JG13Wulf

The visual and audio effect are clearly weird. We totally agree on this. But What I don't agree with you is that you tell the 13 mm act like 30 mm which I do not agree. Making too much damage on pilot and few subsystem. Testing it too multiple times, I can assure you there are large difference between those two guns in the damage they inflict. Then you told this : Then you said : To what I answer the 13mm is more like a canon so more like a 20 or 30mm because it more rely on chemical than kinetic. The study clearly gives that M2 was an inefficient gun as all the kinetic guns when compared to chemical one. (But it was widely used for other reason). The design of the 13mm was made knowing that the chemical was the number 1 priority. So that's why MG 131 should not behave like other machine guns we have in game (7.7 and 12.7). Then the study you take number from is completely wrong about how you use them. I'm not afraid to say this because there is the reason : This study was made to compare CHEMICAL and KINETIC ! And to compare roughly large gun to smaller one. So the author make a lot of assumption and regroup all non-kinetic in the chemical family (so HE and incendiary). And it clearly tell : The computation is based on few parameters such as the chemical mass in the round. But it does not make difference between Icendiary or HE. It does not make any difference if ammo A used chemical material A and ammo B used chemical material B (which is really important). And it continue with other assumption. This is not a problem when you want to point out that chemical IS so much more efficient than kinetic. BUT It became completely irrelevant when you compare to CHEMICAL guns such as 30mm and 13mm. Or 13 mm HE to 12.7mm API. The number are completely false (and it's logical they are false, it's said everywhere those are approximation). There are too many assumption to make a correct comparison between 2 chemical ammo. And it's because of these assumption that it's logical that the table (the computation) gives the 12.7mm API equivalent to 13mm HE. But it's completely WRONG ! It gives only an idea but these are not number that you can take and tell "this is the truth". Incendiary and HE rounds are not equivalent ! And to me HE are always more efficient than incendiary, because incendiary must hit a flamable part (or be very close) when HE make few kinetic damage at impact + chemical damage (explosion) + more kinetic damage (schrapnel). (And this is true for every guns) CONCLUSION : Agree 100% with weird grey view and weird sound that seems to be the same for each guns, Disagree that 13mm and 30mm make equals damage (from my test, I didn't observ the same), Logic to me that 13mm does not behave like other machine guns but more like 20 or 30mm because MG 131 was designed as a (mini)-canon not as a machine gun. It does not make as much as damage as 20 or 30mm. But it's still in the same category as them. To me there are 2 categories of gun in game : 7.7mm - 12.7mm (machine guns) ==> Kinetic as priority. 13mm - 20mm - 30mm (mini-canon and canon) ==> Chemical as priority. Disagree with your calcul. You base them on too many assumption. No one can tell "the 13mm is 50x less powerfull than a 30mm". It's less powerfull yes. But this is a too simplest way to compute it. And I won't give any number as there are NO WAY to obtain something correct. The only possibility would be to take all these guns, with all these exact munition and to shoot at multiple targets at multiple angles and distances. I don't know any study that make this comparison work. So I don't bring the discussion to other topic. I answer to what you first say. I used 12.7mm as the closest in-game machine gun for reference. I could use 7.7mm but it would be irrelevant. And I used 20 mm as the closest in-game canon for reference. (and 30mm because you keep telling both gun do the same effect). Lucky/critical shoot : A small detail to add to your test. Reason to repeat again and again test in scientific research. All gun in game can destroy every plane in 1 shoot if you have *the lucky shoot*. And as I saw, lucky shoot became more and more probable with bigger gun. Why ? Because of HE again. Lucky shoot happen when you hit and destroy a vital component of the plane. You can kill the engine with 1 shoot. You can kill the pilot with 1 shoot. You can rip off a wing in 1 shoot. You can set the fuel tank on fire in 1 shoot. But as HE send schrapnel ans have explosion damage, it's more probable to have lucky shoot on "externat component" (include control surfaces, pilot, lot of other stuff). Because all guns have similar probability to make direct hit. But HE, you need to add the probability for a Schrapnel to hit too. And the probability for the explosion to damage it too. So if you aim for particular area on a plane that fly straight without moving, there is a large probability to make big damage to small area quite easily. You can rip off an aileron in 1 shoot if you hit the aileron attach. A big difference with 13mm and 30 mm (why I don't agree with you), is that the area the MK 108 will critically damage is far bigger than the area 13mm will damage (when you hit at about the same spot). Most of the test we did show this. But few test showed too that you can destroy/critically damage a plane in 1 hit. **Note that Incendiary does not increase the probability of lucky shoot. It increase the probability to ignite a fire IF we had an impact on something that can actually burn !

