Zunzun

Well, I good pilot will kill you in a flying broom (actually he will make a normal broom fly) ;).

A spit IX at 18lbs will be a very good choice. An flying it will be a delight I am sure. This discussion, I think, is more a theoretical one because whatever ED has in mind has already being chosen. But I couldn't resist to comment on it because, in the same way, I do not think LW flyers would have been very happy if they had to fly with G14 and A8s only against, for instance, mustangs at 72". Perfectly historical choice (very historical indeed). There are many variant that can be chosen within a historical frame but if the options are limited then it need to be attractive for everyone. Problem with ww2 is that there were dozens of variants from every plane and with the changes happening in a matter of few months. That kept shifting the airpower balance back and forth during the conflict. That is, in my opinion, what make the air conflict in ww2 so attractive and unique. The air war wasn't fought only in the sky but in the drawing tables and the factories too. That was part of the success with the old il2 46. You could recreate in a good way the whole conflict and enjoy flying the different variants and how this changes in relative performances influenced your tactical approach to air battles. However, DCS focus is different. Quality vs quantity. The focus is in precise simulation (or as precise as current technology can bring). Simulation in il2 46 was very very basic compared to DCs but my point is that ww2 nuts ask (and endlessly discuss) for so many variants mainly because it was an intrinsic part of the conflict.

Mustang at 72hg is an stock option (as stock as the 67hg) is the same comparation between a 109 G14 vs a 109 K4 (1.8ata). Both stock options. Spit ix at 25lbs is an enhance option but historical one. Kurfust at 1.98 is simple a very debatable enhance option. Can´t be considered in the same way as the mustang not even the spit. As I said would put that in line with a spit XIV at 21lbs. Even a spit F21 had more evidence of combat use (even if it was only for sinking an midget submarine).

Not really, in my opinion. I mean, comparing 109 ratings with allied ones; There is good evidence that 8th AF Mustangs were using 72" rating from middle of 44 (in really big numbers). Spit IX were using 25lbs boost in good numbers too with the 2nd TAF from, at least, the beginning of 1945 (And there are some clues that ADGB could have been using their 25lbs spits for fighting more than the V1 menace, at least for a while) while, for what I have seen from previous discussions, there is just very few indirect evidence of K4 used at 1.98 ATA. If used was at the very end of the conflict. Considering the state in which the luftwaffe was at that point then likely in not any meaninful numbers at best (more in line with the presence of spit 21 or Spit XIV at 21lbs). 8th AF mustang at 72" seems quite an easy historical option to add (together with 67"hg to represent 15th and 9th AF). Spit at 25lbs debatable regarding start dates while a 109 at 1.98 is just debatable (unless 109 experts had some other proof since last discussions I saw).

By the time those Pacific mustang were using that settings, war in Europe was over. Maybe at that point they had seen the setting was safe (with the British) so they start using it. As far as I know the pacific Mustangs were same as Europe ones too.

I think Solty's theory quite plausible. That considering the role USAF mustang had to fulfil compared to British ones they preferred more conservative ratings to lengthen engines life.

Add a La-5FN. Some less performance than the La-7 but I like its lines more. Looks more menacing to me.

Weren't the USAF mustang in the pacific using 81" when scorting the b-29? I think I red it somewhere.

+1

That is the point. So much weight on the fact that there is not evidence of combat sorties in Normandy from units using 25lbs when there weren't any k4 nor D9 fighting there. More over, they weren't even commissioned at that point. Nor that I consider the 25lb units a 44 representative plane at all. But hardly can we consider neither D9 nor K4 if we compared its numbers to the other versions (of 190 and 109) that fought during the "whole" of 1944. Obviously the fact is that k4 and D9 are here in DCS (for varied reasons). All good and well. But then, and considering that Normandy map is not going to be historical with the units we will have (well, strictly speaking only the spit IX at 18lb will be historical in Normandy) then I do not see the fuzz about using 25lbs spits because, in all, there were roughly only 3-4 months delay in introduction between D9 and K4 and them. Again, as I think we all can agree that having a perfect historically plane-set and front line situation is not what we really want (most of the allies ground pounding only and hardly seeing an enemy air plane and most of the axis pilots heavily outnumbered, absent in many of the front lines and without enough fuel to launch a sortie in many occasions) then having a non perfect but well balanced plane-set would be a good option. Even if I think that a spit IX at 18lbs will be very competitive and i will very happy with it I also consider that cherry picking only determined historical facts to justify one plane-set is not right either.

