CripesAMighty

Eekz, is there any way you can remove the Disconnect in flight = Death? With the stability issues in the Normandy Alpha the stats are often not a true reflection of the situation anymore. The amount of pilots who disconnect in flight to avoid being shot down is <1% from what I've seen. If there are repeat offenders you can be sure they will be called out with screenshots in this thread.

I just checked out his channel and can only see one video with a sound mod, which is from over a year and a half ago and looks to be flying against AI. Every video I see since has default sounds.

People can seriously abuse this for their own unrealistic gain. The video below is an example of what I'm talking about. This pilot has added a sound mod that passes the integrity check. This pilot checks his six at exactly the moment he 'hears' a 109 at 300 yards behind him. A 109 which is 10x louder than a Packard Merlin 3ft away: This is a fundamental and serious issue.

Confirmed issue with the Bofors. 109K4 at 150MPH over the centre of Lessay A/D for 3mins turning and wasnt hit once by the Bofors. Flak38 at luftwaffe airdromes can shoot down allied A/C crossing the trees at 20ft and 500MPH pulling 5G.

Any update or comment on this? It is incredibly important this gets fixed from a tactical perspective.

Also vote for Normandy only. Caucasus was something to be endured, not enjoyed. @Eekz: Would it be possible to put more A/C slots than player slots in the Normandy mission? Sometimes when you want to fly with a group you have to split A/C types (Ex. 3 Mustangs 1 Spitfire) because there arent enough slots of one type for all to fly

419 gallons internal fuel? I'm not sure what the hell kind of P-51D you're flying. 92+92+85 = 269 135/269 = 50%, which is comparable to the fuel they would have had in the A/C while engaged over the low countries/NW Germany while operating from England. Min Fuel for missions to Berlin was approx 160 Gallons. I think 135 Gallons is reasonable when the two airfields on Burning Skies are only 25 Miles apart. Thats not even considering that nearly all the top Luftwaffe pilots de-fuel to 70% (which I dont have a problem with, its realistic along the same lines as de-fueling the Mustang).

My standard mission fuel quantity when flying online (Burning Skies) is 135 Gallons. It all depends on the pilot.

If you know what you're doing its possible to out turn a K4 at any airspeed in the Mustang (including online). At least half of my Mustang victories for April were out turning K4's at airspeeds around 200 Mph IAS.

Reasons like the majority of people here being pilots who fly competitively online and understand that performance numbers aren't everything in winning an engagment, while you are an office clerk more concerned with filing documents.

Having a wingman helps. Here's a video with a few engagements with Spit IX's

T/O assistance is enabled in the current mission

.

To provide some balance from the allied side (you can probably guess that the Mustang is my favourite A/C from my username), I do not think that the Me109K4 in the sim is "unbeatable". I believe that ED have done a great job with the flight model and simulation of the aircraft, its just unfortunate for the Allied pilots that the K4 is the variant which was modeled. It is absolutely historically possible for a Spitfire IX variant or Block 15-30 P-51D to engage a K4 over Germany/the Low Countries in 44' or 45', and I would still like to see other variants of all A/C added (as many others do too) I saying that I also believe that the K4 gains some advantages from the state of the simulator currently, as well as some decisions made by the developers. The damage model is an issue for everyone (all aircraft incredibly resilient but also incredibly fragile in some ways) but it is clear that the AN/M2 under-performs, you just need to take a look at some gun camera footage (Examples). In addition, the Mustang is currently missing the G-Suit, which was in wide service by the time the K4 was operational (Link) The DM is planned to be fixed which will be a great improvement for everyone. Finally, the altitudes which A/C need to operate at in MP currently favor the Luftwaffe. The engagements need to occur at 26,000ft+ to see a performance advantage for the Allies. This will change with the release of Normandy. There are good pilots on both sides, and I suppose my point is that at some point Allied pilots need to stop making excuses, and trade forum posts for stick time. Here are the statistics from the last complete month on Burning Skies (January) I'm at #3, and I'm flying the same P-51D as everyone else. There is one other Mustang pilot in the top 10 who has figured it out, and a few more in the top 25. The top Spitfire is #23, and i'm sure as people get more stick time they'll move up the list. If the allied pilots who are struggling change their approach i'm sure they'll see better results. Remember, being a pilot is not just about reefing on the stick and leading accurately, its equal parts tactics and airmanship. In summary, I suppose my points are for us allied pilots to work with what you have for now, wait for the DM update, wait for Normandy, ask what you can change about how you fly instead of what ED can change about the sim. Its absolutely tough for the allies now and can get frustrating, but you'll be in a much better position when ED finally release the updates. Everybody wins if we try and put our biases aside and work towards the most realistic simulator possible.

