DefaultFace

Yes AI improvements are planned. Yes it will probably be a while. soon tm. Not to be that guy, but if you use the search function youll find this has been discussed before.

I think I see where the miscommunication is.... I usually just compare speeds at sea level since that’s where most of the action is in DCS. It’s very possible that the gap is larger st altitude.

As you say its about 20-30 kmh. I agree its not negligible. Definitely noticeable, but not humongous. Especially considering that since the K-4 is actually about 10 kmh slower than IRL in DCS, the difference is more like 10 kmh.... In a perfect world we would have an AS as well..... But its dcs and everything takes forever. IMO making a non AS and an AS G-6/14 wouldnt be worth it. For me the non AS is different enough to warrant a purchase, another AS might not be. What would be nice, and it may be wishful thinking here but....... ED already has the 605 modeled with the AS supercharger and cowling.... If they were to make a non AS I would think it might be pretty simple to do an AS and include it as one module........ Anyway... All we can do is hope for some news about EDs plans for WWII after the DM or the new maps come. The original assets pack list has disappeared from the store page and the forums and after I asked what that meant the thread got closed pretty quick... so not sure if the G-6 AI that was listed there is still a plan or if things have changed... Well have to wait and see.

By that logic no one bought the A-8 since we already have a Dora...? Also you do not seem to understand what we are talking about when we say G-6. A late model G-6 (the one that would be appropriate for Normandy in July44) == G-14. The only difference between the two is the way the MW-50 system is pressurised. It is also absolutely not slower than a Spit IX. Yes the K-4 did not fly in Normandy, but it is not really extremely different to a G-14/AS which did fly at that time. It is somewhat faster, but not hugely so. Also if we are going to exclude aircraft just because they weren't the most common, then we should never add the Spit XIV in DCS. In fact there were less Spit XIVs built than K-4s, by a large margin. There is no evidence that 25lb boost MkXIVs were ever used operationally. Ive only even seen it mentioned twice. The 1st report mentioned that the aircraft shed its propeller when the power was increased. The 2nd one mentions connecting rods being forcefully ejected out the side of the engine and cowling...... I'm all for a Spit XIV, but lets not be silly.

Thats a list of whats out so far. Back when it first came out there was a list of planned units including a G-6 and A-8 AI as well as a few other things. Its not on the store page or here anymore........ I saw it in this trailer:

Glad I've got someone convinced :D. Id love to see early/mid war stuff too, or even different theatres eventually. A 109 F-4 would be my absolute top choice to have in DCS. some sort of 1943 scenario with Razorback Jugs, Spit Vs P-38s 109Fs and early Gs etc etc would be a dream. But I feel like due to the nature of how long things take to materialise in DCS the time would be best spent on things that arent too massive steps from what we have now but will be big in terms of getting a good historical setup in place. Like the G-6 or another mustang which could be relatively quickly developed compared to say a Zero or something where the devs would need to start from scratch. Honestly the server thing could be solved with a good map rotation, instead of just the same mission over and over again. Something like early/mid 44 with Pony B/C, Spit IX,Jug,Mossie, G-6 & A-8, then late 44 with those & the Pony D & the K-4 as an AS stand in, and then on to 45 Germany with all the late war toys. You wouldnt have to separate people on different servers, just play the maps one after the other and let them run for an hour or so before switching. The problem at the moment is that in reality there is the BS server, and only the BS server. A couple others exist but they dont regularly see large numbers. The playerbase is just so small that people go on the server thats populated/thats already in their favorites list. We've tried a couple times to see if the Fighting Legends server was worth starting again & David even put together some nice missions with forest airfields etc etc, but usually were either borrowing a server from the TAW guys, or using Nitrous' server and not enough people fly on it regularly for it to be worth investing in something more permanent. edit: did anyone else notice the Stuka in the new I-16 trailer.... I wonder if its part of the assets pack or if its something being worked on as flyable.... The Ju88 seems to be in engine and flying too from the looks of things.

Wheres the list of what was supposed to be coming later on gone? Its not on the store page anymore....... Or here. Theres a Stuka in the new I-16 trailer (as well as the Ju88). Is that gonna be part of the assets pack or is this something a 3rd party is making?

Actually I'm almost ashamed to say I probably have about several hundred hours on that server :D ..... But last time I checked there were plenty of people flying the Anton. It is the latest fad after all. Plus until the Doras engine works reliably again..... Yes these aircraft all flew over Germany in 45. Which is why the best solution would actually be to have a 1945 Germany map. But most of them didnt fly in Normandy. IMO the optimal solution/my dream list for DCS WWII would be: A 45 Germany map (maybe even including parts of austria for those nice alpine dogfights), a late model non AS G-6/G-14 and an actually ETO appropriate P-51 which isnt just a cosmetic mod of the one we have (or even better a P-51B/C). The G 109 should be even easier to make than the Anton since its also got a 605. With this and the Jug & Mossie coming soon tm it would make quite a nice, relatively realistic planeset useable for scenarios from at least D-day onwards. Then maybe a german 2 mot after that as well.

Yeah no one would fly the G-6, just like how no one flies the Anton now. Good point, obviously this was a silly idea.... :doh: A P-38 would be sweet too.

That video is from 2017. So is this a new issue or is it just the old DM still being poor as it always has been? Also most of the rounds fired in that video almost certainly hit nothing but air.

ED puts stuff in patches without telling us all the time. Hell just a few days ago they mentioned the VR optimisation has been in for 2 weeks now after explicitly stating it wasnt. Its very possible that parts of the new DM are already in. I've had this same conversation about a million times over the years, both on the forums or in teamspeak etc etc etc. From both sides. Plenty of times I've seen Mustangs or Spits swallow 30mm like its nothing and then eat up 13mm just to change the color of their smoke a few times, then go home and land. I've had flights in the Mustang where I go out and every guy I shoot at falls to bits after a nice short burst. Ive had flights in the Mustang where a 109 eats quite a bit of .50 before they go down. While its possible that something has changed in the last few patches..... its much more likely that this is just people getting frustrated, same as always. The best way to make your MGs do anything in DCS has always been a solid burst at high deflection. Singular sporadic hits, even if there are many of them, from directly behind someone have always been less effective in DCS. Even more so for MG instead of cannon. The server is also in belarus. The harmonisation on the Pony means that you may not be hitting as much as you think you are as well. Hell the tracers are not even necessarily where the bullets are most of the time either.

No, not at all. Some of the best players I know fly with VR. It has some advantages, and some disadvantages, but overall it wont make someone significantly better or worse. Spotting is bad, but its bad on a monitor too.... and the labels help a little. IDing is more of an issue, especially now that the trwcers arent all different anymore. it can help to fly in a group where people talk about what theyre attacking a bit. as you say 6 checks are the biggest disadvantage. can make last ditch defensive flying significantly more challenging, but if youre a newbie i wouldnt worry about that too much anyway. The DMs have been shoddy at best for all the planes for long enough that everyone here already knows about it. Even more so with the process of making and integrating the new ones recently. Do you guys really have to keep on repeating yourselves every 5 minutes on every damn thread you can find? Or is it some sort of unwritten rule in the 362nd that you have to proclaim the mustangs inferiority at every possible chance? Can you imagine the butthurt there would be if a sqn of 109 pilots complained about the mustang or spit as incessantly as you do?

Not really. Its not particularly faster than just rolling in DCS, nor is it particularly energy efficient.

Well despite having nothing but coal, somehow the 190 managed to keep flying until the end of the war.... curious isnt it....

MAD & I found some more stuff: Schematic for the EN modification: http://degnans.com/markd/190boost.jpg apparently from Jan 45 Performance Summary Fw 190 with BMW 801 D: http://www.avia-it.com/act/profili_daerei/libretti_velivolo/pa_altri_lib.velivoli/roberto_marzi/Fw-190_BMW-801D.pdf Not sure of an exact date but this seems to be from late Jan 44. Mentions serial production of the Fighter A-8 will include either a GM-1 system or the additional fuselage tank. Seems from the other documents from earlier that this didnt come to fruition.

