Echo38

I agree--except it's not really "fixing" the Mustang, as the one we have isn't necessarily "wrong," but--rather--it's adding a more appropriately-matched historical configuration. : )

I'm not sure I understand you two. Are you saying that the K4 never ran at 1.8 ata without MW50? Or, never ran "significantly," that is, having seen extensive combat in that configuration? That is, are you saying that a 67" P-51D versus a 1.8 ata 109K without MW50 is not a historical matchup? Would you mind listing all of the extensively-used-in-combat WEP ratings for the 109K, from lowest to highest, as I did for the P-51D, including any required fuel type, presence of MW50, etc.? It's been too long since I've looked at the fuel-type issue, and it gets very complicated quickly (and that's without special-interest types mucking it up). Not all inches of mercury are created equal. : ) In other words, MAP alone doesn't tell the whole story. For example, a 109's Daimler-Benz @ somewhere around 1.98 ata (= ~60", you say) had something like 2000 hp, while the P-38's Allison had to be somewhere around 80" to output 2000 hp. Unless I'm very mistaken, that is--mind you, it's been a few years since I really looked at this, but when I did the calculations, I determined that the P-38 had to be about 75 or 80 inches to get similar horsepower to the max-tested 109. And, of course, horsepower alone doesn't tell you everything about the actual thrust, either. There's propeller type and all that. So, I think you're being a bit misleading (unintentionally, no doubt) when you post that side-by-side comparison of inches-of-mercury. It makes it look like I'm suggesting that the P-51 get much more power than the 109, but that isn't the case. I'm suggesting similar areas of contemporary ratings, which--not coincidentally--ends up in a rather good approximation of balance. Neither one of these aircraft dominated the other in real life, when logistical problems (pilot training, fuel quality, manufacturing defects, etc.) weren't getting in the way. Which they usually were, to the P-51's favor, but I really don't want the 109 crippled by logistics. I simply want the P-51 to have one of its slightly-higher-than-the-lowest historical ratings, to make it less of an underdog relative to the 109. 72" to the P-51 would be both historical and more fair&balanced than the current situation of lowest-rated P-51D versus mid/high rated 109K. The question is, does ED intend to do it, and when? And what viable workarounds can mission makers enact in the meantime?

Barring individual variation, it's the lowest-performing example of all P-51Ds without rocket racks, yes. As for the 109, I'm not certain that it's the best configuration that ever saw combat (as you see, there's still contention on that point), but out of all the ones that ever saw combat, it's either mid-range or high-end (as opposed to the low-end rating of our P-51). Mid-range if 1.98 did see extensive combat, high-end if 1.98 was just a trial thing. P-51D WEP ratings: 67", 72," 75," 81" Me 109K WEP ratings: 1.8 ata, 1.8 ata + MW50, 1.98 ata + MW50 72" was officially authorized & saw extensive combat. 1.8 ata + MW50 was officially authorized and saw extensive combat. 1.98 is in doubt, as is 75". I'm not sure about 81", but the way I hear it, the British officially used it, while the USAAF never officially used it. Sourced corrections from those who've done serious, objective research on the subject would be very welcome, as this entire matter is hazy & unpleasantly obscured by biased parties on both sides. Now, if picking only the lowest rating for the P-51D, but the mid/high rating for the 109K, were done to ensure that the two aircraft were were balanced against each other in mulitplayer, then I'd be happy with that. But that isn't the case. The 109 is already going to tend to be a better dogfighter than the P-51, because of their nature. As noted by ED reps, even 72" isn't going to make the P-51 a great dogfighter compared to the 109. Thus, it makes no sense from a balance perspective (nor from a historical-accuracy perspective) to choose the lowest historical rating for the P-51 & a mid/high-end rating for the 109, when the P-51 is already going to tend to be at a disadvantage in adversarial multiplayer, due to its higher mass & its wing design. If there's a problem, the best thing to do is to minimize it, not to exacerbate it. In any multiplayer WWII aircraft sim, most of the combat will occur below 20,000 feet. It's the nature of the average simmer not wanting to play real war & fly around for hours without seeing combat. Saying, "The unfair disparity between WEP ratings doesn't matter, because you should be flying at 30,000 feet all the time, anyway" isn't a viable workaround. Fact is, most simmers aren't willing to spend 95% of their time out of combat, climbing to extreme altitude and then searching extensively for another simmer who's done the same. Therefore, picking a historical matchup which is better suited for the low & medium altitude fights that usually occur in multiplayer, is a far better choice than picking a matchup which is fair at high alt, but gives one side an unfair advantage at normal multiplayer altitudes. It isn't as though the real P-51s were usually this outclassed when the fight did get down low, you know. So it isn't as though the current situation is any more historically-accurate than the proposed, more-fair one. And that brings me back to one of my original points, more directly relevant to this thread: has ACG tried a mission where the 109K is at its lowest-rating, like the P-51D is? I don't believe this is a magical solution, as I suspect it may merely reverse the disparity. But if it hasn't been seriously tried (meaning, the public played such a mission for a few weeks), then it really ought to be. It just might work, and if it doesn't, then nothing was lost. Even if the 109K without MW50 turns out to be outmatched by the 67" P-51D, then that's just a couple of weeks that the 109 pilots get to experience what the P-51 pilots have been dealing with for many months. And if it turns out that the 109K without MW50 is a good match for the P-51D at normal multiplayer altitudes, well, then problem solved!

