Istari6

Ah, that makes sense and matches what I've seen in-game. The MG 131 seems to have a HE effect, often ripping off tails and wings with a short burst while the AN/M2s seem to have to wear down an enemy over time. It makes air combat more dangerous for the P-51 since you have to settle in and track an enemy for a length of time, peppering them until they go down. The K-4 seems to be able to come in and with a single burst knock a plane down and keep going...

109 Production Numbers Here's a simple Excel pie chart I put together for myself to visually "get" the relative numbers of each type of 109 produced.

Also, I'm reading that the K-4 was optimized for high altitude fighter-to-fighter combat. But wasn't the Fw 190D-9 also being optimized for fighter-to-fighter combat? In late 1944 as the Reich is being flattened by strategic bombers, was the Luftwaffe betting on the Me-262 as their sole anti-bomber design?

Awesome set of answers. Thanks to everyone who responded so quickly. As you can see from my post count, I'm new to the DCS community, and the helpfulness and knowledge in this community is impressive. 1. Gotcha. I know Adolf Galland would install rifle telescopic sights in his 109s, didn't know that was available as a general option. The alternate explanation that it's a capsule for humidity is an interesting idea. The Mustang has a defroster to blow hot air against the windshield, but maybe the 109 needed something additional to the windshield heating element. 2. That makes sense that it's more of a subjective perception than a genuine limitation. The 109K still seems reasonably maneuverable except at the very highest speeds. I've also heard that the reports of "stick rooted in cement" often came from Allied pilots who were used to lighter stick forces, but it wasn't an issue for German pilots who were used to it. 3. Yup, learning how to keep both eyes open and it's getting more comfortable in VR, but still feels like looking through a straw compared to the Mustang. The K-4 seems to operate more like a sniper rifle, being lethal straight ahead but much harder to use for deflection shooting like the Mustang. 4. Great points about the mechanic needing to jump off backwards and the risk of having that heavy armored glass come crashing down on one's head. Also props to DefaultFace for sharing that video. Very cool to see the inertial starter wound up with resulting engine start. 5. Aha, I knew the Gustavs were pressurized in odd numbers, didn't realize same held for Kurfurst. 6. I've heard that the MG131 had a theoretically faster ROF than the AN/M2, but it needed to be synchronized through the propeller, which dropped the actual rate of fire. I'm still surprised at the way Mustangs just come apart under the MG131s while the AN/M2 seem to be relatively ineffective against the 109/190, but as you say, there's the convergence effect to deal with when using American fighters. As for the Landing Training mission, I've now landed the 109K five times in a row without mishap by practicing on my own. I then started the Challenge Campaign last night and even managed to get the 109 down on the first try during the Challenge Campaign's crosswind landing (#5?). That was almost certainly luck, but I think I can proceed without needing that specific training mission. One more question for the group here: Is the overheating (or lack thereof) historically accurate? I just finished the Challenge Campaign mission where you need to climb from 1000 to 6000m in minutes, and I was astonished at the ability of the Kurfurst to just power uphill under full MW 50-boosted power without temperature rising. I'm so used to the P-51D, where heat management of the Merlin is a major part of successful flying. Did the 109K have superior cooling systems or some other engineering solution which allowed it to operate at full power at moderately low airspeeds (270 kph) without having Merlin's problems? I've just been impressed at how much more "carefree" the 109K is to fly compared to the P-51D, once you get it off the ground. Much harder to stall, no problems with engine overheating... wow.