Did you even read what I post ? Did you even read the study ? It actually tell that the number are completely approximate ... And it compare API 12.7mm with HE 13mm ... Without making any difference between Incendiary and HE ... So those number gives absolutly nothing to compare ...

It's funny because what you send is this study I read month ago : https://www.quarryhs.co.uk/WW2guneffect.htm And it clearly point out what I mean by explosive (and incendiary) are more effective than classic or AP ammo. The score as it's given everywhere in the discussion is an approximation and not a strict definition of the power of the gun. It's told that you must take in account lot more parameters to have correct result (in particular what you hit in the plane). So here we have a calcul done for few particular ammo from each guns using few known parameters such as the mass of the projectile and the mass of the chemical inside AND the muzzle velocity of each guns. From few statistics, the author tell the the approximation seems quite fair and I agree with it. From the start to the end, it point out what I told. The Explosive and Incendiary ammo are far more dangerous than classic AP ammo. Now read again what I write before ... The 13 mm was designed to work like a canon with HE ammo because HE was more efficient than AP. And I even think it's more efficient than API (I will explain later). AP will make nice holes in a plane. But if it does not actually hit something vital, it will be useless. When HE or incendiary will make damage even without making a direct hit at a particular component. It only need to get close. (And it's logic that 13 mm < 20 mm < 30mm as we have in game). So to me, it's logic that the 13mm will make more damage than 12.7mm. The difference is not big. But it's logic as the 13mm more rely on HE than AP and because most of the ammo of 12.7mm are APx. A little remark about the table in the study that shows both 13mm and 12.7mm are equivalent : It compare 13mm AP and HE to 12.7mm API. And the doc clearly tell that - there are lot of approximation - Incendiary and explosive are considered to be equivalent - the content of chemical incendiary and explosive of all kind are considered to be all the same So there are no difference in this study between HE and I ammo. As the point was to show that AP and HE/I are quite different, it's not a problem to make these assumption. But it does not allow to make a complete study of the difference between 12.7mm API and 13mm HE ! So because of these assumption, it's logic to have 13mm HE that is quite equivalent to 12.7mm API. Now why I think API is less efficient than HE. I think that because HE will eplode and add kinetic damage and chemical damage (risk of ignite). When API will go trough everything in front of it and ignite what it can ignite. Making those 2 ammo quite different. So to me it's logical to have the results we see in this study. But there are too much assumptions to tell that API and HE are equivalent.

The 13mm have HE in it. Can't prove it anymore. But it was possible month ago to read in the files what was inside the belt. There was few different type of ammo in it. What you talk about frst were 2 problem 1) Visual and audio of impact. About this I agree with you. But I suspect it's still a WIP. There was a discussion on discord few weeks ago that told the visual does not match yet the damage. I imagine, the sound is at the same state for now. 2) The 13 mm does not do similar damage as other machineguns. You discuss the fact the 13mm behave like 30mm sometimes. But about this I disagree with what you tell. The 13 mm is much more weaker than the 30 or 20mm. It does not behave like 12.7 or 7.7 because it was not made to work like these. And it actually seems to be pretty correct how it works. The explosive have a big importance. It will damage / destroy much more systems. It will trigger the start of fire more easily (like incendiary). After I have done test on Spit and Bf 109 using all different guns we have on warbirds, I can tell you that the 13mm is far more weaker than 20 or 30 mm. But it's hard to compare with 12.7mm. Because with 12.7mm guns, I was able to make much more damage to system that were at the opposite side of the plane. When 13 mm made terrible damage to the system near the impact point. To me both work correctly. But those 2 guns can't compare as they are 2 guns that were developped to do different kind of damage. About the 7.7mm, I don't know. I know there was explosive round that were not really effective (you can even find them in Cliffs od Dover as the observation rounds). I first believe like you 7.7mm were not used with HE. But there was. Now about the sound ? I come back to what I told before. I suspect it's still a WIP. But 7.7mm, even with a loud bang, don't make damage like 20 or 30 mm.

