K-4 is a P51 Killer

[gavagai]

P-51Ds in the 8th AF had better performance than the DCS P-51D because of the higher MP.

 

Most 109s and 190s were not K-4s and D-9s, even in 1945.

 

Your opponents flying 109s and 190s in DCS often have thousands of hours of virtual combat under their belts.

 

Put those three things together and of course there will be a very different result compared to historical fact.

 

Be glad that it's a challenge in the P-51D and not a completely one-sided show. At least right now both sides are competitive.

[Crumpp]

I just don't want anyone to think there is some sort of dev bias towards one fighter or another... Yo-Yo is very clinical with his research and approach to a FM.

 

The AI is not a good judge of performance either, the AI flies perfectly, its similar to the T90 vs M1A1 issue people have talked about in the Sim, the AI uses all its benefits to the fullest... generally no mistakes are made and if the 109 has any advantage, it can easily use that to its fullest.

 

There is no bias in Yo-Yo. The FW-190D9 is equally as successful as the Mustang. They are different aircraft but very equal dog-fighters. You have to fly them to their numbers and strengths. I cannot decide which is my favorite!

 

I kill Bf-109K4's in DCS in the Mustang on a regular basis. I have even outturned them.

 

The Mustang is the best dogfighter in the game IMHO. I love it.

 

 

Some key elements in every success:

 

1. Baby the engine. I treat it like I would a real aircraft and do not abuse it. I use WEP only in an emergency. I cruise at cruise power and climb at climb power with the aircraft configured properly for the climb. I use best angle and best rate of climb speeds. Fly the plane by the numbers.

 

2. Proper turn entry. Coordinated turns and I keep a power reserve for maneuvering. Once the turn is established, I pull for best rate and keep it there. If my best rate of turn speed is faster than my opponent....then I establish a lag turn. Look at the Bf-109 and you will lose. Look several aircraft lengths behind him where you want to put the nose of your Mustang.

 

3. I pick my fights. Every time I have been shot down, it has been my fault....not the airplane. I do not engage if I can help it without having an exit strategy.

 

4. Keep the aircraft at the speed it maintains best turn rate. Keep the aircraft at the speed it maintains best turn rate.

 

5. Keep the aircraft at the speed it maintains best turn rate.

 

That means backing off the stick back pressure if you see the rate slow down. Pull harder while looking at the Bf-109 and you will die.

 

6. Use combat flaps appropriately.

[TwoLate]

All this talk of 109s and 190s and bomber formation intercepts and escort fighters coming down to save them....DCS WW2 is going to be just totally awesome!

Now that is the talk I wanna hear.

[Zimmerdylan]

OK...So I did as Sith suggested. And the results are astounding to me. Now...I did take tracks. Problem is that When I play them back, it's not the same mission. Everything goes haywire and planes just fly into the ground. Very annoying. So posting the tracks would be pointless at this point.

I will however post what happened. I flew 4 escort missions. 7 bombers (C130s in this case) with 4 P51 escorts at 30,000 ft. There were 4 109 intercept AC coming in from the east @30,000. The first mission I set up I had the 109's assigned to take out the bombers and look for and destroy other AC. Upon mission start, the 109's immediately took the fight to the deck, ignoring the bombers. The fight was over within 5 minutes. All 4 P51's shot down with 1 of the 109's taking some damage. The 109's then went home and ignored the bombers.

2nd fight, I set the 109s to only focus on the bombers. Again, they immediately took the fight to the deck. Things went a little different this time however. I lost 1 p51 and 1, 109 to a mid air collision. Of the remaining AC 2 of the p51s were streaming, the other was pretty beat up, and the remaining 109s were clean as a whistle. Again, the 109s took off and the p51s headed toward the bombers.

3rd fight, same scenario. Again, fight went straight to the ground. This time, lost 2 p51s, and 2 109s. The remaining 2 p51s were streaming, and the remaining 109's too some damage.

Last fight, I put myself in the cockpit of a p51. And what happened was pretty amazing. Within 3 minutes all 3 of the p51 had been shot down and all 4 109s were on my behind. I had set to immortal for just such a scenario. They had at me for about 25 minutes. Doing things that seemed to defy logic in my mind.

What I am going to do is get some capture software this week so that I can post these fights. It is absolutely clear that in the DCS AI world, the 109 is head and shoulders above the P51.