I'm not an expert on the 109, but--are you sure about that? I hear conflicting things, but the general consensus seems to be that 1.98 ata never actually saw combat (or never saw combat more than a small handful of times), and that 1.8 ata with MW50 was the highest authorized rating which saw widespread combat. Either way, the P-51D is much farther below its max historical rating than the 109K is from its own. Same with the averages. For such a discussion, by the way, "historical" really needs to be clarified. We're likely to be using several different definitions which oppose each other, within the context of the conversation. I'm specifically referring to WEP ratings ("boost pressures") which were officially authorized for operational use, and saw significant combat.

Ground targets seem like they'd only exacerbate the problem, because it'd force the combat to be even lower than it already is. Generally, I've found combat to occur somewhere around 10,000 feet, in multiplayer flight sims. With close bases, usually a couple thousand feet lower. But if it's a GA mission, then there's not much choice but for combat to occur below 5000 feet. I don't remember the P-51D's power curve, exactly, but I think it's even worse at <5000 ft. than it is at 10–15k. The best solution would be to get one of the slightly-higher historical ratings for the P-51, but if ED isn't going to do that anytime soon, then there are very few good options. One thing I'd like to see people try is setting up the mission with the lower-boost 109. I suspect it might result in the same problem, but in reverse (that is, P-51 dominance instead of 109 dominance), but--AFAIK--it hasn't ever really been tried. It's surely worth checking out. The only other thing I can think of would be a high-altitude mission with air starts. I really don't like air starts, myself, but I don't know how else P-51s are going to be able to effectively fight a 109 when the latter is running much closer to max rating. The 109 generally was a better dogfighter than the P-51, with contemporary ratings, because similar power and less mass. So, the 109's already going to tend to be better in the dogfight than the P-51. The problem gets serious when you bring in a rating disparity problem, as well as low altitudes.

If they're facing exclusively 190s, then yes--it seems odd for the P-51s to hang around their ack-ack all day. However, if they're also facing 109s, then that's really all the P-51s can do. Anything else is suicide, assuming even pilot count/skillpool. Aside from the mission altitude favoring the 109, the P-51D is stuck with lowest of its authorized WEP ratings which saw combat--unlike the 109, which has approximately the best of its authorized boost ratings which saw combat. The result of these combined factors: the 109 out-runs, out-climbs, and out-turns the P-51. That's effectively holding all the cards. Not literally all of them, of course, but those three are the ones that really matter in hard combat. So, whenever the teams are numerically even (or weighted toward red), then expect P-51s to hang around their AAA. There really isn't much more they can do, against 109s. That's what happens when you pit a low-boost example of a P-51D versus a high-boost example of a 109K, at low or medium altitude.

Why do more people want to fly on the red team?

