FDG2 PLANES and weapons

[Fibber]

I LOVE THESE PLANES!!!!!!!!!!:salute: BUUUUUUUUUTTT...

Just curiosity , but with the recent post regarding the Birdcage Corsair and having stumbled across a tutoiral at "calebs" site on weapons effectiveness, (I may be getting a little too smart for myself.:jump:) has anyone looked at the DP for the guns on these planes? I am no expert, by far, but reading the tutorial,and the chart on real world weapon effectiveness on that site it seems to me that the FDG's are a bit weighted on the heavy side. I may be wrong (won't be the first time, nor the last) and probably am ,but I was wondering if anyone else has looked and what they think.

Also with the B-17s pack. I can't get the bloody first model more than three hundred feet up w/o a stall and augering in ! If I used any less of a climb I'll be in Russia before I get above 500! Anyone else on this?
I also installed the B-17 bases. Is there a common base ID # decided on for these bases, or is it make your own?

[sc7500]

I use the following DP entries for all my Corsairs...

[GUNSTATIONS]
gunstation.0=0,24,1,0.08,839,2,0.01,500,2,20,1d1*1 4,-2.429,-0.66,0.815,0.119651268759032,0,0.463894691272955,0 ,0,0,0,1.6
gunstation.1=0,31,1,0.08,839,2,0.01,500,2,20,1d1*1 4,2.863,-0.594,0.749,0.119651268759032,0,-0.546776123639333,0,0,0,0,1.6
gunstation.2=3,21,8,0.00,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0 ,0,0,0,0,0

Most of the time, the number in Red is 14 to 18.5, depending on the whim of the day. I may be stepping on toes here, so be aware that it's a Personal Preference !

SC
:kilroy:

[Rami]

Fibber,

I have had no such problems with the "F" and "G" models for the B-17, but I'll look into it while I'm creating the Frantic missions.

As far as the airbase IDs, these are what I used for ALL of my Europe campaigns.

[runway.xx]
id=8018
name=England - Watton
base_lat=N52 33.75
base_lon=E0 51.77
base_alt=67
heading=102
allegiance=0
units_across=2
takeoff_start_pos=-950,0
takeoff_stop_pos=950,200
landing_start_pos=5000,350
landing_touchdown_pos=500,0
landing_stop_pos=-250,0

[runway.xx]
id=8019
name=England - Ridgewell
base_lat=N52 02.68
base_lon=E0 33.68
base_alt=81
heading=93
allegiance=0
units_across=2
takeoff_start_pos=-960,0
takeoff_stop_pos=960,200
landing_start_pos=5000,350
landing_touchdown_pos=500,0
landing_stop_pos=-250,0

[runway.xx]
id=8020
name=England - Framlingham
base_lat=N52 12.01
base_lon=E1 24.52
base_alt=17
heading=90
allegiance=0
units_across=2
takeoff_start_pos=-925,0
takeoff_stop_pos=925,200
landing_start_pos=5000,350
landing_touchdown_pos=500,0
landing_stop_pos=-250,0

[runway.xx]
id=8021
name=England - Sculthorpe
base_lat=N52 50.72
base_lon=E0 45.85
base_alt=22
heading=53
allegiance=0
units_across=2
takeoff_start_pos=-960,0
takeoff_stop_pos=960,200
landing_start_pos=5000,350
landing_touchdown_pos=500,0
landing_stop_pos=-250,0

[runway.xx]
id=8022
name=England - Bovingdon
base_lat=N51 44.00
base_lon=W0 33.16
base_alt=160
heading=37
allegiance=0
units_across=2
takeoff_start_pos=-630,0
takeoff_stop_pos=630,200
landing_start_pos=5000,350
landing_touchdown_pos=500,0
landing_stop_pos=-250,0

[runway.xx]
id=8023
name=England - Thurleigh
base_lat=N52 12.95
base_lon=W0 27.53
base_alt=79
heading=51
allegiance=0
units_across=2
takeoff_start_pos=-870,0
takeoff_stop_pos=870,200
landing_start_pos=5000,350
landing_touchdown_pos=500,0
landing_stop_pos=-250,0

[Devildog73]

Fibber,
I use: 1d1*18.4 with all of my aircraft with .50cals. I have shot a .50cal more than I like to admit and I can tell you that it flat tears through steel and sheet aluminum! A .50cal tracer will light up an aircraft, truck, tank, jeep, etc. fuel tank immediately.

If I remember right most of the modelers at M$ use some unrealisticly low number like 14. You exhaust all of your rounds before you splash a Zero, Betty, or Nell. I have seen some .50cals with as low as 11.

Even set at 18.4 you have to actually hit the target aircraft more than once or twice to do any damage. I might have mine set a touch heavy, but I think 18.4 is what 1% a/c are set at from the 1% crew. I certainly would not go any lower on a .50cal than 16 if you think that 18.4 is heavy.

[Fibber]

Waaaaaaaaaaaaay back ( too far back for me to want to remember) I had shot the 50's.
It is just that the 50's, I am asking about seem to be set unrealisticly high.

NEWS BULLETIN.... THIS JUST IN!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THE ELEVATOR HAS HIT THE TOP FLOOR AND THE LIGHT HAS REPORTABLY GONE ON IN FIBBERS HEAD!
I am now going to grovel at the feet of the FDGv2 group and beg for forgiveness. I had confused the bullet weight and effectiveness number. Also the Planes that I really was looking at were the DB Corsairs. The F4U-1A there is rated 1d1*39.
Too many Corsairs in my stable! Told you I was getting too edumicated!:icon_lol:

Rami the one I am referring to is the "E".

[tonybones2112]

Fibber,
I use: 1d1*18.4 with all of my aircraft with .50cals. I have shot a .50cal more than I like to admit and I can tell you that it flat tears through steel and sheet aluminum! A .50cal tracer will light up an aircraft, truck, tank, jeep, etc. fuel tank immediately.

If I remember right most of the modelers at M$ use some unrealisticly low number like 14. You exhaust all of your rounds before you splash a Zero, Betty, or Nell. I have seen some .50cals with as low as 11.

Even set at 18.4 you have to actually hit the target aircraft more than once or twice to do any damage. I might have mine set a touch heavy, but I think 18.4 is what 1% a/c are set at from the 1% crew. I certainly would not go any lower on a .50cal than 16 if you think that 18.4 is heavy.

I agree, I've fired the M2 .50 at the machine gun shoots and I'll stick with the 18.4 and then extrapolate up or down from there for non-exploding rounds. I set German and Japanese 13.2 mm at 19.2 due to them both being close ballistically, plus the fact I fired the German 13.2 that was modified in late war use for infantry due to there being more guns than airplanes. With licenses, fees, and bribes to ATF of close to five grand plus the cost of the gun(27k)and rounds reloaded custom at 4 bucks a shot, it's an expensive hobby. Yes, the 13.2 had that little extra oomph but due to the pea-brain weapons doctrines of such as Willi Messserchmidt and the overly optomistic Japanese you're not going to find the .55 in any cluster of more than two(The A6M5c had an extra one in the nose besides the two wing .55s)and then some cannon so in a Gustav or 109-F you best be as Galland said, a marksman.

Jesus wept.

