captain_dalan

Don't let some of comments around here fool you. Your observations are correct, though your conclusions may not be. However, it's only so because you come from a different time and different world. I was there too. You can see from the list of sims I played over the years on my profile. Your only "sin" here, is that you expect the AI's to play by the same or similar rules that you do. They unfortunately, DO NOT. I have fought AI's that had both of their wings missing, and they still managed to climb at steady 45 degrees nose high, 75 knots, all the way to 60000ft. They could have gone higher as well, however I COULD NOT FOLLOW them. Me, in my completely untouched, pristine plane. The AI's in DCS are like the Agents in the Matrix. They cheat. The system is ALWAYS giving them all the energy they need to continue flying. An AI in DCS will NEVER STALL. EVER. Under any circumstance. If to planes entered a double Immelmann in DCS, one at 170 knots, the other at 320 knots, who do you thing has better chances of completing it? If your answer was the one at 320, you would be wrong. If your answer was the one at 170, you would also be wrong. The correct answer is the one flown by the AI. Also, the AI in DCS ALWAYS has power/thrust to ratio greater then 1. If you initiate a climb at say 150 knots more then the AI that's on your six, the AI will follow you into that climb without any problems. More then that, it will actually catch up with you. You see, as your planes loses power as you climb, and thus you start losing airspeed and eventually stall, the AI wont. It's follow you into low orbit if it needs to. So ignore all the comments that advise you to use energy tactics, unless they mean single strife/slashing dives and then bugging out. It won't work. Some planes are more guilty of this then others (when controlled by the AI), but as a general rule, they all follow this principles. Planes like the MiG-15, MiG-21 and F-5 are particularly notorious of this. They will, out climb and out turn ANY plane in the game if you play by their rules. Fortunately for jet plane users, these planes often have at least some form of advantage that compensate for the AI behavior, be it weapon system, or raw performance. Those who fly WW2 planes, aren't that lucky. Bottom line, IF you want to compare plane performance, do it by using either AI's as controllers for both planes, or humans for both planes. Unfortunately, I own neither the Dora not the Kurfürst, so I can't evaluate the relatives strengths and weaknesses of these relative to the Corsair in DCS. However, when I compared them in the hands of the AI at veteran skill level (avoiding using Ace levels, they are the worst when it comes to breaking the rules of physics), I got this: As you can see, the Corsair soundly beats the Dora, and while not quite as good as the 109, it still pulls a roughly 50% win ratio. The 190d isn't all that hard really. The AI controlled Dora is very close to your own Corsair in performance, and you can generally out turn it in horizontal if you are patient enough. However, you can make things a lot easier for yourself, if you do some out of plane maneuvering. The Kurfürst is whole other can of worms though. I have no idea how to fight that when AI controlled. I have seen it go less then 74 knots and out turning me, I have seen it out accelerate me, and catch up with me, even when I started at 350 knots, and he started at 170. The examples I mentioned above, are actually from me experimenting with a veteran AI in the 109. It also out turns you at EVERY speed. I think we may have a case of an F-5, Mig-15 or MiG-21 in the warbirds here. But if you need some help in taking down Doras, here's one way that I do it: Hope some of this helps. Don't give up. A day may come, when the AI finally plays by our rules as well. When that day comes, I'll start playing WW2 campaigns. Alas..... But it is not this day....

I guess it got lost in my messy post : null

I guess I'm one of those that didn't get the instructions right. Here's where I dropped the zips: null And I don't see any new liveries in my mission editor? Can you offer some advice? EDIT: NVM, the zip inside the zip caught me off guard!

Never the less, it is so. From day one. I think I read about somewhere from a 2nd party that it's a design choice. Regardless, just try it yourself. Push the throttle all the way forward. The green light for 3 minutes of water injection left, never turns on. Press the enable water injection binding, you get extra knots of airspeed immediately (about 9 at sea level), and after a while, the green light does turn on. The two screenshots bellow are taken with water injection off and on respectively: null There is a jump in power, or at the very least, airspeed. Look at the images above

Could be a number of things then. Maybe the instruments don't show the right values. Or it could be that the plane performance isn't directly "bound" to the pressure parameters. Might be a bug worth reporting on separately.