FYI: some of the slighter increases in WEP rating on some of these birds didn't require a special fuel type. I don't know about the P-51, specifically, but the P-38J (factory WEP rating: 60") was officially authorized (& recommended) to run a few inches higher, on the standard fuel. It was the more extreme increases which officially required the special high-grade fuel (which came with its own problems, by the way). It's been a while, and I don't remember all the details, but I do have a few copies of document scans authorizing 64," 66," & 70" for the P-38J & L, and at least one of those ratings was cleared for the standard fuel, with the caveat that it'd wear out the engines faster than the same rating on the recommended fuel. I'm pretty sure the P-51 went through a similar process, but I don't remember for sure; sorry. You can find this stuff on Mike William's site. There might be other resources, too, but I don't know of any (and would love to hear if anyone does). One thing to bear in mind is that some of the higher ratings were cleared for testing, but not necessarily combat. For example, I'm looking at a scan right now which says that the P-38J was cleared for 75," but this appears to be a test document and not an authorization for combat. There may or may not have been an actual combat authorization for 75" P-38s; I don't have any such scans, and don't recall seeing any, so I currently assume that it wasn't authorized for combat. This approach, of course, should be taken with the P-51, as well. It can be easy to assume that a document clearing an airplane/engine for a certain rating means it saw widespread use, but this isn't necessarily the case. But some of the less-extreme increases (e.g. 72" on the P-51) have been well-documented. Anyway, bit of a tangent. Main point was that a special fuel was not needed for a moderate increase in WEP rating, above factory, for at least some of these airplanes. It simply wore out the engines faster if the right fuel wasn't used, but it was judged a net benefit to have more emergency power available at the cost of increased engine failure risk (and I agree with the brass on this one).

I don't think anyone is asking for anything of the sort. I said that a G-6 would be a ~balanced match for our factory P-51D, not the best P-51D configuration. There's a huge difference between factory and best. Yes, anything better than a factory P-51D would be gross overkill for a standard G-6. An 81" P-51D, or even a 72" P-51D, would be a ridiculous match for a G-6, and it's a strawman to suggest that this is what I/we want. I want no such mismatch. 67" P-51D vs. 109G-6 would surely be a fair match, at least at normal multiplayer altitudes. While the G-6 is an earlier airplane than the D, the G-6 was still a common enough opponent for the P-51D, historically. The two would be on roughly even footing in multiplayer (P-51 having a bit more speed, 109G-6 having better climb & turn). The G-6 would struggle at high altitudes, yes, but how often do DCS users fight up at 30,000+ ft.? And there's still room for play with different configurations of G-6, to get the closest match when taking high-alt into consideration, too. The 72" P-51D would be best matched with something like an Me 109G-14, I think. Not entirely sure exactly which 109 model/block/configuration would be the best match (competitive & historical). 72" P-51D is probably still a bit too weak for the K-4 configuration we have, at least at low/medium alt, but 72" is clearly too strong for a G-6. Besides, there's too much of a chronological difference between the latter two, even though there was likely some overlap. Thus, a 109 somewhere between G-6 and K-4 would be best match for a 72" P-51. The 109K is a bit of a puzzle. As I understand it, we've got a K-4 that's on (or near) the upper end of the historical range. It's running 1.8 ata with MW50, which is the most high-end configuration which is known to have seen mass combat use, right? 1.8 ata with MW50 is more powerful than 1.8 without MW50, but not as powerful as 1.98 ata. But it's also doubtful whether the 1.98 saw mass combat use. Did I get all that right? I'm not an expert on the K-4, I'm afraid. Now, the best competitive match for our {1.8 ata + MW50} K-4 would be the 75" P-51D, as far as I can tell. However, I don't think that this was a historically-common match; while I suspect that there were 75" P-51Ds which occasionally encountered 109Ks, I've never seen official documentation to that effect. Thus, I wouldn't actually suggest this match be implemented, as long as there is doubt that 75" was a standard configuration. Meanwhile, in order to find a competitive match for a 109K that's configured to the max (1.98 ata), we'd probably need to go all the way up to the 81" boost which (I've been told) the British used on their Mustangs. Obviously, that'd be quite excessive for the 1.8 ata 109K. It might even be overkill for the 1.98 ata K-4; I really don't know. On one hand, 81" is crazy-high; on the other hand, the 109 is quite a bit lighter, and 1.98 ata is also a pretty damn high pressure. IMO, this "match" is pretty dodgy, on both sides; neither one seems to have been very common, and I'm not a fan of the "arms race to superplanes." I personally would not want to see either 81" or 1.98 ata; this is a hypothetical matchup, to get a better picture of the overall comparison between the two aircraft (e.g. how far from the extremes are the current & suggested ratings). The good news is that there are plenty of models/blocks/configurations for the pair, which faced each other commonly enough to be rightly called a historical match, and that leaves plenty of room for picking models/blocks/configurations which are competitively balanced with each other (that is, which tend to score roughly even against each other, when both are flown by pilots who know the two ships well). The bad news is that it'd be quite a bit of work for Eagle Dynamics to implement every model/block/configuration, and so we can't expect any new models/blocks from them in the forseeable future. But that doesn't rule out additional (historical) horsepower ratings for the current engines. I earnestly believe that the best solution overall would be a 72" P-51D to face our current 109K. 72" was definitely used extensively, so it's a historical match, and while the 72" P-51D still probably won't quite hold up to our K-4 at normal multiplayer altitudes, it'd be a lot closer to being even, competitively, than the current 67" one is. Increasing the MAP to 72" would also require the least amount of additional work for ED, so all three points (still historically common, improved competitive balance, & the least development time) point to this being the best solution, rather than asking ED to start adding lots of different models/blocks/configurations, or to incorporate configurations which aren't known to have been historically common. Here's a list of all the matchups I've examined for the P-51D, with the current matchup and suggested matchup in bold text. Naturally, all of the ones which have a model other than 109K are off the table, for development workload reasons. 67" P-51D vs. higher-end 109G-6 72" P-51D vs. 109G-10 72" P-51D vs. 109G-14 67" P-51D vs. 1.8 109K - imbalance, P-51's favor? 67" P-51D vs. 1.8 MW50 109K - imbalance, 109's favor 72" P-51D vs. 1.8 MW50 109K - best balanced historical match for our 109K 75" P-51D vs. 1.8 MW50 109K - historically questionable 81" P-51D vs. 1.98 109K - historically dubious There may be models/blocks/variants in between G-6 and K, which might be a more appropriate match than G-10 & G-14, but I don't hear much about the ones between G-6 and G-10.

