PL_Harpoon

I'd even hazard a guess that even at the end of the war K4's were more common that Griffon powered Spits. I guess that was offset by allies much greater numerical advantage and the fact that at that time pilot training in Luftwaffe was extremely poor/fast (to keep up with the losses) so that Allied pilots were in general more skilled. Both things are not a factor in DCS (especially multiplayer) So yeah, a it would be great to have G6's instead (or just have both with limited K4 slots on servers) but for now we allied pilots just have to "git gud" and carry on.

Great landing! Especially since you've just bought the plane.

Keep in mind that after the 5 min mark the engine failure is randomized. It can happen instantly but just as well it can take several more minutes. I guess this is to simulate engine wear and such.

I know you mean water, but I've never heard it referred as ADI. What does the acronym actually stand for?

The thing is, single engagement is not enough to get reasonable conclusions. This could've been a lucky shot.

Interesting. Both of those articles seem to suggest that the 13mm bullet of MG131 was actually less effective than the M2's 50.cal. Then there is this post: https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/ww2-german-13mm-cartridge-mg131-vs-usa-50-cal-cartridge-browning-m2-damage.51419/#post-1484323 Although there are no sources to check so it'd difficult to confirm.

I did some calculations regarding the MG131s. First of all, gun synchronizations shouldn't be an issue. Even at idle the rpm is around 1400 (during flight at normal speed). With the engine's reduction ratio of 0.594:1 the prop rpm would be around 830 rpm. Considering it's a 3-bladed prop, for each resolution there are 3 safe prop positions to fire. That'd give us 2490 correct prop positions per minute, which is way more than MG131s 900 rounds per minute. There might be slight delays in rpm but it's negligible. However... The M2 rate of fire isn't much lower at 800 rpm. So I made this simple calculation in Excel to see how powerful the MG131 round must be for the Bf-109 to have the same damage output as the P-51: Aircraft / weapon rps (rpm/60) guns hits per sec (all guns) damage per bullet dps (single gun) dps (all guns) BF-109 / MG131 15 2 30 2,7 40,5 81 P51 / M2 ,50 13,33 6 80 1 13,3 80 As you can see, the MG131 hit would have to be 2.7 times more effective than .50 cal to have the same effect. Now, in my tests I found out that 2xMG131 are not as effective as 6x .50 but they're pretty close. Also, there is a clear difference in type of damage: MG131 ammo does damage where it hits. .50 ammo has much greater chance of penetrating the airframe and damaging the engine or setting a fuel tank on fire. Even so, to be only slightly less effective the single hit from the MG131 has to be at least twice as powerful as a hit from .50cal and I'm not sure that's correct.

Not true. The convergence for the allied fighters are: 1000ft/330yd for the P-51 and P-47: 900ft/300yd for the Spitfire

TL;DR No, but their machine guns are possibly a bit too powerful (though that's up for debate). Below is the proof. To find out I performed a series of semi-scientific tests. I've set up a mission where I'm shooting at an AI fighter flying straight and level. The test parameters were: I'll be matching each weapon type of each fighter against every fighter. This later turned out to be unnecessary. I'll explain why below. I'll perform 5 tests per match. This is to rule out a lucky shot or unlucky hits. I'll be shooting from behind, at convergence or from a distance of about 1000 feet so that the maximum number of bullets shot would hit the target. The AI plane will be flying straight and level to make sure aiming isn't an issue. The theory was: if the German planes are tougher than Alliance ones they will require more hits from the same weapons. First I tested all aircraft against P-51s 6 .50 cals. Results: a short burst was enough for every aircraft to either be destroyed or damaged enough to force a crash landing. The toughest aircraft were the P-47 and FW-190 A8 (both were in most cases damaged and forced to land). Then I decided to test out how additional 2 .50 cals of P-47 affect the performance. So I did 5 tests agains Fw-190 A8. Results: a short burst was enough to destroy the aircraft every time. Then I tested the Spitfire. Since it has 2 different weapon types I decided to test each one separately. First I started with machineguns. Results: As expected, they're weak. It's difficult to kill with those weapons. This had one benefit though - it made it easy to compare the toughness of each aircraft. The P-47 was the toughest one (each time emptied full mags, didn't even manage to force a landing). Then the Fw-190A8 (1 damaged, 1 destroyed). Then P-51 (mixed results of damaged and survived). Then the Spit, Bf-109 and Fw-190D9 (mixed results of damaged and destroyed). The I-16 was the easiest to kill (engine stopped after a short burst on each test). At this point I was able to determine that the German fighters are not tougher than Allied ones. Still, I decided to continue the tests to see how different weapons compare to each other. So I tested the Hispanos. Results: a very powerful weapon, possibly on the same level as 8x .50 cals (although more difficult to aim). Also an interesting discovery: the aiming point of the Hispanos is just below the center of the reticle. This could result in many misses when fired together with the machineguns. I started with the P-51 (all destroyed) but then decided to try how they fare against the P-47 since it's the toughest aircraft. All 5 tests ended up with the Thunderbolt destroyed after just a few hits. Then, just to be sure I tested it against all German fighters. The results were very consistent - all destroyed after just a few hits. After that I tested the Bf-109's machineguns. Results: I was surprised by how effective they are. Even the P-47 was destroyed every time after a quick burst. 2x MG-131s are almost as powerful as Mustang's 6 M2s. I'm guessing they'd be as effective as 4x .50 cals but there's no way to test this in DCS. Then came the time for the 109's big 30mm. Result: As expected - everything (tested against the P-51 and P-47) torn to shreds, mostly after a single hit. The Thunderbolt managed to survive the first hit a few times but it was still heavily damaged. At last, just to be sure, I tested the Fw-109D9's machineguns and cannons (against the P-47). Results: Machineguns worked just like in the 109, cannons worked just like the Spit's Hispanos. I don't own the Fw-190A8 or the I-16 so couldn't test those. Here is a google drive link to tracks and Tacview files: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/17kGX2JBw4O4V4IAU6EhT19yF6nKHiaw-?usp=sharing Cheers!

