Capn kamikaze Posted August 8, 2016 Share Posted August 8, 2016 I've been playing about with the F-86 recently again, and it seems to me either the F-86's armaments are incredibly weak, or the MiG-15 is more armoured than an M-1 Abrams.... I damaged a MiG-15, took one of his elevators off, and he tried to run to an airbase, so he was flying straight and level, so he was an easy target, I just sat behind him and emptied my entire ammo load, and finally he went down, almost all of my rounds were hitting in his engine/tail area, I'd estimate about 90% hit rate, yet it took all my ammo to get a kill? I know it's only 12.7mm ammo, but that should be enough that a short burst should do the job, not the entire lot. So is this bugged, or is the MiG-15 that tough, I find it hard to accept that it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reflected Posted August 8, 2016 Share Posted August 8, 2016 The DCS Damage model doesn't have the level of details that could be effectively damaged by .50 cals. They are working on it as far as I've heard. Facebook Instagram YouTube Discord Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zimmerdylan Posted August 8, 2016 Share Posted August 8, 2016 The DCS Damage model doesn't have the level of details that could be effectively damaged by .50 cals. They are working on it as far as I've heard. Exactly lol. I have blown off both ailerons, an elevator and made that Mig look like Swiss friggin cheese and it still came back and shot my a$$ down. Frustrating! This is why I'm very apprehensive of buying the new campaign. If those two planes are going head to head in the campaign....I don't see the point in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capn kamikaze Posted August 8, 2016 Author Share Posted August 8, 2016 Thought so, thanks, just wanted to know it wasn't just me seeing this... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WinterH Posted August 8, 2016 Share Posted August 8, 2016 I ran series of tests using guns on every aircraft's guns against an AI Hawk. Mustang and Saber's .50 cals are the only ones I simply couldn't shoot it down with :). With hundreds of hits with each attempt too... Then again even 109's 30mm MK "I shoot giant grenades" 108 took more than 10 or even 20 shots sometimes. Or even MiG-15s N-37D. Even rhat one wasn't a few hits and done type of deal, not reliably anyway. Though most other guns, including 13mm MG-131, would give a very quick kill if you hit wing roots, but with .50 cals couldn't even do that one. Like mentioned, damage system is being looked on thankfuly. Wishlist: F-4E Block 53 +, MiG-27K, Su-17M3 or M4, AH-1F or W circa 80s or early 90s, J35 Draken, Kfir C7, Mirage III/V DCS-Dismounts Script Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alphazulu Posted August 26, 2016 Share Posted August 26, 2016 There is nothing wrong with .50 machine guns especially six of them in real life. The problem is on DCS and most of the idiots that think because other countries have fighters with canons that canons are needed to shoot down fighters. The truth is other countries didn't have the money or resources to build fighters AND interceptors they had to build fighter/interceptors and that is why the needed big canon's to shoot down bombers not other fighters. Because of this, devs seem to think that you need canon's to shoot down fighters and this couldn't be further from the truth. American pilots used .50 not because they were stuck with them but because the preferred them. They provided a lot of ammunition and plenty of firepower for taking out fighters and they never shot at any heavy bombers. If you look at the lua for the Mig-15 and check out the damage area the Mig-15 is uber strong for no apparent reason other then the fact that DCS devs are Russian fan boys. Not to mention the fact that the browning .50s in the DCS F-86F are screwed. They originally but in Browning M2s and not M3s and the fire rate was way below what it should have been. When that was reported they adjusted the fire rate from the M2 rate to the M3 rate but never fixed the heat warping. So now if you fire the Sabre's guns for 2 1/2 seconds the barrels will warp so bad that they are useless for 4 1/2 minutes!!! That is so ridicules. Turn on all tracers (if you know how) and fire the guns for 2 1/2 seconds and then you will see the rounds turn into a huge shot gun pattern that won't do any damage. The rounds need to hit in a tight group to do major damage and that is impossible with the current gun heat problem. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubert Bigglesworth Posted August 27, 2016 Share Posted August 27, 2016 Big +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OperatorJack Posted August 27, 2016 Share Posted August 27, 2016 There is nothing wrong with .50 machine guns especially six of them in real life. The problem is on DCS and most of the idiots that think because other countries have fighters with canons that canons are needed to shoot down fighters. The truth is other countries didn't have the money or resources to build fighters AND interceptors they had to build fighter/interceptors and that is why the needed big canon's to shoot down bombers not other fighters. Because of this, devs seem to think that you need canon's to shoot down fighters and this couldn't be further from the truth. American pilots used .50 not because they