109, issues to address before leaving beta

You're right. There is no problem to make damage model of any complexity level. Especially as we have the guy who did it for CoD )) .

Let him make something on pair and similar to what we can see in CloD and everyone will be quite happy as CloD has the best damage model in aviasims since it has been released.

As I can see the device works fine in new Bf109 landing tutorial mission.

Please double-check it, as it seems to provide relevant direction information only at very short distance to the beacon. More info here: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=136745&page=22

Hoping for heavy rockets (no matter how rare) and gunpods for the K-4 :)

I don't wanna start a debate but.. 'damage model' is one thing, graphics of the damaged plane is another thing. You must have modelled plane systems (engine, oil etc.) that take the damage not only some graphics (holes, blood etc.). So, DCS is in another league compared to any other "sims" and the DM must be, and is, done accordingly. It needs improvements of course, but this is another topic..

I don't wanna start a debate but.. 'damage model' is one thing, graphics of the damaged plane is another thing. You must have modelled plane systems (engine, oil etc.) that take the damage not only some graphics (holes, blood etc.). So, DCS is in another league compared to any other "sims" and the DM must be, and is, done accordingly. It needs improvements of course, but this is another topic..

That's not true at all.

If you shoot a mw50 tank,fuel tank on a 109 it should blow up or start a fire.Sometimes after a few shots . It doesn't.

If you shoot a radiator on a plane.The engine should overheat . It doesn't.

If you shoot a fuel tank full of holes the pane should be out of fuel after a short while.

If i shoot a plane from the front and below with the 30mm cannon (according to historical tests i should have a 27% chance of a one shot kill).And it over 90% of cases it's the structure of the plane that fails.

I never got a one shot structure kill with that cannon.One shot kills are 90% of the time the prop governor that fails or i hit the engine directly.

In real life 30mm cannon killed the structure of the planes in 90 of cases when shooting fighters and started fuel fires in 90 of cases when shooting bombers. In game 90 % of the time i get engine kills.

I know the devs know this.It does't give me any pleasure to write this.

What you're saying is indeed "nice to have" but it takes a lot of programming to implement it. I'm optimistic that in the near future we'll see some development in this direction too.

That's not true at all.

 

If you shoot a mw50 tank on a 109 it should blow up or start a fire.Sometimes after a few shots . It doesn't.

Why should MW-50 explode or burn?

I know methanol is combustable, but it´s mixed 50/50 with water...

If anything, any burning methanol will be washed out by the water, and the mixture would reduce it´s combustability.

Unless I´m missing something here, which is probable.

And on the topic of DM in DCS...IL-2 Cliffs of Dover simulates damage very well and in depth.

It´s kept a couple people from transitioning, because the DM is very basic in DCS compared to all other sims, and even warthunder to some degree.

You're right. There is no problem to make damage model of any complexity level. Especially as we have the guy who did it for CoD ))

Time and PC performance - the only things we should think of.

Awesome!

Why should MW-50 explode or burn?

 

I know methanol is combustable, but it´s mixed 50/50 with water...

If anything, any burning methanol will be washed out by the water, and the mixture would reduce it´s combustability.

 

Awesome!

Haven't got any data on methanol, but 40% ethanol in water will burn nicely. Ever had one of those puddings where they douse it in brandy then light it on fire?

For some it might make sense to go back and take a highschool chemistry class ...

:smartass::helpsmilie:

That's not true at all.

 

If you shoot a mw50 tank,fuel tank on a 109 it should blow up or start a fire.Sometimes after a few shots . It doesn't.

If you shoot a radiator on a plane.The engine should overheat . It doesn't.

If you shoot a fuel tank full of holes the pane should be out of fuel after a short while.

 

If i shoot a plane from the front and below with the 30mm cannon (according to historical tests i should have a 27% chance of a one shot kill).And it over 90% of cases it's the structure of the plane that fails.

