arglmauf

Let's assume the behaviour is correct: Is there a burstlength/pauselength pattern that we can maintain that will give us the best retained accuracy from the the first to the last bullet (not perfect, just the best retained)? If it's not broken, let's find out how to do it properly then.

It's very varying but usually the red side outnumbers the blue. What I find somewhat disappointing is that the experienced players tend to crowd on the red side and the blue side is filled by more beginners. Which makes the current matchup against the pony doubly hard. Would be great to see more of the experienced hotshots switching to blue to equalize the often one-sided slaughter a bit. Will probably flip for a while or permanently once the Spit arrives. Long story short: Experienced pilots, please consider not taking the latest and greatest and equalize the teams for the benefit of all.

Wish he could elaborate on this a bit:) The guy is like a virtuos when it comes to dogfighting with the P51.

I can confirm this from my experience. RPM and MaP should be kept within certain ranges of each other. I find the behaviour of the plane strange though: My engine snaps, the prop immediately stopping to spin. All indicators were green but once the prop blocks, the carb heat shoots up rapidly. Same for the 3000/67" setting. So whenever you overboost the engine, don't go by temperature indicators, they won't warn you about the incoming engine death it seems.

Could it be that these are two seperate events that occured after another? Flameouts as I understand it is choking the fire in the combustion chamber by either not providing enough air through the intake (example sudden sharp turns or obstruction) or enriching the mixture too rapidly. After the choke, would the engine then flood with fuel (basically going outside of the combustion chamber) which could ignite on a seperate source and therefore create an uncontrollable runaway fire?

Now I'm intrigued to know what other "This forum has gone 0 days without..." signs Sithspawn has:P One certainly has to be the "190 cockpit bar":P Sry Sith, but I fear this thread will turn into an incarnation of "the game"... which you guys just lost btw:)

From my experience with 4k in CloD and DCS: 4k does not improve spotting itself. In cases where far contacts are rendered as single pixels, it makes spotting actually harder (CloD primarily but this applies to all small distant objects to a certain degree). 4k greatly improves identification though as details about the models become pronounced earlier thanks to more pixels being available on smaller objects. So in my experience: Spotting becomes somewhat harder, identification becomes alot quicker though. This goes double in DCS since I prob have to zoom around alot less to get a positive identification on a target and I can remain in a zoomed out view.

Aw man, and I'm not around this weekend for the 1.5 party:P

IMHO, the B-17 should be considered a very critical asset. Currently, all the WW2 planes we have are being developed without any real scenario to put them in. While that's nice and people are usually very crafty when it comes to finding some solutions, the B-17 could become a bigger game changer than "just another plane". It would be the dictating asset that determines where dogfights would happen. In the current matchup, the K4 runs circles around the P-51, most dogfights happen at altitudes where the K4 can play its advantages to the fullest. This would drastically change at higher altitudes when the B-17 would becomes the mission focus and pulls the dogfights up and keeps them high. So the B-17 would not only be cool to have as a possible future plane to fly and dig into (considering also that our ground-pounders are sorely lacking things to fly in DCS WW2 right now), it would also become an important scenario asset that would change the way the current planeset fights each other.

Sweet sweet sweet. Time to populate then.

I've seen fueltank fires on 190s and 109s in DCS though they are pretty rare it seems. Usually you saw off a wing before that. Those fires happened when my target climbed aggressively and presented a nicely stable target at 1100 feet range with the upper side of the plane exposed. What I've never seen is a fuel tank exploding and ripping the plane apart though and the flame effect was always pretty meek compared to what the guncam videos show.

Think most people (myself included and I only recently started to understand the reason for the DCS convergence settings) are mislead by IL2 where modification of the convergence is standard practice (specifically CloD where you have control over all guns). When I started to try different convergence settings in CloD that allowed me to somewhat work with the crosshair at different distances (as to allow me more solutions than just one spot and also giving me more tolerance when my speed is greatly different than my target), I by trial and error slowly arrived at a convergence setup that started mimicking what we have in DCS here. Color me surprised. About the damage model: Here again, people might be confused by IL2 1946 and CloD. Loss of controls wasn't really that often, I would guess losing the whole control surfaces was more common than cable snap.

Be careful with the throttle at the higher end too. It doesn't increase smoothly past 1,42 ata and jumps up to 1,6 rather harshly. If you pass that point regularly you always ramp up the RPM quickly risking to overrev it.

The biggest realization for me with the Dora TO was: Full throttle (as Erich said in his interview), right rudder in a soft manner and once you pass about 100 km/h, the tail will begin to lift and you have to release right rudder a bit but not completely. This was usually the point where I started snaking as the plane began turning right and letting off from the rudder too harshly made it swing to the left thus entering the vicious circle. Just really slowly take it back to keep it going straight until it lifts off by itself pretty much.

