DefaultFace

I'm sure Mr. Grey has plenty of experience in the real deal, and I'll believe whatever he tells me about the real spitfire. But DCS is not a real spitfire, its a video game based off of math that people made up so that it is closeish to what the real thing does. It is not perfect, it will never be perfect. Flying a video game and flying a real plane are very different things and you can put 10 different spitfire pilots in front of DCS and they will all say something different. Especially when they are the one trying to sell that video game to you, and the entire brand is based off of that video game being the most realistic thing out there (this isnt anything nefarious, just how the world works). IMO "Nick Grey said its good, therefore there mustn't be any problems at all and its all perfect" is a silly argument. The spitfire turns quite well, its supposed to, not really surprised at this. Don't think there is really an issue here. Maybe there is a discussion to be had about how well poorly flown aircraft retain energy in DCS, people pulling way too hard, constantly in a stall not really losing a whole lot of energy. This is a general thing though, maybe it stands out more for the spit because of how inherently good the spit is at dogfighting, but it is all aircraft. MAD did some dive tests a while ago that didn't really seem to make much sense compared to what one finds in historical flight tests. These would be interesting to discuss/replicate and see if there is anything there. Other than that the rest of this namecalling (luftwhiner, noob, whatever your personal choice is), getting angry saying your favorite plane is underpowered and the opposition are all noobs and making silly videos doesn't really get us anywhere. Also just for the sake of completeness in regards to Amazings video. No issue here. Most planes make more than enough lift to break themselves at Clmax at high speeds. See below if it helps: In the top graph the line on the right is the structural limit (turn radius for which you reach the G-limit of the aircraft at that speed) and the left is the turn radius at Clmax for that speed considering bank angle required to maintain level flight. Absolute min radius is at 90° bank (all lift used for turning).

Absolutely. Its a bit harder to do in the 109 here because of the stick forces but at lower speeds or by rolling you can still do "gamey" things no matter what aircraft you are flying. Its a general issue with combat flightsims. Unfortunately simulating motion sickness or something like that would not go too well and would likely end up like what one of the older sims tried with anthropomorphic controls that didn't work very well. :megalol: you two sound like little children. You run around screaming about how hopelessly outmatched you are in allied planes and then get angry and call people names when they do exactly what you are doing just the other way around. :doh: Without wanting to continue the derailment of this thread into talking about the spit: There is no reason that this is unusual. There is an aerodynamic limit to instantaneous turn performance for every aircraft, and it is independent of speed (Decreasing turn radius via increased lift is proportional to v^2, Increase in turn radius that results from increased speed is proportional to v^2. Cancels out.). Flying a path with the same radius results in much higher Gs at a high speed than it does at low speeds. This is why turn performance is structurally limited at high speeds in most aircraft (or by pilot strength in the DCS 109), and not by how much lift the aircraft can produce. FBW aircraft will stop you from killing yourself this way but a spitfire will not. Not saying the FM is perfect in every way but this is not an issue. See below if it helps: In the top graph the line on the right is the structural limit (turn radius for which you reach the G-limit of the aircraft at that speed) and the left is the turn radius at Clmax for that speed considering bank angle required to maintain level flight. Absolute min radius is at 90° bank (all lift used for turning).

There are several 109 pilots who have mentioned using the trim in order to pull out of dives, and in a few cases even in dogfights. No reason you couldnt do what you're talking about for real.

The AI is just very predictable and biased towards one fighting/flying style. It likes turning a lot (and does it quite well at higher skill levels) and if you get behind them in these turns they start trying high yo yos. Works well if it’s a 109 vs a Pony which has a lower power to weight ratio but is the wrong move if you are in the weaker climbing aircraft. Hence why the Spit and 109 do the best while the Dora is the worst when it comes to Ai fighting each other.

They use a simple FM so yes they can be kind of UFO like but they are beatable.