I didn't test but I wa suspecting this to be linked to all boat yes

Yes, I'm talking about the MG131. There are lot of various munition for the MG131. What I mean, is that 12,7mm and 13mm are 2 guns that were designed with 2 different way to think. M2 is a machinegun that was made to fire projectile that would go trough a lot of things. (like all classical machinegun). It rely on high kinetic to work well. MG131 is a machinegun too but it was made to hit and make damage to what is around (like canon). It used ammo that is comparable to the ammo used in M2 (AP, Iciendiary). But it replace old 7,92mm because it can carry explosive ammo. German noticed that explosive or inciendiary was much more effective than classic ammo. Because the goal is not to make hole trough a plane. The goal was to make as much damage as possible in the plane. This do not rely on high kinetic to work. The M2 would not make any damage except with a direct hit. When a MG 131 could make damage (not a lot but still damage) to anything around explosive ammo. The difference between US and German was the US increased their chance for a direct hit by adding more guns in their plane. When german used less but more efficient guns. That's why the MG 131 is closer to a canon than a machineguns. Similar caliber to M2. But different way to think to make it. What you compare is correct to me. But only for comparable ammo (classic or AP) that both guns used. M2 is more effective with these than the 13mm. But you can see in the picture that MG131 munition have a design closer to 20mm than 12,7mm. And you should look for ammo description without tracers. I don't have the data here. But they had more explosive than what the tracers can carry. Note that I don't mean it would do similar damage to 20mm ! Just say the gun was made to behave like a small canon not like a "classical" gun.

Since one of the last update, the Schnell boat don't follow the orientation placed in ME. (Maybe a bug related to all boat, I didn't test).

13mm is far more powerfull than other machine gun. It's more close to a 20mm than a 12.7mm. It won't make as much as damage as a 20mm, but the gun is designes like a mini-20mm gun. The major difference is the presence of exploding ammo. The exploding ammo of the MG 131 will enter the plane and explode. That make a lot of damage to surounding systems. Far less than a 30mm. But if you hit the right part, it will destroy lot of things. 12,7 mm and 13mm AP will work aother way. They will enter the plane et go as far as possible "in straight line". Piercing anything they hits. So the major difference is that 12,7mm you have to actually hit the system. When 13mm just need to be close of it (like 20mm or 30mm). MG131 should not be seen as a machine gun but as a small canon.

If the push back of the 262 was made for more work on the 1943 - 1944 planeset, then, it's sad ... But it's the best decision !

Mobile AAA such as these would be awesome for a Combined arm / WW2 gameplay : German Wirbelwind tank German Nimrod tank German single 37 mm halftrack German single 20 mm halftrack German 4x 20mm halftrack US M15 single 37 mm Halftrack US M16 4x 12,7 mm Halftrack GB Crusader AA Mk I tank (single 40mm) GB Crusader AA MK II tank (twin 20mm) And elements to create almost all of them are already in game.

I now understand the reason for japanese Fw 190A8

Same here Shoot at it with frieds in fw 190A8 => no damage. Test to shoot on it with another Quadmont (combined arm). I shoot all my ammo until it make the first reload => no damage The object wasn't set on invincible

Ask your team leader to unban me and come fly with me. It's will be my pleasure to fly with you ^^ The best way to make something is to work in pair.

Aerial supremacy wasn't done only because allies got better plane. The main reason was their number. More recent plane will help if they correspond your way to fight. Not be magic. You will be able to have results if you fight with it in the correct way. The Spit MK IXc is far more better than MK XIV or Tempest in turn. If you play the MK XIV like a Spit MK IXc because "it's a Spit", you only going to say it's the worst plane ever made ^^ Having these new plane is a trade off between speed and agility. The 109 G6 is the same principle. We are going to loose speed but gain more agility. If German player will play G6 like K4 they will be dead. That's why I think new plane won't balance much the game if you don't take time to understand how to fight with them. They will help, They will be better for historical accuracy. They will be nice opponent for German. But they will add nothing if you not learn them. => Rethink the way to fight and it will balance the game. Fly in your domain and fly in squadron.

