Katj
-
Posts
280 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Katj
-
-
6 hours ago, Gunfreak said:
We aren't talking 1 ans 1 bullet, 80 bullets every second. First ten bullets go so far, the next go so far etc etc. If you fire a 2 second burst. Then yes by the 160th bullet it will have past any armor, the pilot and continued on.
Can you post a track where a DCS Anton survives 160 hits from .50 cal?
-
1
-
-
20 hours ago, Gunfreak said:
Except once the bullets go though the tail it mostly empty space. Until the bullets hit the fuel tanks, the pilot, and then after the pilot the engine. No amount of self sealing fuel tanks or armor plating will stopp 100+ armor piercing and incendiary .50 cal.
Those .50 regularly exploded 109s and fw190. This is impossible in DCS
So is ammo detonation, can't be done in DCS.
This of course goes doubly for the 20mm Hispano
Well, there is stuff behind the pilot that is likely to soak up some .50 caliber bullets. But regardless, I'm just saying that the Anton is sturdier than the Zero, not that it's immune to .50 cal.
In DCS you need deflection to bring it down quickly. But a good burst in the front half of the fuselage is likely to turn it into a fireball.
19 hours ago, Gunfreak said:1 second burst from 6 .50 cals is 1.6 million joules, that's 1.5 dynamite going off in energy. Without adding the energy from the incendiary effects. It's not a perfect analogy. But tells you some of the energy involved. 1 million joules of also a 1 ton car hitting a wall while going 100kmh. It's enormous amount of energy going into an aircraft that is mostly thin skin with a few plates to protect the pilot, ammo and fuel. And those plates would buckle and warp after a few hits. Saving the pilot or fuel tanks from a few stray bullets. They were never made to withstand dozens of hits.
And again double that for the 20mm Hispano.
Put another way it's enough energy to heat up the Anton about 1 degree celsius. Where that energy goes is very important.
-
1
-
-
The Anton can really take a beating in DCS. I'm not exactly sure how it compares to the real thing but by all accounts it was way more rugged than the Zero. The latter had a tendency to burst into flames rather easily, in part because of the non-self sealing wing fuel tanks. Meanwhile the A8 doesn't have fuel in the wings, and the fuselage tanks are self sealing.
Anyway, the way to quickly bring down the Anton with 50s in DCS is to shoot at the engine and/or cockpit, which requires some deflection shooting. Just peppering the tail or wings does very little for the most part.
-
2
-
-
13 minutes ago, PL_Harpoon said:
Two more things came to my mind:
1. At WEP you're not really concerned about efficiency since you want as much power as possible.
I take it to mean propeller efficiency, not fuel efficiency. I assume the tips of that large propeller get to a very high mach number and produce too much wave drag. Increased engine output at 2700 is not necessarily enough to offset this.
And mach number will, as I'm sure you know, increase with altitude.
-
1 hour ago, felixx75 said:
No, if you take the P-47 as a reference, you will see that the numbers are quite similar. In addition, it is not absolutely the same engine.
If I look at the P-47D charts they are very dissimilar in that the P-47 is supposed to always run rich mixture except for lean cruise. Now, I realize that what lean and rich means does not necessarily translate between aircraft, but it still tells us something.
Also at WEP the P-47 could run 64" for around 2400 HP. Quite a bit more than 59 ", in my opinion. The turbo supercharger of the P-47 would help it maintain manifold pressure at higher altitudes, but I don't see why the Corsair would necessarily lag behind down low.
Anyway, I'm not saying the Corsair is awful or anything, I'm just curious what the reasoning behind this design decision was.
I'll have to compare to the hellcat charts as well.
-
On 6/25/2025 at 2:02 PM, felixx75 said:
Mixture "Auto Rich" (forward position) is only needed for takeoff and landings, for eveything else use "Auto Lean" (middle position)
How strange. Why did they run the Corsair at such low boost numbers? It seems to me that a rich mixture would increase knock resistance and allow higher boost. The sameish engine ran much higher boost in the 47.
-
On 3/12/2023 at 11:31 PM, gwizdek said:
I'm on 5800x3d , 3060 12Gb and G2. The FPS counter strangely shows CPU bound but when you use something like RivaTuner Statistics Server to cap FPS to a lower value than the one shown in counter (let's say 45 to get 1/2 G2 refresh), then the FPS counter will start showing GPU bound and in addition it will show your theoretical max FPS - which is 200-300FPS for me
So don't worry. MT is working as intended. Better check your GPU usage in said RTS Server / MSI Afterburner. I'm hitting 99% GPU usage and there is nothing more I can do, but to wait for 4080 to drop price....
