Mogster

Nice video. The lighting does look much better, almost as good as the bus driver sim.

It’s mostly overlooked but in 1960 the Vulcan and its advanced ECM suite made it a hot ship. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sky_Shield Barnes Wallis and RJ Mitchell are household names in the UK but there’s no doubt Roy Chadwick was a quiet practical genius. The Vulcan was the star of UK air shows in the 70s going straight from takeoff to a full throttle ground shaking near vertical climb. Glorious.

RAF 20mm contained 6g of RDX per round, it’s like a small frag grenade exploding against the target, also the Hispano has a fast fire rate for a 20mm cannon. Compared to 20mm HE AP just makes small holes. The US Browning 2 had quite a slow rate of fire also so less rounds on target. Attacking from directly behind means your maximising the effect of any armour the aircraft has as its placed to defend against just that attack. In the FW there’s an armour bulkhead behind the pilot, the rear section behind the bulkhead is mostly empty, as are the wings (OK maybe the ammo in the wings should be an explosion risk) shooting small holes in those areas would do very little. Really you need a deflection shot into the cockpit or the engine, Galland talked about bringing aircraft down with a single well placed 20mm round to the engine, always deflection shots from the top or side. Im not sure how DCS models pilot injury.

Aye. Nothing WW2 related at all

Warspite was in a very bad state by the end of WW2 as most of the RN fleet. Warspite had been badly damaged by glider bombs, mines, only 3 of her prop shafts were working and there was a concrete patch covering bomb damage that basically went through the whole ship. Repair would have cost millions even to a viable static state. Britain was bankrupt and the Attlee government was committed to wide ranging social programmes, sadly scrap was worth more than worn out warships that the country had no need for. Enterprise CV6 was the USN ship with the longest battle honours, she was even a Midway veteran, nothing more to say... She was scrapped as well...

The RAF museum has a Ki 100 I think.

Warspite was also completely knackered by 1945 and would have cost a fortune to fix, like Rodney sadly That was the advantage of Belfast, she may not have had an extensive service record (although still noteworthy) but she was in very good condition and so much cheaper to preserve.

Aye, Warspite was worthy also, but the Rodney sank the Bismarck, or rendered her combat ineffective depending on your preferred view... Churchill wanted Rodney preserved but the political wind wasn’t blowing in his favour in 1948.

Implacable didn’t add much to the record, we already had the best of all, HMS Victory. Why keep another 18th-19th century warship. She was originally French, and was offered to France before being scuttled. WW2. Now the Rodney, built at Lairds she would have been an excellent centrepiece to a Battle of the Atlantic museum in Liverpool. Victorious, had an incredible combat WW2 combat record, Arctic, Atlantic, ETO, MTO, PTO...

It’d be a massive project, other developers have said a 4 engined multi crew aircraft would be equivalent to 4/5 single seaters in dev time. So the question is would you prefer 5 single seaters or the B17? To monetarise this would you pay 5x the cost of the current single seaters for 1 aircraft?

The landing from 0.55 is more akin to many in DCS though. The film is edited at that point, I wonder how it ended up...

https://www.flightglobal.com/fixed-wing/air-tractor-l3harris-launch-at-802u-sky-warden-light-attack-aircraft/143637.article Seriously I would be interested in some light attack stuff, Tucano, AT-6, Combat Caravan even.

The lighter aircraft do seem “bouncy” in DCS. The runways are bumpy and on takeoff as the speed builds the lighter aircraft start bouncing, Ive been flying the CEII a bit lately and 2/3 through the takeoff run that starts bouncing also. I have no idea if this bouncing is realistic but it does feel uncomfortable. But then it does feel similar to the bouncing here... More

Yes but you commonly run into problems with details surrounding how the tests were conducted and the condition the aircraft was in. You need details of the exact model tested, serial numbers are ideal but not always recorded (quite often during the war or just after the allies weren’t precisely sure what they had) Then you have to decide if the tests performed are representative of how the aircraft was operated by the original units, Japanese avgas was of really poor quality in the last year of the war and really limited their aircraft performance. Captured Japanese aircraft were tested with high quality US fuel seem to have performed better than they ever did at unit level, fullfilling their potential if you like, but assuming you want to model historic operation by front line units then you have to take factors like fuel quality into account. Build quality and finishing also suffered in Japan in the last few months of the war. The ideal documentation comes from the results of testing of serial production examples issued to front line units. Other records aren’t useless but a lot of caution needs to be taken while interpreting them.

