ShadowFrost

Well I assume their may be something to it as I told the P-51 to stop shooting and then I pulled the radiator shutoff and it stopped leaking. So there may be something to it... IDK.

Yeah I know what your talking about. I (basically 100%) can confirm what happened to me but in trying to recreate the event I noticed what your talking about as well. Except it wasn't visible from my behalf it was visible from the shooter perspective though. (IE) The P-51 pilot saw me streaming white smoke but I couldn't see it therefore i'm pretty sure it was effecting me the same way P-51s can plume smoke and etc. and fly normally (Players).

Radiators can (unconfirmed) get damaged and start leaking. Was taking bullets and noticed a white trail coming out of my right radiator. Pulled the shutoff handle for that radiator and it went away. Anybody else experienced this?

I couldn't recreate what I saw in a practice session a few days as the event was unrepeatable but it has made me curious towards the damage model of the Bf109. During a training session I was helping a P-51 squadron develop some tactics to counter the 109 and help them understand what not to do when fighting a 109. This was a gun's hot simulation to allow pilots to know whether they really hit me or not and to see whether on not their shots were falling short. During this session I was watching a particular P-51 and he got a couple of rounds on me and I noticed a white smoke coming out of my right radiator. At this point of time that the P-51 hit me I had pulled it into a steep climb and was trying to out stall the P-51 (it worked) but because of the high engine power and the slowing speed of the 109 I didn't know if I had over heated a radiator. Over heats of radiators cause the white smoke to flow out of the radiator but is normally both radiators. I noticed the radiator smoke and reached for the red handle below my radiator controls to shut that radiator off and looked back at the radiator and to my surprise the white smoke coming from the radiator had stopped. I tried to recreate this afterward but had no success. If what I saw is indeed what I though it is one more step in the right direction of damage models. Though the damage models have quite a lot of work to go i'm glad to see improvements to them.

Well I'm afraid it is a job that must be done. Thankfully from my understanding and view of the situation that the damage model of the aircraft (minus fluid leaks, some engine damage and visual work) is very well done and made. The aircraft normally feels "right" when you fly a wounded aircraft home. The issue here that I think is the main issue of the damage model is the way the aircraft gets damaged. The bullets become inconsistent throughout the course of a multiplayer match and aircraft parts that get damaged are unpredictable. (EX. Governor dies when bullets hit the radiator area of your wing) That also being said I've noticed several explosions (the red puffs of shells impacting) on P-51s that are by a long shot hit or miss (not literally). During early games bullets normally act the way they should I hop behind the guy get close enough I can't miss and let some lead loose. Normally it ends with serious damage, tail falling off, wing falling off, engine seizing, etc. Then 10-15 minutes later in the match I'll line up on another guy usually the same attack run, 6 O'clock position, can't shake me, that kind of stuff. Chug-a-chug-a-chug... red puff-red puff-red puff... nothing... I'm close enough that I can see absolutely no visual damage of the aircraft. No bullet holes or anything so about that time I role it into a dive and decide to RTB and get off of DCS for a little while. This is not some one time thing, it happens a lot and happens to my friends a lot. We fly a variety of aircraft and is happens for all of them. In short, bullets are inconsistent and don't do enough damage and when they do damage it sometimes doesn't damage the proper systems. Lets hope this all gets fixed someday.

For everyone out there that is interested, read some of this manual. I've found some very interesting procedures not so common in other aircraft. Goes into a good bit of detail as well. http://www.avialogs.com/en/aircraft/usa/republic/p-47thunderbolt/aaf-51-127-3-pilot-training-manual-for-the-p-47-thunderbolt.html Cheers, Justin

I forget when (or where) I saw it but with DCS 1.5 and 2.0 we were hopefully going to get better explosions and damage from bombs. Hopefully area affect will be better after these changes and will allow for some German tactics to be used in heavy bomber formations (or currently C130s). I remember reading about the Germans dropping timed fused bombs into bomber formation to try and break them up. Not sure if this would ever be effective in DCS but hopefully bomb will one day no longer be a hit or miss one target wonder.

I think aircraft leaks are more important (and probably rightfully so considering how many bullets hit the plane instead of the pilot) but I'll gladly take all of the above someday when they are ready. Along with a better damage model hopefully we'll get more audio cues to how far we can stress our aircraft in a damaged state.

I was hinting towards that with "the problems being cross-module" just I wanted to keep it 109 focused and I do understand it's not as easy as it may seem. You guys have gotten the flight models and dog-fighting physics down really well (probably one of the hardest aspects to code) so I imagine it won't be to much trouble but will likely take a large portion of time. Hopefully once it's done it will be well done and one of the best.