were stuck with them but because the preferred them. They provided a lot of ammunition and plenty of firepower for taking out fighters and they never shot at any heavy bombers. If you look at the lua for the Mig-15 and check out the damage area the Mig-15 is uber strong for no apparent reason other then the fact that DCS devs are Russian fan boys. Not to mention the fact that the browning .50s in the DCS F-86F are screwed. They originally but in Browning M2s and not M3s and the fire rate was way below what it should have been. When that was reported they adjusted the fire rate from the M2 rate to the M3 rate but never fixed the heat warping. So now if you fire the Sabre's guns for 2 1/2 seconds the barrels will warp so bad that they are useless for 4 1/2 minutes!!! That is so ridicules. Turn on all tracers (if you know how) and fire the guns for 2 1/2 seconds and then you will see the rounds turn into a huge shot gun pattern that won't do any damage. The rounds need to hit in a tight group to do major damage and that is impossible with the current gun heat problem. 1. Why are you using such long bursts 2. ED aren't Russia fanboys and don't even make the MiG or Sabre /да бойз/ [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alphazulu Posted August 28, 2016 Share Posted August 28, 2016 1. Why are you using such long bursts 2. ED aren't Russia fanboys and don't even make the MiG or Sabre 1) No one said I was firing 2 1/2 second bursts....I said after firing the guns for 2 1/2 seconds. That is the worst part...it doesn't even need to be a burst, just 2 1/2 seconds of firing the guns in separate bursts. 2) DCS Devs are Russian fan boys....not making the Mig-15 or Sabres doesn't change that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buzzles Posted August 28, 2016 Share Posted August 28, 2016 @Alphazulu Have you got any documentation on the guns which can point towards how long they should last before heating becomes an issue? Or on how quick they cool? It would help BST if you can supply numbers, otherwise it's a guessing game. Would be worth posting in this thread as well, as it's the only one I can see in the bug section related to gun heating. Fancy trying Star Citizen? Click here! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alphazulu Posted September 6, 2016 Share Posted September 6, 2016 @Alphazulu Have you got any documentation on the guns which can point towards how long they should last before heating becomes an issue? Or on how quick they cool? It would help BST if you can supply numbers, otherwise it's a guessing game. Would be worth posting in this thread as well, as it's the only one I can see in the bug section related to gun heating. Hi Buzzles, I can appreciate what you are asking about the technical details on the M3s however.... 1) I don't have the time to go and research M3 machine guns just to spend the next couple of weeks defending my stats to other people. 2) It's not my job and DCS/Belsimtek is certainly not paying me to do it. I have my own profession as a Network Engineer which requires me to do a lot of research online already. 3) When end users send me requests concerning technologies I have implemented my solution is not "go research the problem yourself". They pay me to do that just like all of us have payed DCS/Belsimtek to research these specs. 4) If I did spend a lot of time putting together all the specs and DCS/Belsimtek decided to make a change they aren't going to listen to me anyway and I wouldn't expect them to. I would expect them to conduct their own independent research making my research pointless. Cheers Alpha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art-J Posted September 7, 2016 Share Posted September 7, 2016 Alpha, You reply from perspective of long-time experience of how Your business is run, while Buzzles replied from perspective of long-time experience of how ED's and BST's business is run, which is - they don't bother much (if ever) with similar concern/request threads from us, unless we provide some hard data references. They question of how much You paid for the product seems to be of secondary importance. I won't go into debate of judging this business practice, as I don't intend to be banned anytime soon, so I'll just leave it at that. i7 9700K @ stock speed, single GTX1070, 32 gigs of RAM, TH Warthog, MFG Crosswind, Win10. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jagr Posted September 7, 2016 Share Posted September 7, 2016 I've been playing about with the F-86 recently again, and it seems to me either the F-86's armaments are incredibly weak, or the MiG-15 is more armoured than an M-1 Abrams.... I damaged a MiG-15, took one of his elevators off, and he tried to run to an airbase, so he was flying straight and level, so he was an easy target, I just sat behind him and emptied my entire ammo load, and finally he went down, almost all of my rounds were hitting in his engine/tail area, I'd estimate about 90% hit rate, yet it took all my ammo to get a kill? I know it's only 12.7mm ammo, but that should be enough that a short burst should do the job, not the entire lot. So is this bugged, or is the MiG-15 that tough, I find it hard to accept that it is. Its probably not as accurate as it could be because the systems models ar enot as accurate as a real jet, but the M3 was found to be lacking in terms of knock down power very early on and attempts to remedy it were started (GUNVAL) A short burst from an F86 is definitely not something that "Should" bring down a Mig.. "Could" yes, "Should" No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buzzles Posted September 7, 2016 Share Posted September 7, 2016 [sNIP] While I totally understand your perspective, as Art-J says, I'm only going off past experiences on the forum and comments from Devs/Testers. They've said time and time again that if you think or feel something is wrong, you need to post some supporting evidence to back up your claim. I honestly have no idea how long the AN/M3's should last, all I know is that each gun has a RoF of ~1200. Fancy trying Star Citizen? Click here! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnouze Posted September 21, 2016 Share Posted September 21, 2016 Anyway, that's true that in the DCS F-86, it takes a lot of hits to bring gown a Mig15. More than a lot. I will check if in Korea the Sabre pilots had so much difficulty by reading again " Sabres over Mig Alley" Envoyé de mon iPad en utilisant Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qqQ Posted October 24, 2016 Share Posted October 24, 2016 There is nothing wrong with .50 machine guns especially six of them in real life. The problem is on DCS and most of the idiots that think because other countries have fighters with canons that canons are needed to shoot down fighters. The truth is other countries didn't have the money or resources to build fighters AND interceptors they had to build fighter/interceptors and that is why the needed big canon's to shoot down bombers not other fighters. Because of this, devs seem to think that you need canon's to shoot down fighters and this couldn't be further from the truth. American pilots used .50 not because they were stuck with them but because the preferred them. They provided a lot of ammunition and plenty of firepower for taking out fighters and they never shot at any heavy bombers. If you look at the lua for the Mig-15 and check out the damage area the Mig-15 is uber strong for no apparent reason other then the fact that DCS devs are Russian fan boys. Not to mention the fact that the browning .50s in the DCS F-86F are screwed. They originally but in Browning M2s and not M3s and the fire rate was way below what it should have been. When that was reported they adjusted the fire rate from the M2 rate to the M3 rate but never fixed the heat warping. So now if you fire the Sabre's guns for 2 1/2 seconds the barrels will warp so bad that they are useless for 4 1/2 minutes!!! That is so ridicules. Turn on all tracers (if you know how) and fire the guns for 2 1/2 seconds and then you will see the rounds turn into a huge shot gun pattern that won't do any damage. The rounds need to hit in a tight group to do major damage and that is impossible with the current gun heat problem. Autocannons are superior to Machine guns concerning aircraft armament. The only problem with early autocannons was their low muzzle velocity which caused problems if you are trying to hit a maneuvering target. With lead computing gunsights and weapon design improvements this issue does no longer exist. Or how do you explain that the Sabre was the last fighter aircraft worth mentioning using HMGs as gun armament? And how do you explain that several later models of it were tested or fitted with autocannons? Not even talking about later fighters.... The Sabre is armed with HMGs not because they are superior, but because US pilots never had to engage bombers so the need for autocannons was not urgent => it took longer to realize their advantages and implement them. However, you are right concerning the current damage model and its effects on .50 cals. The AI doesnt really take significant system damage neither do the API rounds set flammable parts on fire. Thus, the .50 cals are seriously underpowered as they do not really do damage to the fuselage (just with kinetic energy => relatively small holes). If you shoot an empty Mig fuselage IRL with a Sabre, I believe it takes quite long till it breaks apart compared to an Autocannon, whichs High Explosive rounds do significantly more damage (if you do not believe, search for the MK108 evaluation of the RAF ( , in the comments there are some more links)... and this rounds were less than half the weight of the Migs N37 grenades). Against players, system damage is modelled more in detail, but I still believe theres lots of rooms for improvement. Lets hope for the new damage model. PS: The fanboy accusation is really unhealthy for any discussion.... it virtually ends it. OS: Win10 | Hardware: Z97 Mainboard, i7 4790k @4Ghz, GTX980, 4x4GB DDR3-1600 Dual Channel Ram, TM Warthog (w/ Extension) + Throttle, CH Pro Pedals, TIR5 with Custom Clip Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lmp Posted October 24, 2016 Share Posted October 24, 2016 The problem isn't really limited to the .50 Cals. It is most visible with those guns of course, but I had a bit of a reverse situation the other day. I was fighting an AI Sabre in the MiG and I shot off both of the bot's elevators. He was still turning with me just fine. Of course most of the time the MiG's cannons will do the job just fine, but an improvement in damage modelling will benefit everybody. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shab249 Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 Well its good that i have my trustee 37mm canon that can take someone down in one shoot :) Yea the .50 in this game are really underpowered i can tell because im the one that getting shoot at and i see the amount of bullets that someone spend and its way too much Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zxarkov Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 (edited) As for the .50 cals, look at some gun camera footage from Sabres over Korea and watch the effects of the .50 cal hits. I sincerely hope it is just something in the works, not a case of DCS devs being "Russian Fanboys". The Mig-15 IMHO doesn't need any special "help". Edited January 25, 2017 by zxarkov __________________________________________________________ i7 3930k @ 4.7GHz | GTX 980 Ti | 16GB G.Skill 2133 Quad Channel | Samsung 850 EVO SSD | Win7 ProX64 | CH Fighterstick | CH Pro Pedals | CH Throttle | BenQ XL2730Z 1440p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buzzles Posted January 25, 2017 Share Posted January 25, 2017 As for the .50 cals, look at some gun camera footage from Sabres over Korea and watch the effects of the .50 cal hits. I sincerely hope it is just something in the works, not a case of DCS devs being "Russian Fanboys". The Mig-15 IMHO doesn't need any special "help". ED are doing a new damage system for DCS. Just need to wait for it. Fancy trying Star Citizen? Click here! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shab249 Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 As for the .50 cals, look at some gun camera footage from Sabres over Korea and watch the effects of the .50 cal hits. I sincerely hope it is just something in the works, not a case of DCS devs being "Russian Fanboys". The Mig-15 IMHO doesn't need any special "help". It was more effective than what it is in dcs but there is a reason that all us fighters now using 20mm and now moving to 25. Its not effective as the 23mm's in the mig-15 and the 37 was meant for bombers/ground and its pretty good for that roll i most say Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art-J Posted January 27, 2017 Share Posted January 27, 2017 ED are doing a new damage system for DCS. Just need to wait for it. The problem is, last time we read about it, it was being done for WWII planes only, at least for now. Nobody knows if/when BST and 3rd parties will follow too. I hope they will, however. i7 9700K @ stock speed, single GTX1070, 32 gigs of RAM, TH Warthog, MFG Crosswind, Win10. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buzzles Posted January 27, 2017 Share Posted January 27, 2017 The problem is, last time we read about it, it was being done for WWII planes only, at least for now. Nobody knows if/when BST and 3rd parties will follow too. I hope they will, however. Careful reading from some of the third parties and it's definitely a case of "when" not "if" for the non WWII birds. WWII birds are just first. Fancy trying Star Citizen? Click here! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alphazulu Posted February 7, 2017 Share Posted February 7, 2017 Well its good that i have my trustee 37mm canon that can take someone down in one shoot :) Yea the .50 in this game are really underpowered i can tell because im the one that getting shoot at and i see the amount of bullets that someone spend and its way too much Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk Ya, "Trustee" is an understatement. Especially since damage modeling to that gun doesn't exist in DCS. Sure I'll take any gun that CANNOT be knocked out over any gun that can. One shot to the nose of Sabre knocks out guns, windshield and gun site. How many times has your canon been knocked out of commission from being damaged....the answer...never...because the code does not exist in DCS. How many times has you Mig's cockpit glass been shot out and your gun sight knocked out....never....becuase the code does not exist. Ya, all those 50 it takes to knock you down must be accurate as well. It's not taking a ton of 50 cal shells...the problem is they are all missing from warped gun barrels that didn't exist. I love how Mig pilots try to tell me "you didn't hit anything vital" after looking at their own plane. Of course, you didn't see me hit anything vital....for the Mig, only the wings are set up to show damage. Here is direct code taken from F-86 and Mig-15 Lua files in the damage section. F-86F DamageParts = { [1] = "F-86F-oblomok-wing-R", -- wing R [2] = "F-86F-oblomok-wing-L", -- wing L --[3] = "F-86F Sabre-nose", -- nose [4] = "F-86F-oblomok-F3", -- tail Same Section from Mig-15 Lua DamageParts = { [1] = "MiG_15bis_oblomok__wing_R", [2] = "MiG_15bis_oblomok__wing_L", Where's the rest of the damage for the Mig???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zxarkov Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 Just a random hope for the new damage models to come, for the Mig-15, if a .50 cal hits the engine, there should be a obvious chance for catastrophic damage also perhaps a loss in the engines power output due to damage/piercing the VK-1s combustion chambers. __________________________________________________________ i7 3930k @ 4.7GHz | GTX 980 Ti | 16GB G.Skill 2133 Quad Channel | Samsung 850 EVO SSD | Win7 ProX64 | CH Fighterstick | CH Pro Pedals | CH Throttle | BenQ XL2730Z 1440p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts