Jump to content

Building a player base for WW2


mblackham
 Share

Recommended Posts

↓ this. Don't play you didn't understand what I meant :lol:.

 

The thing is there is not much difference, that's why they both dive more or less the same in that video (Did you see the video?). Initial acceleration, following aerobatic theory, is given by gravity alone and no matter the power setting (talking of props) there will be no difference until deeper in the dive where aerodynamics and terminal velocity starts to obviously slow down one of them more than the other. Watch the video, what do you see there? Why should the Spitfire dive faster than the 109? Aircraft considered good divers are because higher terminal speed, due to aerodynamics and size/weight not because diving acceleration which is almost the same for anything (a stone either) in the initial run.

 

 

S!

 

 

First of the Video may a K4 vs Spit LF, and our K4 did have allready 400KG more then the Spit LF, so much to your Gravity Theorie.

Test stated G6 can leave the Spit without any difficulty, G6 lighter Airframe less Thrust.

 

 

 

 

Intacceleration form much more then Weight dependent, how effiecent the Prob is at low Speed for accelaration, the Wingloading.

 

 

Thrust more the RAF Testing then the Aerobatic Theory...

Once you have tasted Flight, you will forever walk the Earth with your Eyes turned Skyward.

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

9./JG27

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you have become mixed up about time periods and Luftwaffe (dis)organization by 1944.

 

III/JG26 Bf-109G-10 as of 3 Jun 44

 

I dont think I did, but I do think we have to work with what we have. Based on past MP experience that would be B-17s bombing something in post D-Day Normandy, being escorted by Spits and P-51s. A8s lacked the high alt performance to occupy the fighter cover, but were employed against the slower bombers, while 109s were mixing it up with allied fighters. That would certainly be one historic use case, if it happened exactly like this over Normandy I cant tell for certain. Over the Reich it did.

 

The other option is to only add A-8s and play out ground attack missions with allied CAP or counter ground attack missions, which basically results in low level furballs and no strategic goals. Maybe I am wrong, I dont know. I leave it to talented mission makers like Phil to come up with something semi historic & fun.

 

I honestly dont know the actual pre (nor post D-Day) numbers by heart, nor do I care much. I also dont doubt the general credibility of the source you posted, but what I can tell you is that III/JG26 most definitely did not use 109 G-10s as of 3 Jun 44. Maybe I am misunderstanding you in general, but werent 109s and 190s both operating in France around D-Day? And didnt the Brits put escorts on their short range bomber incursions across the channel?


Edited by rel4y

Cougar, CH and Saitek PnP hall sensor kits + shift registers: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=220916

 

Shapeways store for DIY flight simming equipment and repair: https://www.shapeways.com/shops/rel4y-diy-joystick-flight-simming

Link to comment
Share on other sites

would suggest to take mw50 from fw190d9 away too it completly killing team balance

do anyone know why fw190 is not using wings slats ?? which were quite good in bf190s


Edited by grafspee

Windows 11, I9 9900KF @5.0, Gigabyte Z390 Aorus PRO, Ram 32 GB G.skill, Palit Gamerock OC 3090, Hotas Warthog, Thrustmaster Pendular Pedals, OLED 48" 120Hz.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty sure you are talking about the Spit XI not IX test. That one had substantially reinforced wings. Spitbombers (Mk IXs) were known to get wing skin wrinkling in the pullouts after bombing. At Mach 0.9 pretty much any prop plane would have its prop torn off by drag if not fully feathered. The prop drag would be equal to the flat plate area of the prop diameter. It is at high Mach numbers that engine power doesn't matter but only gravity and not the other way around.

 

yes it was mkXI but still MKIX have highest top mach from all planes we got right now and bf109 is the worst one :)

and yest at high mach its just better to jettison prop :P


Edited by grafspee

Windows 11, I9 9900KF @5.0, Gigabyte Z390 Aorus PRO, Ram 32 GB G.skill, Palit Gamerock OC 3090, Hotas Warthog, Thrustmaster Pendular Pedals, OLED 48" 120Hz.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First of the Video may a K4 vs Spit LF, and our K4 did have allready 400KG more then the Spit LF, so much to your Gravity Theorie.

Test stated G6 can leave the Spit without any difficulty, G6 lighter Airframe less Thrust.