I never got a one shot structure kill with that cannon.One shot kills are 90% of the time the prop governor that fails or i hit the engine directly.

 

In real life 30mm cannon killed the structure of the planes in 90 of cases when shooting fighters and started fuel fires in 90 of cases when shooting bombers. In game 90 % of the time i get engine kills.

 

 

I know the devs know this.It does't give me any pleasure to write this.

I end up with a lot of pilot kills with the 30mm cannon but yeah DM really needs work especially with fluids (coolant, oil, and fuel). Most of my kills are probably still engine kills almost immediately, prop gov gradual, or shooting off a wing especially in the Dora. It would be nice to see more fires because that and engine failure probably led to shoot downs than wings/tails being shot off completely. Would be great to see things like smoke in the cockpit or oil on the windscreen which should lead to a bailout of the craft.

I really hope that the Spitfire will have a new standard of DM before release. It would be a pity to have to go back and address every WWII fighter.

I end up with a lot of pilot kills with the 30mm cannon but yeah DM really needs work especially with fluids (coolant, oil, and fuel). Most of my kills are probably still engine kills almost immediately, prop gov gradual, or shooting off a wing especially in the Dora. It would be nice to see more fires because that and engine failure probably led to shoot downs than wings/tails being shot off completely. Would be great to see things like smoke in the cockpit or oil on the windscreen which should lead to a bailout of the craft.

 

I really hope that the Spitfire will have a new standard of DM before release. It would be a pity to have to go back and address every WWII fighter.

Well I'm afraid it is a job that must be done. Thankfully from my understanding and view of the situation that the damage model of the aircraft (minus fluid leaks, some engine damage and visual work) is very well done and made. The aircraft normally feels "right" when you fly a wounded aircraft home. The issue here that I think is the main issue of the damage model is the way the aircraft gets damaged. The bullets become inconsistent throughout the course of a multiplayer match and aircraft parts that get damaged are unpredictable. (EX. Governor dies when bullets hit the radiator area of your wing) That also being said I've noticed several explosions (the red puffs of shells impacting) on P-51s that are by a long shot hit or miss (not literally). During early games bullets normally act the way they should I hop behind the guy get close enough I can't miss and let some lead loose. Normally it ends with serious damage, tail falling off, wing falling off, engine seizing, etc. Then 10-15 minutes later in the match I'll line up on another guy usually the same attack run, 6 O'clock position, can't shake me, that kind of stuff. Chug-a-chug-a-chug... red puff-red puff-red puff... nothing... I'm close enough that I can see absolutely no visual damage of the aircraft. No bullet holes or anything so about that time I role it into a dive and decide to RTB and get off of DCS for a little while. This is not some one time thing, it happens a lot and happens to my friends a lot. We fly a variety of aircraft and is happens for all of them.

In short, bullets are inconsistent and don't do enough damage and when they do damage it sometimes doesn't damage the proper systems.

Lets hope this all gets fixed someday.

There's a thing i'd like to adress or rather suggest before the final release concerning the gunsight. When it's folded, you cant see the climb/sinkrate indicator and when it's unfolded, you have limited view to front. So it would make sense to have the opportunity to manually remove it in the mission editor, just as the flare gun for example. I sometimes fly the 109 just for fun without fighting,so it would make sense in my opinion.

Especially as we have the guy who did it for CoD ))

.

Excellent and fine recruitment (as "CLOD damage model" stay the best and most accurate of all sim so far for this point)

;-)

can you also recruit the guy who did the user weapon convergence settings possible in CLOD please :megalol:

If you, ED, keep on, to be so humble to recruit all the best dev of best nowadays sims, for sure I'll be very pround to throw you more money to support you more. what a very nice way of mind. ! love it !

and for sure it gives best luck to DCS to become the reference of most accurate sim, also in Wwii environnement, ...one day + 2 weeks more.

:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

Why should MW-50 explode or burn?