In real life, many P-51Ds were running at a higher WEP rating (72" instead of the factory 67"), giving it a few hundred more horsepower. This makes a big difference, as more power means better turn, climb, speed, acceleration, etc. So, yes, the DCS portrayal isn't exactly an accurate picture of how P-51 vs. Me 109 combat usually went. Pilot disparity (later in the war, after most of the German experts had been killed) was indeed a huge factor, but the P-51D itself was, on average, better in reality than it is in the sim, and the average 109 was (as Solty pointed out) also a worse model than the K. Which isn't to say that the airplanes are modelled wrong, mind you. We have a pretty damn accurate simulation of a factory-fresh P-51D. In reality, many P-51Ds did run at factory settings, too, so it isn't incorrect to model a factory-rated P-51D. It's just that, from a historical accuracy & competitive balance point of view, a factory-rated P-51D vs. an Me 109K was a poor choice. They did it for reasons of data availability, and that's understandable, but you see the downside. You can have both aircraft simulated correctly, but still have an inaccurate picture of how the two compared, on average, because we've got two examples which approach opposite extremes: an example of a below-average P-51D, pitted against an above-average example of a contemporary 109. Except for the odd "lemon" or battle-worn one, you'd have a hard time finding a historical example of a P-51D that performed more poorly than this one (since it's using the lowest WEP setting ever rated for combat P-51Ds). And while you can find examples of a 109Ks that performed better than ours, ours is a lot closer to its "best" and farther from its "worst" than our P-51D. To summarize: the problem is that, due to modelling data availability, a lower-end P-51D was chosen, but a higher-end Me 109. Neither one is necessarily modelled wrong (although there might be a bug or two around still, affecting performance; I don't know), but neither is the simulated scenario an accurate picture of how the two airplanes usually compared (even barring the pilot experience and combat altitude issues, which both compound the situation).

Huh. Well, I would do a complete uninstall & reinstall, then. (No deactivation or activation should be necessary.) It's a huge pain, I know, but I can't think of anything else.

You know, if people are going to completely breeze over my troubleshooting suggestions, without even acknowledging (much less trying) them, I'm going to have little choice but to assume that some people are complaining for the sake of complaining. The two most likely causes of the perceived effect are A) user error or B) config file corruption between versions. I gave some detailed, straight-forward instructions on how to definitively check whether or not B is the problem, but those who claim that there's an FM change are acting as though I hadn't even mentioned it, which causes me to question the legitimacy of their complaint.

Do you have both versions installed? If so, sounds like you have enough to make a side-by-side video. Make sure the same mission is being used, same difficulty options, trim settings, etc. Do a hands-off takeoff both ways, and we can see any difference. But before you do that, there's a couple of things I don't think anyone's suggested yet. Firstly: have you loaded up your mission and saved it again in each different version? That is, if you're going to play Takeoff.mis in 1.5, you load it in the 1.5 mission editor, save it, and then play it. If you're going to play Takeoff.mis in 2.0, you load it in the 2.0 mission editor, save it, and then play it. Secondly (if that doesn't work), have you tried moving your C:\Users\[you]\Saved Games\DCS directory? Don't delete it (it has all your missions and replays and such), but just move it to e.g. your Desktop. This will cause a new directory with default settings to be generated next time you open DCS. Then, open the sim, set your difficulty options, and bind whatever controls you need to take off. You don't need to rebind everything, just the basics (pitch, roll, yaw, throttle, brakes; you can use the mouse for everything else). Close the sim, copy the mission you want to fly into the newly-generated directory, and restart the sim. Try taking off; does the problem remain? If the problem remains, then I'd undo the change (move the new C:\Users\[you]\Saved Games\DCS to Recycle Bin, then move the old one from Desktop back into C:\Users\[you]\Saved Games) and make the side-by-side video described in the first paragraph of this post. If, on the other hand, the problem is solved, then you'll need to rebind all your functions and hand-move all of your other setting files (ones which won't over-write your binds) back into the appropriate directory.

One thing to bear in mind: even the best simulations in the world can't 100% accurately depict reality, in fields with a high degree of chaos. A few days ago, while idly reading NASA articles about the cosmic-scale motion of galaxies, I saw a NASA image comparing their simulation projection with actual measured results. I just now spent twenty minutes trying to find it again, but I'm afraid I can't remember exactly what the simulation was of. (Cosmic radiation background? Dark flow?) Anyway, with the image in question, the general core of the image was the same in both cases, but the simulation image was much more uniform in distribution, while the actual measured data was highly irregular in its outlying points. This was a NASA simulation, using the best computers & software in the world, and it still was visibly mismatched from the actual results. Simulations involve prediction, but chaos is defined by unpredictability. When you get fields that are sufficiently chaotic, like fluid physics, even the best simulations in the world are going to have a fair margin of error. In most cases, high-fidelity flight simulators have a margin of ~5%, but in particularly complex areas, such as stalls & spins, that margin can be higher. This is especially problematic when it isn't possible to confirm with actual testing. Thus, we cannot expect the stall modelling to be perfect, in DCS or any other P.C. flight simulator, no matter how intelligent & dedicated its creators are. Simply put, simulations differ from actuality in sufficiently chaotic fields. Humanity doesn't possess the capability, at present, to calculate some of this stuff with 100% accuracy. P.C. gaming hardware imposes further limits. I'm very impressed with what we have in DCS, as ten years ago I was telling my friends that I wished for something like this, but thought it could never happen. I'm immeasurably glad that we have a best-in-world simulation of these wonderful antique airplanes. There's no great commercial drive for a simulator like this; if ED were in it for the money, they'd surely have moved to something more popular. This is a work of love, and it's a damn good one.

I'd like to echo that. Above & beyond. : )

OMG! So evil! I fell for it. : D

I don't think that was a joke. I'd guess that there's a greater abundance of test data for the US engines.

This brings back some old memories. I recall, perhaps ten years ago, on another forum, a discussion on climb rate methods. If I remember well, the consensus was that USAAF and Luftwaffe climb test methods differed significantly. Something like: USAAF procedure was measured from takeoff, while Luftwaffe procedure was more similar to what you describe. But, that's just my recollection, from memory, of hearsay. Before we can determine whether or not the 109 is over-climbing, I think, it would first be necessary to definitely settle this issue of climb rate procedure, with appropriate documentation. It would affect the results largely, of course, if it were not being properly accounted for. Hopefully, I'm "late to the party," with this already discussed & concluded in one of the recent threads on the subject, but I don't see anything about it in this one. I would assume that Yo-Yo knows about this issue, because he is far more knowledgeable on the entire subject than I am; however, it is still worth confirming that this has been accounted for. Hmm. I wonder what those little "hooks" at the bottom of that climb rate graph mean ... the temporary spikes in climb rate from sea level to 1000m. I can't tell if that's the climb rate rising as the pilot pulls back on the stick, before peak sustained climb rate is established? Surely it doesn't take 1000m for that to happen, though. Is it, instead, that the test was begun at wheels-up, after all, and the spike is the result of going from takeoff speed to best climb speed, before starting to naturally drop as altitude is gained? Puzzling.

I don't see the difference; sorry. Replace my term "relative balance" with "relative performance" and the point I was trying to make remains the same. In the manner in which I was using the term, "relative balance" equates to "relative performance." E.g. the aircraft (using the mean of individual examples for the given model/block/configuration) that was historically faster (at a given altitude, power setting, etc.), stays faster, and so on. But, it looks to me that we're pretty much saying the same thing, and are simply getting caught up on definitions. We both agree that the accuracy of the simulation is fine, as long as each of the aircraft is within the appropriate historical mean for its respective configuration, and the distances from that mean are similar enough that there isn't a reversal of common comparative traits. Yes? All that said: if the 109K is using 109G drag, then I do hope that Yo-Yo can eventually replicate K drag, when the info & time-budget allows for such. But, if the current performance is within historical mean for K, then the extra drag can be accounted for by manufacturing variation. Not ideal, but acceptable, particularly when relative performance roughly matches opponent aircraft. There are other issues which have a greater impact on the accuracy of the picture, at present, than getting every specific example 1% closer to its mean.

It includes original documentation listing the conditions of the test(s)? All I could find on that, from the links you posted in this thread, was your statement. If I overlooked a relevant link, my apologies.

Problem is, I don't see all the referenced document scans where they're supposed to be. I see a web page with transcriptions, but no way to know that those are true to the originals. I can't take one forum-goer's word for it, and I don't think Yo-Yo will, either.

I agree with what Rel4y said: it should be modelled as accurately as possible, regardless of what its opponent aircraft's accuracy-of-modelling is. "Two wrongs don't make a right," and all that. If the relative balance is thrown off by making one aircraft more correct, then the correct solution is to then make the other aircraft more correct, too. The relative balance will then take care of itself. Which doesn't mean I believe that there's an error, in this case. Again, if there is, then it should be corrected, regardless of what that does to the 109 vs. P-51 relative balance. (And then the P-51 amended, too, if it has an error as well.) However, it remains to be determined whether there actually is an error in the 109's modelling. Looking at the links, I'm not seeing an unbroken connection between documents and conclusions. Although I disagree with the statement that relative balance is all that matters, Crumpp raises a valid point: if the aircraft are both within their historical range, then relative balance becomes more important than getting each aircraft exactly to the mean of its performance range. For example, if both aircraft are on the slow side of their historical averages, but by the same approximate percentage, then there is no real problem. Preserved relative balance, check; within historical range of individual variation, check. Good to go. Would it be nice to have both firmly within the exact average? Yeah, but consider what you're asking for, then, and for what gain. If they're already within historical range of individual variation, then that's a miracle by itself. By definition, being within that range makes the sim accurate, and there isn't much to be gained by splitting hairs (and demanding that Yo-Yo move more mountains) to push them more towards that "perfect mean," if there isn't already a relative balance problem. (Now, the more aircraft there are, the more likely it's going to be that relative balance is thrown off for at least one pair of them, if various examples are at opposite extreme ends of their historical range. But, we don't have enough birds for that to be a problem, at this point, and it hasn't been established that some aircraft are at extreme low end, and others at extreme high end, of historically-accurate individual variation.)

Is there a way that the two can be definitively linked? The pictures to the document(s), I mean.

How can we confirm this? Was this in one (or more) of the documents, and I overlooked it?

What's ELITE? I've never heard of a flight sim with that name--unless you count the space game Elite: Dangerous, but somehow I don't think you're talking about that. ; )