NEW SERVER-= ACG WW2 Server (EU) =-

[Echo38]

why can good pilots score so hard like "trouble" when the Mustang is so bad currently?

 

Bogus argument. In another sim/game, I used to fly a terrible fighter that just about no one else would fly. I'd dive into a bunch of average-skill pilots, and take 'em all down in short order. People would regularly comment stuff like, "How are you doing so well in that ship?" But, then, I'd get my empennage handed to me, whenever I met someone of my own skill level, who was flying a normal-capability fighter. Point is: a good pilot can do amazing things with a shitty fighter, as long as he isn't facing people of similar skill to him. That doesn't at all mean that the aircraft are fairly matched. Surely you know this.

Edited February 29, 2016 by Echo38

[Solty]

And why can the P-51 not climb in a other direction over the map?

After that the Mustang is on all altitudes even the same Speed or faster then then Dora turn better climb in the same speed and dive faster with 72 HG.

Even the MW-50 is also not working with defueling. And speaking about how unfair is flying with 68 HG? why can good pilots score so hard like "trouble" when the Mustang is so bad currently?

Use logic.

1. If a plane is weaker that doesn't mean it is unable to shoot something down. Hurricane Mk1 during the Battle of Britain is way weaker than Bf109E4 and can shoot it down. P-51D we have in game is weaker than the 109K4. But while it was historical for the Hurricane Mk1 to be slower than E4, it is not historicall for the P-51D to be slower than Bf109K4.

 

2. Proper tactics and placement will give you a brief advantage to shoot down a 109K4.

 

3. Most 109 players are waaay worse than trouble as a pilot. That doesn't mean that they do not have a clear advantage over other average US players.

 

Your idea is for fix, is that everyone to become t4rouble? :D

[rel4y]

Yes a Hurricane was much, much weaker for example in turning performance than a 109E... Wait what? This would be an interesting topic for the CloD ACG server though.I dont think you will get much love for this statement though.

[Echo38]

You are saying there probably were shortages in supply and it is likely aircraft flew at lower ata etc. This is pure speculation and no data indicates anything like it. So far you have argued reasonably, but this sounds like desperate try of legitimation to me.

 

I remember reading a German account of how his airfield had loads of ammunition but no fuel, while an airfield only a few miles away had loads of fuel but no ammunition. The idea is, the German logistical situation was often pretty bad, late in the war. I don't see why this wouldn't apply to MW50, even if it was easy to produce & transport.

 

Yes, I'm only speculating that K-4s flying sans MW50 may have been sometimes necessary. I'm not desperate to cling to the idea of 1.45 ata being a WEP rating; I merely suspect that a 1.45 restriction may not have been as unheard of as you think it was. However, as I don't have solid information either way, I'm not arguing that a 1.45 ata restriction was common, or even stating that it happened for sure on the K-4. Again, I'm not a 109 expert, so I simply don't know. I agree that K-4s with a 1.45 restriction would have been unusual, and may or may not have even seen combat at all (much like 1.98 ata).

 

That still leaves the median for 109K WEP ratings firmly in the middle of 1.8 ata, which is in accord with the core of my point--you're focusing on small details which are almost entirely irrelevant to what I'm actually trying to point out. If I completely concede the argument about 1.45, and we agree that a 1.45-capped 109K never saw combat (debatable, but I don't have good info pointing in either direction), then my core point about standard (authorized & used in combat) WEP ratings remains: we have a P-51D with its lowest WEP rating, far below the median of standard WEP ratings, while we have a 109K with a WEP rating that's at the median of standard WEP ratings. Hence, low-end WEP rating for P-51D versus average WEP rating for 109K-4. Can you agree with that? And the result of this rating disparity is (non-historical) complete 109 dominance at the lower altitudes we normally fly at in multiplayer.

