Zilch

AW, that just made waiting that much harder. Thanks for taking the time to answer. Good news for us!

I can't tell you guys how I'm looking forward to both of your upcoming modules. They're going to add a huge kind of dynamic range to the skies of DCS. I was just marveling at the data systems in the A-10C, as far as Link 16, the CDU's capabilities, the TAD, and ability to send and share information to allied units over data link to designate targets, share waypoint data, SPI locations, send text messages and so on. Unfortunately, the only aircraft capable of taking advantage of this kind of data environment is the A-10C. So, in coordinating a ground attack with other non-Hog units, a player flying as an OA-10C has to go old school and talk other players onto targets using visual references. Since we're getting the Super Tucano with its fancy MFCD's, sensors, and gadgets, and the Night Attack Harrier with...well, I'm not sure what it has, but it looks fancy...is it possible for you folks to clarify if these two new aircraft will be able to share data with allied units like the Hog can? An AFAC Super Tucano marking targets with that red triangle on allied Harriers and Hogs' TAD would be amazing. Similarly, joint Hog/Harrier, or even Hog/Harrier/Tucano packages all sharing data could blow people's minds. Might this be possible with the modules you're working on? Also, more directly, do either of them have a CDU approaching the A-10C's capabilities? I know there are many kinds of CDU for different purposes. I'd love to see wind correction and on-the-fly waypoint creation for both of these aircraft, but my searches on the real world aircraft are coming up short in this department. Do either of them have similar units? I can't wait for these planes!

IRL, you don't need to penetrate the armor to knock the thing out of action. As mentioned above with the M-1 getting hit in the vents, the are softer parts that don't have that full armor protection, treads and other moving parts to get separated or jammed up, and the main gun that, if bent or dented, will effectively stop the tank from doing tank-like things. Similarly, even if it's a head-on rounds-vs-armor situation (which it would not likely be,) the crew inside is going to have a major damn bad day, especially if, as we have in DCS, there's a dude with his top half sticking out of the open hatch with his hands on the swivel-mounted machine gun shooting back at you. A strafing run that makes contact with that guy is certainly going to unspeakable things to his person, compounded by the chance of a round flying down through the hatch he was sticking out of and doing horrible things to the inside of the vehicle. As with personal armor, yes, vehicle armor may save your life, but that doesn't mean you're gonna be in the best of shape after getting shot while wearing it. You are more likely to live, but that doesn't mean you're still in the fight, and certainly not at 100% of your ability. However, again, real life is one thing, DCS is similar in a lot of ways, but still an entirely different beast. In DCS, we have none of these compounding effects with AI units, so it's a basic health bar situation. What I'm trying to do is work with the current damage model to facilitate one-pass kills against DCS T-72's. So far, 35+ dive angles starting at 0.6 miles down to 0.3 seem to work decently, but then there's that dude out of the hatch firing his swivel gun at you to contend with when you get that close, along with all of his buddies taking potshots. That's actually an excellent idea! I hadn't considered the effect of ricochets in DCS. I had assumed they were merely cosmetic, but now that you mention it I did see once in tacview a hit by 30mm that had bounced off of something else. If these ricochets are part of the damage dealing picture, that's something we can work with to improve our techniques. I hope I can get some time to test this out! EDIT: I'm sure you've seen this before, but the A-10 Coloring Book discusses what happens when tanks get hit by the GAU-8. Bending or piercing the cannon, bouncing rounds from the ground up under the tank, and blowing treads off are apparently legit methods by attacking the sides of the tank at 3 degree dive angles. However, this is an aside to the actual topic, which is blowing them up in DCS. :) Just thought you'd enjoy it: https://warisboring.com/cold-war-coloring-book-taught-a-10-pilots-to-kill-soviet-tanks-a26385113bf0#.qjbx5umju

In reality, yes, that's ideal, but I don't think that the damage model in DCS for ground vehicles is sophisticated enough for that kind of effect until the new system comes out. Steeper dives and firing close-in seem to help though. I'm curious if the dive angle affects projectile speed enough to give it s boost, because according to my tests, dispersion isn't affected enough by slant angle (flashlight effect) to reduce hit rate when attacking from shallow dives. In these dives at 30 degrees, I'm still hitting with 200 to 400 rounds with about 80 to 90 percent of my shots landing. It seems that in DCS, projectile speed and energy matter more than number of hits.

Here are my results: TacView tells all. Every single gun run I made in that first video made good strikes and overall, I had a 77% hit rate. The average T-72 seems to take around 300-400 bullet strikes to kill. Apparently, the debrief screen is NOT a count of actual "hits" or number of projectiles that strike the target. Likely, it groups them together. Don't think that "22 hits" in the debrief screen means that you only hit with 22 slugs in your 300-round burst...you probably hit with about 250 in reality. Also, my debrief file shows a three-second burst with no hits whatsoever. This did not happen, every attack I made hit with a high number of rounds. Again, the debrief screen probably groups projectiles together, and that run didn't have enough hits to register as a group...just a hypothesis. So, if you're looking at that DCS debrief screen and thinking, "Man, I suck, I only hit with 60 slugs out of 1150!" Don't feel bad! You're probably hitting with more like 900 or more actual projectiles. So, with hit rates at about 80% anyway, I'm not sure dispersion mods are the actual answer, since dispersion is probably pretty close to what we want, anyway? Just an idea. Now...since ED is working on the damage model, the question becomes, "How to work with what we have to get one-run kills?" I'm guessing, start firing earlier.