A short stick extension makes all the difference. I remember Yo-Yo saying that the stick deflection used in the real thing is absolutely tiny and there wasn’t going to be any concession for differences in PC hardware. He was literally programming the stick movement from the original, if you didn’t like it then use curves or get a stick extension. Yo-Yo uses a stick exrension iirc.

Closer to release I’d imagine. There have been problems in the past with 3rd party dev folders being included then having to be removed.

They put a fair amount of effort into the P47, aerodynamic CAD work and all. I’d suggest it’s easier to obtain reliable data for modern planes, government approval tends to be the stumbling block frequently. At least if somethings made up for a modern aircraft the devs tend to be aware what the real parameters are.

I suspect the biggest problem with the 262 is historical modelling of the engines, performance and handling, the effects of low quality materials and avgas available to the Germans also. It’s not “hiding behind” anything, it’s how much do you have to make up? The ED DCS warbirds we have are massively complicated and the systems modelling seems difficult to get right compared to modern digital aircraft. The nuances of the FM, engine deign limitations, cooling systems, even pilot physical constraints are huge, and for the aircraft we have ED can phone someone and say how is it? (Or at least they can ask someone who’s flow a very similar aircraft in the case of the 109 K and D9) How do you complete an aircraft model in extreme detail and refrain from “making stuff up” if no ones even seen (and heard) one of these aircraft run for 50 years or more? Don’t get me wrong, I’d love to fly a DCS Typhoon, Tempest, Ki84, N1K, Ki61 but I don’t see how it can happen without “making stuff up”

The last 15 years or so there does seem to be a lot more retrieval’s of documented jungle wrecks, for good and for bad.

Aye it seems so. I’ve been scouring the net for videos of them in action but there’s nothing.

There may not be flying original examples of the D9 but several airframes do exist and a few are ground runners. There are D9 flyable replicas. There may not be any Bf109 Ks in existence but there are many similar surviving original BF109s. I think EDs criteria may be more exacting than a 3rd party developer.

There may not be existing original examples of the precise marque’s featured in game but there are original flyable in-line and radial FW190s and original BF109s in abundance, then there’s the replicas. Historical data is available in reams also. There are flyable original Zeros and Ki43s iirc and plenty of surviving airframes, someone sold Ki43 replicas a while back iirc. I can see the Zero and Ki43 being goers. There’s one original Ki84 in existence and it was comprehensively looted after being left knocking around in Japan outside a museum for a while. Most other Japanese planes have no existing examples outside jungle wreckage. No one has seen these planes in motion or flown these planes since WW2. Most Japanese data was destroyed in the fire bombing of Japan, what was left was destroyed to stop the allies getting hold of it. I’m not sure what ED or anyone else would base a fully featured DCS module on. It’s very unfortunate but this is reality...

I take it to mean rapid inputs then returning to centre.

References are a problem for Japanese aircraft. As for Russian planes even for common types there tends to be very few surviving examples with none original and in flying condition. Even the basic issue that any documentation that exists will need to be translated from Japanese is a problem. To build a DCS aircraft you need complete systems modelling, it’s not proving easy even for common Western types like the Spit and P51. Flight test data is only part of the story as it only produces a few numbers, that’s why Nick Grey is keen on modelling planes with flying examples, you can talk to the pilots and have them validate your FM. Even historical flight test data has its limitations, there’s the issues with captured examples being damaged or not maintained properly, ideally you need source data from the manufacturers for serial production aircraft. Prototypes could be quite different to serial production aircraft, you really want to model the performance of a front line example not some one-off special. I think the Zero is very likely as there are flying examples. I imagine ED will be keen to be seen to not be “making stuff up”, I’m no sure how they’d react to other developers having more of a punt though.