 

And that makes balancing a quick-action mission, such as the one running on the ACG WWII server, virtually impossible. The only workaround is to have the mission occur at high altitude, which defies the purpose of a quick-action mission. Unless you have air starts, that is, but then you're not practicing your takeoffs as much as you should. So, my only remaining recommendation for this server is to edit the mission to include a pair of heavily-defended rear airfields, on each side, with each airfield spaced far enough away from all others that a fighter can get away and have time to climb up to a safe altitude. Without the historically-accurate 72" rating, we can't have a balanced quick-action mission with proper ground starts. There's gonna have to be be time wasted climbing up to 15 or 20 thousand feet, or whatever altitude it is where the P-51 starts to have a significant speed advantage to match the 109's large climb & turn advantages. Or air starts, if that's your preference.

Edited February 29, 2016 by Echo38

[rel4y]

Ok one last try. So we agree 1.45 ata is military power, then what is the WEP engine rating lower than 1.8 ata?

 

When not using MW of course you can still engange 1.8 ata... The engine/ throttle has not been modified and was not in the field. It is just a form of russian roulette and the whole engine knocking and shaking part is quite unpleasent. Main problem being engine overheating, when going above 1.45 without MW you will bust your engine when not carefully watching cooler temps.

 

There simply is no rating below 1.8 ata!

 

It was the same with 150 grade fuel modified allied planes. They could fly on 130 grade just as well but 67" or 72" (cant remember exactly) should not be exceeded or one would risk engine failure. No adjustment to throttle and engine was done.

Edited February 29, 2016 by rel4y

[Echo38]

So we agree 1.45 ata is military power, then what is the WEP engine rating lower than 1.8 ata?

 

I'm not a 109 expert, so if you say that there was no WEP rating lower than 1.8 for the K-4, I won't dispute that. I certainly have no reason to believe that there was one, and I'm really out of my territory on the subject. It really doesn't matter to my core point, anyway. As I said, even if we assume that there never was a 109K with a lower power limit than 1.8 ata, my main point remains unaffected.

 

Please review my immediately-preceding post. I've made some phraseology edits; I don't think they've fundamentally altered the meaning of what was there before, but it might clear up a misunderstanding or two if you read the rephrased version.

 

There simply is no rating below 1.8 ata!

 

It was the same with 150 grade fuel modified allied planes. They could fly on 130 grade just as well but 67" or 72" (cant remember exactly) should not be exceeded or one would risk engine failure. No adjustment to throttle and engine was done.

 

Couple of minor corrections, for accuracy's sake: 1.45 is a MIL rating below 1.8, you said, so there must be a rating below 1.8. I'm guessing you meant "no WEP rating," rather than "no rating." I know--it gets very tiresome writing out "WEP rating" each time--my posts are cluttered with the phrase. Even worse when I have to say "officially authorized and used-in-combat WEP rating" each time. I wish there were an easier term for this, which could not be misinterpreted! "Standard" is open to loose definition.

 

The other thing: there were modification kits deployed to adjust the Allisons & Merlins for the higher WEP ratings and/or fuel grades. I'm not sure exactly what it entailed, but at least a governor needed adjustment or replacement. Since certain low-end-but-higher-than-factory ratings were authorized on the standard fuel, I'm not sure if this would require less modification. My guess is that increasing the rating on standard fuel require only modifying the CSP & throttle governor(s), while increasing the rating for the 150/100 grade fuel would also require modifying something for the mixture control. But, I really don't know the details. All I know is that there were modification kits sent out with the authorization for higher WEP ratings with the 150/100 fuel, for modifying the aircraft to use them, and that some of the lower of these higher-than-factory WEP ratings were authorized even with the standard 130/100 fuel.

Edited February 29, 2016 by Echo38

[rel4y]

 

Couple of minor corrections, for accuracy's sake: 1.45 is a MIL rating below 1.8, you said, so there must be a rating below 1.8. I'm guessing you meant "no WEP rating," rather than "no rating." I know--it gets very tiresome writing out "WEP rating" each time--my posts are cluttered with the phrase. Even worse when I have to say "officially authorized and used-in-combat WEP rating" each time. I wish there were an easier term for this, which could not be misinterpreted! "Standard" is open to loose definition.