Its all a bit of a matter of perception, but I would tend to disagree. As you say the weapons on the 109 are concentrated on the nose and the theory here was that if you focus all those weapons at one point you get a nice concentrated amount of rounds at whatever you are shooting at. Its a little less this way on the K-4 because of the ballistics of the MK108 not matching the 13mms as well but that was the theory anyway. The downside to all this is that aerial gunnery is hard, and if you aren't a good shot then you will easily send your tightly packed salvo of ammunition into the sky around or behind your target. ie if you shoot well, all of your ammo will go into the target, but if you're even just a little off you'll miss entirely. I can't remember what book its in anymore but pilots at the time knew this, and some loved it, others didn't. The Mustang on the other hand has its guns more spread out, and instead of being setup with a convergence towards a point has them set to achieve "burst patterns" at several ranges. Think more Shotgun/machinegun vs Bolt action rifle. ie you don't have to aim laser precisely (which is difficult if not impossible in a dogfight anyway) just put him in a box and most of your ammo will probably hit him. The thing about the DCS DM is that angle of impact seems to play a large role in how effective your ammo is. If I can hit a target from behind above the tail (think steady turning fight) with a decent tracking burst its usually enough to cut a tail/wing off or destroy the targets engine. This works in the 109 and the Pony. On the other hand if you are shooting from directly behind (think both of you flying in a straight line one behind the other) the Machine guns are much less effective. Especially if your target then decides to do what most "noobs" do online which is spaz around up and down on the stick or kick the rudder back and forth. Youll get plenty of little hits but no steady tracking bursts usually. The little hits tend to not really do a whole lot cumulatively in the DCS dm. This is where the 30mm is a bit handy because if you can get close and just spray and pray a bit you can usually do enough damage to make a difference (even though it is itself a bit weaker than it should be). I don't think its enabled anymore but on the ACG server you used to be able to see what weapon people killed their targets with. Most of the 109 players made most of their kills with the 30mm in this way. In fact most newer players can't shoot very well and tend to just get close and then blast away as much as they can. Of course in this case the 30mm cannon wins. With the Mustang its harder to do since it doesn't have a cannon, and the guns are spread out on the wing so at close range if you have the target in the crosshair most of your bullets are going left and right of his tail. You have to aim to the side a bit at extreme close range so you get all 3 guns from one wing hitting the tail. Personally I prefer the Mustangs guns. The lead required is much more intuitive and I find I can hit things much further out (even without the K-14) much more consistently than with other aircraft. Its also much easier to "shoot from the hip" during fleeting snapshot opportunities.

Are you talking about ailerons or the rudder now? Not sure what you mean by "turns it far more"??? I have flown plenty of 109 and even landed it with some pretty sketchy damage, but missing both ailerons is go home criteria as you have to balance it out with the rudder. No way anyone is still dogfighting like this. Its not a spitfire where you can still get kills with one wing missing. My point here being: the damage model is not good, it has not been good for a long time. It is being updated. You can get away with things in all of the aircraft you shouldnt be able to, and they all can be very tanky depending on where they are hit. This idea that the 109 is tougher to kill than the allied aircraft is bs and mostly comes from people crying in the forums. Also remember that you are flying on a server located in eekz basement in Minsk somewhere. DCS netcode can be shoddy at the best of times but add a ping of 300+ to the mix and it doesn't help these things. Unfortunately high ping to overseas servers is part of living in Australia. I know because I used to live there myself. A 109E is a very different aircraft to the K we have in DCS. New wings, new ailerons etc etc. Either way stick forces are modelled in DCS, and certainly the 109 has a much tougher time with these than any of the other aircraft. Yes the K had the elevator gear ratio redone to reduce stick forces. Although this may or may not be accounted for in the FM as it is all based off of a G-2. Go read Yo-Yos post in the 109 forum if you want to know more. Again very subjective. Shall I pull out some quotes from Spit or P-38 pilots talking about how the Germans standard disengagement tactic was to Split S and dive away from them, and how they felt they had a tough time following that? Either way in DCS they are not. The stick forces make it difficult to achieve anything while booming and zooming. Especially since you can still hear other aircrafts engines over your own in DCS. Should I now find some quotes about how the 109 was mostly a boom and zoom aircraft and that Germans used hit and run tactics?? If it was so good at this how did the pilots hit anything with these stick forces? Obviously this means the stick forces are too high no?