I've enjoyed dozens of hours learning the P-51D Mustang as my first DCS aircraft. Now I'm transitioning to the 109K-4 and have some questions. I've searched all 20 pages of topics for this forum and didn't see answers, apologies if these nuggets were buried somewhere deep in a thread and I missed them. K-4 HISTORICAL QUESTIONS 1. What is the "circle with bubbles" in the lower right of the armored windshield? I know there's a windshield heater (D100 circuit breaker), but this doesn't look hooked up to any wiring. 2. Was there something about the Kurfurst design that made it much more effective at high speeds than the earlier Gustavs? In steep dives beyond 700 kph, K-4s pitch response definitely feels more sluggish than the Mustang, but not rooted in "cement" as pilot reports described in earlier 109s. I've heard of Flettner (sp?) tabs, were these improving the K-4s high-speed control? 3. How was the Revi gunsight used - both eyes open? One eye closed? I'm using Vive in VR, and it's very distracting trying to target enemies through that small reflector image. I'm used to the Mustang's brilliant K-14 which seems much closer to a modern HUD, easy to keep both eyes open. The Revi is so small can only view through one eye at a time, but when I close the other eye I'm losing depth perception. 4. Why was the 109 canopy required to be closed before engine start? Seems like propwash for idling engine wouldn't have been powerful enough to rip off a well constructed brace, and the advantages for the pilot to be able to look out and and around the nose (as I regularly do when taxiing the Mustang) would have been worth even strengthening the attachment points if needed. Am I missing some larger reason why 109s never taxiied with open canopies? 5. Why was the K-4 pressurized if the pilot also has an oxygen system? I've been reading that the Gustav introduced the pressurized cockpit (not all variants had this), but the K-4 definitely was pressurized. Did the pilots fly without O2 masks and only used them as backups if pressurization failed? DCS SPECIFIC 6. Were the 13mm MG 131s really this powerful in real life? If so, what made them so much more effective than the AN/M2 in the Mustang? I've just worked through the Aerial Gunnery training mission several times, and I've repeatedly shot down the Mustangs with short bursts from the two 13mm cowling MGs. It's been a real surprise, since I have many hours in the Mustang tracking enemies and firing burst after burst, having to wear them down over time. I came into the K-4 expecting those cowling MGs to be mostly useful for ranging, and having to rely on the MK 108 to finish the robust American aircraft. (BTW - I know the damage model is going to be revised for WWII aircraft, but I would have expected the problem to be all smaller caliber weapons. Are the American AN/M2 0.50cals just particularly undermodeled in DCS?) 7. Landing Training Mission - how do you trigger the instructions after the initial turn North and the pattern description? I consistently follow directions and turn N, cross the river and then just cruise on and on. No further instructions. I check F10 and the airfield I'm apparently supposed to land at is way off to the SE. I turn and fly there manually, but never get any further voiceovers. Is there a trick to this mission to get the training script to fire at the airfield? I found the Mustang Landing Training to be particularly valuable in learning that aircraft. Thanks for any responses - love learning more about historical aircraft this way. Hoping others might also enjoy having these questions answered.

JLX - good suggestion. Troubling that it might be a bad input, since I purchased a new HOTAS Warthog stick and throttle in November to support this new habit. However, I decided to go about it a different way and opened Controls and cleared all bindings to the Framerate counter. So theoretically, there's no way to trigger it from user input. Yet it's still happening, occurring 2-3x a mission, always around weapons use. Not sure what else I can do to run this issue down - very frustrating. Is there a log of what triggers changes in state? Something in the DCS logs that would show what's causing the system to pause and the FPS counter to display?

(DCS Log attached) OK, trying to attach DCS Log file, saved as .TXT to meet upload requirements dcs.txt

Hey guys, Thanks for the quick responses. I wanted to take some time to run some more experiments before responding. First, to the moderator that moved this to the VR Issues forum, I ran more tests with VR turned off (2560x1600 on regular 2D monitor) and still had exactly the same "hard freeze" problems. So consider moving the discussion back to general Bugs/Issues since other folks playing 2D might encounter this issue? CW - great idea on uninstalling the NVIDIA GeForce Experience. That seems to have resolved the hard freezing problems. However, I'm still left with this strange effect that started happening right before the hard freezes, and is still continuing now. Occasionally (seems to happen when I'm firing my weapons), the entire DCS sim will autopause and the FPS counter will appear. I have to manually unpause but then the FPS counter is left onscreen. Happened twice in the mission I was just flying (Bf 109K Aerial Gunnery Training). Very distracting since it seems to trigger when I'm in a gun pass. I've not seen this at all during two months of playing, just started appearing a day or two before the hard freeze issue. Art-J - to try solving both of these problems (hard freeze and autopause with FPS), I ended up deleting everything in DCS, including creating a copy of my Saved Games/DCS folder and then deleting the original. So it's a completely new install from scratch. I saved screenshots of all my settings and then manually input them again. Logbook is also fresh. But still getting the sudden pausing above with the FPS counter appearing. I didn't know there were logs in DCS, but I found the file and have included in the next post. Does this data give any ideas on why there's the pausing with FPS counter? Thanks for any further tips, still new to DCS and coming up the learning curve...

