DCS WWII: Pacific Marine Question

[9.JG27 DavidRed]

I am an IL2 veteran too and must say that I disagree with that statement @David.

 

Just because somebody doesn't know how to fight doesn't make the other guy good at fighting. So with people that both are good at air combat (and I tend to think always that my enemy is going to be good) and one of them having a superior plane, well there is a high chance that a guy with Spit XIV will win against the Bf109E3. I am not saying it is good or bad, just that it doesn't have balance.

 

For that fight to be over with a dead SpitfireXIV, you need a very poor pilot of the Spitfire, not a very good one in the 109e3. The spit pilot has to make such a big mistake that it would be exploitable and just by staying in B&Z and extending he is safe. He can pull away at any given time. I agree that aircombat is not only about performance of 2 planes, but mostly about the positioning and tactics. But when both pilots see each other, the one with a superior plane will win if they are on the "same level" of experience. (knowing BFM)

 

I always want historical matchups that give both planes a chance to shine. They are not artificially balanced. Just using two (or more) planes from a similar period of time.

 

Right now we are at a position where both 109K4(with current FM) and 190D9 are superior to P-51D, which is far better than P-40F. Now imagine poor people that are average and get into a fight with a guy that is good and flies a superior plane.(K4) The outcome is easy to predict.

 

I still can't understand why the WW2 project went with Bf109K4 instead of G6 or even G14 which were far more common and would at least have a little bit more sens against P-40F... but I digress.

 

i already had a big long answer, but decided, its not worth it...i just say that, as an IL2 veteran you claim to be, you should know that 1vs1 in a duel situation where both oponents are on head on course at same altitude and speed and last but not least are both aware of each other was hardly the case and is pretty much irrelevant on any puplic server.

 

the P40, as Pman pointed out, was in service until the end of the war, is an iconic WWII warbird, so it has its place in DCS WWII, thats a fact, no need to further whine about it.

 

K4, the devs said multible times that they have best documentation about this version.i rather have a precise simulation than a funky guesstimation.

you can further whine about it, but it wont change, its here and its awesome.

 

 

At my opnion.....

I´m a il2 veteran pilot and I like the servers that make a historical correct set of planes by the years and locations of combat fields.

I fly almost all times at warbirdsofprey.org....Its a il2 1946 server that make missions with a ground focus to win. Its make that fighters can cooperate with the bombers pilots for win the map.

I think that is a key of a complex combat enviroment...

fighters doing defence of your own "ground troops" by any enemy bomber that trying to destroy.

Fighters can try to escort your bombers or take air superiority over enemy.

Its do all diference for me!

 

 

yes, this particular server was awesome!i very much enjoyed it.there were/are other servers with all planes flyable and they were just as much fun, just different.but this particular server you mentioned, just supports the argument, that regardless what planes are produced, its mostly up to the mission designers and how to build missions, and what to allow or not...P40, is just an example, but really any WWII plane has its place in DCS WWII.

Edited January 10, 2015 by 9./JG27 DavidRed

[nick10]

DCS level WW2 carrier landings would be amazing.

 

Hellcat and zero please!

[Solty]

Why is it so hard to believe that? I was usualy flying alone, cause I didn't knew anybody back then within sim comunity. I usualy flew on Spit vs 109 and later HSFX server. I realy liked Ultrapack man. That was some cool stuff. Here take this as a "proof"

 

Anyway. You are missing one point. In IL2 on public servers each missions was set at some time perdiod. So when we had 1942 africa (tobruk map) we got Bf109G2, Ju87D etc. for Axis and we had Spitfire MkV with P-40E etc. to counter it. Europe 1944? Bf109G10, G6/AS and P-51D with Spitfire MkIX. There was not a single scenario within which somebody would have a clearly better plane.

 

There was always something rather equal in the air with it fighting capability. You just seem to be very happy to shoot down some P-40Fs with your 109K4. Also, K4 is still in Beta and I am sure that what we have now is not accurate taking into consideration the lack of progressive stiffening of control surfaces that occured above 550kph.