 

I have already sent you a PM explaining my thoughts, but since you edited your post i will answer shortly. So with this logic the current P-51 has military power and normal power ratings as well, correct? So it is actually flying on the highest of the three ratings already. Wheres the problem? We were always talking WEP ratings.

 

The other thing: there were modification kits deployed to adjust the Allisons & Merlins for the higher WEP ratings and/or fuel grades. I'm not sure exactly what it entailed, but at least a governor needed adjustment or replacement. Since certain low-end-but-higher-than-factory ratings were authorized on the standard fuel, I'm not sure if this would require less modification. My guess is that increasing the rating on standard fuel require only modifying the CSP & throttle governor(s), while increasing the rating for the 150/100 grade fuel would also require modifying something for the mixture control. But, I really don't know the details. All I know is that there were modification kits sent out with the authorization for higher WEP ratings with the 150/100 fuel, for modifying the aircraft to use them, and that some of the lower of these higher-than-factory WEP ratings were authorized even with the standard 130/100 fuel.

There is an air force order on the 150 fuel grade page on wwiiaircraftperformance stating exactly what I did. It did not need adjustmen for flying mind a 150 set engine at 130 as I said in my post. If you wish I can link it. Doesnt really contribute to the discussion though. Edited February 29, 2016 by rel4y

[MAD-MM]

Ok when the Mustang is superior to the Dora at least none of you is then asking for C3 fuel? The pilots need to sharp there skills to counter the the Mustang with better tactics.

Is now the same point against K4, at least MW50 still now not proper working in the Dora nothing for interest, how can I overcome this flaws blaming the hole day about my plane of interest?

[Spectrum Legacy]

If 1.45ata is considered low/lowest standard rating here for the K4 (due to wartime shortages of supplies no less or perhaps used by relocation flights with MW50 off), then why stop at that? We can then simulate fuel shortage too. After all, many 109s among other planes were strafed or bombed sitting on the ground, right? Then it would become a ground-quake mission instead. P51 is very decent at strafing though and would fit into the role very well at least until P47 arrives into DCS.

 

Meanwhile I'm travelling back in time, into DCS 1.2.16, to get the feel of my beloved Dora again! ;)

[Echo38]

Ok when the Mustang is superior to the Dora at least none of you is then asking for C3 fuel?

 

Would a 72" P-51D really be superior to our current 190D? Genuine question--I haven't examined the matter in great detail. I know they're close in turn, but the FW 190D is faster on the deck. How much faster, though?

[MAD-MM]

Solty posted the chart on side 14 for the mustang, you see realy good example at 1000 feet they run 380 mp/h.

I don't know what D9 version we current ingame fly, was early and late but checked they all in true airspeed and comparability Fw chart also in mp/h and feet.

[Echo38]

If 72" comes along and the FW 190D falls behind, then--yes--I certainly hope that it would get one of its higher historical ratings, too, so that it remains a good match for the P-51. However, I'm not sure that the 190's situation against a 72" P-51 would be as dire as the current P-51's against our 109. Aside from the question of just how the ASL top speeds of the two would end up comparing, the 190D does have a powerful ally that the P-51 doesn't have, for one thing. And there'd still be the 67" version of the P-51, so that some missions are balanced around 67" P-51 vs. 190D, while others are balanced around 72" P-51 vs. 109K.

 

But, yes, ideally, the 190D would get the most appropriate historical rating to keep it a good competitive match with the 72" P-51D. Although, I suppose the prospect of this "snowball effect" is not a good incentive for ED to add the one rating. : /

 

Still, again, even if 72" P-51 is the only addition, that still leaves the mission editor option of 67" for missions designed with the FW 190D in mind. And that'd leave the FW 190D in a better position than the P-51 is now. And, if we're lucky, our current FW 190D might still be a good competitive match for a 72" P-51D.