Due to the 109 leaving beta sooner or later i'm curious what (if any at all) do you guys think needs working on the most. (I'm not going for flight model speeches here I'm asking about features or mechanics). As i'm sure we've all had our fun with flight model bickering, which seemed to take up a majority of everyone's time, I was wondering what you guys think is the best and worse aspects of the 109. Items that need to be addressed before or soon after the 109 is pushed out of beta. I personally would like to see the damage model get some love, we have some wonderful systems in this aircraft that just can't be damaged or are damaged improperly. To explain my point even more its not so much the damage model that I have the problem with (what can be failed, destroyed, etc.) its how said items get destroyed or damaged that annoys me. The only two major items that I feel are not included and desperately needed is better engine damage and fluid leaks. Radiator, oil cooler, and fuel tank punctures is mainly what I am referencing. Having items like radiator leaks would highlight one of the serious weaknesses that 109's would have faced from a hailstorm of 50cal bullets. Also note-full that it is a 109k4 we fly, managing these systems (ie. shutting off a radiator(s)) would make the simulation that much more immersive. I've also noticed loosing the auto-governor in the 109 which should be very hard to loose unless at a high angle deflection shot or head on pass. Graphical gore/damage would also be nice but IMO could come later, having a good solid damage base is crucial to making DCS a better WW2 simulator. I'm also curious to the state of air to ground weapons of the Bf109k4, as i've noticed in the cockpit that such weapon pylons are available. Is there a reason to why these weapons have not been included yet? (ie. not enough data). Will gun-pods be included for the Bf109k4 or is there a design decision (or technical) reason behind them not being included in DCS so far. Though I stated only about the Bf109k4 in the passages above, several of these issues are cross-module and effect many of them the in the similar or same way as they do to the Bf109k4. Anyways I've thoroughly enjoyed the DCS Bf109K4 and hope that these issues will be dealt with in due time. I know many of them are not as simple as they may seem and may take a long (scary word) time to fix. Keep up the good work, I have faith in ye. With Respect, Justin

For some reason my crew chief doesn't like that idea... and for other reasons my crew chief is seriously against your idea..

In reply to a few older comments back... If we can't change our wing type in flight could we have one clipped wing and one full wing? :)

I am not understanding the point of this thread currently, you keep mentioning an exploit and that the f-15 can pull 11g's. Then the title of this thread is that No one escapes in front of the Russian aircraft. Then you go so much to complain about the missiles of the Russian aircraft when I came here thinking that this was a thread about how the Russian aircraft are either over powered, badly modeled, or much more deadly then the F-15. I have found neither of these and if the view options is a problem go on servers that have the view distance settings limited. I'm still not quite sure as to what the complaint is on this thread because if pulling 11g's in an F-15 (sustained is wrong) but 11g's is feasible given the right conditions. Another reason that RL tactics do suffer in this game is that there is no ROE and IFF for all FC3 aircraft is a 100% correct. Pepin's proposition is also correct. Continuing straight towards your target and not going evasive will get you killed.

Lol, someone must have been looking really hard to find this forum and reply to it... Glad I didn't go and grab performance data and etc.

350 Kts is the slowest you want to go before you are below your corner speed and start to risk a stall if continued full back pressure is applied on the stick.

Have you tried an instant action where you are airborne? If you can fly fine try landing then trying a takeoff.

Did any of the P-51s try rolling with you? If they do just disengage the fight regain energy /altitude and then re-engage. It will also be a very different story when the Spitfire and P-47 are released... Radiator leaks indeed should be modeled and ASAP, great thing about 109's is that a smart pilot knows to shutoff one or both wings to keep him in the air just a little longer (5 minutes if you don't push the engine was realistic for having both wings shutoff).

I do not know how well modeled the leaking of the 109 radiators is but there are valves in the cockpit you can pull to shut off each wing to prevent the entire system from leaking out. Shutting off both uses what is left in the engine and can last for about 5 more minutes. Edit: There are no current damage models for radiator leaks.

On the main menu their should be a "replay" option. (Top half I think, sorry doing this from memory) But something else in your spare time that you should look into is "Tacview" its a very helpful program to analyze what happened. Back to the replay folder, it should point to a path of where the .trk files are stored and will list the tracks by date/time of the mission's end.

Sorry that I couldn't be more specific earlier and give directions... Multitasking at it's finest. If the 350kt then climb attitude doesn't work post a track file for us to see if is your fault or something with the campaign. I may try to recreate later to see if it is an issue with the campaign.

I am not completely certain on this so take with a pinch of salt... I believe the gunsight snake is modeled to how it is in real life and the way it lags behind. It is at times over excessive and "wobbly" but the real life aircraft's HUD footage looks remarkably similar. What changes did they say they were going to make?

I would assume you would have been at high AOA in your climb and the "vibration" may in fact be buffeting caused by being so close to your stall speed for the weight of you aircraft. If my memory serves me well you are running a full combat load on the first mission. Because of this the aircraft is much heavier and therefore your stall speed is higher and you loose energy in a climb much faster than a clean f-15. If you have a track file to show I can watch it and if you want on Friday or over the weekend I can help teach you the basics of fighting and flying in the f-15.

Well if DCS ever gets a Dynamic Campaign system you'd have a limited amount of resources aircraft and etc. (presumably still set by the mission editors but at least it'd add some value to your aircraft) like I said, having a system like that would be nice but very unlikely... It'd be really cool if your engines acted the same way they did when you shut them off the next time you hoped in again. I would assume it'd be a lot more important in older aircraft like the Me262.

* This is completely on feeling of the sim. * Something I would like to mention is that I feel as if the brakes sensitivity may be off. I would be taxing in the 109K4 (can't reference if this is fixed or not) come across a 90 degrees turn and tail wheel is unlocked I would give it some gas and step on the right brake doing this would bring the tail off the ground in a manner I have never seen and risk either a prop strike or a very close call. This engine power is no where close to takeoff power and would be what I consider normal and safe for taxing. Has anyone had anything similar? If anything I feel that the tail is too light on the ground or the brakes may be too strong. Any thoughts?

Maybe something like the FSX addon A2A's Maintenance hanger for aircraft? Where when you pull up ground repair it shows exactly what broke. Leaking oil or just a bad cylinder etc... showing what component (s) caused the aircraft to stop working. Then there would also be varying damage repair times 1-3 minutes (MAX) depending on how minor or major a damage to the engine was. Maybe someday we could have something like this...