Funny book. Like one particular entry on page 28. "Erfinde bitte nicht neue Justierungen, indem Du z.B. die Geschoßbahnkreuzung um 100m verlegst usw. Die befohlene Justierung ist sorgfältig von Praktikern ausgeknobelt und gut" Translates to: "Don't invent new convergences by, for example, changing the point of horizontal convergence by 100m. The recommended convergence setting has been figured out by the boffins and is good" Looks like even back then, they had people trying to tinker with that stuff:joystick:

@Nirvi Thanks, but generally deflection shooting isn't a problem for me (at least in CloD:D) @t4trouble That video was great and it kinda tells me what I was expecting. Basically, you only use the gyro at convergence range. I think there were only two instances in which you tried to readjust the gyro for the target (1:22 for example), most other shots you eyeballed it outside of convergence, basically using the center crosshair and the gyro circle as two extreme points inbetween which the correct lead point has to be (there were some nice examples 3:03, 4:38.) I caught myself doing that sometimes and I wondered whether that's the way to go or whether I'm using the gyro sight wrong.

Yeah, problem being that right range and wingspan will be a rare occasion, situation being predominantly that the target isn't at 1100ft distance or passing through that point pretty quickly. How do people cope with this in regards to the gunsight was my question.

Question to the more seasoned shooters: At what ranges (roughly) do you people start eyeballing it instead of relying on the gunsight? And within the gunsight range, I assume you adjust the gunsight distance to match the target and not the convergence of ~1100 feet? Or do you keep it straight on 1100-1000 and correct by tracers only? What range of play do I have with the gunsight? Problem is that, coming from CloD, I'm unsure as to how far I can trust the gyro sight at different ranges. I'm having trouble specifically when the target gets close to 200 yard as most of my guns now shoot above the gunsight it seems (I have to aim below the target to score hits. I'm assuming the gyro does not compensate for the lobbing trajectory of the bullets required by the long convergence distance?).

Now name claim the maneuver, call it the SawickiSault:joystick:

As someone who also is used to shooting closer than the current convergence setting given for the P51D, I can only second Solty's experience. It feels really awkward to adjust for the different convergence. In my head, there are certain sizes of enemy planes that I react to. This size, this angle means I need to shoot at this spot in front of him. That all doesn't work in the P51D or at least, doesn't work well. You have to fight your own trained reflexes. Yes, if I concentrate, I can adjust but it requires active concentration to do (and I'm not a big fan of the K-14 so far). If there is a case for a closer convergence that was historical, I would gladly take it. I personally wouldn't even request the ability to adjust every gun, 2-3 presets for varying ranges/roles would probably already do the trick so long as there's a convergence setting around 250 yard.

To be fair, that already is in place it seems. Just hard to notice. When I overrev the P51 (and thus damage it, I assume), you can hear that the engine starts to make grinding noises. They're soft though and eventually it goes to the Kolbenfresser you describe as the BANG:)

The problem in my opinion is not just missing feedback but the missing ability to use these feedbacks to avoid problems that we have much less time to react to. Example, the yaw when your tailwheel starts lifting (a real problem with taildraggers I've been told). A real pilot (I guess) would feel much earlier that the tail starts lifting (in combination with a sense for speed and acceleration that cues him about the tailwheel lift coming soon) and can compensate for it much earlier. We on the other hand only have the visual horizon or the beginning yaw when the tail lifts which is frankly already way to late to make a clean takeoff-run. DCS is kinda in pickle there, the modelling is great... so great, that these effects start becoming a "problem" where older sims simplified them greatly. So the only thing we can do is keep crashing and start defining somesort of "checkpoints" like certain speeds on the dial when we can expect these effects. For the Dora e.g., I prefer using the roll indicator to cue me about how I have to stabilize it. Takeoffs are messy but they work.

And this is the moment when you realize "I've been trying to do that and all the time, I've not been doing it right":P Thanks for showing Crumpp:D I notice that the stalling in turn comes much earlier (in reference to the amount of stick back) when the nose is not "settled" after the roll. Can someone explain as to why that happens? Airflow over the wings not "clean" due to the swerving and therefore more fragile?

And that, imho, shows why it's so difficult to get right. The "Black dot" solution isn't much of a solution because it blends in way too well with detail noise in the background. Black dot plane is the same black dot as Black dot bush. IRL, you would have other cues that would give away the material of the object like reflection from cockpitglass (what CloD TF tries to simulate with the occasional reflection flashes) and better contrast against the ground when the plane moves that give away it's presence.

The questioned pertained to whether the P-51 at high speeds has the control authority required to make such a hard turn. Yoyo confirms in the linked post that yes, it had that much authority. Learning something new every day. I'm quite amazed that there were fighters out there that had the technical capability to swing themselves around so hard that they pretty much rip their own wings off. So in other words: The forces that would stiffen the controls are modelled, just that the P-51 is constructed so well in that regard that it retains enough authority to do what I described in the initial post.