Here's an interesting question. Do we need as much detail information for the AI planes as well? Not every aircraft in the game needs to be flyable and the addition of many AI planes of the era would at least make the environment more believable and to some degree would solve the problem of not having enough adversaries to fight.

That's exactly my experience as we'll. On the other hand if you can manage to end up in a turn-fight a kill is just a matter of time (and your marksmanship).

I disagree on two of those points. It's not the best dogfighter but it can be very good. It actually has one advantage that I missed in my previous post that I think is somewhat underrated: better instantaneous turn. It takes some practice to learn and requires you to constantly watch your speed but it is enough to score a kill. Plus its guns are devastating if shot at convergence. On the other hand I found it to be not as good at boom and zoom and energy fighting. It's outclassed by 2 out of 3 German fighters. You can win if you have a large energy advantage at the start and manage to exploit it quickly but that can even be said about the Spitfire. It is very good at A-G but saying it's purely A-G would be doing it a disservice IMHO.

Performance wise: It can outturn a Dora, that's pretty much it. But it has other advantages: It doesn't use radiator fluid. Lots of firepower. Uniform armament (easy to aim). It can take a hit. It's not terrible at anything.

64" is the limit with water injection. Without it it's 52".

You don't need to do anything with oxygen regulator. It is set to normal operation by default.

What do you mean by " I turn on the oxygen after takeoff"? Do you turn the red emergency valve? In normal operation the regulator mixes air from the outside with the oxygen supplied by the air bottles. If you turn the red valve the air from the bottles bypasses the regulator and flows straight into the mask - which means it will get used significantly faster than normally. For normal operation, just leave the dillutor at Normal Operation and the emergency valve off.

Great work. I hope ED will add all of them to the game.

Can you explain more about this? I could not find autoexec.cfg in my Saved Games/DCS folder.

My vote goes to the Zero, even an AI one. Corsair is coming up to be a great aircraft for DCS. Would be a shame to see it gathering virtual dust after release because it has no adversary to fight.

I posted this already in VR section but just in case it go missed. Since the previous patch there are no unit icons in Mission Editor, if opened in VR.

Don't think this has been reported yet but since the previous OB update I lost all icons in the mission editor when in vr. No such issues when playing on a monitor.

Yeah, usually I leave it at around 60% and it never overheats. Not much time to do that in this dogfight though

Finally managed to defeat ace AI! Here's the video: I've also attached a Tacview file if anyone's interested. Cheers. Tacview-20210220-201528-DCS-P-47 Dogfight practice.zip.acmi

I've decided to practice my dogfighting skills in the Jug as they've become a little bit rusty so I've set up a simple mission. The opponent is an AI Bf-109, Veteran difficulty. I've attached a Tacview track file. Even though I've won I feel like there's still lots of room for improvement. I'd appreciate any feedback/advice/comments/anything. Cheers! Tacview-20210219-223214-DCS-P-47 Dogfight practice.zip.acmi

Ok, just did a very quick test to see if all this is even relevant in DCS. It's by far not conclusive, but it appears that it is. At about 9k feet, first I tried to go as fast as possible with full throttle and enough boost to reach 52". The fastest I got was 344 mph (TAS). Then I tried the same with throttle and boost interconnected and I got no more that 340 mph. So it's definitely not 300 Hp but it seems the difference is there. Here's the recording (Tacview). DCS-P-47 power test.acmi