I don't know the gentleman who wrote the weapons thing at Caleb's but I salute his efforts. I read his table, got out my books and my own life-long experience with weapons and discarded his table as a guide for personal use. If I were an online competitor, which I have no plans on being, if his table was the standard, I'd gladly conform in the interests of chivalry and fair play. I know all about the "cheat" aircraft. If I have to cheat at a game I have no desire to play it(except for casino gambling, I am a card counter who can spook through a 3 hole deck). ADD has it's advantages. I'm going to cite as an example why I would set the .308 NATO round at 11 and the .30 Browning at 12.2. The .308 is of the same muzzle velocity as the 30.06 Browning round which is why, with it's smaller case of 51 mm length due to improved powder, more rounds can be carried, theoretically. What's the difference? The .308 uses a 150 grain bullet, the .30 Browning is at least 180 and sometimes goes above 200 grains, a 200+ grain bullet going out at the same velocity as a 150 is gonna hit with a bit more Come Hither. The Jap 7.7, the Brit .303, the Russian 7.62x54 are all rounds I would go confidently into battle with, they perform at my scale of 11 as they are basically the same round in performance. Of course the .308 has no aircraft use except on some postwar observation/light bomber/recon and choppers, plus the .30 minigun, I cite it merely as an example of practical vs theroretical hair-splitting. The German 7.92 is a bit superior to these 3 rounds and approaching if not equal to the .30 Browning.

Now, it might be successfully argued I don't know dick about much, but I do know how to make a hideously decomposed body viewable for a funeral, I know how to make an electric guitar talk, and I know my guns. I don't know what possessed some designers to set the Hurricane .303s at 3.2, I set them for 11, all 12 of them, and go for a little realistic carnage. Whatever any of you set yours at is not a problem with me, and in competative flying I would gladly conform to the given standard.

Bones

[JapLance]

I don't know what possessed some designers to set the Hurricane .303s at 3.2, I set them for 11, all 12 of them, and go for a little realistic carnage. Whatever any of you set yours at is not a problem with me, and in competative flying I would gladly conform to the given standard.

Tony, just remember that gun destructive power is only one part of the equation. Those rounds are going against the damage points in the receiving plane. This is why the 1% planes should only be used against other planes of the same class: damage points are relative to the destruction power of the weapons.

I went through this when I started my journey in CFS2, and decided to more or less use the 14 stock figure for a .50/12.7mm guns as a base, and then make the rest of weapons and damage points to more or less suit. In the end I'll probably never have a 100% working CFS2 install (so many damn good planes to use :ernae: , and still new ones comig out), but it's funny and make me learn a lot about the planes I change.

[Fibber]

Thanks, that is what I wanted to know. I think I previously stated that it was the early '17 ,Fortress 2 that was the problem. No matter what the flap power setting it goes "plop, plop ,fizz fizz!!". The F & G models no problemo!

[bearcat241]

Fibber,
I use: 1d1*18.4 with all of my aircraft with .50cals. I have shot a .50cal more than I like to admit and I can tell you that it flat tears through steel and sheet aluminum! A .50cal tracer will light up an aircraft, truck, tank, jeep, etc. fuel tank immediately.

If I remember right most of the modelers at M$ use some unrealisticly low number like 14. You exhaust all of your rounds before you splash a Zero, Betty, or Nell. I have seen some .50cals with as low as 11.

Even set at 18.4 you have to actually hit the target aircraft more than once or twice to do any damage. I might have mine set a touch heavy, but I think 18.4 is what 1% a/c are set at from the 1% crew. I certainly would not go any lower on a .50cal than 16 if you think that 18.4 is heavy.


I use even higher dice values for my .50 Cals, to account for the slightly higher velocity hitting power of the AN/M2 used on WW2 fighter aircraft and especially the APHEI ammo they packed, which i don't think the MS designers nor many aftermarket designers have taken into account. For obvious reasons, this config was superior to the standard M2 with non-explosive AP rounds used by infantry, armor and soft vehicles. The explosive incendiary effect of the APHEI round combined with the ripsaw effect of the AN/M2's higher velocity and ROF could be even more devastating than several solid hits from a 20 mm cannon.

A good testament to this was the continued use of the AN/M2 and AN/M3 with API ammo well into the 50's with the F-86 Sabre. I've seen camera footage of Sabres literally shredding Migs by chunks. Of course, at 500mph plus, some of this shredding was likely aided by aerodynamic stress on the damaged airframes also.