Hopefully!

You are correct with November. I chose "Summer '44" to provide balance between: Operational testing of G-Suits with Fighter Groups in January 1944 (1) The standardization of the Type G-3 suit in August 1944 (2) 4,100 G-3 suits being delivered to the 8th/9th/12th AF in the second half of 1944 (2) Production G-3 suits arriving in the 8th AF in October 1944 (2) Being accepted as USAAF standard equipment, with one to be issued to each pilot from November 1944 (2) In my mind the above is reason enough to re-introduce the G-suit to the P-51D in DCS. Sources: (1) War Diary of Captain Fletcher E. Adams 362FS, 357FG, 8AF USAAF (2) United States Army Aviators' Equipment, 1917-1945 [C.G. Sweeting]

Anyone from ED even read this forum anymore? Such a shame that something used from Summer 44' onwards has been removed for "balance"

As much as it pains me to agree with DavidRed, in the case of the Mustang at least as long as it is flown well the 109's advantages can be negated. You only tend to run into issues against the top 1% of 109 pilots. Take a look at the January stats Krupi: LINK In February i've been spending a lot of time flying wingman for someone in the Dora which has impacted the stats negatively. It seems like the majority of Allied pilots are having difficulties getting to grips with their A/C in combat. Seeing as Burning Skies does not separate your performance between different A/C and resets every month, I also decided to keep track of my PvP Mustang flying since December which is at this LINK I'm flying the same A/C as everyone else, and nothing about the numbers I've put up says the 109 has a huge advantage which is almost impossible to overcome.

Would love to hear from ED about how they modelled the cooling system for the luftwaffe A/C. It seems like they've massively overestimated the contribution of MW50 to reduced engine temperatures. A 20-40K reduction in charge air temperature and the associated cooling during combustion of the richer mixture does not negate the fact that automatically actuated cooling systems in aircraft are trying to achieve a dynamic equilibrium based on ram air. It shouldnt matter if you reduce the charge/exhaust temperature by 40K if you've got no ram air entering the radiator to exchange and remove heat from the system. Right now the K4 can climb with an average IAS of 110MPH at maximum ATA with MW50 enabled from 1000m to 7000m at ISA without overheating. Would be great to hear from an official ED source about specific system parameters and how theyre modelled.

Any word from ED if we're finally getting our (Summer 1944) G-Pants back yet?

This is still an issue. The degree of dispersion is still over-modelled combined with a lack of barrel cooling. Any official word from ED? Taken from a set of 20th AF B-29 crew notes talking about the AN/M2: "There are several factors to consider in arriving at an answer to the question of how long a burst it is practical to fire. The ammunition has a high degree of accuracy. At 600 yards, when fired from an accuracy rifle held in a V-block, it will group in a circle 18″ in diameter. When fired single shot, using an aircraft machine gun on a tripod mount, tests have shown a 20″ circle of fire." And "In a burst of 10 or 12 on the same mount the group was approximately five feet."

This. Kurfurst, you need to stop flying the filing cabinet and worry about flying airplanes.

That's exactly what I'm saying. Currently you can see aircraft at 30NM but they start to disappear and fail to render parts of the model, or shrink to less than one pixel, at ranges inside of 1000 yards. They should be a pixel at ~7NM and get slowly larger as they close. Things obviously should get easier to see as they get closer to you, but apparently the person on the ED team who implemented this current scaling solution had other ideas. Its not even a case of ground clutter or lack of reflections from surfaces. See this thread here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2869267&postcount=170 Currently the K4 pilots get the advantage of being able to assess the air picture from incredibly long distances to know exactly where and how much they need to climb to get above the highest bandits, as well as having the rate of turn and climb advantage when the engagements go to less than 1000 yards to defeat bandits they lost track of due to the terrible model visibility. Its even the case in the Mustang currently that aircraft can shrink so much at 300 yards that (with a realistic and not crazy-zoomed eye-point) they fail to render well enough to see their plane of motion.

As soon as we get a realistic damage model this all becomes a huge negative for the K4. With aircraft being so small it becomes very difficult to get strikes with .50 API and NOT damage something critical. Currently we've got no leaks, no penetration modelling, and no incendiary effects. I think all of the discussions about the relative performance of the 109K4 will go away once we get an accurate damage model and realistic spotting/aircraft visibility, regardless of whether or not the Kurfurst still gets the benefits of simulator ergonomics.