I don't think it's working. The reason I think I really am CPU bound is that even if I dramatically lower the resolution and eye-candy, I get very slim gains in fps.
I'm running 5800X3D, 3080, G2. While MT works great in 2D, I get no gains at all in VR.
I have tried pretty much all the settings in nvidia control panel, dcs, openxr toolkit, openxr companion app, BIOS, windows, (etc?). No joy.
-
I find it very useful when flying multiplayer.
-
On 3/6/2023 at 4:44 PM, NineLine said:
This is already planned and requested, just no timeline to share as of yet. Thanks.
Thank you for the confirmation!
I think the community has put forward a strong case and it is nice to see that you listen.-
1
-
-
20 hours ago, 71st_AH Rob said:
Does that help tamp down your hype?
Not likely! How can one not be hyped? This Long Island beauty will likely be my greatest DCS warbird love.
I don't want to speculate regarding a potential release date, but I would like to point out that lately the DCS WWII people have been churning out roughly one new module per year. As far as I can tell the Mossie got it's own forum section the same year it was released (2021).
So, while this certainly doesn't prove that a release is coming soon (as in before 2025), it might be an indication that it's not six years away either.
-
2
-
-
11 hours ago, Art-J said:
Well, truth to be told, nothing official was ever posted by ED apart from that little teaser snippet in 2023 video and single NineLine's (or BigNewy's?) confirmation that it will be an in-house developed ED project. So I'd guess there's clearly nothing more to share at the moment in this very, very early stage of development.
If anything is "scattered" anywhere, these are all, unofficial, user wishes and speculations. I think this very thread will be sufficient for keeping them in one place.
Nevertheless, the genie is out of the bottle.
I would be happy with just some bullets like:
- Eagle Dynamics (not third party dev) are bringing the F6F to DCS
- Exact variant yet to be decided
- Very early stage of development
- Whatever else they can share at this stage
I do however understand if they feel like this would be an underwhelming "announcement" of a new module.
It's just that we're in a weird place right now information wise. It's basically just a rumour, but we still have this forum section.
Please forgive my demanding demeanor. It's not that I'm impatient, I'm just on the hype train.
-
1
-
-
On 2/24/2023 at 12:58 AM, NineLine said:
These forums are for DCS World only, so even general chat must be on the real F6F or the DCS version. Thanks for understanding.
Now that there's a forum section and all, could we please have some more official information? What little is available to us is very scattered.
I'm not even necessarily looking for more info, but it would be nice if some of it could be gathered in one place.
Just a forum post would be great.
-
1
-
-
I haven't had a chance to try it yet, but it was only the A that was mentioned in the changelog with regards to performance.
Was the B tuned as well?
-
On 12/20/2022 at 2:17 AM, streakeagle said:
If you study aerodynamics, you will find a long thin wing with no sweep generates a ton of lift with very little AoA. The problem with long thing wings is that they break under high loads and are not the ideal solution for high speeds due to their high drag. The auto sweep on the F-14 was originally tuned maximize lift. But, that proved to be a bad choice for structural integrity, so they optimized it for low drag. At speeds where the wing is full out with flaps, the F-14 generates a tremendous amount of lift compared to typical trapezoidal wings with 35-45 degrees of sweep. Not only is the lift great at low speeds, but also the lift/drag ratio: it is extremely fuel efficient, which makes for outstanding endurance. Variable geometry costs weight, complexity, and money, but it does come with some great benefits. At supersonic and stall speeds is where it shows its strengths compared to most other fighter wings that are optimized for combat at Mach 0.8 to Mach 0.9 with compromises to support Mach 2 flight.
They changed the wing sweep scheduling to minimize drag, but you can still achieve max lift by doing manual sweep full forward with the handle and flying something like 400+ knots. I haven't really tried this a lot though. The upside vs slow full flaps fight is that you don't risk breaking the jet.
-
On 11/6/2022 at 8:08 PM, captain_dalan said:
There is also overperformance above transonic.
Anyways, in the attachment bellow i will add the test mission i generally use, a bit adjusted. This one is for the 2x2x2 configuration in the A model. I will also attach some tacviews. They aren't made as a definitive test, but only as a reference to what the test should involve. I didn't bother to fly all that precisely (i didn't even plug in my rudder pedals for this one), but even so, the general issues are largely apparent, especially at higher altitudes.