Yes, That's what I called Historical accuracy. Balance for me is the fact to tweak the game so each side will have "similar results". A Tempest or a Spit MK XIV would help a bit because they have better performances than MK IXc. But they would not be the miracle solution for those who don't try to use these plane in their flight domain. As I said, I'm 100% for those plane to arrive (like everyone). But I'm against the balanced gameplay so "Allies would catch invincible German". Allies can kill german plane. It's not easy (as it's not easy to fight with A8). But it's possible with hard work. So as I said, 100% for more historical planeset with correct plane simulation ! Should have been a bit more precise in my sentence.

No, I mean new plane to be correctly made. Meaning plane that are not balanced/tweaked against one particular opponent but that will need to be learn (as the one we have now) to take advantage against other. This is actually what I disagree with your team leader. He try to say he look for historical modification. But what he ask for is Tweaking so plane would be equivalent. So it would be more adapted to his dogfight server gameplay. One other game did this at first. Creating a plane and his opponent to have balanced game. Making assumption and tweak to flight model so "everyone is happy". But those who looked to use correct strategy and to learn their plane complain about this. This seems to change little by little there. But years ago, that's why I come to DCS and I didn't stayed there. So 100% with this particular request if you look too for historical accuracy in DCS. This is the hope of every one that like WW2 here. EDIT : But don't think I mean everything is perfect now. There are bugs. But bugs should be corrected by looking as much as possible to historical data. Not by looking to dogfight server gameplay.

I come here like a lot of pilot because DCS promise to make the most detailled simulation of Warbirds. I paid a lot like all the member and all the member of the little team of tester we build. That's the reason why we make test. We try to make as detailled feedback report as possible to help. And we don't take pleasure to do so. We take our free time because we believe in DCS. We find some bugs, we made mistake. But we always had interesting discussion from my point of view. If you would do the same. Detailling your experience with documentation, I would be glad to look at it. But instead you keep to complain and not showing argument. Only @peeter show a video of his experience. I answered to it. And it seems other people think the same as me (see the answer on discord). What you ask for is at the opposite to what I look for. I hope and believe most people here look for the same as me : Realism and historical accuracy. Can you tell exactly what you ask for : - New plane balanced to be against the one we have ? - New plane correctly modelised from 1944 / 45 that you should learn to use to fight the one we have ? If you ask for the second I'm 100% with you. But what I read since the begining make me think you hope for the first one. If I'm wrong, I'm sorry. But notice just this : P51, P47, Fw 190D and Bf 109K4 are from the same era. Fw 190A8 and Spitfire are from same era. the main problem for most historical purist like me is that only the last two are correct for Normandy. But if you think new plane will make the things easier, you are wrong. If you learn correctly how to use each of these, you will see that you can down any of these with any plane. Balance will not come with more plane. Balance will come by rethinking the way you use each plane.

That exactly what we do online. But instead of a drone we ask to a pilot to be in the plane to tell us what he see from is point of view (internal damage system, and plane behavior modification). We first did this with spitfire and shoot with each gun we have in DCS on the different plane (except I16). We tried to shoot wing at 3 different points. Then the fuselage. And we look how the target react to hits. That's how we arrived to the idea that Spitfire canon are not so different from MG 151/20 in game. (Seems there are slight difference, but they are both efficient). Actually, we only do the spit completely. We started 109. But there is a bug with it. When you rip off a mobile part (aileron, elevator or rudder), it become totally unflyable. So as aileron come off quite easily, we stopped test to wait for next update (as this bug was reported and seems to be internally corrected).