Posting here rather than in the Bugs forum, as I'm pretty sure it's not a DCS/Eagle Dynamics issue per se. Hoping for some advice on how else I can get DCS restored - I'm "jonesing" for my flying time. Been playing DCS intensely since November, almost entirely with the P-51D. Had waited for years to get into this sim until VR was available, now I have a Vive and it's been a terrific experience. No problems for two+ months until the last 24 hours, when something changed and now it's become unplayable. Playing a P-51D mission yesterday, DCS suddenly froze. I'd never seen this before. The Vive headset showed a SteamVR loading screen, the mirror display was frozen. Waiting did nothing, clicked multiple times, then had to force quit. Since then, every mission has frozen the same way. Typically happens within 2-5 minutes of the mission start. Same symptoms every time, happens in both P-51D and Me-109K. Steps I've taken so far, with no result: 1. Deleted and reinstalled DCS World (including deleting folders) 2. Rolled back NVIDIA drivers to previous version (12/1) which I know had worked fine since I only updated NVIDIA maybe a week ago. I was thinking maybe it was RAM beginning to fail, but only DCS is frozen. I can ALT-TAB and access other programs, so it's not the entire computer locking up. The only other clue is that shortly before DCS started freezing entirely, I noticed I was getting brief "load screens" when changing external views. Usually only a second or two, but hadn't seen that before. Don't know if it's related, but timing is suspicious. Any ideas on what might have changed and how I could get DCS working again? I'm running DCS 1.5.5, not using the Beta 1.5.6 code. Chris

OK, I did run some more tests. Once I turned it down to 0.5, the menu was noticeably muddier, and cranking up to 2.0 didn't seem to have as bad a frame rate hit as before. So perhaps a change in the recent NVIDIA drivers, not sure. But it looks like Pixel Density is working for the Vive, just need to find new optimal settings. Thanks for response.

I just started noticing something similar start happening within the last week. For me it always occurs when I pull the trigger to fire (I'm currently only flying the DCS P-51). The entire simulation pauses, as if I'd hit the Pause key. I'm checked HOTAS mapping, that's not the problem. I can hit ESC and see menu, have to manually pause/unpause to get going again. Very strange and something new on the same setup since November.

Question for the group here: I've been playing DCS in the Vive since late November. My first time trying out DCS and it's been an outstanding experience. Even upgraded to a 1070 just to support my new DCS habit (along with purchasing a bunch of modules during the Winter Sale :>). I had cranked the Pixel Density to 1.4-1.5 and it made a huge difference for clarity in the sim. However, something seems to have changed in the last week or so, and the picture quality has dropped dramatically. The "screendoor effect" is far more noticeable, everything is much muddier. Yet Pixel Density is still 1.4-1.6. I've even tried bumping up to 2.0 and don't see much if any difference. Is there a way to tell if Pixel Density is even working? Should I be editing the SteamVR config file? Is my DCS install corrupted and should be repaired or reinstalled? Just puzzled as to what changed and how to get my Vive experience back to what it was, this is almost unplayable.

I've seen the same in the Vive. It's like the clouds are a 2D sprite who's position or angle is changing as you move your head. Would welcome any ideas on how to fix/mod out.

Hey guys, thanks for the quick replies. RR - didn't even know there was a Repair function. That's useful, will check it out. M - appreciate you attaching a "clean" file, I installed it and now I'm back in business! As you can tell from my post count, I'm new to this community, really impressed at how responsive and helpful everyone has been. CJ

Hello, I downloaded a mod for Labels (https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/2257661/), but rather than using JGSME, the installation required overwriting the original file. Didn't think to backup the original (was late at night), and would like to revert to the stock labels. Is there any place to download a "vanilla" labels file to restore DCS to baseline? Since the file lives in the Users folder, I'm concerned that even reinstalling DCS wouldn't restore the original. Thanks for any pointers...

Thanks all for the replies. Sounds like you're all having the same experience I'm having: the Zu-23s are quite lethal when approached conventionally. MadDog, I'll give your technique a try and see if it can help me deal with these d**d batteries. Zimmerdylan - I thought the same thing, that I could just run them out of ammo by circling them and running them out of ammo, but then I tried one of the few P-51 User Missions last night (Operation Hangover) and confronted 4 ZU-23 batteries defending the train of AFVs. Yet after 15 min of flying around them, two of those batteries never ran out of ammo despite probably doing 12-15 circles around them. I don't know if the mission designer had set them as unlimited ammo, or whether they had some enhanced resupply being so near the railway, but the reality is that long after the ZU-23s of training missions would have run out ammo, these guys were still firing. At that point, I felt this mission (admittedly from 2012) was ridiculous. 4 x ZU-23 batteries with two of them having unlimited ammo... fine, consider your train protected from attack by a single P-51 :<. It's a shame there are so few missions or campaigns for the P-51 on the User Files section, and many of these are back from 2012-2013 when the DCS P-51D first appeared. It feels silly to try to attack a train covered by such a nest of AAA just waiting for me. Perhaps something changed in the AAA accuracy or other dynamics between when the missions were created and now, but it just feels like a waste of time. What I'm taking from the discussion to date is that ZU-23s are really lethal and there aren't general methods for dealing with them, although there are some advanced maneuvers (like MadDog) that might work to hit the target while avoiding their superb accuracy. Chris

