karlmeyer25

Good stuff Art-J, but if you found yourself in a fight getting low and slow, and too far for a quick return to base, how would you handle the engine?

I'm coming up to speed on the P-51D as well. So I'm a bit confused about some of the views regarding RPM management in this thread, to be clear, in a 1v1 with co-equal advantage, is 3000 RPM and max MP not necessary? And I'm talking about the duration of the fight. Entering the fight is super key, but seldom in the airquake does a P-51D get to jump an opponent since you usually have to start at a higher altitude thus making you easier to spot. Typically, in my 109v51 fights, a good dogfight typically devolves into a low and slow 1 circle or scissors, while I assume most P-51D pilots are then at full RPM, max MP for the entire engagement. Is that not the case? Also, if a P-51D pilot does win or survive the engagement, is safe to assume you must RTB to repair? Does repair actually work for engine stress during the fight but no damage from enemy fire? I'd also be curious about other pilots thoughts on tactics once the fight does get low and slow in the P-51D. -SLACK

There is a lot of really good stuff in your post. I really want to hone in on what you said regarding the engine failure modeling on the DCS P-51D. Just today I got into a turning duel with a 51 driver on the Burning Skies server and pretty much forced him to fry his engine out to avoid any advantage to me. Once his engine did crap out I easily shot him down before other Blue players could arrive to help him out. I get that all is fair in love and war, but to me it seems like a cheap tactic. I've been doing a lot of 51 training on my own and one of my supreme frustrations is how quickly it seems the engine cuts out after driving it hard in a 1v1 dogfight. How realistic is this?? It makes me really hesitant to jump into a P-51D as a lone wolf since I'm not a member of a squadron and sometimes airquake is the only thing happening. But I'm also frustrated by the warped numbers of 109s to 51s lately. -SLACK

You're right. The ACG server also doesn't allow export. Darn man, that's a huge shame. I'm also switching to the P-51D since there are way too many 109s now. I empathize greatly with your other thread regarding how difficult it is to be a Pony driver in DCS. I will say I'm starting to rack up some more points now in Burning Skies when nobody is on the servers and I'm able to load up my P-51D with rockets and shoot up Red's troops with near impunity. At least that task is nearly impossible in the 109. -SLACK

I have to agree with this at the moment. I'm transitioning to the P-51 due to the deluge of new 109's in MP and the lack of 51's, but I have to admit coming from the 109 the 51 is a nightmare in the knife fight. Even with full prop and throttle open I don't get the zoom sensation I get with the 109, and turning the plane is extremely frustrating when the underside wing loses lift (which seems nearly often regardless of speed). The difficulty in flying the aircraft in a dogfight makes one almost question its legendary status, and this is besides how finicky the modeled engine is. One or two violent stalls from trying to turn in to the enemy, and suddenly the engine craps out. My first and so far only MP encounter with another player ended in an embarrassing crash from a violent stall. Back to AI training.... I have a new found respect for dedicated Pony drivers. I felt good for every PvP 51 kill I'd get, but now it seems a bit cheaper understanding the workload the pilots have to endure. -SLACK

I too would like to know how to use the radio coms on the sever. I also tried hitting F11 in the sever just now, and nothing happened. In addition, I crashed on approach when I saw another aircraft inbound on the opposite end of the runway. My sincerest apologies for that. Is there a reason why the ATC doesn't seem to be working? I tried every channel in the 109. -SLACK

Hey Integrals! I'm pretty confident the Dogs of War (another excellent objective play server) and the Air Combat Group servers both allow export into Tacview. The Russian hosted Airquake server that's always up (and definitely fun for a quick thrill) also allows it. I honestly think the Burning Skies server is the only one that doesn't allow it. I tell you what man, Tacview took my skills to the next level, I can't recommend it enough. Until the replay system is functional again, I hate to say it since its an additional financial burden for some, but its nearly necessary for any serious WWII player. I couldn't agree with you more. I own a variety of DCS modules, but IMHO the WWII modules are the only ones that actually make you a better pilot (not just player, but pilot). They force every player to be at least competent in a highly realistic, high fidelity aircraft even before hopping on to the servers, and the lessons you learn from BFM are directly applicable to the modern jets. The WWII modules force you to become an excellent dog-fighter and that only makes you a better pilot all around. I can't say enough about Tacview, but Tacview,lots of fighting (both AI and humans) combined with good literature on the subjects (Art of the Pursuit and others) has helped me immensely since I started playing in July. J.E. Johnson said it best, "Great pilots are made, not born." There is no substitute from flying, fighting and learning. Experience and luck seem to be the ingredients to success in DCS, which bodes well since realistically those are the ingredients to success in real life combat. -SLACK

