Jump to content

10th Anniversary Update


Lixma 06

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Magic Zach said:

I made those textures 🙂

Thank you, Sir!  It never ceases to amaze me, the talent and passion within this community!

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

System Specs:

Spoiler

 💻Processor:13th Gen Intel(R) Core(TM) i9-13900K - 🧠RAM: 64GB - 🎥Video Card: NVIDIA RTX 4090 - 🥽 Display: Pimax 8kx VR Headset - 🕹️Accessories:  VKB Gunfighter III MCG Ultimate, Thrustmaster TWCS (modified), Thrustmaster TPR Pedals, Simshaker JetPad, Predator HOTAS Mounts, 3D Printed Flight Button Box 

Thrustmaster TWCS Mod

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The engine cooling really needs updated. I feel like it's been on the horizon for 2 years. I just want to be able to use WEP a reasonable amount without throwing the dice and getting a blown engine. At the very least engine damage needs to feel more consistent (predictable) to the user.

Thanks for the link to the excellent thread on the Meredith effect, it's far more informative than when I search in google or duckduckgo. I do this every couple years because the Meredith Effect mythos makes me laugh (there should be hard data all over the place after 70 years and I can never find it). I don't know how to see aftercooler temps in DCS nor do I know where irl aftercooler temperature data is available. But if DCS gets smaller ranges in oil temps than irl I would guess aftercooler temp ranges are similarly diminished. Probably after the engine cooling update the Meredith effect will be modeled in such a way that it is more easily critiqued.

11 hours ago, Magic Zach said:

5) The belts for the .50s were supposed to have changed some time ago, to a more realistic loadout for 44/45.  We currently have a 1943 edition of belts, which includes a lot more AP, and a lot less API and I.  By 44 and especially 45, belts were much more highly equipped with API/I rounds...some nearly exclusively, minus the tracers.
However, according to Nineline from Jan 29, we're waiting on two brand new round types to DCS, M1 pure incendiary and M1 pure tracer.  We currently only have the M2 ball, M2 armor piercing, M8 API, and M20 API-T.

Simulating ammo technology is really important. Gun cameras depict .50 as being far more powerful than in DCS. Maybe those are just the best looking gun camera reels from the era but the .50 cal in DCS doesn't seem to stack up to historical accounts.

11 hours ago, Magic Zach said:

11) I made those textures 🙂

👍👍👍

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am 16.4.2022 um 17:33 schrieb Theodore42:

Simulating ammo technology is really important. Gun cameras depict .50 as being far more powerful than in DCS. Maybe those are just the best looking gun camera reels from the era but the .50 cal in DCS doesn't seem to stack up to historical accounts.

Thats because those footages were picked for exact that reason.

If you look at more footages youll see that .50 cals didnt blow up things as much as its indicated by a bunch of videos.

of course.. if you only look at videos that show planes blowing up and thats you´re only reference...

"historical accuracy".

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its understandable why something like modeling the effects of ammunition are complex issues, especially where it concerns the effects it has on an airplane.

On the one hand there is the obvious physical damage caused by the bullet itself, and then there is the damage caused by natural stress elements as the structurally weakened airplane flies through the air.

In DCS, both types of damage are modeled/represented to a decent degree IMO. I followed along in one of the recent hot threads on the subject, and thought ED's position was well defended. But that doesn't mean the damage model related to this is as accurate and as complete to real life as it could be. I think it should probably be more appropriately viewed as a work in progress that could see future updates?

I think the important point here is what we have at the moment isn't prefect, but it is close enough so that you can actually snap a wing off after it has been weakened by bullet damage/over-speed. An area where the model could maybe use a small tweak at some point is in the variation of the affect you see across the different planes. But your point is well made, using gun cam reels meant to demonstrate this type of thing doesn't offer a very strong argument against what is, or isn't modeled in DCS.

