Teapot

Hang on a bit ... the thread title is *P-51 vs Bf-109 dogfight impressions*, the analysis of which can include a wide plethora of factors! There ... you made me say *plethora*... dangnabbit. Snarf is absolutely on topic, whereas you've introduced a narrowing and reshaping of the topic :smartass:.

Hmm ... not too bad .. not too bad ... 'cepting I track down the runway like an old lady with the trots (no disrespect intended towards elderly female citizens sufferin' diarrhea). Cheers, Stabsfeldwebel Teekanne

I reckon it's a fair call. The way emotions were after WWII and how the victors habitually dumped on the losers (bully syndrome with a pinch of justification propaganda I reckon) I'd tend to feel mighty suspicious of the accuracy of Allied *analysis reports* as well. It's not like they have a great track record for impartiality either ... but hang on a minit, we've never bent the *truth* about anything have we? :music_whistling: Oh yes we have ... can't verify about the airplane tests ('cause I ain't got the smarts), but an introspection into general modern history is full of the shite ... :lol: The more I read these threads, the more I'm moving away from Allied/U.S iron just on principle and to explore the *other side* ... I'm sorry Grandpa and my two great uncle Tom's, I know you'll understand ... hehe ... but you know that's the way I roll. Now .. how do you fly these flippin' birds .. What? The bloomin' cockpit's in German? I don't want to mention the war but sheesh ... I mean ... what does Auf mean? Blimey! No matter, it's got wings .. lets get this bird into the air ... I'll fly by the feel of my bum ... can't understand the manuals half the time anyhow ... :D.

Well you're understanding a lot more than I do. Most of the time I feel a bit like a caveman sitting in a corner listening to all the propeller head talk ... and when the graphs are trotted out pfffft! not a hope ... eyes glaze over and I catch myself playing with the HOTAS ... ah saved by an airshow youtube video ... and yeah, I can *understand* raw visceral power. Maybe I'm just a bogan :lol:.

:blink: .... why dost thou blaspheme? Sorry, couldn't resist ... however my perspective might change slightly when the Spit IX comes out.

Absolutely awesome thread ... never was really into German WWII machines but those videos are very nice! Thank you!

Really? Why does it have to get so snarkey? :(

Solty, I completely agree that the models probably need tweaking ... however what I'm trying to elaborate is that each DCS module is an in depth study sim for as accurate a representation as possible for a particular aircraft. Viewed from this p.o.v it's totally irrelevant in the scheme of things & at this stage of the DCS developmental time-line that the P-51 is modeled with 43 specs while the German iron is modeled @ 44 and later specs (except in the eyes of WWII enthusiasts!). It simply happens to be the data set that ED/DCS had access to and chose to use at the time. Of course, I'm not privy to ED's plans and creative philosophies, this is all just speculation on my part based on my understanding of what I think ED/DCS is trying to achieve with their stated sandbox sim idea. Wags would probably be the best person to answer this and IMO he has already stated quite succinctly what ED/DCS is aiming for .. subject to change ;). Consider that the SU-27 doesn't match-up with the BF-109 either, yet both planes are modeled. That said, no one is going to seriously match those two planes in any serious scenario. The problem that seems to be happening here (IMO) is that the P-51 is sufficiently close a match-up to the German iron, that we're emotionally inclined to wish that the planes conformed to the exact same era ... but that was never a stated aim as far as I can tell. Considering that the Mustang was a sort of a gift anyway (from recollection it was developed as a side project and we're lucky that it got released) it seems to me that when the Mustang was conceived, the idea of a DCS: WWII sandbox wasn't really in the scope @ the time. However, I feel pretty confident that over time, we'll get our historical match-ups when more 3rd party developers get on board. DCS:WWII will take time ... a plane at a time. Looking forward to VEAO's contributions fwiw. @Gavagai ... you beauty, great news! Cheers,

This is why I NEED a DCS civvie sim. Nothing comes close in the civvie market to DCS fidelity ... I live in hope that a Sandbox Sim will one day realise it's potential with accurate world map and a few turboprops ... but lets have a few complete WWII theaters first ;). Really ... nothing comes close.

Actually ... because it's a sandbox sim, DCS can (and do) model any aircraft they feel that they have sufficient data to reproduce an accurate simulation. The *game* and utilisation of mission resources is left to the player. If a plane fairs poorly in a specific context (say in a 1 v 1 engagement) it may not be the interpretation of available technical data that's the issue but maybe it's the historical context in which these machines fought that needs to be investigated.

Shute! I'm out of ideas sorry, barring a re-install ... you might try asking the app author. Have you also checked your DCS settings? Cause you may be running in Windowed mode maybe?

Hi Fake, If you go to your Windows START menu under All Programs, there's an Eagle Dynamics\DCS World folder under which you'll find the option to Repair DCS World. I hope that helps, Cheers!

