Magic Zach

@Marduk879This section of the book is pertaining to Anti-Aircraft Command. It also implies that due to demands the Air Forces and anti-aircraft had differing belts, priority being given to the Air Forces, so immediately it becomes hard to take any belts from here at least and try to apply them to aircraft. I also don't see anywhere in your quoted section (or nearby around it when I looked at the doc) that explicitly says any belt loadouts anyways, except once... What the book is helpful for particularly though seems to be the developments of each round. The M20 (T28) didn't even see action until July of 1944. The loadout you list is more akin to 1943 belts. http://www.smallarmsreview.com/display.article.cfm?idarticles=2210 Perhaps if anything, the M20 in Nineline's selection ought to be omitted, and an M1 tracer be included in its place. But also, this is just Nineline doing this. We only have four .50 cal round types within DCS, and the M1 tracer isn't one of them. If you crack open another Lua, you see there is quite a lot (most of it uncommented, at no help to us or I suspect Nineline, unless he says otherwise) of values and calculating behind each round type. Within DCS, each round type even has different speeds and trajectories, just so subtle (however, included) that you may not notice in combat. Doesn't help that only one of them even has a tracer element. For now, with the rounds we have within DCS, the M20 is probably the best solution. And either way, including an M1 tracer would only be relevant to the time of the initial months of the invasion for a blip before the M20 largely replaced it.

Looks good to me! Ooooh Hopefully this also comes along with the fix(take 2) to tracerless appearance across clients on MP It's gonna get toasty Ik it seems obvious but make sure this applies to the 47 as well!

On Normandy, the port en-Bessin is misnamed as "Les Moulins". Port-en-Bessin was a rather critical port to the allies, as it was the main fuel port for the allies (until Antwerp was taken), as a part of a ship-to-shore transfer system, known as TOMBOLA. Of major note, is that not only is Port-en-Bessin mislabeled on our map, but also mis-modeled as well.

I also want to acknowledge the tailwheels for each, particularly the 51 and 190s. I'm aware that the TW drops when the right leg comes down, in the 190s. However I'm doubtful that the tailwheel would inflict more drag alone than a main gear leg. Such as with the 190s, if the left leg alone causes a drop of 6 knots, wouldn't the right leg (on its own, TW still up) cause a drop of another 6 knots, if not perhaps slightly less (since the profile drag decreases as speed decreases). So roughly that would have a loss of 12 knots to max airspeed at SL. The tailwheel if anything should inflict less drag than a main gear leg when extended. However, with all the gears down in DCS, the loss in airspeed is 20 knots. So, it seems the TW may be responsible for another 8 knots loss to max airspeed at SL. Meanwhile a main gear leg only inflicting a 6 knots loss. This may be similar in the 51's case. This is also completely aside the fact that the drags for different aircraft are wildly differing, some having far more inflicted drag despite having a smaller profile increase (with the small undercarriages on the 109 and Spitfire).

I'm away from my PC for some time, but conveniently the track for the A8 in here will work perfectly. To drop individual gears, for the A8 I used soley the L/R Uplatch Unlocked failures available from the ME. And in this track, the failure timing is deliberately staggered as well. Will also attach that track to this message as well A8 left gear and all gear down.trk

Reran my flights and gathered these tracks 109 all gear down.trk A8 left gear and all gear down.trk D9 left gear and all gear down.trk P51 all gear down.trk P51 right gear down and TW.trk spitfire all gear down.trk

Pretty much as in the title. If the uplatch for either gear leg is destroyed, that gear leg will drop. However as I understand, even if the latch is destroyed, the motor for the gear leg will operate in order to keep that gear held up....even if it's not locked. At the moment, either the motors are somehow broken automatically when uplatches are, or the motors simply don't function once the gear was successfully raised once. An example for what I'd expect would occur is the Dora. For the Dora within DCS, if you destroy or disable the uplatches for both gear legs, the gear will remain up and retracted. The load on the motors will also increase if you pull intense G-loads, and this will actually cause the gear's weight to overcome the strength of the motors, and the gear will momentarily peak out, before retracting back up when the aircraft stops pulling G. All of this isn't the case with the Anton, as of now. Of a slightly different note, it seems that the Dora's gear motors also don't burn out. You can destroy the D9's uplatches, causing the motors to constantly run, and they will continuously operate for at least 40 minutes. I haven't tested it for a longer period of time. But this is, again, on a slightly different note.