[Hiromachi]

Gentleman, drop it please. It's not very related to the topic. Pman said what he said, we should respect his decision and judgment.

 

DCS level WW2 carrier landings would be amazing.

 

Hellcat and zero please!

 

Hey, that does not sound very ... fair. One is called a Zero killer, other was killed ^^

[Friedrich-4B]

I´m not Trying to force anyone to make a Zero or any other aircraft.... I didn´t make any call for it.

 

I understand that a development company can do what plane that they want to do.

 

Not really, because to create a program for an accurate flight sim requires a huge amount of research just to gather enough flight data to recreate the flight characteristics accurately. There's also the research needed to get the airframe, armament and equipment accurate. Sound? If that isn't right, the developers get to hear about that. Finally, comes the task of developing the program itself.

 

Developing a computer program for well known aircraft that have the required data available (eg: P-51D, Bf 109K-4) is hard enough; developing a flight sim for an aircraft which might not have as much available information (eg: Ki-61, Ki-84, He 162) would be far more time consuming and expensive - if enough information can be found to develop an accurate flight sim in the first place.

 

Bottom line: the developers have to work with what is available - we might want a fully developed Nakajima Ki-84 to oppose and 'balance" the P-51D, but it might never happen, because there might not be enough information to recreate a Ki-84.

Edited January 11, 2015 by NineLine
Removed references to deleted posts

[Solty]

May I interrupt this *cough* vivid conversation? It is all riveting stuff, but way off topic.

 

 

 

Not really, because to create a program for an accurate flight sim requires a huge amount of research just to gather enough flight data to recreate the flight characteristics accurately. There's also the research needed to get the airframe, armament and equipment accurate. Sound? If that isn't right, the developers get to hear about that. Finally, comes the task of developing the program itself.

 

Developing a computer program for well known aircraft that have the required data available (eg: P-51D, Bf 109K-4) is hard enough; developing a flight sim for an aircraft which might not have as much available information (eg: Ki-61, Ki-84, He 162) would be far more time consuming and expensive - if enough information can be found to develop an accurate flight sim in the first place.

 

Bottom line: the developers have to work with what is available - we might want a fully developed Nakajima Ki-84 to oppose and 'balance" the P-51D, but it might never happen, because there might not be enough information to recreate a Ki-84.

 

I have never seen a flying 109K4 though. Not even one that is in "display" conditon. And there are so many G6, G4, G2 and G10s some even airworthy. It is mind boggling why they went with K4. I agree though that Japanese planes are hard to make due to lack of data, but c'mon. They want make Me262. How much data you have about that? Well maybe NACA has some, but still... we have some 2 flying Zeros.

 

Here:

 

A6M5 Zero. "t. This is the only original Mitsubishi A6M-5 Zero flying in the world with the original Nakajima Sakae 14-cylinder engine. The pilot is Planes of Fame Pilot, Johnny Maloney."- video description.

 

A plane it self looks like a good way to gather info. Also, Akutan Zero gave a lot of info about the plane itself. Granted it was a different version, but there were some australian and british captured Zeros that surely were tested.

 

If it was developed with F6F in a corresponding version or with a F4U, then we could have a well balanced match. Or they could go with A6M2 and just have a "match" for F4F Wildcat, although that would not be too balanced too :P.

[Hiromachi]

Not really, because to create a program for an accurate flight sim requires a huge amount of research just to gather enough flight data to recreate the flight characteristics accurately. There's also the research needed to get the airframe, armament and equipment accurate. Sound? If that isn't right, the developers get to hear about that. Finally, comes the task of developing the program itself.

Flight data are more like a confirmation of proper establishment of airframe, airfoil, engine performance, weight and center of gravity. Also more flight data does not mean better, as each test was done in different conditions. Not only region, but weather, temperatures, humidity - all that can matter.

 

Anyway, I have all that data. Or large part of them.