I am not being a bad guy here. I'm only posting what happened in these 4 scenarios. And my conclusion is that DCS suffers from the same thing that almost every game, sim, or whatever suffers from. The AI world is just not set up in reality. This is most probably due to technology. And the fact that since these planes are set up to act like their real world counterparts. The p51 uses it's strengths in the AI world but the problem is that it's strengths are trickier to use and the AI model cannot compensate for that. But I am still convinced that the 109 AI is overstated. But again, this is most likely due to the simplification process and the fact that it's not complicated to regulate only to exploit the strengths of the AC.

I will however get some recording software so that I can post some of this stuff.

Thanks guys, I think I understand why things are as they are now and am OK with that. I'm going to spend some time in servers against real people in the next few weeks and see where that goes. They can't be any tougher than the AI planes.

Edited November 18, 2015 by Zimmerdylan

[DSR_T-800]

@Crumpp

 

The reality is is that a smart K4 pilot will always come up on top. The advantages of the K4 easily out weigh the instantaneous turn on the P-51. The K4 can exit the fight at anytime with its insane rate of climb and higher top speed. Turn fighting in the P-51 will only lead to your inevitable doom. The moment you start turning and burning a smart K4 pilot will simply just pull into a spiral climb. When a K4 has the altitude advantage your only defense is defensive tactics which will only last until you've run out of altitude. Also the P-51 has no chance in escaping the K4 at any altitude, unfortunately. All of this applies with the Dora too, just not nearly as well as the K4 in the vertical. However the Fw-190 with its light control surfaces can match if not exceed the P-51's high speed maneuverability. Its just that in DCS people enjoy scrambling it out in massive fur balls which makes the P-51 a deadly dogfighter.

 

I only own the P-51, but I've played a couple of sims where I've been in a faster and faster climbing plane, and its extremely easy to end up on top.

 

The real concrete advantages of the P-51 are in the Dive and zoom categories. Here is a video of me exploiting these advantages against an AI K4, but I execute them very poorly. I'd love to try this out against a real player. /watch?v=ZMwpxpyyfjE

[OnlyforDCS]

So...when are we going to get some WWII AI units? Specifically bombers would be nice, so that the P51D can get a chance to shine where they shined best, up on high. But other AI WWII planes, or tanks, or trucks, or anything really would be nice too. There has been no news about this for ages now which is very discouraging.

[Solty]

So...when are we going to get some WWII AI units? Specifically bombers would be nice, so that the P51D can get a chance to shine where they shined best, up on high. But other AI WWII planes, or tanks, or trucks, or anything really would be nice too. There has been no news about this for ages now which is very discouraging.

You do know that K4 is faster at high alt than P-51D with 67'hg, right?

[OnlyforDCS]

You do know that K4 is faster at high alt than P-51D with 67'hg, right?

 

So? How is that in any way related to my question? I would love to see some high altitude fights between the P51D and the K4, but if there are no allied bombers in the air why would anyone fly up there in the first place?

[Zimmerdylan]

@Crumpp

 

The reality is is that a smart K4 pilot will always come up on top. The advantages of the K4 easily out weigh the instantaneous turn on the P-51. The K4 can exit the fight at anytime with its insane rate of climb and higher top speed. Turn fighting in the P-51 will only lead to your inevitable doom. The moment you start turning and burning a smart K4 pilot will simply just pull into a spiral climb. When a K4 has the altitude advantage your only defense is defensive tactics which will only last until you've run out of altitude. Also the P-51 has no chance in escaping the K4 at any altitude, unfortunately. All of this applies with the Dora too, just not nearly as well as the K4 in the vertical. However the Fw-190 with its light control surfaces can match if not exceed the P-51's high speed maneuverability. Its just that in DCS people enjoy scrambling it out in massive fur balls which makes the P-51 a deadly dogfighter.

 

I only own the P-51, but I've played a couple of sims where I've been in a faster and faster climbing plane, and its extremely easy to end up on top.

 

The real concrete advantages of the P-51 are in the Dive and zoom categories. Here is a video of me exploiting these advantages against an AI K4, but I execute them very poorly. I'd love to try this out against a real player. /watch?v=ZMwpxpyyfjE

 

 

Not at all trying to be difficult about this. I'm only trying to understand all of this. If the 109 was so vastly superior, then why do I see interview after interview, read account after account, and documentary after documentary saying that the 109 was outclassed, and out maneuvered by the P51? If you watch the two documentaries that I posted (they are only two of many), both say the exact opposite of what you are saying. One of the most memorable things I had seen on the P51 was said by a Red Tail pilot who said that the P51 would do whatever you asked without hesitation. I only wish I could find that documentary just now.