 

 

It's possible that it doesn't explode. But it does burn.Just like vodka burns.

Something that's missing though is planes exploding when you hit the engine.I mean an immediate violent explosion.Not 100% of times .But this should sometime happen.And would be really spectacular:

oRmT7T4LPI4?rel=0&start=96&end=110

I hope the moderators don't mind.The old il2 is a dead game and i'm only trying to improve DCS.

There's no question these explosions happened because there are videos and pilot testimony.

Hoping for heavy rockets (no matter how rare) and gunpods for the K-4 :)

Gunpods are in the arming screen in the mission editor, so I guess we'll see them on the plane one day.

before leaving beta, i personally would like to see:

-the possibilty to have adjustable trim-tab for elevators as well...

(there is just no plausible reason to have aileron and rudder trim tabs in the special tab section, but denying us the one for the elevators,except if the devs want to artificially balance the gameplay)

-stickforces,...yes i am ok with the idea in general, however, it is overdone. and please dont ask me for charts on this one, as this would be ridiculous. nobody in his right mind can convince me, that for any healthy mature human being it wouldnt be possible to give full rudder/aileron/elevator deflection at speeds of only 200kph indicated. THE SAME IS TRUE FOR THE P-51 BTW. no way.

-blacking out...finally nice to have...but how is my pilot able to pull down the flaps while he is completely blacked out?dont believe? start to pull down te flaps in a high g turn until you black out...at the time you wake up again, your flaps will be completely down, and probably with a left radiator failure.

Yes, good points David!

before leaving beta, i personally would like to see:

 

-the possibilty to have adjustable trim-tab for elevators as well...

(there is just no plausible reason to have aileron and rudder trim tabs in the special tab section, but denying us the one for the elevators,except if the devs want to artificially balance the gameplay)

+1

-stickforces,...yes i am ok with the idea in general, however, it is overdone. and please dont ask me for charts on this one, as this would be ridiculous. nobody in his right mind can convince me, that for any healthy mature human being it wouldnt be possible to give full rudder/aileron/elevator deflection at speeds of only 200kph indicated. THE SAME IS TRUE FOR THE P-51 BTW. no way.

And the 109 controls become excessively heavy at only 400km/h. It becomes a lawn dart in level flight with military power.

-stickforces,...yes i am ok with the idea in general, however, it is overdone. and please dont ask me for charts on this one, as this would be ridiculous. nobody in his right mind can convince me, that for any healthy mature human being it wouldnt be possible to give full rudder/aileron/elevator deflection at speeds of only 200kph indicated. THE SAME IS TRUE FOR THE P-51 BTW. no way.

I suppose the stick force model may be well fine but I have often found that the force limit for the pilot himself might be a tad too low. It would be interesting to learn our little virtual pilot's muscular capabilities...

I couldn't recreate what I saw in a practice session a few days as the event was unrepeatable but it has made me curious towards the damage model of the Bf109. During a training session I was helping a P-51 squadron develop some tactics to counter the 109 and help them understand what not to do when fighting a 109. This was a gun's hot simulation to allow pilots to know whether they really hit me or not and to see whether on not their shots were falling short. During this session I was watching a particular P-51 and he got a couple of rounds on me and I noticed a white smoke coming out of my right radiator. At this point of time that the P-51 hit me I had pulled it into a steep climb and was trying to out stall the P-51 (it worked) but because of the high engine power and the slowing speed of the 109 I didn't know if I had over heated a radiator. Over heats of radiators cause the white smoke to flow out of the radiator but is normally both radiators. I noticed the radiator smoke and reached for the red handle below my radiator controls to shut that radiator off and looked back at the radiator and to my surprise the white smoke coming from the radiator had stopped. I tried to recreate this afterward but had no success. If what I saw is indeed what I though it is one more step in the right direction of damage models. Though the damage models have quite a lot of work to go i'm glad to see improvements to them.