To me both 20 mm seems quite similar. But the main difference is how they are set on the plane. On the Spitfire you have 2 canon that are far from plane center. Those two canon seems to have a smaller ROF than German one and are quite efficient only close to convergence point but less efficient when you go further away from it. German work the same way. But on D9, you have 2 canon that are really close to the fuselage (you can almost say they are centered. This make they are almost always at convergence point. Even you you get a bit away from it, they will both shoot with so little angle that the 2 round will hit close to each other. This is why german canon seems more effcient. The A8 is different too with 4 canon. But when testing with only shooting 2x 20 mm from A8 or from Spitfire (close to convergence point for each other), I didn't notice lot of difference. I even thought the Birtish 20 mm seems to have more explosives. They seems to make more damage in system (but hard to compare as no shoot is equal to another). I asked before for it, but I really think you would have better results if you could set your convergence to a choosen value. Here the post. Last time I heard about, it was something put in the requested feature list. I don't know if the 109 is a lot more resistant than the Spitfire. Both have strong and weak point. But the 7,7 mm are quite inefficient gun (I don't mean they don't do enough damage in DCS, I mean this was an inefficient caliber). Try shooting with 12,7mm on a 109 with a bit more distance, you will see it can burst into flame in a matter of a second. The 12,7mm make terrible damage to all the plane. A good thing could be to ask for Spit Mk IXe wich have 2 20mm and 2 12,7mm. But this would not change lot of things if you can't shoot at correct distance. Historically, in all air force, lot of plane who used 7,7mm (or similar) in early war variants upgraded for better caliber later (Bf 109, Fw 190, P40, Ki 43, A6M5, Spitfire, Hurricane ...)

Is it an AI ? Because, I think AI have still quite a lot of trouble with damage model. Still work in progress I think. 1) you are so close you miss lot of shoot. 2) you are so close you won't shoot at convergence. You make hits in a lot of area of the plane. At convergence, you would make max damage in a point. 3) the plane seems quite out of combat after 15 seconds in the video. You clearly see that the pilot is not able to pull up anymore (see how he move at around 15s). At 25 seconds it's completly ruined. What I see here : The 109 internal seems to be completely destroyed. The engine maybe took one or 2 20 mm hits. I don't think the fuel tank took once. Please let's make a try with me

If you are interested, even if there are trouble between your squadron leader and me, you can come and make a fly. I would be glad to make few test on the allied guns with you. If you want to have constructive discussion, do not hesitate

After discussing and making more test yesterday, it appears that the wing actually can break after damage. I'm personnally quite surprised by how it can resist. But It's probably because the angle I use to shoot with MK108 limit the damage => shoot from 6 o'clock on leveled plane. But the wing can actually break in half. It's just quite hard.

Edit : This quoted the wrong person (oops): I hope to see it ... But When I tried to show you I got banned from your server. And now you come here with no evidence of what you tell. For the moment, from my experience, I can only doubt of what you say. I made shoot and kill with only 1 or 2 20mm impact with the Spitfire. Please show us your test. Show us what happened. That's exactly how we would have clear and correct discussion about it !

What ? Just calm down ... Your goal is to obtain a more balanced game. Your pilots (yes you are 3 pilot who actually fly a lot togheter in MP) come here to ask about a problem of allied gunnery. You show nothing to proove that there are problem (track or video). And more, your pilot actually told he made 50% hits with nothing happening. This is completely false. Even the best pilot won't make more than 12 / 15% hit on a fighter. I can tell too that "I'm the best pilot here and there are problem to solve urgently" ... everyone can tell the same. (EDIT : That what I understand when I read I make 50% hit with canon.) But what you point out is false in this post. I made video that proove you are wrong and there are a good number of pilot that think the same. Your ask for historical era plane is a big +1 for me. But histroy is not balanced if that's what you hope ! Reading your critics about the game is exactly like you get shot down and decide to go and rage on the forum ... When I have trouble or when I find something weird, I make test before going screaming. I read to understand what I did wrong and I try to adapt. I suspected the wing trouble on the 109 since about 2 week. We made test wednesday and thursday to look at it. We find something quite disturbing and I reported it. The fact is that I got the answer it wasn't a bug. And more, I even get an explanation about it. I'm surprised. But the explanation is kind of correct. My goal is to do the same with all the warbirds. We made this with the Spitfire. We then did it with the 109. And the next is to be decided ! Work this way instead of referencing only on your feeling.

@Fmax13 You and me clearly know you were thinking about me