Going to start with the 190s. It seems that the gear drag is not significant enough when the gear come down. Of all the warbirds, the 190s both are among those with the biggest increase in exposed surface area when down. 190A8, one gear down: -6 knots lost to top speed at SL 190A8, both gear down: -20 knots lost to top speed at SL As you can see, not just is there a pretty minimal speed (and presumably drag increase) loss, but it's not evenly divided between each gear. The drag does not double, but over triple when the second gear leg is dropped. This is also the same case, and same numbers with the 190D9. -6 knots lost with one gear down, -20 knots lost from top speed with both down. Now that you know how this is being done... P51, one gear down: -27 knots from top speed at SL (3000RPM, 61") P51, both gear down: -38 knots from top speed at SL Just like with the 190, the drag is not consistent. However this time, instead of increasing x3.3 when a second gear leg is dropped, it only increases by x1.41. Now here is where it gets insane... Spitfire, both gear down: -65 knots from top speed at SL (3000RPM, max allowed boost) I cannot try with both gear down, as I'm limited by the options in the preset failures list in the Mission Editor. I can only drop both gears, or none at all. Regardless, the speed lost is incredible, especially compared to the 190s. 1.42 ATA Bf 109K-4, both gear down: -83 knots from top speed at SL As if the Spitfire had it bad enough. But same as the Spitfire, I cannot drop a single gear leg due to limits in the ME. Bottom line is, the apparent drag changes when undercarriages are dropped does not look consistent at all. While the 190s and 51 (and perhaps 47, but this is an aircraft I do not own currently) have the biggest undercarriages that would present the biggest profile changes when down, get off rather lightly. In fact, when I drop single gear legs in the 190s, I barely even feel any adverse yaw. I almost don't need to make any slip corrections. Meanwhile, the aircraft that have the smallest undercarriages, and the smallest changes to their profile and presumably drag when dropped...get hit the hardest by the drag! I'd think some virtual CFD testing with the models gear up and down would yield some results, but that's my hopeful idealist thinking.

As a guy that does shenanigans on the Aerobatics Online server quite often, I can say that you can do a hammerhead in the 51, but it's a lot better if you do it to the left, and you can't have the engine firewalled constantly at the top, below 150 indicated. Zoom up straight vertical Monitor your angle At 175 IAS, chop the throttle, apply a little right rudder Once you fall under 100, smash the throttle forwards and kick the rudder left When you swing until your nose is at the horizon roughly, cut the throttle but keep holding left rudder Fall When pointing down, ease throttle back up but watch the temps, they can be a bit toasty after that but can be cooled down pretty quickly again as well

How do you know? 67", 2650RPMs was never tested in flight, as far as I can find. It's not that wild of a thing to happen either, if you think about it. When the plane is at high speed with full RPM, the governor dictates that the engine limit itself to 3000RPM. But this also means that as the airspeed increases the propeller isn't biting as much air as it could. When you lower the prop pitch control, the governor needs to lower the engine RPM. And ofc to do this, it increases blade angle to apply more resistance on the engine. However at the same time, the increased blade pitch allows each blade to generate more lift (or thrust rather, applied horizontally like they are) than at a shallower angle at 3000RPM. The reasons this probably wasn't done or mentioned in tests or manuals etc etc is that it's probably absolute hell on the engine. I'd imagine if this was done in reality, it'd require a complete strip-down upon landing. Actually I found a similar question under a different forum (ED overlords please don't delete this, it's relevant) that has its own answers as well Why does increasing rpm with same mp reduce airspeed? - The A2A Simulations Community

another bump. It's pretty overdone in mid-day, and even at night. Aside from that, the graphic looks like the flame is moving in slow motion, when it ought to be more akin to a flash

Some further looks into pilot physiology would be excellent as well. I was wondering how a suppression system, akin to what is implemented in Post Scriptum, would do in DCS. Where you get shot close to the cockpit, and your vision narrows for a second. Something to think about

bump for this as well. Even if the changelog says it was fixed, well for whatever reason it wasn't

This would be a great help, historically and ingame if this were to happen. +1. The fix itself is very quick, very easy. Just needs to be done officially within ED, since modified LUAs aren't allowed past the IC. Also, seems obvious but don't forget the P-47 as well.

