karlmeyer25
-
Posts
64 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by karlmeyer25
-
-
Interesting. Started off in the MiG and have been flying it exclusively for months now. I have a lot of stick time in the DCS Warbirds and I think the MiG easily compares to the BF-109 in terms of flight characteristics.
I just got done flying the F-86 for about an hour for the first time and making my way through the manual and Chuck's guide. I can tell you, it easily flies like the P-51 in terms of "feel."
The P-51 is a pilot's airplane. Lot of luxury features (3-axis trim controls), responsive and a great roll rate. The F-86 feels that way too. Very responsive, great roll rate, lots of features and I'm a fan of the armament.
The 109 and the MiG both feel a lot "rougher" to fly, lack some of the luxary features of the western planes, but in the 1v1 match-up, just as the 109 is superior to the Mustang, the MiG is superior to the Sabre.
Online it seems the MiG excels in the DCS airquake where most people fly lone wolf. Forcing Sabres to the deck and dragging them out in a turn duel seems like a guaranteed victory if the Sabre doesn't egress the fight with enough energy to outrun the MiG. Just as the 109 has a low speed sustained turn advantage, can out accelerate the Mustang, out climb it, but not outrun it since the Mustang has a slightly higher top speed.
Great airplanes for sure, and I'm glad I started in the MiG which makes the Sabre a joy to fly since it "feels" so good. But the MiG is the ideal aircraft for 1v1 dogfighting in the Korea server even if it "feels" rougher.
-SLACK
-
As someone who owns both the Spit IX and the 109K, the 109K outclimbs the Spit handily. The information on Redditt is completely false. It does so even without using the MW50. I haven't timed it or anything, but its just apparent how much more easily the K eats altitude compared to the Spit. Also the IX Spit that we have in the game can't achieve +25 lbs boost, not at sea level anyway. (Maybe at Supercharger altitudes, Im so rarely up there and running at full boost that Im not sure)
As Redshoes said it might be different at altitudes when the Spit's supercharger kicks in but I wouldn't bet on it. As I said, the 109K can fall back on it's MW50 when the S*** hits the fan. :)
This has been my personal experience in game. I own both and routinely fly both and I've even foolishly followed a 109 or two into the vertical, only to end in defeat for me in my Spit.
So the chart I referenced showed the climb rate without MW50? That makes more sense now. I'd love a document that could show the climb rates with MW50 enabled.
-SLACK
-
Hello,
Reddit Link: Here
I just wanted some help in this discussion on Reddit I was in. Not being a technical expert on either air-frame, I wanted to see if u/Layin-Scunion was correct in stating that the DCS Spitfire Mk. IX LF could out climb the Kurfurst. If true, doesn't that mean that the BF-109 is at a disadvantage in the vertical?
I tried using the climb data from the Kurfurst website and data about the Spitfire but I'm not a technical expert in this field.
Thanks guys for your help and awesome knowledge.
-SLACK
-
The fighter with superior instantaneous turn needs to dive steeply while turning, in order to maintain that energy-consuming "corner turn." If the other fighter performs a flat turn to counter, it will temporarily fall behind in the turn, but by the time the first fighter has fully out-turned the second on the horizontal plane, the first will be far below the second and in no position to nose up to make the shot.
Which isn't to say that superior dive and instantaneous turn are useless (see my following quoted post for explanation); they just aren't very useful in a one-versus-one (compared to superior climb and sustained turn). That's why our 109 tends to dominate the P-51 even at medium altitudes, not only at low altitudes.
There's a lot of great stuff in your post and I don't disagree with anything you said. I don't mean to say that the P-51D we have in DCS is on parity with the DCS BF-109 K-4 even at altitudes above 23kft. What I mean to say is the match up there is more even (although like I said not, parity) than a fight at 9k ft and below. A Mustang driver has more tools to play with at higher altitude than he does at low altitude. He's still at an overall disadvantage, but I'm sure he'd take the extra options than not.
I also want to posit that a downward spiral at max throttle (WEP for the Mustang and MW-50 for the 109) the P-51 does have a sustained turn rate advantage if the fight starts at 25k. But it evaporates quick and the a 109 that exits that fight to gain separation will re-engage with an advantage at lower altitude.
Great discussion and great input Echo38!
