arglmauf

I would assume it's them still fiddling with the new lighting engine and not how it's meant to be in the end (remember that there's a reason why the 2.x merge release takes so long. You don't want to end up with these things in your release). Could it be that the flashes are placed too high and that they're meant to be lower within the cowling? While we're at it, I hope the damage model for the B17 is also being worked on because kills like the wing-off at 14:40 are just ridiculous. IL2 1946 style damage model ahoy:)

That's due to the damage visuals and the damage model being two different things. Damage representation is loosely based on a locality swapping a texture for another texture that shows some potholes, irrespective of whether there was actually a bullet going through there or not. As I understand the current damage modelling, it looks at what compartment the bullet hit and then decides at random what component is getting damaged/destroyed. That's the supposed reason why the prop gov. likes to break so easily. It simply goes "Nose area was hit, roll dice.... Prop gov got destroyed" This system was okay-ish for jets slinging missiles at each other and occasionally going into gunfights but it's pretty lackluster for WW2 planes shooting each other up, hence why ED is currently revamping the system to allow for more accurate damage calculations. On your observation: You probably never hit close to the pilot. It's just that the damage decal paints a broad spread across the fuselage.

What people need to realize and remember is that the problem here is not due to mismodelling on the side of DCS but a "mismodelling" of our controllers. Doing anything to hinder us from breaking our wings off (which as I understand it would be perfectly possible with the real plane if you yanked that stick up like we do) would be diminishing the actual simulation accuracy that DCS offers.

You could argue that the way DCS does it, is "closer" to proper modelling than introducing simulating curves. Basically: Stick deflection by X amount equals control deflection by X amount. Only problem being that there aren't controllers out there that are capable of matching the accuracy of what DCS can model:) Technically, if somebody builds a 1:1 replica of the controls and hooks up some lawn mower engines for the FFB (everything adjusted to give the proper stiffness of course), you could make use of the way DCS models things... Totally unrealistic standards for 99.99% of the players though:) So yes, simulating the effort the pilot would have to make and accepting this leads to some disconnects (or delays) between how much you deflect your stick and how much deflection happens in game is the acceptable middle way imho.

I like to imagine that every DCS player is actually a big green Hulk yelling "HULK PULL!" when they snap the wings off:P 109 had the problem, it was "fixed". I'm certain the spit will get a fix too sooner or later. Until then, it's actually teaching people to develop a consciousness for what they put the plane through when they yank that stick around. Consider it a teaching instrument. I for myself have to get so many bad habits from CloD out of my head and yanking the stick too much is one of them.

Thumbs up. Convergence discussion aside, the observer rounds should go.

Flawed comparison really since a bigger than 1on1 dogfight introduces so many new factors it can't be compared really. Let's just say: The planes with a great energy regain (aka good acceleration) generally profit from the group engagements since they can position quicker and more freely compared to those who have to maintain speed and work in large drawn turncircles. So a furball plays towards the 109 and the spit both. Just 109 has some more advantages to its name (climb and top speed if it has to run again for a change). A spit that commits to a fight stays in that fight until it's over by the opponent running or the opponent dying. The spit cannot disengage.

It would already help if people would just stop expecting equal balanced outcomes. It's just not in the scenario, Airquaking just favours what the LW planes are better at. A bit more salute and respect from each side for the other would go a long way instead of having these stat race competitions.

As was mentioned in other threads before: Adjusting the convergence by the pilot was an exception. Reason was that planes might get shifted around between pilots, so a standard convergence setting was to be expected. Maybe a compromise would be to provide some different presets within reasonable ranges (example given, though not applicable here, the british conv settings during the Battle of Britain with the Dowding 400 yard spread and the quickly adopted 200 yard point convergence). Same goes for belting. Just not the quite crazy IL2 Clod style where you could readjust every single gun.

It's a matter of how quick you turn and the motion of your plane. Think of it this way: The plane is moving in a direction and it wants to keep moving that way unless forces act upon it (newton says hi). If you now deflect the elevators hard (and remember, they have alot of authority on the spit), the plane swings up but it's still trying to move in the old direction. The result is that you throw alot of wing surface into the wind. Too much surface and angle and you break the airflow over the wing which means stall. So you have to visualize it like "guiding" or "slipping" the plane into the tight turn, gradually but quickly increasing the turnrate so you don't smash your wings into the airflow and stall yourself but instead get a smooth transition into the tight turn.