I can't answer this but I'm interested. I will add that right now the BF-109's armament simply isn't optimized for A2G missions. Although the BF-109 was never that great as a strike fighter, gun pods would bring and easier option for ground attack than the bombs. It seems in the MP side of things there aren't too many FW-190 pilots showing up anymore and this makes winning in the scenario driven servers near impossible with 109s alone. Giving 109 pilots more options may help Red win some scenarios or at least encourage them to do a few strike sorties rather than flying around simply to get into a 1v1. -SLACK

Now I see what you're talking about. You're absolutely right that if it can in real time stream that would put everyone at an extreme disadvantage. This is something I actually hadn't thought of, but an organized squadron on their private TS and one user acting as a GCI could decimate the OPFOR. I personally can't answer this, but I'd like somebody with more experience with Tacview to do so. I've only ever viewed and used the replay post match. I'm curious about what sort of play style you want to encourage? Points and rankings should follow the intent of the scenario designer. Do you want to encourage more A2A or A2G? Should points track carefully to an objective? Right now the scenario I've played (Normandy Anticipation) tracks toward destroying the three ground target group, which in my mind encourages A2G with cooperation tied in with proper air cover (when this happens). -SLACK

Coming late to this conversation, but since I fly on both monitor and VR (VR is far better btw) I agree with the consensus here that medium to small imposter settings is preferred. I think it gives equal advantage to all pilots. The fundamental issue has to do with the type of game play common on the servers. While most of the WWII servers try to include some objective based play, inevitably most players seek out 1v1 encounters simply due to the realities of the WWII MP community of DCS. Putting together the historical missions between the Allies and the Luftwaffe appropriate for the time period aircraft just seems impossible in a casual MP setting, and I honestly can't see this happening even with the Normandy map. 1v1 encounters seems to be the preferred juice pilots seek out. I don't see anything gained by trying to discourage that by making adversaries harder to spot. I do agree its up to the pilot while in the fight to maintain visual, but helping players make contact seems to be encouraging fun, rather than endlessly flying about the map. With a note to VR and hi-def monitors, I think medium imposters is a fine compromise. I also think the ranking/score system in Burning Skies will encourage more players across all the servers (minus the airquake) to diversify their game play. -SLACK

I'm torn on this. On one hand as a new player this would've been awesome. But now as a seasoned DCS'er and player on MP, I really like the historical accuracy of the kneeboard map. It forces you to raise your skills by learning the terrain, learning the nav aides in your aircraft, and in general, flying smarter. I suppose a compromise solution is best. That being said, it doesn't seem smart for ED to try to accommodate the casual arcade player all that much. As its been pointed out, War Thunder and Aces High have captured that market. ED's brand and niche is the hardcore enthusiast. Trying to lure WH and AH players who enjoy the arcade airquake seems a bit naive although I too would love their dollars thrown into our community. -SLACK

Tacview definitely gives an advantage to those who have it. The ability to debrief a player's actions with the amount of detail that Tacview offers is indispensable to becoming a more effective pilot. My issue is if every other WWII server offers it, what difference does it make if Burning Skies doesn't? Also, pilots who do have Tacview will ramp up their skills well outside of Burning skies either in SP or MP missions on their own time. The lack of AI/bot aircraft prevent players from learning and hunting down their locations, and the fact is if you want to accumulate points rapidly in Burning Skies (similar to DoW), ground attack remains the only way (subtly discouraging 109 pilots). The ground targets are well known so I'm sort of at a loss as to why Tacview is disabled, unless there is a significant server penalty. -SLACK

Could you just turn down the imposter setting? Btw...many thanks for this wonderful server. Its a great benefit to the WWII DCS community (as are all the awesome WWII servers)! -SLACK

Completely agree. -SLACK