Please understand that I am by no means an aero engineer. I can only go by the two things I have at my disposal: What I read and see, and my own personal experience. I'm still struggling with how I end up stalling at 300 mph while in a dogfight. :smartass:

I'm not disputing anyone here, nor am I questioning ED's design models. I guess I'm just trying to come to some kind of terms with all of the seemingly bajillion different opinions about this. :helpsmilie:LOL

None the less, it is an interesting argument and I'm certain that there are good answers to my questions. And I'm sure that there are plenty of you guys out there thinking " This guy's not the sharpest tack in the box". It's all good. But unfortunately, it's going to pray on my mind until I implode from confusion. In the end, I know it's only a simulator that's designed to have fun with (be it frustrating fun), and if it of any consequence, I'm not beating my head against any walls and I take it pretty lightly. I do enjoy and appreciate all the responses.

[NineLine]

So...when are we going to get some WWII AI units? Specifically bombers would be nice, so that the P51D can get a chance to shine where they shined best, up on high. But other AI WWII planes, or tanks, or trucks, or anything really would be nice too. There has been no news about this for ages now which is very discouraging.

 

Not soon enough for me :)

 

Its all in the works, but I dont know of any timeline right now.

[NineLine]

Some of that could be as simple as pilot bias... generally the P-51D pilot that got outclassed by a 109 wasnt around to talk about it... the pilot might downplay his own skill vs aircraft... I dont know... but bottomline is, the AI isnt great for comparing the combat effectiveness of these aircraft, either AI vs AI or AI vs Player... its better to find someone comparable to your skill level and go 1 on 1 with them a number of times and see where you excel and where you fail.

 

Not at all trying to be difficult about this. I'm only trying to understand all of this. If the 109 was so vastly superior, then why do I see interview after interview, read account after account, and documentary after documentary saying that the 109 was outclassed, and out maneuvered by the P51? If you watch the two documentaries that I posted (they are only two of many), both say the exact opposite of what you are saying. One of the most memorable things I had seen on the P51 was said by a Red Tail pilot who said that the P51 would do whatever you asked without hesitation. I only wish I could find that documentary just now.

Please understand that I am by no means an aero engineer. I can only go by the two things I have at my disposal: What I read and see, and my own personal experience. I'm still struggling with how I end up stalling at 300 mph while in a dogfight. :smartass:

I'm not disputing anyone here, nor am I questioning ED's design models. I guess I'm just trying to come to some kind of terms with all of the seemingly bajillion different opinions about this. :helpsmilie:LOL

None the less, it is an interesting argument and I'm certain that there are good answers to my questions. And I'm sure that there are plenty of you guys out there thinking " This guy's not the sharpest tack in the box". It's all good. But unfortunately, it's going to pray on my mind until I implode from confusion. In the end, I know it's only a simulator that's designed to have fun with (be it frustrating fun), and if it of any consequence, I'm not beating my head against any walls and I take it pretty lightly. I do enjoy and appreciate all the responses.

[Sporg]

Not at all trying to be difficult about this. I'm only trying to understand all of this. If the 109 was so vastly superior, then why do I see interview after interview, read account after account, and documentary after documentary saying that the 109 was outclassed, and out maneuvered by the P51? If you watch the two documentaries that I posted (they are only two of many), both say the exact opposite of what you are saying. One of the most memorable things I had seen on the P51 was said by a Red Tail pilot who said that the P51 would do whatever you asked without hesitation. I only wish I could find that documentary just now.

Please understand that I am by no means an aero engineer. I can only go by the two things I have at my disposal: What I read and see, and my own personal experience. I'm still struggling with how I end up stalling at 300 mph while in a dogfight. :smartass:

I'm not disputing anyone here, nor am I questioning ED's design models. I guess I'm just trying to come to some kind of terms with all of the seemingly bajillion different opinions about this. :helpsmilie:LOL

None the less, it is an interesting argument and I'm certain that there are good answers to my questions. And I'm sure that there are plenty of you guys out there thinking " This guy's not the sharpest tack in the box". It's all good. But unfortunately, it's going to pray on my mind until I implode from confusion. In the end, I know it's only a simulator that's designed to have fun with (be it frustrating fun), and if it of any consequence, I'm not beating my head against any walls and I take it pretty lightly. I do enjoy and appreciate all the responses.

 

I think it is because, as stated earlier, the quality of the German pilots was mediocre for the most part at this stage of the war.

The Germans had not focused enough on fighter wings, so while they had ramped up production by 1944, they lacked skilled pilots.