It's definitely closer than 300 yards, more like 150 to 180. Makes it very hard to shoot things that are turning because your tracers quickly disappear below your nose.

Remember the Spit is built in shells, the construction method most susceptible to the Mgeschoss. So I would agree the majority of these hits would have been lethal. Notice the difference in overall structure warping and ripping on rounds 5 and 6 compared to the other hits. That's what I meant. The explosion effect is much bigger when it enters deeply into a compartment. In effect though, even if the wing held after hits 5 or 6, a plane with such damage would be in no condition to fight and easy prey if attacked again. Going by these pictures and what's written in the german report, I would say that 30mm Mgeschoss hits on the fuselage between cockpit and tail would have a bigger chance of just ripping the plane apart than hits on the wings. Also hits on parts like the control surfaces should show entirely different behaviour again as they wouldn't transfer the blastpower properly to the rest of the wing for example.

You might be misinterpreting the report a bit. First off: All M-Geschoss hits are quite devastating btw, no discussion. But the degree of fatality varies widely depending on what is hit and from what angle. If you look at Abb.1 in the report you linked (thx btw, that's the one I was looking for), you see a damage picture of actual projectiles. See that hole marked 3cm? That's a 30mm Mgeschoss hit from an actual 30mm straight down at the wing. It made a big hole and ripped open quite some area but it's nowhere near the ealier linked video of the 30mm Mgeschoss going into the wing from the edge on. Only Abb. 1 to 3 are from actual projectiles btw. The rest of the images and graphs are from detonation charges placed within the wings to test the behaviour of different structures to the explosions. The result is (as I understood it): The HE lethality is greatly dependent on a certain factor: The structure of the hit compartment and its ability to contain the pressure from the blast. It's how high the pressure can build up that determines the overall structural damage on the area (Gasschlagwirkung). If you have a fuselage build as a shell (e.g. 109 or the Hs. 124 from the report), the pressure effect is the strongest. A plane that uses planking bolted to a skeleton has less susceptibility as the pressure can't build up as high thanks to the planks flying off earlier (see the writing below Abb.9). That reduces the stress on the carrying structure (Abb.3 and description). The least susceptible seems to be fabric covered hulls where the fabric can rip easily and create a venting opportunity for the blastwave.

Graphs like these are always meh since they don't take many factors into account. For example the strike angle of a 20 or 30mm HEI has a lot of influence on the outcome. The video referred to above was a 30mm hitting a wing from behind, edge on pointing into the structure ( ) . That hit is devastating and in all likelihood resulted in the loss of the wing on a flying plane. Hits on the topside of the wing, top down aren't as lethal because the blast from the HE exits the wing rather than pointing into the structural components of the wing (they're still hefty but not as bad as the edge-on hit). The Luftwaffe did run tests on this at some point and pretty much drew this as a conclusion (if I can find the link again, I'll post it). It depends on what actually gets hit and what lies behind the blast. That's quite a lot of factors that don't get considered in these graphs.

Because lopsided matchup is lopsided. The P51 is fighting in situations it's clearly disadvantaged in. That's why the Spitfire (at least I hope) will be so important: It's not there to chase down 109s, it's there to deny them the turnfighting advantage. When the 109 is forced to play for distance, the P51 can play its strength against it. It's the interaction between P51 and the Spit and how it affects the way the Luftwaffe planes can fight that is key (again, hoping it pans out like that).

Remember that there are real cases of airplanes still flying home with parts of their wings missing. I guess it all depends on what AOA the snap happens and how much speed the plane has left after the snap. The inside portion of the wing still creates lift, just not alot and nowhere near the stability a full wing gives. I don't know how breaking off two wing parts (like in the vid) would behave though (I know of no real case where such a thing happened). I guess the drag alone would be enormous? I'm not saying that the behaviour in the vid is correct, just that missing a portion of a wing doesn't automatically mean "OMG, it's gotta crash":P

I don't know how far this is correct, maybe someone with more insight into flight models can clearify/correct: In a plane where you have a very powerful engine behind a comparatively very light plane, could running the engine at high power in the climb to a stall lead to the engine starting to behave a bit like a helicopter where the rest of the plane starts drooping and therefore the whole thing refuses to nose down because it's just being pulled upwards by the engine? I remember reading statements (can't remember the source) that the 109 could almost be hung up by the prop, I wonder if that applies here or whether that is complete nonsense and I better forget it:)

What is actually meant by "instability" here? Tendency of the plane to yaw without enough air moving over the control surfaces at the peak of a climb? Because that is correct behavior.

