Mising ammunition type in the ammuniton belt

[Merlin-27]

First of all. Clear. Secondly, I don't understand why are you mad at an URL? But I don't want to know the answer. You just came across as very mad that this P-47 pic is in the P-51 section... which was odd and that is why I responed. I made this topic afterall... so I am checking it from time to time.

 

Please treat others with respect. Doesn't matter if it is me or anyone else.

 

I agree that I can be passionate about a topic, but that is because I am very involved and usually speak only when I have the knowledge about a certain part of the sim, but calling it "drama" was completely unnecessary.

 

@OutOnTheOP

Thank you. You caught my meaning precisely.

 

@Sith

 

Yes dark lord

 

 

I replied to a post (not yours) saying that I thought the picture of a plane should be in a thread about that particular aircraft. The intent was mostly tongue in cheek as it doesn't really matter much in the grand scheme of things. (I probably should have predicted the knee jerk response beforehand) He then responded in a way that indicated that in fact he did think the aircraft was a Mustang. (Your pictures nor your opinions were in no way part of my comments) Then you feel the need to come after me in an attempt to show me how emotionally tied to the topic you are.

 

Your quote was...

"You are missing the point completely."

 

You don't call that confrontational? I never addressed you or your precious postings nor did I agree or disagree with your opinions at that point.

 

One way to ensure I will respect you is to show some respect yourself when you attempt a conversation.

 

As for the topic at hand, I think it would be a great thing for mission designers to have the option of choosing ammo loads but not simply a pilot selectable item. Also M23 was not around operationally in 1944.

[Solty]

I replied to a post (not yours) saying that I thought the picture of a plane should be in a thread about that particular aircraft. The intent was mostly tongue in cheek as it doesn't really matter much in the grand scheme of things. (I probably should have predicted the knee jerk response beforehand) He then responded in a way that indicated that in fact he did think the aircraft was a Mustang. (Your pictures nor your opinions were in no way part of my comments) Then you feel the need to come after me in an attempt to show me how emotionally tied to the topic you are.

 

Your quote was...

"You are missing the point completely."

 

You don't call that confrontational? I never addressed you or your precious postings nor did I agree or disagree with your opinions at that point.

 

One way to ensure I will respect you is to show some respect yourself when you attempt a conversation.

 

As for the topic at hand, I think it would be a great thing for mission designers to have the option of choosing ammo loads but not simply a pilot selectable item. Also M23 was not around operationally in 1944.

 

This a bug report section. I never thought it would be a place for purely "tongue and cheek" conversation. Please don't take it so personally. I was realy trying to understand your motivation to come and state that the P-47 picture is invalid, just because it is P-47. (that is how it "sounded"). It was realy hard to read your intentions. Sorry that it came across rude. :noexpression:

 

 

M23 was not around untill late 1944 which is exactly the period we are in. If I remember correctly 109K4 and 190D9 are from November 1944. So that would make M23 quite valid. Especially that it was a counter for Me262, which is also going to be in DCS :)

Edited May 30, 2015 by Solty

[OutOnTheOP]

I think it would be a great thing for mission designers to have the option of choosing ammo loads but not simply a pilot selectable item. Also M23 was not around operationally in 1944.

 

Hmm... not sure I agree it should be *completely* up to the mission designer, but what about making 4-5 historically common beltings, the mission designer selects which are *available*, then the pilot chooses from the available list?

[Solty]

@Merlin It should be like A10. Why making it overcomplicated. If MiG21 and A10 pilots can have it, why can't we? Standardisation is the word.

 

The same should happen for German planes, but I don't have sufficient data to start a thread for now.

Edited May 31, 2015 by Solty

[OutOnTheOP]

It should be like A10. Why making it overcomplicated. If MiG21 and A10 pilots can have it, why can't we? Standardisation is the word.

 

The same should happen for German planes, but I don't have sufficient data to start a thread for now.

 

Pretty sure what I was suggesting is exactly how the DCS A-10C works currently.

[WildBillKelsoe]

Good

[Solty]

Pretty sure what I was suggesting is exactly how the DCS A-10C works currently.

Yeah, it is the same thing about forums. I wanted to show support to you, but it came across as if I was going against you :P

 

I agree with you, basically... but I think that Mission Makers should have no way of changing it for the player.:pilotfly:

 

I am a man of freedom. I like choices.

 

I am afraid it (mission makers only) could also give unfair advantage to various clan members that have their locked planes on the server. Mission maker could give them M8 and M23 only, while others would only have the M2 and M20 belt we have.

 

That is dangerous.

Edited May 31, 2015 by Solty

[Zilch]

I would love to see a few ammunition choices! More realism and more effective fire against a variety of targets would be fantastic, not to mention better hit confirmation.

[Solty]

So... ummm. Any word?:music_whistling:

[shannonnezul]

So... ummm. Any word?:music_whistling:

Looking for an update as well... This interests me as a pony driver, maybe they're just busy with 2.0/1.5 cheers hope more planes get a-10 style option.

[Weedwacker]

I'm bringing this topic back to the top.

 

New Mustang owner here, picked it up with the high stakes campaign.

[OxideMako]

I'm bringing this topic back to the top.

 

New Mustang owner here, picked it up with the high stakes campaign.

 

Yeah, interested me and just found this thread. For SP use maybe you could try this?

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=165533

[Rlaxoxo]

Here's the problem with DEFA 554 Mirage cannons as well they're missing explosive element and are using DEFA 552 AP shells for some reason

[HeadHunter52]

Looking for an update as well... This interests me as a pony driver, maybe they're just busy with 2.0/1.5 cheers hope more planes get a-10 style option.

 

Well, I just read two threads that show significant work is being done to create more options for both the Dora and the Kurfurst. They will be getting new rockets, and it's possible the K4 will get 20mm gun pods for the wings.

 

Tell me now, that assigning historical ammo (M8 API, M20 APIT, present in quantity since before D-Day.... Normandy anyone????) to the Mustang is inherently difficult, or senseless?

 

I doan know about you folks, but the lack of incendiary type ammo, especially the two later types, and better fuel and MP, while the Kraut planes continue to get regular love in the form of performance and now armament improvements, is of special concern to me. It really does speak of a preference on the part of some in the dev world. I have never heard a reasonable explanation for the lack of key historical items. Say I'm wrong, but the direction in which development efforts moves speaks all on its own.

 

Before anything else is done with the Kraut birds, it would be nice for these little requests to be built-in.

[Buzzles]

Well, I just read two threads that show significant work is being done to create more options for both the Dora and the Kurfurst. They will be getting new rockets, and it's possible the K4 will get 20mm gun pods for the wings.

 

Tell me now, that assigning historical ammo (M8 API, M20 APIT, present in quantity since before D-Day.... Normandy anyone????) to the Mustang is inherently difficult, or senseless?

 

I doan know about you folks, but the lack of incendiary type ammo, especially the two later types, and better fuel and MP, while the Kraut planes continue to get regular love in the form of performance and now armament improvements, is of special concern to me. It really does speak of a preference on the part of some in the dev world. I have never heard a reasonable explanation for the lack of key historical items. Say I'm wrong, but the direction in which development efforts moves speaks all on its own.

 

Before anything else is done with the Kraut birds, it would be nice for these little requests to be built-in.

 

Really?

 

ED have already said they're planning to update the P51 to make it more akin to an actual WWII block used in ETO, rather than the very late (and post) PTO bird we have now. Expect more changes when they get around to that. That thread is still on the first page of the main P51 forum.

 

Then we get to the damage modelling. Adding new ammo types at this point is going to absolutely diddly squat. When ED roll out the new damage model, it'll be then that it might be worth adding new types as the system will actually make use of it!

 

Have patience on those fronts!

 

Finally, the P51 is a pretty complete module, it has had all its secondary armaments since it came out. The 190 and 109 were and are missing theirs. ED are adding them to make functionality on par at the module level.