I have matched the aircraft conditions as listed on the chart ("clean" is with empty bomb racks). 2700RPM, 46". And while not written on this paper, the aircraft weight was 9760lbs, which I replicated as closely as I could within DCS. However, I'm unable to get the weight of the bomb racks (though if they're like the A8's bomb racks, in DCS they're weightless). Weather conditions to no crosswinds, 29.92Hg, 15C. The chart lists the coolant shutter's recorded position at 0%, 30.6%, 63.9%, and 100% open. In order, the temperature for each position from the chart is: 130C, 99C, 80C, 72C. Within DCS, at the same shutter positions, our coolant temperatures are: 116C, 99C, 88C, 84C. The temperature range is significantly smaller, top and bottom. The chart lists the oil shutter's recorded position at 0%, 36.1%, 72.2%, and 100% open. In order, the temperature for each position from the chart is: 90C, 60C, 50C, 50C. Within DCS, at the same shutter positions, our oil temperatures are: 90C, 65C, 58C, 56C. Below 90C, the oil temperature is roughly 6C over the line it should follow. Speeds are a bit harder, since in the chart they do not list what the setting for the momentarily ignored shutter is. So, I'm going to assume that while the coolant shutter vs speed were recorded, the oil shutter was left in auto. And while the oil shutter vs speed was recorded, the coolant shutter was left in auto. In the chart, for the coolant shutter at 0, 30.6%, 63.9% and 100% open, the IAS speeds (reminder, at 1500ft) recorded in order are: 295MPH, 303.5MPH, 302.5MPH, 293.5MPH. Within DCS, at the same shutter positions, our recorded speeds will be: 316MPH, 313MPH, 308MPH, 299MPH. Of significant note here, is that not only the speeds don't match...but if graphed, it's not concave down. As the shutter is closed more and more, the speed increases more and more as well. This isn't a reflection of the behavior on the chart. In the chart, for the oil shutter at 0, 36.1%, 72.2%, and 100% open, the IAS speeds recorded in order are: 301MPH, 299MPH, 296MPH, 294MPH. Within DCS, at the same shutter positions, our recorded speeds will be: 317.6MPH, 313MPH, 313MPH, 312MPH. It's evident that while the speed is fast, but also notice that the net drag from the shutter seemingly flattens out once the oil shutter is 1/3 open.

Noticed this behavior as well

+1

Gonna give this a bump

If the effect is modeled, why does DCS then not follow the chart I posted above?

+1

I made a mission for the Hind. When I first made it, I made a camp within a meadow, enveloped by trees on all sides. However I go to bed, wake up the next morning and boot up DCS to keep tinkering, and find that two areas of the forest have disappeared! A triangle section of forest was removed on the south side of the camp, and the strip of trees to the east have been cleared. No triggers or such have been used to clear terrain or obstacles. Screenshots I took on day 1 of making this mission: Note the south tent and container are hidden in the trees, and there is forest behind the parked Hind... And this is what I found this morning: Also of interest, within the ME it clearly shows in the altitude and satellite view that there should be trees where the voids are to the south and east But once you jump into the mission, the F10 map will display the trees as-rendered...missing: Perhaps also related, I noticed that the first time I boot up the ME from the menu, the trees won't render at all close up, but are barely visible when zoomed out in the ME: This^ however does not render completely treeless once you fly the mission, that's ME-specific only. So this last screenshot may be a separate issue. Attached is the mission I made Mi24 start.miz

+1

This would be an excellent addition

Had it happen again to myself. This issue is still not fixed. The track: https://www.dropbox.com/s/5w739yyxb6jxd7m/SoW - June 23 1944 - AM v100-20210511-115400.trk?dl=0 And here's another instance, also no hydraulic pressure. Why is the tail body of the 51 made of flubber

they're also too slow, and look like a flame burning in the open air with no wind, just sideways. They're also extremely visible by daylight. In the future, it'd look better as well if the exhaust flames were turned more into something like flashes, with a split-second lifespan for each. Additionally if the fires (hopefully one day, flashes) had their transparency turned up until they're invisible in broad daylight, and then vice versa as the sun sets...that would be slick