Hummingbird

I can record it for the next set of tests I do. But procedure is like NineLine described it, although I will add that it's important to remember to turn on infinite fuel, otherwise the aircraft becomes progressively lighter during the turn as fuel is burned, which will invalidate the results. The configuration I tested for the F-16C was 22,000 lbs (which is below 50% fuel btw) / clean / SL / ICAO and for F-15 35,000 lbs / clean / SL / ICAO.

Roger, posted the F-16 data collected so far. If you get time, it would be good if the devs could check the F-15C. It's usually right on the money, so it surprised me abit that it was pulling 0.2 G's over chart values at 35,000 lbs. Excellent stuff NN, your results mirror mine. As it shows minor adjustments are needed, mainly at low speed, but the FM is going the right direction, kudos to the team!

Progress with testing so far: DCS F-16C, 22,000 lbs clean, SL: 200 KTAS = -to be tested- 250 KTAS = 4.1 G vs 4.3 G chart (a little off) 300 KTAS = 5.3 G vs 5.4 G chart (very close) 350 KTAS = 6.5 G vs 6.6 G chart (very close) 400 KTAS = 7.7 G vs 7.7 G chart (spot on) 450 KTAS = 8.85 G vs 9 G chart (close) [couldn't maintain 9 G @ 450 KTAS even with a very so slight alt drop of ~3 ft/s] All in all the STR has definitely improved, and it only really needs very minor adjustments, mainly at 300 KTAS and below and at the very top at 450.

Tested extensively at 400 KTAS now, and the fault appears to lie with the F-15C. It's sustaining 7.5 G @ 400 KTAS @ SL at 35,000 lbs clean, when according to the charts it should be 7.3 G. The F-16C appears right on the money at 400 KTAS and 22,000 lbs clean, pulling 7.7 G's. So no complaints on the F-16 at 400 knots from here, will check at 300 & 350 knots.

STR tests vs the F-15C, both at 50% fuel clean, SL, and the F-16C will not gain on the F-15C at 300, 350 or 400 knots (both aircraft doing same speed). FYI: According to available performance charts the F-16C should be beating the F-15C by about 0.4 G in sustainable load factor at Mach 0.6. So it seems at least one of the two are off by sizable margin sadly.

Did a couple of quick tests, and the STR still seems a bit low at low speeds, but it has indeed improved. Will need to do some more thurough tests before I can say anything definitive though. That being said, the biggest felt change is going to be when the issues with ITR & G-onset are resolved. Once this is fixed the F16 is going to be & feel a lot more agile.

The Me262 featured a higher critical mach number than any of the other early jets, so pointing that out as a limitation is abit odd IMO. The only real design flaw on the Me262 I can identify was the lack of a speed brake, something shared by all the WW2 jets. Fact is the 262 was the most advanced of the WW2 jet aircraft to go operational, and hadn't it been for the serious lack of fuel, lubricants, spare parts and trained pilots it had the potential to turn the tide in the air and stop the Allied bombing campaign. Eric "Winkle" Brown made it clear the 262 was a quantum leap, and we were lucky more resources weren't poured into the German jet program earlier. Hence why so many of us are hyped about being able to fly a realistic representation of it, something which hasn't really been achieved yet, so as to see what could've potentially been achieved with it if you weren't as constrained by fuel & pilots.

Nope, without MW50 the other warbirds will out rate, out climb & out run the D9. So if you find it easy to dominate online in a D9 without MW50, I'd question the skill of your opponents. Now since you mentioned the P-51 specifically, it has a smaller radius, higher rate, better climb and is significantly faster than a D9 without MW50. In other words, except for a slightly higher roll rate you have no advantage against a P-51 in a D9 if you're robbed of your MW50.

When it comes to turning off MW50 on your server, all you're actually achieving is handicapping the D9 & K4 to be less competitive than what a regular 190A6/7 and 109G6 would've been, as the latter were noticably lighter: K4 = 3362 kg and 1430 PS @ 1.42 ata (1850 PS w/ MW50 @ 1.8 ata) G6 = 3148 kg and 1475 PS @ 1.42 ata Not sure how you came to that conclusion, as without boost the D9 will litterally do nothing better than the other warbirds (unless you count the I-16 in) except roll faster...