A TacView review shows a different story, entirely...I'll post a video of that analysis and comparison later, it may be interesting to you folks!

I think so. In reality, hitting a tank with DU rounds has a non-zero chance of separating the treads or sprockets, bending or breaking the cannon, piercing the engine, or otherwise putting the tank out of the fight. Also, that dude who had his head sticking out of the hatch to man the 30 caliber machine gun to spray you with fire as you strafed the tank is *completely screwed.* Unfortunately, right now in DCS, the only kill that counts is completely destroying the target. Otherwise, they plow ahead as if the tank was factory fresh. I assume this is at least part of the problem.

So, I guess my question isn't really about the number of rounds it takes to pop a tank, but the amount of time and/or passes it takes to kill one. It seems like 5 rounds hitting within a three second burst fired at 25 degrees dive angle from the high rear quarter would land more than 5 slugs. That's an impression of mine. Of course if real-world data suggests that only 5 rounds would hit in those conditions, we're good to go and we just make more runs on target, if that's what it takes. However, I get the feeling that one-run kills against T-72's are a thing that probably happens.

Here's some video of how I'm doing things.

So, using same tactics and techniques I've always used, lately I'm finding that my gun just isn't killing tanks in the way it used it. I know, it probably happens to a lot of dudes... Anyway, lining on on the rear quarter of the tank, diving in at about 20 degrees, engaging PAC-1 once my pipper is on the tank and firing at 0.7 to 0.3 miles before breaking away. Debriefing shows a surprisingly low hit rate and I'm wondering if it's me, or if the gunsight is doing weird things. Instead of a one-pass kill, it takes three to pop the lid on a T-72. Unfortunately, OBS is crashing on launch so I can't post a video at the moment. Is anyone else having issues with this? EDIT: Results of my testing show that the debriefing file doesn't actually count individual bullet strikes, but probably groups thereof. Maybe you knew that...but the results seem inconsistent with my attack runs, so I'm curious what we can do until the DM gets updated. :) Results video:

Sorry for the necropost, but I wanted to say thanks, anyway. This fixed a major problem I've had with multi monitors!

Reasonable person: Open Beta install, eh? Huh. I suppose there are good reasons for that...but, hey, compared to the challenges of DCS itself, managing a Beta install is simple and fast! Oh, my HDD is full? Kinda sucks...Damn, well, I'll just train more on one the full squadron of aircraft available in DCS until stable release. No problem! Seriously, getting software to work on your system used to be a point of pride for PC users. Some of these complaints have the bitter, salty flavor of entitled console gamers who love finding something about the developer and/or publisher to overreact to. Come on. You'll have your Viggen tomorrow, some minor tweaks which should be well within the technical abilities of any DCS simmer, may be needed, but you'll be slinging Swedish meatballs downrange anyway. I doubt anyone in LNS or ED (or any dev for that matter) are wringing their hands trying to inconvenience their customers. Have patience when the people who create our favorite products follow a different path than expected. I'm sure they'd love to have had this stuff out by now and running smoothly. I'll still wait anxiously to pre-order that Tomcat and especially the Corsair!

A couple of videos from my Challenge Campaign play through that may help people struggling with this. Technically, you can just go into the Mission Planner and add whatever weapons that would be helpful, but for the purposes of this video series I'm doing everything with the stock settings...which is why it's taking forever to complete it. :) None of these scenarios are realistic, and the mission design is freaking brutal. My interpretation of this campaign, however, is not to simulate a P-51 engagement but to give you some artificial challenges to overcome despite the overwhelming odds against you. With that in mind, the merciless mission design is easier to stomach after failing 10 times in a row against those damn AAA guns. The more "tactical" videos follow, relevant to OP's issue: Mission 13 - Strafe Moving Targets - I talk quite a bit about your very problem in this video. Mission 15 - Rockets with More Difficulty - This one is a bitch! I started diving steeply, which helped accuracy and keeps you fast enough to avoid most of those ZU-23's. Just completed this today...damn, what a mess.

Trying to beat these with only the provided rockets or 500 lb bombs is a bitch. My first attempt, I added gun ammo to use on anything I missed with the warheads. I'm currently doing another play through for YouTube without messing with the miz files, once I get a good run I'll post the video with Tacview.

A Nightmare's Prayer is now one of my favorite books ever. Thanks for the suggestion.

I can't wait for that P-47. It'll be a totally different beast. And don't forget the P-40!