And I haven't tried to test anything since the recent update to the Mustang's controls, but in terms of engine cooling, I know it did work but it also seemed to be a little too fragile even when using just continuous max power settings. I could see it working before the last update because after pushing it to almost boiling point, it could easily be brought back under control, but I was also able to cook the engine without ever exceeding continuous max power for both the takeoff run and in flight. 

If the Mustang's cooling system was really that fragile during wartime, it would have warranted a design change because it means Allied pilots would have been placed at a major disadvantage. I can give several examples of design modifications for tanks that were made within weeks after being fielded for this exact reason, but there were no design changes made to any of the Mustang's intake scoops. So I think there is something there that could/should be reviewed. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok I have to take back my complaints on the effectiveness of the .50 in DCS. I hadn't done anything in the Mustang since the F-16 came out and apparently the AG ammo mix is amazing. I jumped into a custom mission with unarmored targets and with no practice in years I managed to ruin everything in basically 1 pass. It didn't used to be that way lol.

Also I've always thought that train durability in DCS seems to be accurate to the footage.

4 hours ago, Callsign112 said:

But your point is well made, using gun cam reels meant to demonstrate this type of thing doesn't offer a very strong argument against what is, or isn't modeled in DCS.

FALSE. You can look on YouTube of all gun camera footage from a single sortie. You can watch the same target get attacked by different pilots in the same squadron. And then watch all the gun camera footage from the same squadron's sortie from the next day. This creates a totally valid data set for analysis.

11 hours ago, Doughguy said:

If you look at more footages youll see that .50 cals didnt blow up things as much as its indicated by a bunch of videos.

FALSE. Watching all the footage from every pilot in a squadron for a single sortie reveals that all unarmored ground targets get totally destroyed in a fraction of a second. Even train cars tend to break easily. The guys that had not achieved the rank of Captain yet were kinda not so good at the aim, but even when they just rake a target for a fraction of a second it is destroyed. A SEAL with 10 rounds in his Barrett can end a power station (for example) and 1 second from 6 M2s is 80 rounds. So 1 second of fire at convergence is basically the end of whatever you're shooting at. 

Also I noticed all the unarmored ground targets are suspiciously static. It was well known to the Germans how effective the .50 was and they surly bailed as soon as they came under air attack. I've seen previously a ground car getting shot at and the guys bailing as it was happening but I couldn't find it today (maybe taken off YouTube because it was pretty hardcore).

You know what I've never seen? A ground attack with .50 vs a tank. I don't think it was ever done. Unless the crew is laid out on the turret working on their tan I don't think .50 would do anything. I've seen training films that suggest shooting in front of a tank will put the bullets up into the floor of the tank, but I've never seen this done and I'm really skeptical that it could work. Bullets that impact a plane follow the plane, they don't reflect off it, unless the plane is really soft (like dirt) in which case almost all the energy from the round is absorbed by the ground. But if anyone has any gun camera footage of this or info on how effective it was I'd love to see it.

But like I said earlier, I'm withdrawing my complaint about how the .50 is modeled in DCS because it seems much more accurately modeled now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Theodore42 said:

...FALSE. You can look on YouTube of all gun camera footage from a single sortie. You can watch the same target get attacked by different pilots in the same squadron. And then watch all the gun camera footage from the same squadron's sortie from the next day. This creates a totally valid data set for analysis.

FALSE. Watching all the footage from every pilot in a squadron for a single sortie reveals that all unarmored ground targets get totally destroyed in a fraction of a second. Even train cars tend to break easily....

I'm not sure any gun cam footage on YouTube, or elsewhere puts anyone in a position to argue what is and isn't modeled in DCS, which is the point I was making in the comment above.

I don't think anyone would argue that the 6x .50 CAL's on the Mustang weren't capable of destroying planes, trains, and automobiles. I think the point the other poster was making, and I have to say I agree, is that watching hand picked gun cam footage that show wings snapping off might give the wrong impression.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...