You're falling victim to some currently very popular revisionist opinions there... For one the Me262 featured a great wing, it was high AR yet very strong, as well as featuring full span automatic slats (later copied for the F-86 Sabre), greatly increasing the lift during maneuvers or when landing/taking off. The engines had issues due to a lack of high temperature metals, not any design flaw; Trial engines built with the proper materials passed several continious 100 hour tests flawelessly. The Germans came up with some ingenious solutions for cooling the compressor blades too, designing hollow blades through which cooling air was channelled, this along with a later introduced automatic throttle control to avoid surges & compressor stalls actually elevated the MTO from 10 to 25 and in the end 50 hours. Not bad for an early jet engine, esp. one built with less than ideal materials. Also don't forget the same axial flow design was chosen for the Sabre. As for the Tiger tanks, again it has become very popular to bash these tanks as cumbersome, unreliable, fuel thirsty etc.. with people commenting "it would've been much better to have 4-5 Pz.IV's for every Tiger instead". None of it passes even the most simple of reality checks however. These people forget to ask themselves: 1) If the Germans barely had enough trained crews to man the tanks they already had, then how were they ever going to man twice or three times that? 2) If the Germans didn't have enough fuel to satisfy their ~2,000 heavy tanks, then how were they gonna fuel 5 times that number of Pz.IV's ? These are just two of the major stumbling blocks to the theories of the modern armchair revisionists that they completely fail to see. There's still the issue of ammunition, lubricant and spare parts logistics to be addressed as well.... the more tanks you have = the more trained crew, fuel, lubricants, ammunition & spare parts you need. Hence you discover the reason is why the Germans chose to instead focus on fewer but more combat effective tanks, because it was the only solution they had any hope of supporting logistically, but even this in the end proved too much, and a large percentage of their tanks were simply abandoned after having run out of fuel, rather than taken out in action. Finally the myth of the cumbersome and unreliable Tiger tank is just that, a myth. In actual fact the Tiger I & II could both negotiate terrain that a Sherman could only dream of, could neutral steer and climb steeper slopes etc.. As for reliability, by 44 the Heavy tank units had a higher readiness rate than the Pz.IV, which itself was considered a highly reliable tank. Fact is the reliability of all German motorised vehicles as a whole dropped late in the war, and that due to a lack of lubricants and spare parts, which meant every vehicle had to run a lot longer between maintenance stops and oil changes. (The Luftwaffe had the exact same problem) In short, there's a logical explanation to everything if you just care to look for it.

I'll have a look later, should easily be able to notice a difference if there is any. It was mainly at low speeds that STR suffered previously, and a bit at high speeds. Lack of ITR and G-onset was a bigger issue, and that aint fixed yet, but is planned based on the changelog.

Look at the list again... Refresher: F4U-4, Spit XIV, P-47M... Yeah wow, definitely only want the late German stuff....

Considering the silence it's probably a no. A shame if the aim is realism.

Yeeaah...no. But nice attempt at fueling the Allied vs Axis fanboy bonfire... Personally I always wanted to see the 109K4 & G10, Spitfire IX & XIV, Me262A1, P-51D, P-47D, P-38L, Tempest & Fw190D9 the most. Ta152H would be lovely too, as would a P-47M. The above is my dream WW2 line up for DCS atm. After that, I'd love to see the A6M2 & 5, F4U-1 & -4, Ki-84b, N1K2J, F4F, F6F, Ki-61.

Was just wondering, is the AV-8B Plus planned?

Indeed it's definitely not any form of conclusive proof of the accuracy of the Mi28's gun system, it's sadly just the only thing available, and if it's anything to go by then it showcases some pretty horrible accuracy - i.e. not even remotely approaching the accuracy of the AH64's gun system. The AH64 seems to be accurate within a 20x20m box out to 1.5-2 km, and same for the Eurocopter Tiger which I've also seen some very impressive gun cam footage from.

There is also this one, where the gun is fired at the end, and again it seems to scatter everywhere: Same near the end of this video:

If it's only gonna be one, then I definitely hope it's the F-4E.

My immediate reaction watching the video was that the Mi28's gun system lacks a "stabilization/lock on terrain" feature.

There is some footage of Mi-28's engaging ISIS fighters with the gun, and if that's any indication, then atleast the Mi28's system is nowhere near as accurate as that on the AH64.

Small question: Is the increased G-tolerance afforded by the F-16's seat angle & positive pressure oxygen mask planned to be represented at any point? Noticed it wasn't on the roadmap, so was curious wether you (devs) actually consider it an issue?

Considering the thread was moved to wishlist, I guess it won't come standard

Was wondering, will mouse control be available to the gunner for control of the M230 chain gun?

Yeah that's the official designation I believe. But I mean, Eurofighter, Typhoon, F-2000 or EF2000, it doesn't really matter IMHO. It's a multinational developed plane afterall, with Germany & Britain being behind most of the design.

You wanna leave it in auto. The wing sweep scheduler is set up to ensure optimum L/D for every flight condition, so as to minimize your energy loss in maneuvers and maximize your kinematic performance. And the mechanism works basically no matter the G's pulled, the sweep rate not even having halfed at 7.5 G's. In other words, leaving it in auto will provide you the best possible two circle performance (STR), whilst at the same time not actually sacrificing anything in the one circle as here (due to radius considerations) you already want to go slow enough that the wings have long since been commanded full forward by the CADC. Thus manual sweep really gains you nothing other than worse energy retention in maneuvers and a higher chance of accidently overstressing your airframe.