You know, I won't really fault anyone for wanting something of a balance in the game. It's a natural response, especially considering other games, even flight sims, take great pains to have balanced matches so every side has a fair chance at victory. However, that's not what we have here, and we have to remind ourselves of that every so often. We have a study simulator, with realism as a priority over everything else. The F-15, for example, dominates most A2A engagements because the actual F-15 dominates most A2A engagements and our FC3 module has similar BVR capabilities as far as radar, weapons, T/W ratio and whatnot. So the trick then is to learn your bird as well as you can and get every bit of performance out of it. Fly it to the edge of its performance envelope, master aerial gunnery, learn both energy and angles tactics so you can adjust to fluid situations. I probably sound like a broken record by now regarding this in both DCS and other games like Star Citizen, but a worse craft flown to 100% is usually going to be in better shape than a great one flown at 30% of its envelope. Don't rely on the damn plane to win for you, that's your job. The Mustang can't turn or climb with the K4 for example, but it has other traits that make it competitive as long as you don't get outside of your comfort zone. I won't rehash this here, as others have done so in better fashion than I can. The Mk. IX, though, is a completely different animal. Sure, it can't quite climb with the K4, but if the Kurfurst goes vertical while being chased, the Spit IX can certainly hang onto its tail long enough to make the kill. It need not match it climb for climb exactly as long as you can hang on long enough to make your shot...the 109 won't be any more dead by nature of you having a few more feet/sec in climb rate than it does now when you out-fly it using this or other means. Mustangs can shoot down K4's and even MiG-15's. F-5's can shoot down Su-27's. MiG-21's can bag F-15's. It's all a matter of knowing what your plane can do well and what it can't do, sticking to regimes where you can maintain control of things and avoid the opponent's comfort zone. It's not a matter of "better" or "worse" or "right" or "wrong." Just different, and to varying degrees of difficulty.

Huhboy, this bit again... The 109K didn't exist in large numbers at all, but it is the plane we have. I think the same may be true for the Dora, which I think was out-produced by the more common A8 and similar (not sure on these numbers, I'm sure one of you will correct if wrong ). The P-51D we have is a late war Pacific Theater variant, IIRC. They specific models we have are not all period-matched or present in DCS in anywhere near the relative numbers and ratios they appeared in, historically. Even the F-86F and MiG-15bis are not exactly what we'd find slugging it out over MiG Alley. Does that decrease the fun and challenge of the classic match up? Not in my opinion. The P-51D and Spit IX would more commonly have seen far more G-model 109's, sure. However, that's not what we have, and I'm guessing the availability, or lack thereof, of accurate and reliable data for those models may have something to do with it. They aren't the wrong planes, they're just the ones that the developers had enough access to in order to provide the most accurate simulation of that particular aircraft as possible. Think of DCS more of a sandbox in which you can mix all kinds of things together and see what you get, rather than as a time-locked cross section of what planes were common in a given month, year, or theater. We do have a Normandy 1944 map coming, but that doesn't necessarily mean the specific versions of the aircraft we put in it are representative of that year or location...but they're the closest thing we have now, and it's fun as hell to play "what if." For more, you can surely dig into the P-51D and Bf-109K subforums and read the endless, yet informative, debate on the mismatch between the "under-powered" Mustang we have with a mere 67" manifold pressure, and the "overpowered and unrepresentative" K-4, which only existed in small numbers and was likely built to sub-par standards given the state of the industry in 1944. Ultimately, we have what we have. It's not right or wrong, it just is. Personally, I'm loving the Mk. IX anyway. It seems an excellent compliment to the P-51D on the Allied side of things and really helps even things up against the current DCS German fighters, aside from being awesome to learn and fly.

Awesome news, AvioDev! I can't wait for the navigation aids, in particular. Will it have DME, by any chance? Edit: I accidentally an acronym.

And resetting your TrackIR center does not affect it?

Good stuff here! It'll help with my two main problems in the Spit. Now, if I can just start hitting targets reliably...

Hey, now. I have been known to fly the odd FW-190 and Bf-109 every so often. ;)

Hey, folks. I'm enjoying the Spitfire and feel like it can really get into some excellent firing positions at many angles. Unfortunately, once I get there, I can't seem to do anything with it. The 303 BB guns and fixed sight are bad enough, but for the life of me I cannot pull lead on a target and keep sight of him over that long nose. I feel like the pilot is crouching down behind the instrument panel due to the low canopy clearance and can't see much at twelve o'clock low because of it. Yes, the Spitfire can out-turn any opposition, but your angles don't mean much if you can seal the deal. If I'm pulling enough lead to hit a target at even moderately high angle-off, he's below the nose and it's a crap shoot. I've only scored hits really by using lead pursuit up until I'm in real close on his six, but even then you tend to lose sight and if he reverses, you could end up dead. The fixed gunsight is not great, but even worse is the impaired front view down low and even behind the canopy framework. Even if we had a gyro sight, I assume the diamonds would end up tracking below the plane's field of view, anyway. We have precious little ammo, and what we do have doesn't hit too hard and requires some time spent hosing down the target. A knockout snapshot is out of the question for this reason, so this leaves us with tracking shots. What are you folks doing to score hits? If we ease up on our pursuit curve, we lose our angles. If we keep pulling for advantage, we can't see or hit the thing. Any luck with this, Spitfire fans?

I think that the Spitfire/Mustang combo has lots of potential. Allied warbirds, FTW!

He wrote one? What have I been doing with my life? Next book on the list. Thanks, sir!