-SLACK
-
Ya, that's what I meant. I think it is not a tad too heavy but rather a bit underpowered, especially when fighting against K4.
While technically accurate its a bit misleading to call it under-powered. I'm really not smart enough on the historicity of the aircraft to comment enough about the 67" to 75" difference in regards to which aircraft was more likely to face off against the 109 K-4.
I think if the current DCS P-51 and the 109 K-4 were to face off at 27k ft, then you'd have a much more balanced match-up. You could counter the 109's low speed performance and outstanding climb ability with the P-51's faster dive speed and faster turn rate at high speed. The second stage supercharger also helps close some of the gap between the 109 on MW-50 boost. The reality is, in the current and more than likely future MP situations you'll find, PvP occurs at low altitude, and at low altitude a lot of the Mustangs advantages just don't exist. You don't have a lot of altitude to trade for speed, and the low altitude power of 109 K-4 is just downright fearsome compared to the Mustang. I would LOVE to see an increase in Mustang MP as well as the ability to strip some of the equipment out of the plane just to see what possible advantages this might have. Any Mustang pilot would deeply appreciate any advantage over what we have now....I bet even Solty included :D
SLACK
-
I recently landed and tried to repair during Golden Fall at Novo, but couldn't. I can rearm and re-fuel, but repair didn't work after I had powered down my a/c.
Is repair no longer available? Thanks for an amazing server btw.
-SLACK
-
Lot of good points in here. Nobody is asking for parity just for game play's sake. We could all be flying War Thunder for that. I think most just want more options to tweak the online match ups. In the absence of mutliple a/c variants I think minor tweaks could be an effective compromise. If a real world crew chief could pull the center tank, IFF and Detrola, why can't that be an option (however negligible an advantage that would be)?
I for one would simply welcome period appropriate G-Suit. While waiting for the new and improved DM, that right there would go a long ways to giving the P-51 a greater edge during portions of the engagement.
(also at least a period appropriate pilot!)
SLACK
-
OK, we just tested all of our mission plus =Burning Skies= server too.
It seems that is BUG from ED.
As now result is
Spitfire has only 83% fuel max
For all planes bombs, HVARS, fuel OK
For all planes rearming NOT working
I had no idea this was a bug but thought instead this was a design decision! I can't enable the comm menu, so I can't set the desired fuel level I'd like or re-arm. Thanks for looking into this! See you guys soon!!
-SLACK
-
Great times this weekend!! Steel Balls remains my favorite because of the imposter setting, and the addition of AI aircraft. This server has by far the best seat to fight ration of them all!
I would love it if you re-enabled airfield re-arming and re-fueling though. Great server and great times!!!!!
-SLACK
-
Not adding anything but incredible thread. Lots of great information in here and I'm glad to see the devs receptive to it. Well done Krupi.
-SLACK
-
Regarding the current mission:
It's quite logical outcome that everything end up around Norossiysk as Red team usually stronger (in average: more in numbers, better climb rate planes, more skilled pilots around) and locks blue team there.
I hate to sound like a broken record, but you clearly state what is a fundamental problem in DCS WWII. The planes combined with a numerical disadvantage of players in BS make for miserable experience for Blue.
I know you've discounted it in the past, but I'd like to raise the idea of AI aircraft being added to the mix. Is it possible for a formula of AI to player ratio that can boost the number of Blue aircraft to compensate for a structural game disadvantage?
The advantages I see on this are several. The P-51D human player relies on surprise as the chief advantage to bringing down a 109. AI distract human players and open up the possibility of getting more surprise drops on humans. Urgency will be created by forcing Red into a defense role (something historical to Luftwaffe roles) if AI aircraft punish Red ground targets and force Red to protect their assets rather than waiting to pounce on Blue taking off from Nov.
I've pretty much given up on BS even though its a quality server and I love the work you put into it eekz because its just not that fun on the weekends to see the overwhelming superiority of Red over Blue. Just food for thought.
-SLACK
-
.
Likely labels enforcement bug will be fixed soon.
I would rather try everything off, but I'm afraid that people would not like it in general.
What do you all think about probably no labels days or something like that? Worth trying?
Maybe a poll as to what the BS community would prefer. Labels, Imposters (with the different settings as sub options) and nothing. You could then take the top two options and have a second poll to see what everyone prefers.
