraft like a 30mm might they really tear it to pieces. Pretty easy to knock control surfaces off with those 20mm and the 303 makes wonderful holes in the wings and radiators. As far as the most resilient aircraft? In my experience it is by far the Mustang. There is no way that aircraft can survive 3,4 or even 5 30mm rounds plus a couple hundred 13mm. Now 5 30mm is the extreme case but only about 1 in 50 goes down from a single 30mm hit. That and all these things seem to have no effect on how the aircraft handles. I've flown it myself with coconut sized holes in the wings and it turns as if nothing had happened (once again also possibly a mismatch between the visual 'damage model' and the actual damage on the aircraft, either way I've shot them enough that there should be plenty of holes to cause some problems). I've also flown it with the governor blown at 4600 rpm for more than 10 minutes (only once may have been a bug). On the topic of Machineguns in the .50 cal range (ie the .50s and the 13mm) I've noticed they seem to behave very differently depending on impact angle. At high angles in crossing shots or head ons I've found it much easier to take aircraft apart in one burst (in both the Mustang and the 109 against ai and players), whereas I have flown around at a near 6 position and pumped MG rounds into aircraft without end just to see some smoke and not much else. Maybe this will have more effect with the more detailed damage model but who knows. Certainly seems suspect atm. On a final note I am pretty sure that a couple of people are going to disagree with me here. Please keep in mind that all of this is based off of my experiences flying all of the aircraft in DCS WWII on both sides and is therefore subjective and not a scientific test. Let's try not to get this one locked please.

Not saying any of the people here would but data export opens the window to all sorts of tools people like to use to cheat. 'Magic Radars' and I've heard of tacview being used real time on another screen to find people as well. Tacview is cool but there is a reason this stuff is left off on most servers. In the end it's up to eekz to decide though.

Ok. Tbh I would prefer hearing them at idle to hearing them always though. The time where hearing aircraft makes the most difference is when being Boom and Zoomed. Usually aircraft are running at at least cruise power then so i'd guess it would at least solve that problem.

Yeah Retu I understand that the limit is with a hefty safety factor included but I cycled it multiple times at high speed and only the tailwheel failed. Landed afterward no problem as well. Track showed no damage in the event list.

According to the manual max speed with the gear extended is 350 km/h. Out of curiosity I was trying to break it today and noticed that it doesn't. Tested all the way up to a 600km/h dive then extended the gear (ie gear up, dive, then extend at 600 km/h) and had no damage. Not a huge issue but might want to be looked at. Edit: ok after another test at 700 km/h now the tailwheel won't raise anymore but mainwheels are still fine. 109G simulator? :P