 

Sound is not a problem, engine (original Sakae) is in Planes of Fame museum. Type 97 machine guns are modified Vickers machine guns which even run same ammunition. Type 99 is Japanese version of 20 mm Oerlikon, one can base on sounds of MG FF for instance.

 

Developing a computer program for well known aircraft that have the required data available (eg: P-51D, Bf 109K-4) is hard enough; developing a flight sim for an aircraft which might not have as much available information (eg: Ki-61, Ki-84, He 162) would be far more time consuming and expensive - if enough information can be found to develop an accurate flight sim in the first place.

 

Ki-61 is bad example. Engine is licensed DB 601, all 109 fans know it :)

 

About Ki-84 its true.

[Friedrich-4B]

Flight data are more like a confirmation of proper establishment of airframe, airfoil, engine performance, weight and center of gravity. Also more flight data does not mean better, as each test was done in different conditions. Not only region, but weather, temperatures, humidity - all that can matter.

 

Anyway, I have all that data. Or large part of them.

 

Flight data is still needed to lay down the basic parameters for developing an accurate flight sim. I didn't necessarily mean quantity of flight data, but a range of good data is more than useful.

 

Sound is not a problem, engine (original Sakae) is in Planes of Fame museum. Type 97 machine guns are modified Vickers machine guns which even run same ammunition. Type 99 is Japanese version of 20 mm Oerlikon, one can base on sounds of MG FF for instance.

 

Take a look at the thread on the DB605's sound in the K-4 section. :smilewink:

 

Ki-61 is bad example. Engine is licensed DB 601, all 109 fans know it :)

 

About Ki-84 its true.

 

Although it used a Japanese version of the DB601, the engine didn't necessarily perform in exactly the same way (albeit, possibly close enough); it was definitely less reliable on the ground in the tropical conditions prevailing in New Guinea.

 

However, the real question is, how much accessible, high quality data is there on the Ki-61's flight qualities over its entire performance envelope, from take-off to landing? How much accessible, high quality data is there on the Ki-61's structure, equipment and armament (depending on the version being modeled)?

 

As Pman alluded to earlier, those who are developing the programs don't have access to unlimited funding and mostly have to rely on information that is more immediately available/accessible.

[Crumpp]

They want make Me262. How much data you have about that?

 

Actually, there is quite a bit of orginal data on the Me-262.

[Solty]

Actually, there is quite a bit of orginal data on the Me-262.

Surely though there are more bits of Bf109G6. Right?

[JST]

Which G-6? Do you include the G-14?

 

Maybe devs do have much more info for a plane like the K-4 that fits the 1944 timeline, that is relatively uniform compared to the G series.

 

Unless you think we're supposed to have some mid-1943 G-6 model just because there is some information available that devs maybe deemed irrelevant, or because your Pony is having a hard time?

[Solty]

Which G-6? Do you include the G-14?

 

Maybe devs do have much more info for a plane like the K-4 that fits the 1944 timeline, that is relatively uniform compared to the G series.

 

Unless you think we're supposed to have some mid-1943 G-6 model just because there is some information available that devs maybe deemed irrelevant, or because your Pony is having a hard time?

The G6 was most produced German fighter throughout the war (1943-1945). Even in 1944. K4 numbers when in comparisson are very small. Nearly 8000 G6 model + G6/AS, G6/U4 etc. which is around another 3000 and 3000 G14s. There just over 500 Bf109K4 avaiable in 1944. K4 was realy more of a 1945 plane.

 

And yes, Pony is having a big problem because Bf109K4 is more agille(at least with current FM), faster, and easier to fly (except for landing and takeoff).

 

But this not a thread to continue this conversation. Just PM if you want to talk.

Edited January 11, 2015 by Solty

[Hiromachi]

Although it used a Japanese version of the DB601, the engine didn't necessarily perform in exactly the same way (albeit, possibly close enough); it was definitely less reliable on the ground in the tropical conditions prevailing in New Guinea.