 

Bit unfair to be kicking off and complaining you're not getting a small bonus feature that hasn't even been promised when two modules were missing entire secondary functionality don't you think?

Edited August 10, 2016 by Buzzles

[HeadHunter52]

Really?

 

ED have already said they're planning to update the P51 to make it more akin to an actual WWII block used in ETO, rather than the very late (and post) PTO bird we have now. Expect more changes when they get around to that. That thread is still on the first page of the main P51 forum.

 

Then we get to the damage modelling. Adding new ammo types at this point is going to absolutely diddly squat. When ED roll out the new damage model, it'll be then that it might be worth adding new types as the system will actually make use of it!

 

Have patience on those fronts!

 

Finally, the P51 is a pretty complete module, it has had all its secondary armaments since it came out. The 190 and 109 were and are missing theirs. ED are adding them to make functionality on par at the module level.

 

Bit unfair to be kicking off and complaining you're not getting a small bonus feature that hasn't even been promised when two modules were missing entire secondary functionality don't you think?

 

Really? Yes. Really.

 

Unfair to be "kicking off?" No, not at all. Considering the age of the module, it should be the first to be completed. Pretty complete isn't good and done. I've followed the arguments back and forth on this from way back, and the excuses given are generally "it won't make much difference" blah blah blah. Better fuel? What for? You're dead anyway. Meanwhile, MW50 got a tune up. API? Per an e-mail I got, modeling the incendiary would be a little value - note, not NO value, little. I'm all about incrementalism. It leads to things. Get it? As far as I and many other pilots are concerned, these aren't "bonus" things. With all the bickering about adjusting performance tunes for the German birds, the bias against completing the outfitting of the Mustang stands out quite a bit.

 

So yes, really. Geeez.

[Art-J]

An yet, You still won't be able to judge if the new ammo types are modelled correctly or not when the mg/cannon damage modelling in this sim falls flat on its face at the moment, being even more simple than the first iteration of Il-2 series from 2001. I'm with You for incrementalism as well, but in my opinion target visibility and damage modelling are the absolute priorities which need to be adressed first to bring more WWII sim-pilots to DCS. I'm not even starting the subject of ninja-AI, 'cause at least the online players don't have to deal with it.

 

Tell me, how can Your API round make a difference, when DCS doesn't even have a proper fire damage implemented now and You can happily fly a P-51 with wings burning for hours until You're out of fuel (been there, done that)? We don't even have a basic fluid (any fluid) leak simulation for Pete's sake. I'd love to have higher MAP and better ammo/loadout customization options too at some point, but doing it first would be like building a house starting from the roof.

 

Well, at least in the other, related thread, we've read that piercing/ricochets are going to be a factor in the new model, so that's already a massive improvement to look forward to.

[x39crazy]

The mustang you're flying is complete.

The new mustang that is time/theatre appropriate is in development.

Wait patiently for Christs sake.

[SnowTiger]

Wait Patiently ? R U Kidding Me ?

The Mustang has (supposedly) been out of Beta for a long time, and yet there are still serious issues as well as not so serious ones. That said, we've been waiting for a long time for a complete Mustang. Or at least one that stands a chance against the German planes that Mustangs actually had to fight during the majority of WW2.

We still don't get a complete repair to the Safety Wire (WEP) during a Repair, so flights after using WEP and getting repaired, have a weird throttle/RPM characteristics.

And just when we get used to something, changes are made requiring more learning/relearning how things work and react.

I'm not going to present any list of Pros/Cons of what's done versus what needs to be done.

But to suggest Mustang Lovers don't have a right to complain or are asking for too much simply isn't right. The first planes out should be the first planes finished ... complete and realistic.

And of course if you prefer to be 109/190 Lovers, then you should be able to hope for and expect the same .. in due time.

[NineLine]

You need to wait patiently for 2 things, an updated 1944 version of our current Mustang, and improved damage model that is being applied to all WWII aircraft (and more I hope).

 

 

 

Wait Patiently ? R U Kidding Me ?