 

It is estimated that maybe 80% of the German pilots were new pilots, rushed to war without sufficient training.

Some of these pilots were almost afraid of their aircraft.

I've seen quotes mentioning, that many of these pilots did not even dare push their 109 past the point where the slats came out.

 

However, the remaining around 20 % were war hardened veterans, "Eksperten", some from the eastern front, which could push their aircraft to its limits and make use of all its advantages. Some of these had flown from the beginning of the war, due to the lack of the "duty tour" system used by the Allies.

 

On the Allied side the pilots had generally good training, so on average they were probably better than the 80% of the German pilots, but had a fight cut out for them when they met the "Eksperten".

(This might also explain your video no 1 earlier, where a P-51 pilot describes this "better 109" that could cling to his tail. Maybe he just encountered one of the "Eksperten"?)

 

So I think that what you see is a lot of pilots thinking the 109 was inferior, while it might have been the pilot quality instead.

Just to emphasize that, if you look at German pilot quotes, several of the better of them stated that they had no problem outturning a P-51.

 

So I guess, it is all down to what the individual pilot saw in action. :)

[ZaltysZ]

If the 109 was so vastly superior, then why do I see interview after interview, read account after account, and documentary after documentary saying that the 109 was outclassed, and out maneuvered by the P51?

 

The problem with your question, documentaries (or TV shows) and interviews is that 109 is presented like it had belonged to very "narrow" series. It had not.

 

109 series was very broad, spanning over whole WWII and a bit more. There were great performance differences not only between variants, but even between subvariants or even between field modifications (Rüstsätze). BF109G6 in antibomber role was nowhere as scary as clean BF109K4 performance wise, and P51s could meet them both in 1944, that is why all the tales about P51 out performing BF109 must be taken with grain of salt, especially if BF109 is so vaguely described as just 1-oh-9.

[Crumpp]

@Crumpp

 

The reality is is that a smart K4 pilot will always come up on top. The advantages of the K4 easily out weigh the instantaneous turn on the P-51. The K4 can exit the fight at anytime with its insane rate of climb and higher top speed. Turn fighting in the P-51 will only lead to your inevitable doom. The moment you start turning and burning a smart K4 pilot will simply just pull into a spiral climb. When a K4 has the altitude advantage your only defense is defensive tactics which will only last until you've run out of altitude. Also the P-51 has no chance in escaping the K4 at any altitude, unfortunately. All of this applies with the Dora too, just not nearly as well as the K4 in the vertical. However the Fw-190 with its light control surfaces can match if not exceed the P-51's high speed maneuverability. Its just that in DCS people enjoy scrambling it out in massive fur balls which makes the P-51 a deadly dogfighter.

 

I only own the P-51, but I've played a couple of sims where I've been in a faster and faster climbing plane, and its extremely easy to end up on top.

 

The real concrete advantages of the P-51 are in the Dive and zoom categories. Here is a video of me exploiting these advantages against an AI K4, but I execute them very poorly. I'd love to try this out against a real player. /watch?v=ZMwpxpyyfjE

 

I think you put too much emphasis on the aircraft.

 

Each of those instances, I can think of something that counters the Bf-109 moves in the P-51 that does not play into the Bf-109's hands.

 

The reality is is that a smart P-51 pilot will always come up on top.

 

Feel free to PM me. I would be willing to link up and have a few mock combats, P-51 to P-51!

[jester_]

if there are no allied bombers in the air why would anyone fly up there in the first place?

 

That's exactly the kind of mentality people have that nets me tons of kills in the BF-109.

 

"WTF WHERE'D THAT GUY COME FROM?!"

 

I think there is a mod that adds a lot of WWII units and models to DCS. I seem to recall seeing a video where P-51s were escorting some B-25s, and are then intercepted by two schwarms of BF-109s.

 

[ame=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHJ1NhV2II8]Found it. There's a link to the mod list in the description.[/ame]

 

 

The reality is is that a smart P-51 pilot will always come up on top.

 

No, the reality is that everyone thinks that a smart pilot flying whatever their favorite aircraft is will always come out on top.

[gavagai]

No, the reality is that everyone thinks that a smart pilot flying whatever their favorite aircraft is will always come out on top.

 

Usually, "it's the pilot not the plane" is the favorite saying of the guy in the best plane.:lol:

[Crumpp]

Jester says:

No, the reality is that everyone thinks that a smart pilot flying whatever their favorite aircraft is will always come out on top.