 

 

 

 

Intacceleration form much more then Weight dependent, how effiecent the Prob is at low Speed for accelaration, the Wingloading.

 

 

Thrust more the RAF Testing then the Aerobatic Theory...

Yeah, maybe, but I have experienced that in person and I know it happens :dunno: .

 

 

S!

"I went into the British Army believing that if you want peace you must prepare for war. I believe now that if you prepare for war, you get war."

-- Major-General Frederick B. Maurice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think everyone know that acceleratoin of falling object is not based on it's weight


Edited by grafspee

Windows 11, I9 9900KF @5.0, Gigabyte Z390 Aorus PRO, Ram 32 GB G.skill, Palit Gamerock OC 3090, Hotas Warthog, Thrustmaster Pendular Pedals, OLED 48" 120Hz.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys. I kind of liked the original topic of discussion more than this diving distraction.

Hardware: T-16000M Pack, Saitek 3 Throttle Quadrant, Homemade 32-function Leo Bodnar Button Box, MFG Crosswind Pedals Oculus Rift S

System Specs: MSI MPG X570 GAMING PLUS, GTX 1070 SC2, AMD RX3700, 32GB DDR4-3200, Samsung 860 EVO, Samsung 970 EVO 250GB

Modules: Ka-50, Mi-8MTV2, FC3, F/A-18C, F-14B, F-5E, P-51D, Spitfire Mk LF Mk. IXc, Bf-109K-4, Fw-190A-8

Maps: Normandy, Nevada

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

So, Where are you playing in MP?

 

Just my 2 cents worth:

 

We are trying really hard to build a player base for the WW2 multiplayer scene. Running events, running social media.

 

A big stumbling block is the asset pack. the units are great and it really adds to the immersion but if these units are included in a multiplayer server a lot of potential curious flyers can't take part. They just won't spend $30 on a pack of units for something they will maybe only dip into occasionally.

 

If it was up to me, I'd make it something like $12 - it IS worth more for those of us who love the warbirds but bringing the price point down to help the warbird online community grow could be a boon.

 

Back on the original topic...

 

I already have everything.

 

What server(s) are you using and when ?

 

I prefer the German aircraft.

 

I am Eastern Time Zone.

 

Have not flown the WWII era stuff in quite awhile.


Edited by DieHard

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

how can we build ww2 player base if normandy map + ww2 assets cost almost 45$+30$

Where the landscape is quite borring imo


Edited by grafspee

Windows 11, I9 9900KF @5.0, Gigabyte Z390 Aorus PRO, Ram 32 GB G.skill, Palit Gamerock OC 3090, Hotas Warthog, Thrustmaster Pendular Pedals, OLED 48" 120Hz.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

how can we build ww2 player base if normandy map + ww2 assets cost almost 45$+30$

 

Incorrect.

 

Anybody interested in DCS: WW2 can be made aware of the Map+Asset Pack Bundle @ $59.99. It's on the map module store page highlighted in red.

 

Where the landscape is quite borring imo

 

Irrelevant.

 

The primary drive of those who fly DCS: WW2 is realism and the recreation of (broadly or specifically) prototypical situations.

 

For those interested in flying Spitfires, Mustangs 109s and 190s, then, for good or for ill, the primary area of interest is going to be North West Europe. The vast majority of this area is rolling hills with peaks barely getting above 1000ft.

 

This is of no consequence to those seeking to re-enact situations that did or could have occurred in that theatre historically.

 

I agree the topography in say Italy, the Alps or over the Balkans would be more dynamic, but these were secondary theatres and interest in such is similarly placed.

 

To truly bring more people into DCS: WW2 we would need to:

 

1. Roll out the revised Damage Model - see point 5.

 

2. Ensure plane match-ups are somewhat more considerately historically matched-up in future.

 

3. Improve the large variance being experienced by the community in Normandy map performance. Hopefully the planned updates will sort this. However, see point 5.