I also think I speak for everyone when I say that Burning Skies is a great place to play and I really admire your willingness to adapt and try new things on the server to make things fun.
Of course I have my own requests (please enable export for Tacview!) but to my earlier point, thanks for creating a great place to play. I can't wait to see what you create once the Normandy map is out!
-SLACK
-
Considering latest fixes by ED to event system and in order to add some realism to gameplay, chat messages on events has been turned off for the server.
To clarify, this means you won't see "eekz took off from Novorosky" but will we still see the updates about the amount of targets remaining at each of the target sites?
-SLACK
-
Heh? bots...? The only time the bots come into play on ACG is when someone is alone on the server. IMO that's how it should be on a dogfight server like ACG.
As for the labels bug on =BS= it's random and is fixed with a reconnect. Not that everyone reconnects when they have it but hey. I also agree that the impostors are a much better solution. I find on BS the labels make it impossible to see things beyond 8km and far too easy to see things in close.
In theory I agree with you. In practice I disagree.
The MP population is simply not there for WWII DCS to ensure a quality experience throughout the many different timezones of the day. Bots are by no means a perfect solution, but there is something to be said about the fun in action when you have 3 to 5 human players and double that in bots. The seat to engagement time is low, which is what at the moment everyone is looking for on the servers. There's really no solid method for scenario play online (even though BS and DoW tries...but there isn't enough incentive for Red), so its safe to say that most everyone logging into WWII DCS is looking for a quick dogfight.
Bots add to the experience. A seasoned MP player will be able to spot the human pilots, and inexperienced players will get not only the confidence boost in downing a few bots, but the thrill of wondering in the heat of it if it is human or not. Steel Balls does a great job of this and its why its one of the most active servers during the week. BS has turned into a lopsided Red v Blue scenario (ESPECIALLY during the weekend) as more and more people I've noticed have stopped playing Blue (this months stats are completely heartbreaking). Its also more comforting for Blue players since it at least evens the odds when there are 2 to 3 Red human pilots for every Blue. Keeping Red occupied allows Blue opportune engagement options. The vast majority of my P-51D kills on human pilots are the surprise jumps afforded to me because of this. Seldom does a protracted dogfight with a K-4 human pilot end in my favor.
At the end of the day to each their own, and there's options for your play style, but Steel Balls does it best IMHO. In fact I'd wish they'd up the amount of blue and red bots to keep things always action packed whenever anyone joins.
As I stated earlier, my points would be moot if every time I logged into a server there were 20 to 30 human pilots going at it. We're just not there.
-SLACK
-
What should I do if it happens again? Just rejoin? Or maybe restart the game? I don't want any additional advantages over others.
This is a major issue and one that I think needs to be fixed by going back to imposters. The label enforcement bug gives a MASSIVE advantage to those who have it...further exacerbating the edges already given to 109 pilots.
Full labels while flying the 109 is a guarantee of a phenomenal K/D ratio and a miserable time for P-51D pilots.
Eekz, I understand why you went to the labels regarding the unrealistic nature of spotting distances with imposters, but this is becoming a serious issue. I like the labels because it means I can ID the ground targets easier, but when you have full labels on few can be as noble as Solty and expect NOT to leverage the advantage they are randomly gifted.
-SLACK
-
Also...I keep hearing that the Burning Skies server has a bug with its labels mod that allows some players to have the games default label setting enabled instead of the "modded" label settings in the server. It creates a MASSIVE imbalance if that's the case. I really wish BS would go back to imposters...as flawed as that may be.
-SLACK
-
To me the best is ACG, due to good ping and imposter settings. And I remember that server will get more complex missions after we get the Normandy map.
Having literally just got done playing there minutes ago, I echo your sentiments. But my only complaint is how rapidly action will die down once most of the bots have been shot down. I wish there was an ability for them to keep responding.
-SLACK
-
I went into the tournament without doing any research into this subject.. so the first match I fought without flaps.
After some experimenting and sparring and advice from others I went on to use two lines of flaps for sustained turn (as visible on the wing when flaps are deployed).
