Possibility of other 109 Models as an addon?

[rel4y]

I didn't suggest anything, it was a rhetoric question. Also you were talking about quote: competitive match, which usually implies balancing of some sort. But all the historic matches were quite competitive, wouldn't you agree?

Edited April 13, 2017 by rel4y

[Echo38]

Are you deliberately misinterpreting what I've been saying? That isn't a rhetorical question; I really would like to know.

 

It is not an "either or" situation. You can choose two historical birds (commonly-used ones, even), which are as close of a balanced match for each other as is possible. Even were this not self-evident, it has also been explained multiple times, by several people, within the last few pages of this thread.

 

You're setting up a strawman, when you state or imply that seeking good competitive balance means disregarding (or lowering in priority) the historical accuracy of the matchup. Little could be farther than the truth.

[rel4y]

Erm whatever man, I am not setting up anything. I merely answered pretty much all your questions.

[Solty]

I didn't suggest anything, it was a rhetoric question. Also you were talking about quote: competitive match, which usually implies balancing of some sort. But all the historic matches were quite competitive, wouldn't you agree?

 

Not really... Try Bf109E3 vs Pzl11c or I15 vs 109F2 or A6M vs F4F.

It would be normally non issue as in other games we have many planes of many types and models which gives you enough diversity for many historic matchups. Its different when the only airplanes you meet are only the ones that are last models to be in some quantity.

 

And I do agree we should have been given planes for Normandy. But as long as we get finest planes for Germans and run of the mill variants for Allies there will be opposition to the current balance of power.

[rel4y]

So from this:

 

What models/blocks/variants do you think would make the best competitive match for P-51D versus Messershmitt 109?

 

And this:

 

Block 5NA/10NA vs G-6/14

Block 15NA and up vs G-6/10/14/K-4

 

What does competetive in this case even mean? Both aircaft are better in some ways than the other and have their advantages. 9th airforce never went higher than 67" boost and 8th did.

 

You arrive at this?:

 

Not really... Try Bf109E3 vs Pzl11c or I15 vs 109F2 or A6M vs F4F.

It would be normally non issue as in other games we have many planes of many types and models which gives you enough diversity for many historic matchups. Its different when the only airplanes you meet are only the ones that are last models to be in some quantity.

 

And I do agree we should have been given planes for Normandy. But as long as we get finest planes for Germans and run of the mill variants for Allies there will be opposition to the current balance of power.

 

Explain please.

[Vincent90]

But as long as we get finest planes for Germans and run of the mill variants for Allies there will be opposition to the current balance of power.

Solty, this point has been debunked so many times it is not even funny.

 

1944 G6's were superior to the K, so what you actually want is an aircraft that the P-51D, which was designed with a completely different philosophy and purpose than the 109, can curbstomp into oblivion.

 

You can preach your fantasy all day long, but it won't convince anyone whose mind is in reality.

[Echo38]

Solty, this point has been debunked so many times it is not even funny.

 

He is overstating it a bit; we don't have literally the finest 109 that ever flew. However, his core point remains valid: we have a better-than-average example of a 109 and a worse-than-average example of a P-51. Not exactly fair, especially when the result tends to be the 109 mopping the floor with the P-51 in multiplayer.

 

And before people start up with the old "LOL fair doesn't matter as long as it's historical" thing again, let me point out once more that it isn't historically representative, either. This worse-than-average P-51 facing a better-than-average 109 was not the standard historical scenario. Indeed, the opposite was more likely, due to the German late-war logistical difficulties.

1944 G6's were superior to the K

 

Wait, what? The K was the apex of 109s. Even the higher-end G-6s weren't as good. The 109K's only serious flaws were the rear visibility (problematic in combat) and the landing gear (problematic for takeoffs & landings). The G-6 had those same flaws and more, such as a draggier airframe and non-retractable tailwheel.

 

The only thing that the G-6 did better than the K-4, as a fighter, was firepower. The 20mm was better at taking down fighters, while the 30mm was better at taking down bombers. So, even here, "superior" only counts if you mean "as a fighter" rather than "as an interceptor."

Edited April 13, 2017 by Echo38

[rel4y]

No, as said many times before a G-6/14AM will climb and accelerate better below rated altitude because:

 

The change in approximate frontal flat area drag between K-4 and G-6AM is 0.0812 m^2 and the difference in weight ~150-200kg.