Will any of these threads ever not devolve into whining about how horribly outmatched you people think the Mustang is? :doh: And Hub Zemkes Pony shed both its wings and spit him out because he flew through a storm.... Should the Mustang explode everytime you see a cloud in DCS? The only reason you can over G the wings on a Pony and Spit easier than the 109 in DCS is because the malnourished German K-4 pilot is too weak to pull the stick back far enough to reach that many Gs at high speed. Play with the trim in the 109 and you can do it as well. I agree the 505mph limit seems a bit conservative, but its not a huge disadvantage. I havent tested what speeds the other aircraft fall apart at but IIRC its with a similar margin over their theoretical vne. Either way just watch the airspeed in a dive and pull the throttle back at some point. Never caused me any problems after I figured out that the red line is there for a reason. The 109 is a freight train at that speed anyway, just wobble the elevators a little like all the other clowns and you're pretty much invincible no matter how close he is behind you. More of a mission design thing. No reason to be up there. No one fights you guys up there because you go on to a dogfight server where the bases are next to each other and 90% of players are at low alt and climb to the moon wondering why there is no one willing to spend 15 minutes climbing just to have you zoom down out of the blue yonder one time and then turn tail and run to airbase flak. Everyone can fly how they want, but don't act surprised when people get bored of that and decide to go fight someone else instead. Sh#t DCS damage model is sh#t. This is nothing new and hardly a mustang only problem. The 109 goes into a spin everytime the rudder takes a single .50 round....? Just wait "2 weeks" new DM is in testing :smilewink: . Now you open a whole can of worms about balancing, which will throw most people here into a tailspin about "its a simulator" and "historical accuracy". Either way Sithspawn already said that ED is working on high octane fuel for the Pony. My guess is it will be the 72" version, which IRL AFAIK was used only by the 8th AF based in France for a period between mid 44 and early-mid 45. 75" was tested IIRC but not operational and Ive never heard anything about 80 inches on a USAF Mustang except for some anecdotes about Iwo Jima (Maybe RAF ones had it idk). Blatantly false. There are plenty of pilot comments about the 109 IRL being extremely well mannered when it comes to stalls. Many have said that it was next to impossible to stall without doing it intentionally. As long as you are coordinated the slats will be out evenly and the inner wing will stall first and the aircraft sort of mushes into the stall till you put the stick forward. If anything I've heard more stories about the Pony having a tendency to aggressively drop wings during stalls. If you ask me they all seem a bit too tame but I also havent flown the real things so who knows. Its a simulator, anything post stall gets far more difficult to model anyway, and DCS (as well as any other computer sim) is not perfect. As far as how things are in DCS, I have flown both more than enough to tell you that the Pony is much nicer to fly all around, no doubt about it. The mustang is nice and gentle and reacts well at all speeds, all the controls are harmonious and at least with my FFB stick the stall limit is very predictable, which makes flying right on the edge very pleasant in the Mustang. The 109 is more like taking a spoon to your cake batter and thrashing around in it till something happens. Usually you have to make much larger control movements to get anywhere in it. Being uncoordinated makes a much larger difference and its harder to figure out how much rudder you need as well. Particularly in slow vertical loops or hammerheads shes very finnicky, if you don't pop the stick forward at just the right moment shell fall backwards instead of doing what you want it to. Yes the 109 turns better, but if you fly the pony decently you'll find you can outturn the vast majority of 109 pilots online. Most people use little to no rudder at all and rip around at the controls like gorillas at a banana. Of course in this case the lighter airplane will win. If you fly the mustang smoothly and coordinatedly with a little bit of flaps (also take ~40% fuel) in turns you'll find she turns almost exactly as well as a 109. At that point once they see they aren't outturning you they will panic and you'll see that 109s wings start wobbling back and forth and then hes just waiting to eat a load of .50s. For an airplane that weighs 2 tons more and has significantly less power thats not half bad, and it really speaks to the aerodynamic quality of the Mustang.