5000ft, acceleration seems roughly correct within (un)precision of the test flight, overperforming above mach 1.2 , reaching max mach almost half a minute sooner;
1000ft, same as the above, only not only does the plane reach max mach sooner, it also has higher max mach number 1.36 VS 1.31
15000ft, plane roughly matches predicted performance till about mach 1.30, after which it overperforms, reaching mach 1.38 more then half a minute sooner, and having max mach 1.47 instead of mach 1.40
25000ft, this is where transonic underperforming comes into play: plane takes 42s to get from mach 1.0 to mach 1.2, and it should take 18s. THEN the FM compensates for that lag by reaching mach 1.40 in 36s instead of 48s. The plane continues ot overperform reaching mach 1.65 100s sooner.
35000ft, finally, this one is the messiest: the plane starts to underperform above mach 1.0 and reaches mach 1.2 35s late, 1.4 66s late, 1.6 77s late, 1.8 88s late and so on. The plane doesn't seem to overperform at this altitude, except maybe for top speed, as it reaches mach 2.10 as opposed to mach 2.05. Also it seems to take 475s for the fuel to cut off, while (if i read the chart correctly) it should run out at about 400-420s?
Anyways, i don't have much time to refine the mission or the tests. If anyone is interested, feel free to update the mission, analyze the data and post the results. Also please make sure i didn't forget to turn off wind and made sure we have a standard atmosphere.
Cheers and have a great weekend or what is left of it
acceleration tests 2x2x2.miz 11.32 kB · 1 download Tacview-20221106-190033-DCS-acceleration tests 2x2x2.zip.acmi 156.48 kB · 1 download Tacview-20221106-185409-DCS-acceleration tests 2x2x2.zip.acmi 116.74 kB · 1 download Tacview-20221106-184822-DCS-acceleration tests 2x2x2.zip.acmi 105.95 kB · 1 download Tacview-20221106-184248-DCS-acceleration tests 2x2x2.zip.acmi 100.93 kB · 1 download Tacview-20221106-183656-DCS-acceleration tests 2x2x2.zip.acmi 97.68 kB · 1 download
If you wish to test, i may be able to indulge you, but first we'll need to set test goals and test parameters. Also, you will need to host the test mission, as for some reason i am not able to do it. So what configurations are you eager to evaluate?
Yeah I know that it overperforms a bit in the supersonic regime, especially with some loadouts and some altitudes. I did some testing and presented the results way back in this thread.
The overperformance is less of a problem because you spend so little time at high supersonic speed anyway. Also that acceleration through mach is relatively worst at the altitude you should punch through mach.
If you want to climb high you should do so at Mach 1.4, anything over that is kind of useless.
But,
You say that this is a drag issue. It's clear from the charts that excess power should be at a minumum at about mach 1.05, and then start to increase pretty rapidly. But in DCS you're hitting a wall way up to Mach 1.2. Is this just a drag issue that you have no control over?
-
On 11/3/2022 at 3:18 AM, IronMike said:
With 4 phoenix, 2 sparrows, 2 aim9s, and 2 tanks you can reach M1.2 atm at 40k feet - which mind you is a massive payload and very draggy - how much should you reach with such a loadout in your opinion? Top speed charts iirc top of my head are for 50k feet with 2x2x2 and fixed internal fuel, no tanks (they are calculated, not proven). I bet you should get a bit faster than 1.2, but I doubt much with this payload. The problem is this isn't an engine performance issue as much as it is a drag issue, which we have limited control of.
See the tacview below: M1.2 with 4x2x2x2XT. The moment you jettison ordnance (and mind you aim9s stay including racks), it purrs away to M2.28. Take away the aim9s and I guess you can account for those missing M0.04. I took off from an airfield, standard mission settings (no weather changes, etc), to give the best unskewed representation (aka no fast in air spawn).
As for the active topic about not being able to reach more than Mach 1.0... He wasn't asking for 4 phoenixes and 2 bags, but if you read his OP again, he was asking for a 2x2x2 payload, aka 2 phoenix, 2 sparrows, 2 sidewinders. I did that, too, and even did 2 things here additionally: I spawned with 100% fuel (aka acceleration is a bit slower as one is heavier than after a normal climb, which has been demonstrated in the other tacview), and also I stayed explicitly below 40k feet. At 50k feet this would be even easier. So, no idea how he flew it, but not being able to breach Mach 1 at high altitudes is simply not true. I reached M2.14 with 2x2x2.