 

Take a look at what flight regimes parasitic drag matters and why weight (difference ~5% of total) will be the decisive factor for the "same" airframe if the difference in parasitic drag is a mere 0.0812 m^2. Several german data sheets confirm this btw. We dont make this stuff up and it has been said numerous times now.

Edited April 13, 2017 by rel4y

[DefaultFace]

Ok this is starting to get silly but lets try it once more.

 

Relative aircraft performance is not just a sliding scale on which the K4 is a 10 the Mustang is an 8 and a G6 is a 7,6. Just because one aircraft version was made after another doesn't mean it is superior in every way to the version before. Designing aircraft has alot to do with Compromising and Optimising certain things. For example reinforcing the aircraft structure to deal with higher speeds or to stop wings falling off at the cost of turn performance or optimizing engines and Propellers for high altitude combat at the expense of low altitude performance.

 

Just saying that a K4 is better than the G6/14 because it came after is an oversimplification. This is what the last few pages of this thread have been trying to tell you.

 

Isn't the P-51 we have a 45 (or Korea?) Mustang anyway? By your argument it came later than the ETO version so it's obviously better isn't it?

[OnlyforDCS]

As I see it the Mustang's biggest problem is it's rather unimpressive firepower as it is currently modeled in the game. This issue will be addressed when we get the new damage modeling (at least I hope it will be).

 

From all the interviews I've read, or watched, of actual WWII pilots, and their testimonies, it usually never came down to the plane anyway. All the surviving pilots of the day feel that the differences between the best fighters of each nation were insiginificant compared to the skill of their pilots. The better pilots won, and survived, the poorer pilots DIED.

 

I've put that word in bold and caps, because it's something that we virtual pilots usually forget or take for granted.

 

Imagine you only had one life in DCS. You sure as hell are never going to take your Mustang into the fight alone, as we frequently do. You sure as hell are going to be extremely careful to learn to handle it properly, and familiarize youself with it before even daring to take it into combat. You damned well won't go down into low altitude territory, ALONE, without backup, or allow yourself to be pounced upon by the lighter and more nimble German fighters. Or if you do find yourself in a terrible situation, you are not going to press for that kill, you are going to try to get the hell out of there.

 

Think about it. The better tactics, numbers, and pilots won. In that order. The make of the plane came last and is actually barely worth mentioning in a purely historical context.

 

Unfortunately in the current Air to Air scenario, the lighter better accelerating planes will always have an advantage if flown correctly. This won't change with any other 109 variant, unless you are talking about the pre MW50 variants.

Edited April 13, 2017 by OnlyforDCS

[Northstar98]

+1 As someone who used to play SF2 I love having different versions of aircraft, even if the differences between them are minor.

[cichlidfan]

The number of people that will buy each and every variation of a given aircraft is way to small to support the effort. Unless a dev team is willing to operate at a loss for the foreseeable future there is nobody likely to take on such an effort.

 

Also, keep in mind how long it takes to create these aircraft and how many different WWII aircraft the community appears to think are needed.

 

Resources are not unlimited and there is much to be done. Don't forget that more than half of the currently available aircraft are still not finished either.

Edited April 13, 2017 by cichlidfan

[Northstar98]

The number of people that will buy each and every variation of a given aircraft is way to small to support the effort. Unless a dev team is willing to operate at a loss for the foreseeable future there is nobody likely to take on such an effort.

 

Also, keep in mind how long it takes to create these aircraft and how many different WWII aircraft the community appears to think are needed.

 

Resources are not unlimited and there is much to be done. Don't forget that more than half of the currently available aircraft are still not finished either.

 

Oh no I don't think we should have a separate module for each individual aircraft variant, more a pack of aircraft of differing variants sold as one module (like the Gazelle which has 2/3 variants, the C-101 which has 2 variants (though WIP)). But yes I do believe that sorting out and improving the current stuff and getting 2.5 out is a higher priority - I'd much rather have a fewer number of higher quality aircraft, modules and even the base DCS (I'm talking about some of the damage modelling, the non-existent naval operations potential etc) that are actually finished before adding more stuff (quality over quantity). And yes resources are very tight which is why it's very important to get priorities right

Edited April 14, 2017 by Northstar98

[Echo38]

The change in approximate frontal flat area drag between K-4 and G-6AM is 0.0812 m^2

 

Out of ... ?

 

100 / y * 0.0812 = x%

 

x requires y to be solved.