:doh:

+1 This would be the best idea IMO. Swirling dogfights in the alps and takeoffs and landings from airfields nestled between mountains or on mountain sides sounds awesome to me!

Its definitely interesting, and basically a perfect fit for our aircraft (except the Mustangs we have which are maybe a tad too late for it, but they aren't significantly different from the ones used there), but its being done by another sim. I think if there is that much overlap alot of people who currently buy and fly both because they offer different things they are interested in will end up just choosing one instead. And Im pretty sure what most will choose will not end up being DCS. As someone who wants to see DCS WWII continue to be developed, as well as have some people flying it online I think it would be a bad idea.

Battle of the Bulge would be a poor choice IMO considering the competition. Some portion of Germany would be the best fit considering the a/c we have are all 1945 aircraft (or last month or 2 of 44) except the spit. Personally I'd like either Berlin or something with the alps the best.

Has been that way since PBR was implemented. No change to the standard skins in this patch.

Not that I know of. Wouldnt be the first time that ED incorporates user skins. Reflected is making campaigns for them now so maybe its not entirely a stretch. Youd have to ask them though.

Default Skins in general for the mustang are sorely in need of an update. The Fuselage looks ok for the most part IMO but the wings are strange and totally unreflective. And the flaps shine blue in some angles. They need to be updated for PBR compatibility. At the moment if you want decent looking mustang skins use some of the ones from Reflected or from the Pacific mustangs pack in the user files section. Hopefully ED will do some work on the default ones as part of their revamp of the mustang......

There were issues with yaw stability when going from the Razorback to bubbletop variant. The P-47 had this as well. In both cases it was fixed by adding a dorsal fin in front of the vertical stab (the little extra bit of surface area extending forward from the bottom of the vertical tailplane).

+1 :thumbup: A B/C Mustang with the Malcolm Hood would be amazing. Lighter and faster than the D and if it gets the higher octane fuel it will be incredible. Plus no fancy tail radar or Gyro sight doo dads, sounds like a hell of a fun time in a dogfight!

A P-51B/C would be awesome. But if it took them 4 years already just to remove one panel in the cockpit and shave off an antenna we may be waiting a while :P

Довольно отвратительно видеть, что вы пришли сюда, чтобы выдвинуть обвинения, когда вы думаете, что мы этого не видим, особенно когда с нашей точки зрения именно вы и ваши друзья делают то, в чем вы обвиняете нас. Так кто же прав? Может быть, мы вам не нравимся, это нормально, но не выдумывайте, чтобы нас запретили только потому, что вы злитесь. Eekz, я надеюсь, ты знаешь лучше, чем верить в эту чушь. Извините за плохой русский, пришлось использовать гугл переводчик S! 9./JG27

dont think this is true. Coyote just about confirmed the opposite some time ago. only texture rework like the other ac.

It’s also broken in MP. When you shoot down enemy it gives a message that a plane of your own type was damaged.

yeah there is a missing antenna on the tail and one panel (IFF) missing in the pit. No weight difference in game though.

Yes but somehow I doubt the change in Radio equipment would result in an aircraft that weighs exactly the same, down to the pound. I think all they did was change the 3d model.

Anyone try the new one yet? Im still downloading the patches but Im told the Tailradar is still in, they have the same exact weight in the editor??? The only difference seems to be the single antenna on the tail for the 3d model.

The Mustang is definitely the most versatile of the aircraft modeled thusfar. About as close to "multirole" as you can get to put it simply.