 

Which is exactly my point! :thumbup:

 

Sporg says:

I think it is because, as stated earlier, the quality of the German pilots was mediocre for the most part at this stage of the war.

 

Correct.

 

The vast majority of the Luftwaffe Dayfighter pilots were grist for the mill and did not survive their first few missions.

 

If they learned to fly their airplanes and survived the first few missions, the chances they would survive the entire war went up astronomically.

 

By the beginning of 1942, the Germans had lost the equivalent of two entire air forces.

 

By January 1942, of the pilots available for duty in the fighter force, only 60 percent were fully operational, while the number in the bomber force was down to 47 percent (see Table LXIX13). For the remainder of the war, the percentage of fully operational fighter and bomber pilots available, with few exceptions, remained below, and at many times substantially below, the 70 percent level.

 

By the first half of 1943, they had reached the point where the fighter force suffered as many losses due to noncombat causes as it did to the efforts of its opponents.

 

Thereafter, the percentage of noncombat losses began to drop. The probable cause of this was due less to an awakening on the part of the Luftwaffe to the need for better flying safety than to the probability that Allied flyers, in their overwhelming numbers, were shooting down German pilots before they could crash their aircraft.

 

But those Luftwaffe pilots who had survived the attrition of the first air battles of the war had little difficulty defeating new Allied pilots no matter how many training hours the latter had flown.

 

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/AAF/AAF-Luftwaffe/AAF-Luftwaffe-8.html

[BSS_Sniper]

P-51Ds in the 8th AF had better performance than the DCS P-51D because of the higher MP.

 

Most 109s and 190s were not K-4s and D-9s, even in 1945.

 

Your opponents flying 109s and 190s in DCS often have thousands of hours of virtual combat under their belts.

 

Put those three things together and of course there will be a very different result compared to historical fact.

 

Be glad that it's a challenge in the P-51D and not a completely one-sided show. At least right now both sides are competitive.

 

While I'm grateful to get any WWII aircraft in DCS, this is one of the things I can't stand. It seems the ones that get developed are the best of the series. I'd rather see the ones that were more common vs the most uber.

[HeadHunter52]

Similar to shooters on the line comparing weapons - most guns out-shoot their operators.

 

Most planes are beyond the max skill of their pilots. As much as the K4 eats Mustangs, I have to say that its Mustang pilots that are at fault.

[Nerd1000]

Similar to shooters on the line comparing weapons - most guns out-shoot their operators.

 

Most planes are beyond the max skill of their pilots. As much as the K4 eats Mustangs, I have to say that its Mustang pilots that are at fault.

 

Its worth noting that the 109's characteristics are a little more forgiving in combat- its superior turning abilities make things easier for inexperienced pilots who have a tendency to do the intuitive thing and turn towards their opponent all the time, so in many ways its an easier plane to dogfight in if you're not a super-disciplined BnZ master.

 

I expect that the Spitfire LF Mk IX will get plenty of K-4 kills simply because it turns a bit better, even though the K-4 is a better machine in every other respect (a Mk IX running 150 octane fuel might be able to keep up with the K-4's speed and climb at low level, but up high it hasn't got a chance).

[Zimmerdylan]

I went into a one on one today with a 109 against a P51. I had never gone air to air in a 109 before. All I can say is that after a few awkward minutes of pulling to hard this way or that way on the stick and shuttering like he!!, I had no problems whatsoever keeping the Mustang off of my back. Even with my hap hazard flying and the annoying fact that the armor plate obstructed the ever living daylights out of my view of him a lot of the time. I thought I was gonna break my track IR. I managed to shoot multiple Mustangs out of the sky. It wasn't even all that important to have eyes on him the whole time, I easily out maneuvered him.

And I'm not a very skilled fighter pilot.

I'm just going to have to agree to disagree that the p51 is evenly matched for the 109. I can't kill an ME 109 but about 25% of the time in a P51.

Edited November 19, 2015 by Zimmerdylan

[Crumpp]

While I'm grateful to get any WWII aircraft in DCS, this is one of the things I can't stand. It seems the ones that get developed are the best of the series. I'd rather see the ones that were more common vs the most uber.

 

DCS seems to be aligning for a late 1944 timeline.

 

In late 1944, I think the FW-190D9, Bf-109K4, Spitfire Mk IX, and P51D series are equally common as a percentage of the overall forces.

[jester_]

I expect that the Spitfire LF Mk IX will get plenty of K-4 kills simply because it turns a bit better, even though the K-4 is a better machine in every other respect.