Both tacviews recorded in latest Open Beta, F-14A. Additionally, although trying to maintain level flight as much as possible, if, then there was even an ever so small climb present in both tacviews, though negligable, as periodically there was a tiny descent present as well in order to keep correcting.
Again, the performance is off marginally. Drag is a bit of a bigger issue, but as mentioned, only partially solveable by us, and even so, less of an impact than some here make it out to be. Try for yourself. And let me please know what you would expect.
That said, I am not saying that there is no room for improvement. There most certainly is. But it is not such a game changer or game breaker as some claim it would be.2x2x2_38kft.zip.acmi 157.82 kB · 4 downloads 4x2x2x2tanks_40kft.zip.acmi 269.95 kB · 3 downloads
I for one think that the (lack of) transsonic acceleration is the biggest problem right now.
I don't know about the A but there are ample charts for level acceleration for the B, in combination with the exccess power charts.
-
1
-
-
I don't understand what you're saying. Could you phrase it more clearly?Time of acceleration, top mach numbers, are not match the F-14 pilots said. -
Yeah, but they are also working on the Eurofighter and Phantom. I don't want to speculate how they divide their time, but not all is spent on the Tomcat.Problem is, the person doing the pilot body, doesn’t program flight models.
Heatblur isn’t a one man band. Things are being worked on in parallel by different specialists.
I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for an update when they have been silent on this topic for many months. If they tell us they haven't gotten around to it, fine, then we know.-
2
-
1
-
-
So, why were the tank pylons added to the base model of the aircraft? Was it an oversight, or is there some kind of limitation in DCS?
-
1
-
-
It's not being replaced. Five countries use the C and are likely to continue doing so.Gripen C could also be a possibility, seeing as it's soon replaced by the Gripen E. Likely won't be several years before HB make their next aircraft anyway.
Even Sweden will keep up to 60 C/D while adding another 60 E.
Only Brazil, the sixth country, will solely operate the E.
I'd wager the C will soldier on in Sweden until the next generation aircraft is taken into service in 2035 or later. Probably later, eh?
-
Mixture and rpm i didnt mention because i assumed that we are talking about fighting in p47. After you set power in p47 you need to watch and guard MP it will change with speed and alt so you cant forget it, like in p51. If i set 64inch 2700rpm and i do loops i have to constantly adjusting throttle/boost lever to maximize power. Second thing which i forgot to mention that transition from cruise power to combat power is quite tricky, like you said it is easy to forget about mixture, p51 has automated mixture control another thing lifted off pilot's head.
Right, but you don't really have to mess with oil cooler, intercooler, or cowl flaps during combat. At least I never saw the need, but maybe ymmv.
If you want to reduce flight engineer workload you can always link boost and throttle, and then you're pretty much down to using one axis to manage your engine over a very large portion of the envelope. -
Don't forget mixture and rpm!Oil cooler switch inter cooler switch, boost lever, throttle lever, cowl flaps, water injection switch, then you need to watch MP, heads temp, oil temp, carb temp all the time to not exceed limits, no automatic temp or boost regulators, you can over boost engine and kill it very fast. In other warbirds in DCS excluding I-16 every thing is automated.
Ofc you can wide open all but this creates more drag and slows plane down so automated cooling is great deal.
No, but seriously, you can mostly set all of the above to the desired state (cruise/combat/whatever) and then forget about them. Of course you still need to watch your temps.
The engine management is part of the charm with the jag, though. -
What switches and levers are those?Problem in p47 is that, to acquire max power, lots of switches and levers had to be moved and pilot has to monitor temps and regulate cooling in other warbirds one lever full on and that's it. -
Also, perhaps it wasn't a standard day, but way colder.FWIW, the version of the James Perry Stevenson book I have (it was my first F-14 book) also says "the F-14 has been as fast as Mach 2.6" on page 68. I always assumed it meant in a dive.
This is quite the surprise!
in DCS: A6M5B Zero
Posted
Well, the F6F first entered combat in late august 1943, and Corsairs were only around in small numbers. I guess there were some P-38. But regardless, I don't think those 1:1 stats reflect the competitiveness of the A6M5 vs the F6F-3 or F4U-1.
Wasn't it more that weaknesses discovered from captured Zeros and improved tactics enabled the US pilots to achieve a 1:1 ratio with predominantly the F4F wildcat?
Also, some veteran superaces of the Japanese being able to utilize the Zero effectively in 1943 speaks more to their ability than that of the aircraft.
No hate on the Zero though. It had a good run. It was the best for a good while.