The reason I come to that conclusion is because.... thats what it says. Erhöhte Notleistung: Ab Juli 1944 werden sämtliche Flugzeuge der Baureihe Fw 190 A-8 mit "erhöhter Notleistung" ausgerüstet. Durch Eingriff in den Ladedruckregler ..... As of July 1944 all aircraft of the series A-8 will be outfitted with Erhöhte notleistung. Via modification of the Manifold Pressure regulator ..... We know that at the very least the plan was to outfit all 190 A-8s with EN. My understanding is that this modification was relatively simple. In the Baubeschreibung from Nov 44 and this document from Dec. 43 describing a method of increasing MP on 801 D-2 engines in A-8s. http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/BMW_VB_126.pdf The only modifications mentioned here are the use of "Blenden" in the air lines to the Mixture and MP regulator. Blenden here is hard to translate but the only thing I found was a Durchflußblende (http://www.maschinenbau-wissen.de/skript3/fluidtechnik/hydraulik/200-blende) which is often translated as flow limiter in english, which is used to reduce pressure in hydraulic/pneumatic flows. If thats all that needed to be done it doesnt seem like an extremely complicated change.... Was there more to these modifications? I dont have any other documentation about it so if you know more please feel free to enlighten me. :D (the same document mentions the 801 TU (801Q-2) superseding the D-2 as of July 44. Obviously you cant field mod engine swaps to all aircraft in the field, but I guess the new engine would have the mods needed for EN too? If its supposed to start replacing the old engine then most likely aircraft built after July 44 would start getting these engines no?). Same goes for the extra tank. The only thing Ive found mentioning it was the document in Nov 44 where it was mentioned that it would be fitted to A-8s on the production line as of Aug-Sep 44. I know earlier variants (also only the Jabo ones) of the Anton used C3 injection, but nothing ive found about this mentions an additional fuel tank. MW-50 all i know is it was tested at some point in 42 or 43 but I thought it was abandoned due to cracks in the cylinders or something. Either way it isnt mentioned again in any of the documents publically available. Ok.... Do you know why or are you just mentioning it? I would guess as MAD said that fuel shortages were an issue. You mentioned yourself at some point that C3 injection was mostly used to offset performance losses due to increased weight etc, not just to improve standard aircraft. Maybe it was decided that it was only worth using the extra fuel on the heavier Jabo/Schlacht 190s and the fighters would manage without.

Is there no design eye point/height for the aircraft... If so use that.

Since there are already a collection of threads on the subject of FW 190 engine settings/WEP, with the same several documents being posted over and over and the same arguments being made over and over, I figured Id make an attempt at summarizing what we've actually found so far in english so that everyone can understand: Here is what we have: https://bmw-grouparchiv.de/research/detail/index.xhtml?id=3053464 BMW 801 Handbook - May 1942 http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/Fw_190_A-8_15-3-44.pdf Quickly realisable Options for increasing Performance in the FW190 with 801D through engine modifications - 15 Mar 1944 http://www.deutscheluftwaffe.com/archiv/Dokumente/ABC/f/FockeWulf/Fw%20190/284_Fw_190_A_8.pdf Production Specifications/Description of the Fighter Aircraft FW 190 A-8 - 30 Nov 1944 Additionally there is a Flugzeughandbuch (Aircraft Handbook) floating around but its a translated english version. The german version is in the internet somewhere (I found it a looong time ago but havent been able to find it again), but it doesnt say anything not mentioned in the documents above AFAIK. So from the BMW 801 Handbook page 16 we know that the 801 D ran only on 95 Octane C3 fuel. This is without any sort of modifications or other performance increasing injection systems etc. Just the engine, by itself can only be run on C3. The additional tank behind the pilot: As birkenmoped posted above, it is stated in the Baubeschreibung (Production Specifications/Description) that this tank was included in order to satisfy a request to increase the range of the 190 without negatively affecting the aerodynamics. Whilst the area occupied by this tank could be used for the addition of an unprotected MW-50 or GM-1 tank, currently for the main production series of the A-8 only the inclusion of the additional fuel tank is planned. As of 30 Nov 1944 This report also tells us that all A-8s delivered as of August-September will be delivered with the additional fuel tank. WEP, Boost increase, fluid injection etc: The document from Mar. 44 describes the possibilities of WEP modifications for the various types of 190. For Jabo-Rei and Schlachtflugzeug variants a boost increase to 1,65 ata with C3 injection at 65 L/min was suggested. For the Normal fighter variant (which is what we have currently) there were 2 options: I: Increased Emergency Power (Erhöhte Notleistung) to 1,58 ata in the 1st supercharger gear, and 1,62 ata in the 2nd. Notably without C3 injection!!, and also noted that these ratings were not currently certified for use by Rechlin. II: GM-1 injection -> Back to the Baubeschreibung in Nov. 44: This document mentions that as of July 1944 all aircraft of the production series Fw 190 A-8 will be outfitted with the Erhöhte Notleistung Boost increases. It also mentions that the installation of a GM-1 tank instead of the additional fuselage tank is technically feasible/possible, however it is not required for the production series Fw 190 A-8. So what does all this mean? In my opinion this shows that any Fighter variant A-8 aircraft which is outfitted with the extra fuel tank, must also have the Erhöhte Notleistung ratings for the engine. If the engine rating is being modeled anyway, there should be an option for the increased engine ratings without the tank. This would mean that we would have: Base A-8 A-8 built before Aug/September 44, but operated after July 44 - No extra tank, but with Erhöhte Notleistung A-8 built after Aug/September 44 - Extra tank and Erhöhte Notleistung As for GM-1/MW-50 I think its rather clear that at least for the A-8 neither was incorporated on a large scale. In fact for the most part it is explicitly stated that it was not planned/required to do so. I would say this is further supported by this Flight test report from 1 Jan 45 where you can see that for the A-8 and A-9 no MW-50 is listed as being onboard. http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190-a8-3jan45.jpg Horizontal Flight Speed vs Altitude with Special Emergency Power The only claims for it so far are Wikipedia and I guess some books. Maybe it was on the A-9, but that had different engines and while there is performance data for an A-9 with GM-1 (as there is for an A-8) the only document I found on it other than charts was relatively unreadable.

Ping and netcode can play a large role in DM stuff. Also worth noting is that using missions built in older versions of DCS can cause some.... wonkiness with FM/DM as well. For whatever reason eekz, who runs pretty much the only regularly populated WWII server, has decided to go back to the same mission that was running on his server in DCSW 1. something or other, which definitely doesnt help with these things.

Was just painted on I believe. Yo-Yo mentioned it earlier and it is also referred to in the Flugzeughandbuch.

200 is too fast unless you are doing a 2 pointer (which technically wasnt allowed in the luftwaffe... tsk tsk). The A-8 will stall much slower unless she is quite heavy. As the others have said, flare and hold it a little bit off the runway, then do as brunotte says and let it fall like a piano from the 5th floor.

Hab dir nochmal ne PM geschickt Fritz. Hoffe es hilft... & das es wer ließt :D :music_whistling:

Zumindest in DCS war das schon immer so das Primen die chancen das der motor anspringt eher verringert als sonst was macht.... Und in den Interviews mit Brunotte könnte er sich nicht mal an ein gerät zum primen errinnern. Er meinte sowas wäre nicht vorhanden.....

IIRC trimming in the A-8 is achieved in the same way as for the D-9 and the 109, in that the entire Horizontal stabilizer rotates. This is modeled this way for the Dora in DCS. In the Anton currently only the elevator (control surface itself) moves, and it almost looks like its just being translated up & down, instead of the entire stabilizer and elevator rotating. FM-wise it also functions as it would if the entire stabilizer were moving. If you get both your elevators shot off (which dont actually disappear, or show damage, but they have no effect anymore... a separate DM bug but I assume its still WIP.) you can still fly by using the trim. If it were only the control surface being moved this should not happen.

Ja das mit der Frontscheibe gibts schon einige threads zu im Englischen Forum. Mit den Abzugsknöpfe hat mich auch schon gewundert weil das ist in dem "anderen Sim" auch so wie es im handbuch geschrieben ist umgesetzt. Wenn du englisch hilfe für nen bug report willst schick mir gern nen PM oder sowas. Evtl. gibts hier auch noch was zu finden http://www.deutscheluftwaffe.com/archiv/Dokumente/ABC/f/FockeWulf/Fw%20190/Fw%20190%20A-7%20Schusswaffenanlage%20MG%20131.pdf http://www.deutscheluftwaffe.com/archiv/Dokumente/ABC/f/FockeWulf/Fw%20190/Fw%20190%20A-7%20A-8%20R-2%20Schusswaffenanlage.pdf