I now have some 45 hours in the Mustang and I'm feeling pretty comfortable with managing the aircraft. I've worked through most of the Challenge Campaign one time and learned a great deal. I can consistently beat Red Rover, Red Rover and am close to success at Alamo. The Mustang is my first DCS aircraft, and it's been a great learning experience. Before moving onto the High Stakes campaign and the small pool of user-created missions, I wanted to do a quick pass again through the Challenge Campaign missions and see if I could ace them to prove totally ready for greater challenges. Then I came up against those ZU-23s again in the .50cal strafing missions, and suffered two deaths and a number of destroyed engines requiring bailouts. I'm clearly doing something wrong, but not sure how to improve my technique (and a forum search has come up empty). Here's where I'm at, hoping to get some advice: 1. ZU-23s are easy to avoid within their envelope by simply flying around them and jinking vertically every 2-3 seconds. Just porpoising up and down, I can fly rings until they run out of ammunition. But this seems rather gamey and probably not what was intended by the scenario designers in the Challenge Campaign. 2. However, where I consistently get blown away is trying to line up for a gun attack within their range, whether on a ZU-23 emplacement or a nearby target (e.g. trucks). I can jink vertically on my approach and consistently avoid getting hit, but I have to line up for at least a few seconds to get guns on target and hose it down. During that settling, I get hit, particularly since these missions place the ZU-23 guns right near the trucks so time of flight for the 23mm projectiles is very short. I try to time my settling for the periods between the salvos, but this seems about 50/50 versus any single gun pit and when two are firing on offset times, I just can't seem to get a long enough window to fire effectively. 3. I've tried the approach of diving on the target below it and then pulling up my sights to settle on the target at the last second, but even a steady dive pointed below the target gets me hit. I need to actively be jinking (which then requires a few seconds to settle for accurate strafing). 4. I found a YouTube video on line that talked about making an arcing approach under continuous G and drawing the guns across the target without ever straightening out. Great idea, but in DCS I find that I have to be extremely close to get .50cals on target while pulling G and it's difficult to execute near the ground without crashing. I understand that with enough practice, I'll eventually get to the point where I can have split-second timing and can settle my guns on the target and fire effectively with only a second of time, but that seems like a very high bar of pilot skill for these missions (which are only partway through the Challenge Campaign). Perhaps ZU-23 accuracy has been changed since the original missions were developed back in 2012-2013? It just seems like an enormous spike in difficulty. Given the incredible accuracy of these ZU-23 crews, if I had a choice, I'd avoid doing a solo attack on a truck convoy lying just 100-200m away. I'd try to attack with a wingman to split the gun crews attention or use rockets, but I don't have a choice. The mission requirements clearly intend for the player to get in and out flying solo against two ZU-23 batteries. Any tips on how an average pilot could effectively deal with ZU-23s without requiring the kinds of split-second skills that only an elite few ever developed historically? Chris

Awesome. Thanks everyone for the quick replies. I'm off to delete Steam version and reinstall DCS. Looking forward to diving into the High Stakes Campaign...

This is great, appreciate the responses. One more question - do I need to delete the existing Steam version, then download and install the non-steam DCS from the ED website using those license codes? I'm assuming once I switch from Steam to non-Steam DCS, there's no reason to keep the original Steam version? Is there any advantage to Steam DCS beyond the automatic updates? Chris

LOL. It would have taken me at least 30-40 tries to figure out how to do what you did. Controlling my wingman is still on my list of to dos. I've been having a great time flying the "Red Rover" mission, but the wingman there doesn't seem to respond to any commands even though he's flying along with me. So clearly there's something here I haven't figured out, but I need his help once it's me against two P-51Ds. Given the lethality of the ZU-23s if I'm not jinking, I hope the wingman AI can handle them or at least keep them occupied without getting immediately blown away. Art-J - relieved to hear this is a known issue with GP bombs. Given the fidelity of the simulation in other areas, I was dumbfounded at the ineffectiveness of my bombs. Seems like a big oversight in the simulation given the focus on ground-pounders like the Su-25 and A-10, but perhaps it's only certain kinds of HE ordnance. I'll go search for those community mods to see if they can help.