I can only second SNAFU: The environment changed from the IL2 days. Warthunder pretty much grabbed those people who just want their quick fix, airquake a bit and put it away after 15 minutes or so to do something else. That whole crowd is more or less gone. What remains are those crazy types who go to bed with the manual of their preferred craft and learn to know it better than their own wives. And those, understandably, are rarer than the airquake crowd. That's why a hyperlobby thing for DCS in my opinion won't change much. The environment changed. What needs to happen has already been said often enough: We need the scenario stuff. Planes that fit into an era, a map and AI units to fill it with objectives. Once that is in place, you'll get the rarer but more concentrated events (like ACG campaign or Storm of War to a degree). That also caters better to the older folk who seem to enjoy the harder sim aspects more. That way, flight activity and attendance gets focussed around defined time points and people can plan ahead for those. The "Bomber nights" will come... once we have the maps and some bombers to work with proper. The ball is in your yard, ED:)

Kurfürst: What I meant was that the Spits either run them down in turnfighting or force them to run for distance (as you correctly pointed out) which is the P51s stronger turf again. Not one plane to rule them all but one plane either playing to its strength or forcing the opponent into the playing field of the other. Or so I hope at least. Anything that makes the encounters more tactical and a bit more fun.

I hope the Spits can bind the K4s, allowing P51s to disengage and reenter the fight with proper altitude advantage on them so they can play their energy retention game. This would also make the Dora more important again as top cover for the K4s.

That would depend on several factors: -What weapon is actually hitting? The 20mm are quite devastating and usually force me to abandon the battle after 2-3 hits. -What distance do you hit from? Further away means less punching power. -Where do you hit? Wing hits, while reducing the energy retention, can be sustained. Hits around the nose usually mean loss of RPM control or Manifold pressure and that means get out for the P51. Do know that certain hits don't look critical but mean highly reduced combat capabilities.

You really have to get into the habit of switching that on the fly as you need it. These days, I mostly leave the rad controls on auto (let the speed be the primary factor in cooling). I manually open them up more if I know I'll do heavy loads on the engine like aggressive zoom climbs towards a target. Then after such bursts of performance, I reduce to lower setting to let it cool off. My procedure right now: Balls to the walls setting for whatever purpose you need... then level flight, still with the full power setting until you reach about 200 mphs, then reduce setting. Get the speed first to get your cooling effective, then deliberately reduce to cool off (it's more effective then trying to build up speed on a reduced setting and gets the engine cooled quicker). Then back to a sustained setting or power setting depending on situation. Only exception: When I overdo the powerclimb and I notice that my control surfaces stop responding. That's a very dangerous situation for your engine as you'll take a long time to get level flight again, all the while shedding your speed and therefore your cooling. In such a situation, chop throttle and RPM, push rudder hard to get the plane to drop over one wing to regain authority over your plane. Even manually open the rads to full.

Also people should give the Universal Model Visibility mod a try, made the imposters on my end alot better. http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=160634

Really depends on time spent over red and how high over you went. This isn't CloD where your radiator pops when your needle goes beyond 120°. On the real plane, the cooling systems had overpressure valves. If your coolant became too hot, the valve would release pressure in the form of steam to prevent damage to the system. There's a certain amount of coolant loss that's acceptable without problems. But the more you lose (aka, the longer time you spent over pressure) the higher the chance that the cooling becomes too little and your pistons start working their way into the engine block to their ultimate snapping death. Second factor is turning and speed. Turning reduces the airflow into the radiator, speed dropping reduces airflow and therefore cooling. The P51 can run the 3000/60 all day fine so long as cooling is sufficient (The setting will reduce engine lifetime though, hence the reason there were suggested time limits to reduce overhaul). So in your case KansasCS: Your cooling was probably good enough to keep the engine from dying outright but from what you describe, you probably skirted the boundaries of what the engine can take. Also remember that in the game, you always get a factory fresh engine, so its abuse tolerance always is high. Do what you did for 3-4 sorties and you prob won't return on the 5th.