After even more experimenting, sparring and advice from others, I ended up using mainly one line of flaps in the final fight. I felt that this was the best recipe on average for sustained turn rate. For rolling scissors I sometimes deployed two lines as the turns required are tighter and made at slower airspeeds, and for flat scissors I sometimes went as far as full flaps during the tournament. With full flaps the idea is that turn rate is of minimal importance, it's all about flying as slow as possible.
However, to come into any tangible, measurable conclusion as to what flap setting percentage combined with what airspeed gives the best sustained turn rate a scientific study should be conducted. And I'm not going to do that in the near future :)
I have no idea how the flaps were used in real life. But I would guess that pilots may have been instructed to refrain from touching them since it would be too much of a distraction...
Interesting points....I'm waiting on the Tacview files to study the telemetry as well as the flap positions. In general...did you feel your sustained turns were tighter with flaps extended?
-
While watching the streams of the Bf-109 tournament, I noticed most of the pilots extending their flaps and keeping them deployed throughout the duration of their match.
I did a quick search on the forums but didn't find much info on this. Is this pretty common of the 109 community? What do you gain with flaps extended during a 1v1 against a 109 or against the P-51D? I'd also be curious if this was common practice with real world Luftwaffe pilots...given the fact that it had to be manually operated (in reference to previous discussions of stick forces).
Thanks in advance guys.
-SLACK
-
All tacview files will be posted after the tournament is over. (tonight, maximum till Monday. I'll need to make bookmarks in the records and rename them)
Many thanks eekz!!
-SLACK
-
Looking forward to the 109 final today. I notice there is still a delay in the Tacview files....just a quick question, are you still planning on releasing those?
Many thanks for this tourney eekz!!!
-SLACK
-
Steel Balls is your best bet on weekday nights. Seems to have around 8+ most nights from 9pm-11pm (sometimes till midnight) EDT. It's a NY server, so you'll get the best ping on that one.
ACG and Burning Skies are most populated over the weekend. On a good day you can get two dozen players. Since ACG is in Europe and BS in Russia, they're most active in the afternoon. I'll normally fly between 4pm-7pm EDT. While there are plenty of regulars who will play for a good few hours, you'll often see people coming and going. Team sizes can fluctuate rapidly, although the Axis side will usually have numerical superiority. If flying Allied, be sure to use Teamspeak to pair up as it's the best way to stay alive.
Make sure to use TS anyway, as it triples the enjoyment factor. All servers, except Burning Skies I think, have dedicated TS.
DoW server is good when it's up too (not seen it much lately). Does larger and longer missions, so make sure you have more time.
Steel Balls is technically my favorite. It is the closest solution to the seat time/to engagement ratio. Sadly the current aircraft inventory imbalances things for the airquake style nature of combat. But, you WILL get better faster playing in this server. Export for TacView and medium imposters also adds to this already awesome server.
-SLACK
-
1
-
-
I typically see it ramp up on Thursday nights (EDT) and over the weekend. It definitely fluctuates but when it does its a lot of fun. Kudos to the DoW server that offers some interesting scenario based missions (with bots) the AirQuake server which is a lot of fun, and of course, Burning Skies, probably the best and most controversial (no bots, no data export, no imposters).
It remains to be seen but there is hope that the Normandy map will bring in some new blood. My opinion of the current MP scene is there isn't too much to do. With only three aircraft options (and one allied) and a significant imbalance in performance between them (with the negative toward the P-51) players get burnt out fast and fun quickly dies out.
-SLACK
-
Damn...super looking forward to this (even though I'm not flying...too much of a wuss). Can I make one request please?? Can TACVIEW data files be made available of the matches? I find this akin to Starcraft II VODs of tourney matches. It would be supremely helpful for new pilots watching and learning from great Kurfurst drivers.
Many thanks for putting this on eekz!! You rock!
-SLACK
Do we need an airquake server for WW2?
in Western Europe 1944-1945
Posted
I'm coming to the discussion a bit late, but I'm at a loss here. Steel Balls IS the WWII DCS airquake server. It has exactly what everyone here is asking for. Short distance between Axis and Allied airfields:check. Bots to spawn in-case server numbers are low: check. AAA for airfield defense to prevent (most) vulching: check.
Not sure what else you need. Also BS is only on beta which is unfortunate. But Steel Balls is on stable. I just came off it this morning and thankfully somebody was on. Just show up honestly, and guarantee folks will join.
-SLACK