 

Performance was exactly the same if compared to Db 601 Aa. The engine was less reliable because of lack of proper filters and humidity, but I doubt any 109 would have a better time there unless it would be a tropical variant (like some G-2s). It simply wasnt the area where Ki-61 should be ... but had to be due to war course.

Other case is simple lack of spare parts, unfortunately there is no train from Kawasaki factory to Wewak, all had to be transported on ships which is dangerous and takes time.

 

However, the real question is, how much accessible, high quality data is there on the Ki-61's flight qualities over its entire performance envelope, from take-off to landing? How much accessible, high quality data is there on the Ki-61's structure, equipment and armament (depending on the version being modeled)?

 

The question is how much American research and archive facilities would be eager to open their door and archives to show what they have. I know where large part of data for it is, unfortunately price for me (just a student) is a bit high but not for a company.

Plane uses standard NACA airfoils, NACA 2R1 16 at wing root and NACA 24009 at wing tip, engine is Kawasaki Type 2 with same performance (or very similar) to DB 601 Aa.

Structure is well described in some materials and books, they even have nice cross views like this one

 

Equipment, well, I believe the control panel is not so hard to find. Even random Japanese maniacs manage to replicate them.

 

And armament depends on version, either it will be a four 12.7 mm Ho-103 which are based on Browning .50 cal but use ammunition similar or same to BREDA Safat 12.7 mm or it would be mixed Ho-103 and Mauser 151/20 :)

 

BTW. Nice attachment, but I already have that one. I can share something different though :)

Sakae 21.pdf

[Friedrich-4B]

So maybe the Ki-61 wasn't such a good example? :book:

[NineLine]

Surely though there are more bits of Bf109G6. Right?

 

I would think that info on the Me 262 and other German jet aircraft would have been more important to Allies when they were collecting info during and after the war, so I would imagine there is more on the 262 than you might think, and from what I have seen, this is the case...

[Hiromachi]

So maybe the Ki-61 wasn't such a good example? :book:

 

Try again ? :lol:

[Friedrich-4B]

Try again ? :lol:

 

:helpsmilie: er...er...Ki-27? G4M1?

[Hiromachi]

Ki-27 ... hm, that one is older. Nakajima NN-2 airfoil, used for most of Nakajima airplanes later - Ki-43, Ki-44, Ki-84.

Engine is a bit hard to find, Nakajima Ha-1b known also as Kotobuki 41 was 650 HP engine. Good for mid 30s. But there is something.

Shamefully there are no existing Nates :(

 

G4M1 is a bomber. Haven seen any ww2 bomber around in DCS available to playerbase.

 

 

My personal choice would be N1K2-J known as George 21. If one has a desire to struggle with Homare engine ^^

 

And well, you pulled NACA. Shamefully they were not very interested in Japanese airplanes, there is in my library stuff about Zero. Its stability and stall characteristics.

For the moment airfoil will be enough :P

[Solty]

Ki-27 ...

My personal choice would be N1K2-J known as George 21. If one has a desire to struggle with Homare engine ^^

Wow that escalated quickly. Were were just at planes of 1941-43 now we are in 1944-45 region damn :D

[Hiromachi]

Well, higher the bid is, more mysteries arise :)

[IonicRipper]

All this talk of WWII pacific theater made me reinstall Il-2 1946 and start a new USN career, damn you guys! :megalol:

 

But DCS Pacific Marines would be absolutely incredible. I would certainly loose all social life if it ever happened.

Edited January 12, 2015 by IonicRipper

[MiloMorai]

My personal choice would be N1K2-J known as George 21. If one has a desire to struggle with Homare engine

 

Late war German manufacturing 'problems' are not modeled, so why should Japanese 'problems' be modeled?

[Echo38]

I want a P-38L more than anything, but I must admit I'd be rather disappointed if Yo-Yo himself weren't working on it.

[IonicRipper]

DCS P-38L. How awesome would that be :D

[WildBillKelsoe]

I hope we can hunt type 7C boots too.

Err... midget submarines? Hmmmm...