Thanks all, that's great news. The funny part is I'm now trying to buy the campaigns on the DCS website, but they say I need another product. I've already bought that product on Steam, now trying to figure out if I can purchase now while they're on sale or if I need to switch over my DCS World first so the store will recognize I already have the relevant modules.

Captain Orso - wow. That mission sounds ridiculously hard given the limited ordnance you're carrying on the Mustang. Impressive that you were able to successfully complete it, but agree it's hard to figure out what the designer was thinking. What I was enjoying in the early part of the Challenge Campaign was how the missions tested your training skills but still felt moderately realistic (e.g. the cross-country navigation mission). These later missions just seem sadistic :<. Good to have confirmation that the 500 lb bombs are on impact fusing, which leads me to think there's some bug in the mission or in the general code in their modeling since they're acting like practice rounds (I've checked arming switches several times now). Zabuza - thanks, I found the missions and edited as you suggested. Once I had HVARs and a load of .50cal, I was able to get past both this mission and the next one. Unfortunately, I've hit a bug in the "Unarmed Helicopter" mission where I've shot both Mi-26s down 4-5 times, and the success flag never flips. At this point I'm giving up on the campaign and I'll fly the "best of" missions remaining through the Missions menu. Just finished off the two Mi-24 Hinds (1st attempt they gunned me but 2nd attempt I kept high with plunging passes), and had a 15-20 min long (and very satisfying) dogfight 1-v-1 against the other P-51D. Thanks to you both for the replies.

Thanks Zabuza. I'm new to DCS, didn't realize I could go in and edit the Missions directly to affect the Campaign. I'll get started on learning how to do that. Is there any way of checking on the values used to model the bombs somewhere in the data files? I'm really surprised at the lack of effect of the 500 lb bombs on these soft-skinned vehicles. Seems very counterintuitive, but maybe the AN264 (can't remember the exact designation for the type carried by the P-51) used a delay fuse rather than an quick fuse. One explanation for why bombs are having so little effect on objects around them.

Sorry if this has been answered already, but a search of previous threads has come up empty. I have the Steam version of DCS and been having a blast learning the P-51D. Just purchased the F-86F and MiG-15bis with the Steam Winter sale. Now I'm looking ahead to the campaigns (High Stakes for the P-51D, Museum Relic for the Sabre & MiG-15) and I see they're Steam incompatible. If I was to install the non-Steam version of DCS so I could add these campaigns, are there any difficulties with flying DCS in SteamVR? Right now I'm launching DCS from within Steam to get the VR integration. Not sure if there will be any issues with making VR (Vive) work with the non-Steam version?

I'd been having a blast working through the Challenge Campaign for the P-51D... at least until I hit these ZU-23 opposed missions. I managed to get through the HVAR rocket missions (with a number of deaths), but now I'm just feeling increasingly exasperated at the degree of difficulty in the first ZU-23 dive-bombing mission #18. I practiced over and over on the Training mission until I'd developed a reasonably reliable method of dive bombing. The problem is that my technique requires at least a few seconds of stability in the dive to line up the target before releasing and pulling through. If I stay steady for more than 2 seconds, the ZU-23s are shredding me every single time, particularly that one AA emplacement right next to the trucks firing upwards with almost no deflection. If I try to jink steadily in the dive to avoid getting hit, it ends up throwing accuracy all to hell. So after dying a number of times, I reverted to flying around the ZU-23 emplacements jinking until they ran out of ammo. Then I setup for a textbook dive bombing attack, and put a 500lb bomb <20 yards away from the fuel truck (see attached screenshot). It still didn't blow up (!). And yes, the bomb was armed. At this point I'm feeling pretty frustrated with this campaign. Did something change in either the accuracy of the ZU-23s or the modeling of bomb blast effects between when these missions were created back in 2012-2013 and now? Seems crazy that this was the intended difficulty for the pilot, needing to put a 500lb bomb directly ONTO the fuel truck while opposed by 3-4 ZU-23 emplacements. Is anyone aware of changes in AA or bomb blast modeling that would explain why this mission feels so ridiculous in 2016? I can't explain why a 500lb bomb wouldn't blow away a truck when landing right next to it. Is there a way to edit the campaign file to skip these dive bombing missions?