I've been reading this thread with some interest. One thing that concerns me is the suggestion that there should be *game balancing* ... DCS is not (or wasn't to my knowledge) abut *game balancing*. By all means argue the point about the numbers and physics, but please don't float the idea about *game balancing* ... that is pure weevil and that thought meme should be banished for all eternity! ;). I'm sure that YoYo (and DCS) will be better swayed by proof.

Hehe.

Pay day tomorrow .. happy days ;)

Great balls of fire ... (groan lol). No really, I'm totally looking forward to this jet! However I won't go into any vulgar displays of enthusiasm until after I've performed the air-brake test to validate the Tomcat's flight fidelity. Just a FYI, I should be able to slam on the airbrakes on the F-14 and ANY jet that's tailing me will be forced to overshoot me. There is documented evidence in the public domain of this, so LNS should have no difficulty recreating same. Cheers, P.S. Are you modelling Goose .. or do we need to cook our own .. and if we already are one, can we still be the front seat guy?

Well ... it's not general knowledge and this probably comes as a shock for most people ... from left field in a manner of speaking ... out of the blue ... a shocking thunderbolt of insight ... but, despite the stirling reputation for high fidelity that the DCS models have, the Luftwaffe didn't use this sim. They used real airplanes instead; which apparently were even MORE high-fidelity than DCS ... though I'm a bit incredulous about that last claim. :D

Civilian units! :thumbup: " ..DCS is a true "sandbox" simulation that can and will cover multiple time periods covering many types of combat and civilian units. " Quote taken from Wag's VEAO Hawk announcement. MU-2, KingAir's, PC-12's, P-6, Globemaster, Hercs ... PC-12's & KingAirs ... KingAir's (all of 'em) :D

The idea of what constitutes *quality* is subjective. You're making the assumption that your perspective is self evident and shared by all. ;)

I said yes .. I already fly X-Plane and P3D ... and would also prefer to fly those missions in DCS World. For those who are second guessing *technical reasons* as to why it's not a good idea; you should stop because solving those problems isn't part of your remit as a consumer ... you aren't knowledgeable in this field (whole world is used in other sims now) and you aren't on DCS's payroll. http://www.vatsim.net (has a tactical component as well) https://ivao.aero http://controllers.pilotedge.net/page/compare

I don't think the F-16 has been done so many times. You can count the whole Spectrum Holobyte Falcon series as a single creative instance with multiple upgrades (and Wing Commander doesn't count). You could argue the same for the SU-27 Flanker series culminating in Flaming Cliffs and bridging across to DCS. I'd be VERY happy to see the F-16 make it into DCS :). However ... in keeping with the topic ... I hope never to see WWI era simulation. Why? Because it'd take up time & resources for DCS to flesh out into the sim I'd really like it to be!

Fantastic work! Will download as soon as I get home ... you realise that you've just made history for the first Civvie plane in DCS? <Starts to chant> ... A sandbox sim needs civil aircraft! A sandbox sim needs civil aircraft! A sandbox sim needs civil aircraft! ... and ... civil aircraft in DCS! civil aircraft in DCS! civil aircraft in DCS!!!!

JComm, like you I only fly DCS these days for the sheer joy of *feel of flight*. I chose the civ choppers (note that they're also used in a military capacity) however I would equally welcome any civilian aircraft being particularly partial to bush flying. Cheers,

Oh shute .. I've just got to say something here, cause I have an issue with what you say. DCS share their plans, hopes and dreams with us ... regularly, and the story that is DCS is a living breathing one. That makes them tops in my books. They are real people with real limits in their lives ... just like everyone else ... YOU are not entitled my friend Are you telling me you don't have enough DCS toys to play with ... happy with the knowledge that work continues on? That my friend makes you a schmuck!

It is "needless" but you said it anyway ... :P So to sum up we have two factions. One side who says a Rockwell Shrike is an acceptable stand-in for a Heinkel 111 and therefore Hoover's demonstration in the Rockwell should stand as evidence that a Heinkel should be able to do same. The other side disagrees and points out that just because you can make marmalade with oranges; you cannot adequately do the same with apples and expect an identical result (both being fruit). So here you have it ... apples may or may not be able to do barrel rolls on take-off, because Rockwell Shrikes can do marmalade .. er :huh: or was that Heinkels do oranges? Damn notes ... (shuffles through notes) ... ah here we go, missed this little bugger ... Henikels may be able to do barrel-rolls if they're flown in marmalade by Mr. Hoover; while eating an apple in the cockpit drinking iced tea ... DO NOT attempt this in a Rockwell Shrike, unless you have copious amounts of iced tea ... good day to you all kind sirs (salutes briskly and walks off to a tuneless whistle). :lol: