otto

bad example.No tactics being involved .How about two soldiers with different advantages and disadvantages and one has the advantage of seeing further than the other certainly that gives him a tactical advantage.If you then introduce the team vs team scenario in mp than tactics , formations become even more valuable when you were flying 1 vs 1 duels you could always see your oponent and no tactics involved.People in real life and in Mp most of the time get shot down becasuse they don't see the atack. The p51 has much much better visibility and you should try to play as a team more .Concentrate on things that can be done at the moment and not complain about things that will or will not be available in years.

Why is 72hg so important .I actually want it in game but you can have success without it: Without Mw50 i used 1.42 ata and not 1.8 that would be used with mw50.That is 26% difference in power .So if it's possible to have succes like that it's certainly possible to have success without those 7%. What's better for getting more people into MP ? 1.Showing you can have succes with a weaker plane ? And I've also got five p51 kills with a 61hg p51 because i didn't even set the key for wep and got shot down only once. TN9oHgP13BA I have more but i'll have to look for it. 2.Complaining constantly how weak your plane is and ending up with bunch of contradictions: You're contradictiong yourself. if you watch the videos you will see that i shoot pairs of p51s flyng in formation so that would mean they fly as a team + 2 vs 1 fight and 2 guys from same squadron one after the other. So using your way of thinkig a weak example of a 109K is stronger than 2 67" P51s. So the 109 is Too strong based on what because it would seem it's deeply flawed logic so sugest it's because a side has better success with it .That might be because it has better pilots acording to you. Also it would seem it's not deepley flawed to presume one plane is better than another without actually flying both planes in mp. You tried to back up your first statement with the second one but If a p51 player uses 15% fuel and a 109 player uses 100% fuel the p51 will outurn the 109 .You would know this if you actually tried it in game.But you're just making presumptions. You say we have in game a below average example of p51.But players in game can choose to take much less fuel than real life missions. If you think fuel level makes no difference but only 72hg does than make p51 players use 70% start fuel in mp like real life.That wouldn't make you very popular. Also at high altitude 6000-8000 72Hg would make no differece but the fact you can take much less fuel than historical amount does help.

" It's more true at some fuel states, but still true at all fuel states" i'm amazed that sounds logical to you. Based on the fact i actually did fly a 68% fueled mustang in mp and also at 35% fuel the difference in huge .Based on the fact i've actually flown a K4 without mw50 in Mp and got 30 kills with it i actually know what i'm talking about while you're just making presumptions . I looks to me like you're putting you're fingers in your ears and telling me that: - doesn't matter what you say i'm not listening,-i'm not watching your videos , -i still believe what i want to believe. You didn't even watch the 5 minute videos that i posted.Honestly I can't take this conversation seriously anymore .

I don't get what's so hard .The boost you want for the p51 would be used on a plane that once it drops the external wing fuel tanks still needs to be full of fuel internally to get all the way back to UK from Germany.So with that much fuel it would turn and fly like a pig and the boost would't make much difference in my book. Those were the majority of missions flown by p51. PS:Now if you'll excuse me i'm going to get a bite to eat.

Everything makes a difference .But even a g6 from 1943 would be slower for sure but it would turn much better. You would still have the classic energy fighter vs an angles fighter and the pilot would make the difference.

You should lighten up with that exasperated sigh:D.The fact is that people fly online with unhistoricaly low amounts of fuel for p51 that was primarely used as long range fighter .That way you turn and climb better.You can't have 1000% realism unless you want to fight 10x or 20x numbers and odds with Luftwaffe. My point is I got a lot of kills without the 400hp boost we know as the mw50 on the 109. But not on the 109 that turns like today but the one the used the old FM and turned much worse.:D That would be arguably a worse plane than a historical G6 from 1943 that turned much much better. So even a g6 from 1943 would still be a most capable plane in the hands of someone that flyes smart . PS: Why is it so important to have equal planes measured with a ruler to the last millimeter. I'll even try flying without mw50 vs a spit 14 because it's challenging and fun.I used to fly a mig 21 online vs mirage2000 and it was also fun.

- i posted these a bunch of times. -This footage was taken when flying without mw50 so with 400horsepowerp less : H90jgDfCm2E wZlguXL5JuE XoSNOEBLh9I With the FM the K4 had at the time, it was slower and turned much worse than it does now .So it was practically a g6 that turned much much worse than a g6, climbed worse because of the extra weight of a k4. -It's a mistery to me how you decided the 109 is so much better based on what ? I've flown them both and the 109 has the big disadvantage of controls locking at 710 ors Km/g.While the mustang can dive much faster and still be able to take aim. That improved energy fighting by a lot. There is also frontal visibility that is exellent on the p51, i don't lose targets like i do in the 109.Rear as well. -Also a p51 from 1945 with tail saving radar and bubble canopy is a worse than average p51 ? There is also the 109k with C3 fuel.I think the G14 is a much better fighter for low alt duels like we have in MP because it's a little slower but turnes and climbs better.While the k4 was optimised for high alt fight against bombers. I don't see an apex. One is good for one thing the other one for another.

First of all this is a second grade argument. Are you gelous because my icecream is more advanced than yours. :D Weren't you jelous enough to say Mig 21 kills vs F15 means nothing because of the mig missiles being crap + 20% compared to real life crap-10% performance. These is what you said: "If you believe for a moment that you did something great by using a MiG-21 to shoot down a 'modern' fighter, let me divest you of that delusion right now" . Playing PC games no matter how realistic and pretending to be pilots is a "nice delusion" at it's core.And I'm not trying to be mean. So even if it was insanely hard to get a kill in the mig21 you were trying to shame Mig21 pilots.Now when F15 airframe is invulnerable and Su27 missiles are unrealistic somehow it'still the mig pilot's fault for being jelous . Well i guess there is a double standard used here.

I would want a 262 just as much as a Fw A8 or a 109 g6,14 . But IMHO as a company ED would practically reinforce they're credibility by producing the 262.Because it's the plane that was promised. Anyway most people want to fly the plane around, enjoy the DCS level of detail.Few people wage war online. Also in my opinion very few people fly bombers online, i would presume the numbers are proportional to players playing bombers offline. So creating a flyable bomber is both time consuming and not very attractive to most players.Could also cost more money than a one engine fighter.

I see these kind of pure theoretical discussions as pointless. It's like someone saying Chuck Norris is so fast that he can run round the entire planet and kick himself in he's own ass. And than another person comes and contradicts him with: That would never happen because Chuck Norris would see such an attack coming and would block it. Third person: Being Chuck Norris is easier . This is the kind of discussion i'm seeing.This way you can practically say anything .Like spitfire turns too tight and it's impossible to pull enough lead to shoot.Man it's invincible .Which is what i said when i was a rookie. Or 109 can always disengage which is again nonsense.You'll always make a mistake and you will not be able to disengage or turn.And the guy who makes less mistakes wins.

If Leatherneck create DCS zero vs corsair i'll probably see a thread : Why isn't there a turkey shoot ? :lol:

What i don't like about these threads that pop up, and i'm not talking about you, there's little logic behind them. The 109 used to be slower because of a bug.SO you had what you're asking for (more speed compared to 109) and people still complained.In fact they used to complain more back then. The 109 used to turn a lot worse.People still complained that's it's impossible to defeat.In fact they complained more then they do now. @Everybody complaining ED heard you a long time ago .You will get a new p51 probably boosted and you also get a spit14 at some point.We need to attract new players to our community , not waste everybody's time with pointless threads.

I would be really impressed if you knew the point you're trying to make . - First you say "oh we should get spitfire boost 25 lbs and p51 boost .And now you're saying boost is irrelevant" . :lol: - And one 109 Vs 2 p51's is not a bad spot ?Secondly if you don't get in bad spots often that's called being tactically smart ,flying combat missions with professionalism. - You said a G14 would be easier to defeat.But K4 without mw50 has less performance than a G14 that has mw50 as standard by the way. I thing it would be smart for me not to continue this illogical conversation.

And that could be explained rationally by a few things : 1.Less experienced players on one side.When you fly on one side it's not only you that makes the difference it's the whole team even if you're not coordinated. 2.Your preconception that one side has weak planes.So you see yourself as already defeated even before you take off. That works against you as you're setting yourself up to fail. I was never good with a spitfire in any game.Others were gods. I've got these kills without mw50 boost: XoSNOEBLh9I wZlguXL5JuE H90jgDfCm2E I can get lots of kills without boost. I actually fly worse with mw50 because i fly less carefully and make mistakes.And if i got another 109 or 190 like G6 or A8 i wouldn't even care if i lose all the time even if i've seen other players dominate tempests and spit 14 with those planes .It would be fun for me just to improve . And you know what. If all pilots are equal maybe you can get some kills like me: No headtracking, an old pc that stutters ,no rudder pedals [i have to save money for study purposes ] and sometimes no mw50. If you get one kill like that in 2 moths i'll be really blown away.

The spitfire pilots mostly get tunnelvision in a fight and get shot down from behind. Not really. You can shoot them down from many situations : TN9oHgP13BA I just selected this quote but this goes for the whole thread you're trying to describe things in this black and white light. And things have different nuances . You try to make everything about the plane. I see myself as having a big advantage because i can shoot and fly just as well with my left hand as i can with my right hand.That's one thing that's not plane related. Returning to the situation at hand: If a pilot is flying straight and doesn't check 6. It depends how fast you dive on him , from what angle all that take skill.So you maximise exponentially you chances by diving faster and shooting better .And all that differs from pilot to pilot It matters how fast and accurate they are to take advantage of the situation. It's not this one or zero simplistic situation that you describe: energy fighter always wins , turn fighter always loses.109 always wins spitfire always loses. I did win a lot, and i mean a lot of fights in a 109 with no mw50 vs a p51. And that's the situation you're talking about only it's 109 with no boost vs p51 in place of spitfire with no boost vs 109. The thing is that even with mw50 boost i was never able to catch a p51 that was trying to run away and had a fair amount of separation.Maybe there is a trick involved in using manual prop pitch or some other trick that i don't know about.Closing the radiator also doen't help and blows my engine. Being able to shoot from high speed ,being able to deflection shoot takes massive skill and practice.If i always dive from this steep angle my chance of getting a kill is hudge. But i can't do that every time.And when i started simming i could't do it at all. otR2CTbPvJ0 In the time i've flown on the server you talk about, only twice i've been attacked from higher altitude (i know one of the pilots was cool-hand because i looked at tackview). And in turn i've attacked other from higher altitude hundreds of times.

As i remember, the p51 had far greater range first of all because of laminar flow wings which decresed drag and only second because of the ability to carry more fuel. The spitfire's bigger wings create more drag than the 109's. It's possible it also has more horsepower compared to a 109 not using mw50. Also what type of 109 was described in the article ? Because the 109k has dramatically improved aerodynamics ,was designed to be slippery through the air compared to the G model.So i would presume that the engine has to work less to push it through the air just like in the p51's case. This is just my basic understanding of facts.

Two booms with 109 Min 3.12 and 6.01.This is old footage but from what i can see on istruments i don't use Mw50. H90jgDfCm2E This is older footage as i used to fly a lot at that time and not much currently. Of course it would make a difference and I don't know about domination but not cheching 6, flying to straight and too low certainly doesn't give you any advantage. Even if i had mw50 it would't make any difference in this case. Anyway didn't you say the same thing a while ago and i posted this video: wZlguXL5JuE Since the 109's turn performance increased after Yoyo implemented new control type my flying has gotten worse because now i take a lot more risks.Also the current netcode is just not my cup of tea.It was better when i flown the above missions.

I fly the 109. And you can't black out .Plus you don't even need to aim because you can shoot everybody down with fireballs from your eyes . I'm not posting a smily because this is actually true.

Based on this last relevant frame you hit either the p51's wing ,tail or even cockpit.The aim was wabbly it's impossible to break a wing like that.Probably less than 8 hits were scored.

Congrats to all spitfire "Killers". The damage model on the spit is clearly the best so far.I'll post a compilation of kills but i don't know how to fit all of them in one video :D .

David is right : Spitfire has the most advanced damage model.I've never seen one leek fluid and not go down eventually. Tail section damage and radiator damage is implemented for the 109.For the p51 unless you shoot the whole tail off controls still work.But if anyone knows different post a video. I posted a video to show tail,controlls damage model comparison between 109 and p51.And also a tackview file with the first fight from the video, the p51 flies and turns without problem after geting hit in the tail by at least 4 30mm shells and my plane on top of that (The tackview file apperently Is too big to atach but if you give me your mail in pm i can send it to you). XZFgksaB6Gw Also both 109 and P51 can fly with a third of the wing missing and with that wing on fire like in the video.

I think it was better today. Not perfect but really playable and enjoyable .

I've seen little problems before but yes i've seen more worping since the spitfire is out. On the 26-27 dec i played a last mission at 12.00 am and it was fine, no worping at all.I know virtually nothing about servers but i remember on flying legends they said the server needed to be restarted more often to prevent this.

^it foke wulfed :) . The spitfire cockpit looks cool tho.

I've seen it on Burning Skies and ACG ww2. j5ZcTT1dXUM This is what i see like the player that posted this video ( minute 1.44 ).