I think you misred my post. I was saying exactly the same.

Who is saying ED? Could be a new 3erd party.

So Soviet planes doesn´t fit in an non existing yet map (Normandy) but would do it in a non existing/non announced map (Korea)....:huh: I Do not think would be difficult then to think about a propper easter front map for those non existing neither planned ww2 soviet planes :P

As we do not have a Normandy map yet that is not a good reason. The same as saying we shouldn´t have had any of the current ww2 modules as there isn´t a map historically representative for them yet. Introducing a Russian plane would be the same as when the mustang was first introduced, a rara avis and apparently out of place but a strong signal of things to come. Moreover, is there is a new third party willing to do ww2 soviet planes it will be indepent of any of the other dcs or other 3rd party developments. I would be very happy indeed if they are developed. Even if it is the i-16 with not a good match in the current planeset.

As far as I know you can't lower Y saturation in BOS. You can set a dead zone on the ends of your joystick movement but not on the saturation of the Y axis. In DCS you can do both. In any case, I still do not see it intrinsically as a unfair advantadge to the mustang/dora pilots (compared to 109) unless everyone could be forced to use the same equipment and peripherics. There will always be people with better joystick, longer ones etc.... It may be a disadvantage to 109 driver in this particular case but we would need to check exactly wich part of the curve you are loosing in the K4. At extreme speeds 109 looses pitch authority so it shouldn't be affected much by lowering the Y saturation (you can't loose what you don't have). I think that should be more of a problem closer to corner speeds. On the other hand as the mustang and Dora keep more pitch authority at greater speeds they should be more affected by lowering the Y saturation. But that is mainly because they have better control at those speeds. Would be good if some objetive test could be done to see whether there is actually a problem and its extent.

I think you are comparing apples to oranges. Stiffness of controls with speed for 109 (I suppose is what you are referring to) is what happened in the real plane. Whether this has been properly implemented in the sim is another story (I do not own the 109 to check the problem). On the other hand with the p-51, the short stick of our home joysticks gives an unrealistic (well, in my opinion) control in the mustangs as is very sensitive and twitchy to fine movements . That is mainly due to the difference in length between ours and the real stick (we have smaller arc of movement). In essence lowering Y saturation aims to emulate lengthening the joystick (and comes at a price of losing amplitude of movement on the extremes). I do not think I am cheating because I am using a length extension on my Warthog compared to anyone using the stock version one. Moreover, even with this mod in the warthog, the mustang, in the sim, still feels like a sensitive airplane in pitch movement. Maybe is more a problem in the implementation of the real limitations with the 109 that an unfair advantage to the mustang.

I used to have similar settings before getting the length extension for my warthog. What this setting does is "virtually" extending the length of your joystick at the cost of losing amplitude. I Do not really see it as cheating. On the contrary, I think it is a compromise and, if anything, is making our short joysticks behaving in a more realistic way (compared to the real planes our short joysticks become very sensitive). It is not the same as in a modern jet in wich the control is transmitted to the flying surfaces electronically so the short stick is not a problem. Obviously in the more extremes settings someone could potentially have very unnatural and precise movement in the middle ranges but that would come at the cost of a very reduced amplitude of movement (as Manowar said having more problems for recovering after diving, on landings etc....).

As far as I understand ROC is directly related to acceleration. In this the spit IX would be one of the best. Couple that with the related amazing ROC and second to none turning abilitiy and you have a very dinamic plane. It was indeed a deadly plane in a close range knife fighting type of combat. That is, I think, why the spit at 18lbs was so competitive even in late 1944 (a 25lbs would be much more though). It sure was short on speed and diving acceleration but in the low altitudes the 2nd TAF was involved it wasn´t that important as with the high flying scort duties. And you are not restricted only to furballs. You can B&Z very well in a spit. It have good pitch autority through the whole range of speed and a hard punch. And can flee, if needed, by climbing away. It lacks good roll rate at high speed though but no plane is perfect. Yes, this spit will come with a bag full of tricks ready for the wise pilot to use.