 

Oh god the "spitfire is too powerful" posts are coming. :(

[Echo38]

In late 1944, I think the FW-190D9, Bf-109K4, Spitfire Mk IX, and P51D series are equally common as a percentage of the overall forces.

 

That can't be right. There were somewhere around 8000 P-51Ds compared to, what, 2500 109Ks? (... Off the top of my head.) Surely it wasn't the case that the great majority of P-51Ds were manufactured in the last few months of the war. And besides that, you're overlooking something: the P-51D as modelled in the sim (with the lowest WEP rating of any combat P-51D) was unlikely to be matched against a 109K as modelled in the sim (factory-fresh & without the crippling logistical defects).

 

The much more probable scenario would be a slightly-higher rated P-51D encountering a 109G-6 or so, which would have been much more of the one-sided stomp that real-world sources often spoke of. Similarly, I would expect the average 109K to be more likely to encounter a higher-rated P-51 than to encounter a factory-rated P-51 (what with higher WEP ratings for the P-51 being common, later in the war, regardless of the presence or absence of the recommended fuel type). A 109K was a less-common, higher-end 109 than usual; a higher-than-factory-WEP P-51D, on the other hand, was a common, usual P-51D. See?

 

It isn't an accurate depiction of the standard scenario, then, to be having a factory-fresh 109K encountering a factory-fresh P-51D. On average, the 109s were considerably worse than that rather-idealized example, and the P-51Ds were better than our low-end example (due to higher WEP ratings being authorized, even without the standard fuel type, recall). Which doesn't mean, mind you, that I believe that the P-51D was a superior fighter design to the Me 109K-4; I don't believe that it was, unless long range is a deciding factor. It's just that, the logistics of the war were such that examples of 109s like the one we have were relatively rare, ours being much better than the average example; and, to compound the discrepancy, examples of P-51Ds like the one we have are significantly worse than the average example.

 

So, it's understandable that ED chose to model the 109K, because of information availability; however, from a "historically-common and/or fairly balanced" perspective, it was a poor choice. It's true that an idealized 109K was well-matched--perhaps more than well-matched--against an idealized P-51D, but pilot experience wasn't the only reason that the end of the war was a bloodbath. Logistics played a big role as well, and because of that, the average P-51D was more than a match for its average contemporary 109, even without pilot experience disparities. Perhaps more than a match for the average 109K-4, even (since P-51Ds were more likely to have their higher boosts than 109Ks were).

 

In short, no one should be imagining that the representation of P-51D vs. 109K that we have in DCS matches what would have usually been seen during the war. What we have in the sim are cherry-picked examples: a low-end P-51D vs. a mid-high-end Me 109K. And that isn't a crack at ED. Good modelling data takes priority over an ideal choice for historical significance & balance. I'd rather have a well-modelled fighter that isn't the ideal choice, than a less well-modelled one (because of scarcity of data) that's a better match for the other aircraft. But, regardless of the reasons for the choice, do be aware of the historically-atypical nature of the matchup (even without pilot skill coming into play). You can't nod and say, "Yep, the current situation is an accurate depiction of how these two aircraft usually were." Quite the opposite ...

 

(For the record, I do not wish to see our 109 crippled by logistical problems being modelled. Ugh!)

Edited November 19, 2015 by Echo38

[Echo38]

What I'm trying to say, here, is this:

 

The K-4 is indeed a P-51 killer in DCS, but this isn't an accurate picture of how the two aircraft compared, because our K-4 is much closer to the best K-4 that ever flew in combat, than our P-51D is to the best P-51D that ever flew in combat. Similarly, our K-4 is better than the average historical K-4, and our P-51D is worse than the average historical P-51D.

 

It simply isn't a fair representation. The only reason I'm not screaming "developer bias" is because I understand why the choice was made to model the K-4, rather than a model more suitably matched (both in the "fair & balanced," and in the "historically-common") for the P-51D. Thus, I believe that ED is not biased; I agree with their choice to prioritize fidelity of the aircraft model over suitability of aircraft model, because I, too, desire the most accurate simulation of the real warbirds as possible.

 

However, the fact remains that the match as depicted is neither fair nor historically representative. The only thing our P-51D vs. 109K matchup is representative of is the scenario of "what happens when you take one of the better examples of a 109K and pit it against one of the worst examples of a P-51D." Of course it's going to dominate! The inverse would be also be true, if you switch it around, with one of the best examples of P-51D versus one of the worst examples of Me 109K. This should be a no-brainer; I don't know why I have to point this out.

Edited November 19, 2015 by Echo38