Fibber, regarding the problemos with the early B-17, i would recommend using the aircraft.cfg and air files of the better-working F model in it. I'm assuming that the early model you refer to is the early F model. Back up the cfg of the early "P-P-F-F" model. Now open the cfg's of the early model and the better F model side by side with notepad. Copy and paste the sections of [fltsim.0] (the entire top header section with aircraft title and stuff), [WEIGHT_AND_BALANCE], [contact_points], [Views] and [LIGHTS] from the early model into the same sections of the better model's cfg. Then click FILE at the top left, Save As and browse to the folder of the early model. This will prompt an overwrite message of the current early's cfg. Choose YES.

Now you can back up the early's *.air file and copy and paste the *.air file of the better model into the early's folder and make sure to rename it same as the early's original air file. I found some technical inconsistencies in the early F's FDE which i think are related to your problem, mainly that its FDE may be more tuned for MSFS flight dynamics than the others are. Using AirEd, compare the horiz and vert stabilizer area sq. ft. in records 1205 and 1206 of the early F air file to the late F and G models. Also note the efficiency factors and incidences. There appears to be huge discrepancies that could have a major impact on lift performance and steering.

[Sandydog]

Fibber, regarding the problemos with the early B-17, i would recommend using the aircraft.cfg and air files of the better-working F model in it. I'm assuming that the early model you refer to is the early F model. Back up the cfg of the early "P-P-F-F" model. Now open the cfg's of the early model and the better F model side by side with notepad. Copy and paste the sections of [fltsim.0] (the entire top header section with aircraft title and stuff), [WEIGHT_AND_BALANCE], [contact_points], [Views] and [LIGHTS] from the early model into the same sections of the better model's cfg. Then click FILE at the top left, Save As and browse to the folder of the early model. This will prompt an overwrite message of the current early's cfg. Choose YES.

Now you can back up the early's *.air file and copy and paste the *.air file of the better model into the early's folder and make sure to rename it same as the early's original air file. I found some technical inconsistencies in the early F's FDE which i think are related to your problem, mainly that its FDE may be more tuned for MSFS flight dynamics than the others are. Using AirEd, compare the horiz and vert stabilizer area sq. ft. in records 1205 and 1206 of the early F air file to the late F and G models. Also note the efficiency factors and incidences. There appears to be huge discrepancies that could have a major impact on lift performance and steering.

Bearcat's correct in the above, you can easily substitute the data from any of the -17s to any of the others to make it fly the way you like.

If you're talking about the E-model, I set that one up, as I remember, to successfully take off and actually fly (well, mush) only if you were very careful about weight and balance; For example, it's simply NOT going to take off at full overload with maximum fuel and every dag blag bomb you can pile in. Select the appropriate fuel load for range, tailor the bombload appropriately, and you'll get off the ground as the runway ends (most of the time) with 20% flaps, a tailwind, a good windup before releasing the brakes, and a prayer. Flaps must be maintained and a very slow climb rate (about 100fpm) held until somewhere around 120kts, then go to 10% flaps and continue the slow climb rate until maybe 130 and the flaps can be raised fully. 250fpm then is possible, and that was as I remember the realistic rate of climb for the aircraft.
I believe that there are weight and load instructions in the checklist documents for all of the series; The E was my favourite, and I made it handle and fly easily only when lightly loaded. When it's packing some weight, the flight characteristics are atrocious until the weight is reduced. It does pretty well by the time it gets to 20000ft. . .
I still enjoy flying the thing this way, it's a heckuva challenge.

[Fibber]

Sandydog;
That is what had be perplexed with the "E". I was doing Free Flight, no load 20 % flaps and would get a good speed before I rotated. Then it would fly a short distance then just settle down. No matter what I tried. Zero angle of attack with level flight of about 100 feet and plop! The others I have no problem. Twenty flaps, no load, stand on breaks, full rev and let it roll the whole way and lifto! That is why I was wondering about it. Have to retry some more with new settings.