The Mustang has (supposedly) been out of Beta for a long time, and yet there are still serious issues as well as not so serious ones. That said, we've been waiting for a long time for a complete Mustang. Or at least one that stands a chance against the German planes that Mustangs actually had to fight during the majority of WW2.

We still don't get a complete repair to the Safety Wire (WEP) during a Repair, so flights after using WEP and getting repaired, have a weird throttle/RPM characteristics.

And just when we get used to something, changes are made requiring more learning/relearning how things work and react.

I'm not going to present any list of Pros/Cons of what's done versus what needs to be done.

But to suggest Mustang Lovers don't have a right to complain or are asking for too much simply isn't right. The first planes out should be the first planes finished ... complete and realistic.

And of course if you prefer to be 109/190 Lovers, then you should be able to hope for and expect the same .. in due time.

[rel4y]

Meanwhile, MW50 got a tune up. [blabla..] With all the bickering about adjusting performance tunes for the German birds, the bias against completing the outfitting of the Mustang stands out quite a bit.

 

So fixing a bug in coding of the Mission Editor which displayed incorrect MW50 volume is adjusting performance? The Mustang has had HVAR rockets since forever and the also out of beta 190 had what exactly till the last patch? Right... What a huge fuzz about nothing. If you want to speed up things, how about collecting info and data on the things you want added so bad to make EDs life easier? Ed is working on so many fronts, especially on stuff we get upgraded for free, that a few months patience is not really a tall order. The german birds are missing ammo types as well and even have currently mislabled ones, so the Mustang is not alone in these regards.

[x39crazy]

Wait Patiently ? R U Kidding Me ?

 

Nope I kid you not.

What do you think this is? It's DCS. This mustang was done on a lark by a couple of guys, well before any other ww2 modules were even conceived.

Thus, you need to wait for your new mustang.

 

Furthermore if you really don't think you stand a chance in the current mustang you need more practice. Learn to fly it right and you'll succeed, but nothing is going to change the fact that planes like the 109 are more heavily armed, much lighter, more powerful, climb better and turn better at certain speeds.

[HeadHunter52]

Exactly the responses I expected.

 

:music_whistling:

 

Whatever. I know and understand all the points you guys made,and a few more. Doesn't negate mine. Yup... waiting, like everyone else.

 

We'll see what shows up. I understand my personal bias, too.... so I have no problem calling out what I perceive to be bias on other quarters.

 

This "new" Stang, we'll see what form it takes.........

[Magic Zach]

On 5/19/2015 at 10:32 AM, Solty said:

So I've been reading more about ammo for US airplanes.

 

There were different belt configurations, but most used were two main configurations for Fighter planes. Before march 1944 was:

https://html2-f.scri...-e8bc9de163.jpg

AP-AP-I-I-IT

M2-M2-M1-M1-M1 tracer

 

Then since March 1944 M8 rounds started to appear. First only used by the aces and suqadron leaders. Later, by all other pilots.

 

https://html1-f.scri...-c315e85f21.jpg

Standard packaging of those rounds were

API-I-API-I-APIT

M8-M1-M8-M1-M20

Both standard ammo boxes, just M10 instead of M20.

 

 

 

Other rounds mentioned are M10 tracer and M23 Incindieary. M23 was used since German Jets were coming into the fight. M23 was even better with the ability to set fire than M1 round.

Due to introduction of M23, M1 was some times completely swapped.

API-I-API-I-APIT

M8-M23-M8-M23-M20

 

Stll even though these were the standard loads they were often changed by the pilots themselves. The proof is in the pictures in posts before.

 

So there was a high probablity of M8 only and 9xM8-1xM20 ammo only belts like Richard Peterson haved said.

 

I would still suggest AP to be switched to API only and then later other belts could be added. That is because only one round would have to be created and later on other standards could be added as options to be taken.

 

Nowhere though was a single mention of M2 (AP) and M20(APIT) only round belts.

 

References:

http://pl.scribd.com...Browning#scribd

http://www.crazyhors...C/P-51BC_03.htm

 

Can you refresh your links?  I know it's from 2015 but it's a long-shot hope