:D

Well, for as long as it is a mission side feature I don't see the problem. If you want fast and quick action you join a casual dogfight. You want a deeper experience you fly an on line war where the aim is not just to shot things down but to recreate ww2 experience as much as possible. Obviously that is debatable as we all will have different opinions in the matters but at least with my squadron had a really fun experience in an online war (in a different sim) with this type of features. In it you have to pay a price for repairing planes (and other things like ammo, fuel.....) and wasn't uncommon for the losing side flying the last mission with a big lack of planes and with several pilots not able to fly at all. It may sound unacceptable for many but for our squadron (and I suppose for our allies and opponent too) was very immersive and enjoyable.

Well, It all depend which time frame and theatre you consider; the Kurfust wasn't a contemporary until October 1944 (and even then it was only started to be introduced). Starting on second half of 1944 and for the following three months spits IX saw lot of action in Normandy (the theatre that DCS will give us) while K4 saw none. I think that none of us would like a perfect historical recreation of ww2 in aerial combat. Don't think many people would have the time or the will to fly a mustang for many hours to Germany and back or the German opposition sitting down for hours until given the go to start the interception. But on the other hand introducing all those factors (random engine problems, repairing, different qualities etc...) would only enrich the virtual flying experience albeit as being an option wouldn't had to be used all the time (you can always relax the rules for more casual dogfights).

That´s the point. Is not forcing you to fly on a badly stricken plane but to making suffer you (and your side) the consequences. You abuse your engine or don´t care about being shot upon then your virtual ground crew will need to repair it. If you dare to fly without that then chances of something "breaking appart" in mid fly got much bigger. Maybe it can be "patched up" but then there is not enough time for overhauling the engine as "front conditions" urge to use any available plane for an important mission and you are "forced" to fly on a underperfoming and dangerous one. Options are limitless. For as long as the sim keeps the record of everything that happen to a plane in the sim (damage to skin, internal structure, system, worn out engine etc....) is up to a online war designer to introduce as much complexity as he/she wants. But don´t get me wrong, that is a feature for really hardcore flying only. Not for a casual dogfight in wich, I can understand, could be quite an annoying feature. But for as long as is something optional I only see technical and developing limitations. In general I don´t see the point of seeking a perfect match between virtual and real planes performances when at the same time having a disregard for the other things that influence airwar in a similar fashion; atrittion, logistic for arming, fuelling, repairing etc.... Even pilots phisiology is something not really simulated in deep and that have a lot of influence.

Indeed. But moreover, would be fantastic if individual planes condition could be recorded and maintained for following missions. This way you could introduce random failures for abused engines or work externally a virtual repair/maintenance service. For a multiplayer virtual war this could introduce the need for caring for the engine and play around with serviceability rates (for example by attacking supply columns or attacking airfields that would lower the moral of the ground crews). All of this can be done externally for as long as the sim keeps an accessible record of the planes status (damage to airframe, engine...) after each mission.

In a recent dogfight with the IA I was hit by a 109 that broke my MAP regulator. Or at least is what I though as all of a sudden I was able to get 70"+. Actually I had to throttle back in order to keep the engine within parameters. Obviously I had some serious fun as, in short bursts of high boost (I feared blowing the engine), I was able to follow the IA 109s in their favourite trick of climbing away out of range.

I think that is also interesting regarding custom harmonization during ww2 in front line units. From "Spitfire the canadians" From the memories fo the armorer of WC Johnnie Johnson: "A Spitfire´s guns were all harmonized, because you wanted them to fire in a certain pattern. Before they were ready for combat, you had to set the aircraft in flying position. There was a sight for each of the guns on the aircraft, and you had to harmonize the guns according to where the pilot set his target. So, he´d set the bull´s eye on the outboard port gun, and you harmonized the barrel of that gun to that target. The pilots all wanted a different cone of fire, because they all fly differently. Some of them wanted a smaller cone of fire, some of them wanted wider".