But do you get an increased performance as a result of pressing it? If so, then the bug isn't the total power/speed ratio, but the instrumentation. EDIT: when I press it, I get at least 9 extra knots down low.

I've been using that for the most part, though to be honest, on the few occasions I push the lever all the way to the top, it doesn't seem to be making a lot of difference performance wise. Is it the fuel consumption or engine over heating that are most effected?

Latest test, no video this time around. Gross weight 12176lbs, 6 rockets and 48% fuel, the closest I could get to that chart. 2700RPM, 59 MP, auto lean = 305 knots ASL, 351mph or 565mkh 2700RPM, 59 MP, auto lean, water injection on = 314 knots ASL (managed to push it to 315 by decreasing the MP a bit to 37-38), or 361mph or 582kmh. null

That's the middle position, right?

What is your throttle setting? I get 59 by pushing it all the way forward. Could be. At least those pylons we haul around must be worth some extra weight, on top of drag. It absolutely is implemented. I have it on one of my HATs. That's how I got to 317 knots (in the second part of the video) and 320 in a shallow dive to the deck. Make sure your binding is working.

Ah, good to know. Are they even informed of these bugs? They never responded in the bug report section here on the forums.

Am I doing something wrong? My sea level tests: 50% internal fuel. 56-59 MP, 2700RP, experimenting with fuel mixture. Without water injection, I get 303-304 knots ASL, which translates to 348-350mph or 563kmh. Seems right on the money there, if that chart is correct. With water injection, I get 317 knots ASL, 365 mph or 587kmh. I'm still not sure which fuel mixture works best, and to use when, but the numbers appear close to what they should be. I can take her up to 320 knots in a shallow dive. Why do you think we have such different results? Are your cowls tucked in?

Does it mention bug fixes and FM changes?

Do you mean an absolute top speed possible under given circumstances in level flight (such as infinite fuel burn at a given gross weight) or a particular climb and acceleration profile?

They are discontinuing it? A sad day indeed What if what we have already breaks after the warranty expires..... alas....

Can you share (if allowed and available) the data charts? I don't have enough data for full level flight evaluation at all altitudes.

I will when I get the time. I don't own the module, nor have I flown it in other sims, so it was never high on my research priorities. I'm sorry, but videos like this one are almost completely irrelevant to the issue. A "five" mile drag race in which a guy firewalls the throttle and finishes at n spot is not a good bug report. If you want to prove a module is over or under performing, you need to fly the numbers and document the differences from published material. We are talking time to climb, speed at altitude, excess power/acceleration and the like. Finally, personal feelings are even less relevant. Unless you are a WW 2 aviator that flew with the thing, in which case, you should offer your services as a certified SME.

Why not? I haven't really researched the P-47 we have in game, but the BF-109k is over 30 knots faster then F4U 1-D. And that's just top speed. Produce some acceleration charts and we can analyze those as well.

Come on guys, are you trying to get the guy banned? You know posting official data is no longer allowed on the forums. And the F-14s are overperforming at high mach and altitude. BY A LOT. Anyone who has really flown this beauty since the last FM update knows it. Screenshots, tacviews, videos, it's all been done. You want a few more?

The same is true for the F-14A as well. Above mach 1.4 it accelerates like crazy. Long standing bug, but I guess not considered important enough to fix, just like the manual override for wing sweep.

As a demographic group we've fallen low from what we used to be. I mean, many don't understand the differences between indicated, calibrated and true airspeed, even less so ground speed. How can we expect them to understand engine variants and management. The tragic thing is, the confidence that ignorance manifests itself with.

My 20000ft test run from this afternoon. 75% internal fuel (11700lbs gross). 2550 RPM, water injection on, fuel mix lever all the way back, blower to high, manifold pressure 57. Managed almost 350 knots true speed and about 260 indicated before the water light went on. That's 646km/h. Pretty close to the cheat card numbers. Only 5 knots or 10km/h short. Might need to play a bit with it some more.

Eh, I never treat them as instructors. But then again, I am usually self taught, and like to learn by doing as much as possible

Aye, had some miles to drop on it as well!

Ah, good to know, THANKS! I guess that's next on the shopping list