 

3. Make the environment more homogenous. The following is required:

 

a. Flesh out the asset pack with more ground elements that are more easily destroyed by flying players with the weapons they have (and their inherent inaccuracies). I have repeatedly requested fuel bowsers, cargo vessels, mobile AAA, unmounted and unarmoured field artillery. These offer more by: 1. a more achievably destroyed target than the plethora of armour with have currently which require a DH with bombs or rockets - a most demanding ask of the player base with the weapon types and methods of delivery; 2. a more historic target base for the aircraft we have; no Spitfire or Mustang pilot in my memory has ever been tasked with a CAS against armour. That was left to Typhoons (and not so successfully, despite the legends) and maybe the P-47 (my information on tactical ops by jugs is sketchy). The truth is the vast majority of Allied fighter-bomber ops in the ETO was as interdictors, rather than true CAS, because the rate of success in this area was higher as the targets behind the enemy lines were more vulnerable and the chances of successful attack more productive. In short, quit worrying about the frontlines ED and start fleshing out the Rear Echelon!

 

b. Introduce a prototypical radars and a native WW2 GCI for both sides to promote air-to-air encounters. No-one likes bumbling around a map for half an hour to see one bandit who runs away and then you're obliged to RTB for fuel.

 

5. Roll fixes and updates out in a more timely fashion; DCS WW2 development rates feel positively glacial at the moment, we've been waiting on further AI a/c additions for 2 years, and whilst most - but not all, I might add - of the promised ground units have turned up, what we get in compensation is a few unrequested SP guns.

 

6. More consideration for the WW2 community for when updates break things; recent patches introduced new bugs for the Spitfire, massive fps drops for flak and bomber formations and (not just affecting WW2 players) the whole "no-render" Dedicated Server AI debacle. Sure these thing will happen, but for Pete's sake leave them in openBeta and leave the community a Stable Release unencumbered by these - if not game breaking - at least scenario breaking bugs. At least then there is then one game version where we can turn to where these elements are protected.

 

Whilst the Fw 190A-8 was a fantastic addition with regards points 2, 3a and 5 it is still in need of some polishing. It's a positive step, no doubt but its does somewhat feel like a step on a laboured trudge to an uncertain destination as opposed to a brisk confident stride to the future.


Edited by DD_Fenrir
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We all must see that WW2 is a mere side project or even a pet project for ED. The F/A-18 and F-16 is where the money is and that's where resources are allocated. Else it's not understandable why everything takes forever and the only map was done by a 3rd party at subpar standard.

 

Still there are the fantastic flyables, so we have to be patient and hope for the best.

Windows 10 64bit, Intel i9-9900@5Ghz, 32 Gig RAM, Palit RTX 2080 TI, 1 TB SSD, 43" 2160p@1440p monitor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sadly, I think nobody can disagree here. Month for month the Hornet gets new highly complex weapons made from scratch, while the Fw190 A8 doesn't even have a simple drop tank.

 

But I think DCS WW2 is on the verge of becoming something truly great, if they could only finish what was already announced so long ago. Week for week I hope to read something about the new AI planes, maps or DM in the newsletter. Once the new DM is out, at least 3rd parties can build up their own future proof modules from there.

 

I hope the new free map, also usable for WW2, will increase player base and thus the incentive to work on WW2 stuff. A great step in the right direction. At the moment the entry cost seems to steep. Aircraft + map/assets pack bundle + campaign = 120 $. For a comparable experience the vastly more complex Hornet is just 80 $, which comes with quite a lot free missions plus of course the free modern day assets and Caucasus map.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sadly, I think nobody can disagree here. Month for month the Hornet gets new highly complex weapons made from scratch, while the Fw190 A8 doesn't even have a simple drop tank.

 

But I think DCS WW2 is on the verge of becoming something truly great, if they could only finish what was already announced so long ago. Week for week I hope to read something about the new AI planes, maps or DM in the newsletter. Once the new DM is out, at least 3rd parties can build up their own future proof modules from there.

 

I hope the new free map, also usable for WW2, will increase player base and thus the incentive to work on WW2 stuff. A great step in the right direction. At the moment the entry cost seems to steep. Aircraft + map/assets pack bundle + campaign = 120 $. For a comparable experience the vastly more complex Hornet is just 80 $, which comes with quite a lot free missions plus of course the free modern day assets and Caucasus map.

 

exactlty what i tried to say 60$ for maps and assets + another 50$ for plane.

i bet that lots of ppl who have normandy map, dont have assets pack

Windows 11, I9 9900KF @5.0, Gigabyte Z390 Aorus PRO, Ram 32 GB G.skill, Palit Gamerock OC 3090, Hotas Warthog, Thrustmaster Pendular Pedals, OLED 48" 120Hz.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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