Edited February 29, 2016 by Echo38

[gavagai]

Don't forget that we have 2 Spitfires on the way. 72" would be great for the P-51, but I would stop there with demands for changes to the current stable.

 

The Spitfire is well suited for point defense in a way that the P-51 can never be. Once we have the Spit on the map the dynamic will change.

 

And why can the P-51 not climb in a other direction over the map?

 

Try it. You'll still get jumped by higher red pilots who are perched over the Blue airfield looking exactly for that kind of target.

Edited March 1, 2016 by gavagai

[Solty]

Don't forget that we have 2 Spitfires on the way. 72" would be great for the P-51, but I would stop there with demands for changes to the current stable.

 

The Spitfire is well suited for point defense in a way that the P-51 can never be. Once we have the Spit on the map the dynamic will change.

 

 

 

Try it. You'll still get jumped by higher red pilots who are perched over the Blue airfield looking exactly for that kind of target.

The dynamic will certainly become different. But it won't change the matter of the P-51D. Currently P-51 is just forced to fight a fight it was not designed to. Just like the Dora, it is not a light turnfighter.

 

You see the Spitfire IXc even with 25lbs (81'hg) is going to be slower than P-51D with 67'hg :) It is just a different plane, and so Germans will be able to easily leave the Spit behind. Just break off at will. So it won't be any kind of a substitute.

 

But those that will start turnfights will feel the wrath of the Spitfre. :D And thats good, it is going to be a cool clash of styles. Maneuvrability vs speed.:pilotfly::joystick:

[Reflected]

Last time i checked this server used a mod that made distant aircraft look much bigger. Where can I download this mod to use in single player?

[IronJockel]

Last time i checked this server used a mod that made distant aircraft look much bigger. Where can I download this mod to use in single player?

 

This mod didn't enlage anything.

It fixed all LODs for the aircrafts.

However it was a Mod for pre 1.5. version of the game (before there was any model enlagement).

[Reflected]

This mod didn't enlage anything.

It fixed all LODs for the aircrafts.

However it was a Mod for pre 1.5. version of the game (before there was any model enlagement).

 

 

 

What do u mean? Is there any enlargement now? How to do that? It's quite unplayable for me with disappearing planes.

[IronJockel]

What do u mean? Is there any enlargement now? How to do that? It's quite unplayable for me with disappearing planes.

 

Did you play the sim pre edge?

It has been far worse than it's now.

[Reflected]

Did you play the sim pre edge?

It has been far worse than it's now.

 

Geez...I can't even imagine. I joined a month ago, and it's horrible compared to the visibility in other games. Nothing I can do about it?

[BFBunny]

I would never have gone online before, those black specs of dust, often even with labels on I'd have a hard time seeing the dot that label was tracking.

 

I notice now that you can be tracking something for it to go to ground level and while you're adjusting your aircraft for a split second the thing has vanished

 

There is an option in the game under. Options, gameplay, model enlargement and this will help you out in single player. I find medium and large OK.

 

I expect it's partly my bad pc as the low 8xaa produces jaggies that things can blend into. I expect if you can run this game max at 1080 or max at 1140 it's probably a bit easier.

[gavagai]

Geez...I can't even imagine. I joined a month ago, and it's horrible compared to the visibility in other games. Nothing I can do about it?

 

Enable object magnification in the game settings.:thumbup:

 

I prefer the small setting, but ymmv.

[Reflected]

I must be blind or something, but I cannot find that option under "gameplay"...can anyone please post a screenshot? Thanks!

[LuSi_6]

jep, without model enlargment it's impossible to spot or track. I'm very glad that it is enabled on the ACG server

[Reflected]

Found it! Oh my, I can finally use my P-51 and Sabre! What a change!

[gavagai]

The AAA doesn't defend the blue base on the winter map. It doesn't shoot or do anything at all.

 

FYI