 

The mass increase appears to be 2–3%. No idea what the drag difference is, 'coz you posted only half of the equation. In order to be better than the K-4 in any area of flight, the drag increase would have to be smaller than ~2.5%

 

Remember, drag doesn't merely affect top speed. Like mass, drag also affects climb, acceleration, turn, and diving.

Edited April 14, 2017 by Echo38

[OnlyforDCS]

You are making too much of an issue out of this Echo38. With it's better acceleration, and lower weight compared to the Mustang the G6 would be just as effective as a K @10,000 Ft and lower.

 

Same thing with the Spit. Even with all of that said, you still have the Dora, which is just as good as a K if not even better when flown properly.

 

If people actually took the time to learn to operate their planes the way they were meant to be flown, they would be much more successful.

 

In addition to that the Mustang pilots are currently at a disadvantage due to the fact that there is very little (read no) real high altitude fighting in the sim, there is very little teamwork, and that their fifty caliber machine guns are rather weak with the current damage modeling.

 

I would much rather see completely new WWII airframes, such as the Tempest, or the Typhoon, the Stuka, the P38, etc. etc. than for developers to waste their time on modeling variants, which IMO would not really change the "balance" of the fight the way most people think they would.

[cichlidfan]

I would much rather see completely new WWII airframes...than for developers to waste their time on modeling variants,...

 

This.

[Echo38]

With it's better acceleration, and lower weight compared to the Mustang the G6 would be just as effective as a K @10,000 Ft and lower.

 

That isn't how previous WWII games have portrayed them. Again, that doesn't mean they're right; I know they were wrong on a great many things. However, it has yet to be definitively established that this was one of them. In all past WWII sim-games portraying P-51, 109G-6, and 109K, the P-51 was considerably more capable of defending itself versus the G-6 (regardless of block) than against the K-4, even at lower altitudes (e.g. five to ten thousand feet).

 

Several people in this thread have suggested that this is inaccurate, but haven't posted any proof of it. I asked for some, and am told that I'm "making too much of an issue out of it." Not a good sign.

 

Until proven otherwise, I must assume that my tentative understanding (that the P-51D has a much better chance versus an early G-6, or even a later G-6, than it does versus the K-4) is correct.

[OnlyforDCS]

I have to say that you are looking at this from a very "gamey" perspective. In WWII you had an entire squadron of British pilots who refused to upgrade from their "Hurricanes" to the Spitfire. They all felt comfortable flying their Hurricanes, they could outturn the Spit, even though they were slower, couldn't fly as high, or accelerate as fast. They used their machines to the best of their ability, not the other way round.

 

Im sure that the K is a better plane than the G, though Im pretty sure that a good Mustang pilot would probably wipe the floor with either. Why? Because he would never descend below supercharger altitude, and because he would never fly without a wingman.

 

The problem with DCS is that it is in essence only a game. Even though it simulates airframes to surprising levels of authenticity, it doesn't provide the proper framework for their use. That is left to the mission builders, users, and in the end the virtual pilots.

 

We have expecations based on our ability to press a button and respawn. It's a whole different story when you can't do that now, isn't it?

 

Here is a very long and in depth interview with Erich Brunotte. He flew all variants of the Bf109 and FW190. He recalls an anecdote where the owner of a restored Mustang asks him to state which fighter was better.

 

http://video.flyingheritage.com/v/116079427/feldwebel-erich-brunotte.htm

Edited April 14, 2017 by OnlyforDCS

[Echo38]

I would much rather see completely new WWII airframes, such as the [...] P38, etc. than for developers to waste their time on modeling variants

 

I agree with this, actually. As I mentioned earlier, "Obviously, Eagle Dynamics being such a small team, the ideal solution is highly unlikely to be a feasible one. But, the thread is about the possibility (such as it is) of other 109 models, hence the discussion on which model/variant would be the best to add, if one were going to be added." In other words: I'd prefer a P-38 to an Me 109G, but if there were going to be more models of 109 added, a G-6 would be the one I'd prefer.

 

The problem with DCS is that it is in essence only a game. Even though it simulates airframes to surprising levels of authenticity, it doesn't provide the proper framework for their use. That is left to the mission builders, users, and in the end the virtual pilots.

 

That isn't a problem. A simulator is a tool, not a bludgeon. As I wrote elsewhere, "It's a high-fidelity simulator; it's not a simulator's job to artificially dictate user behavior, to force them to conform to real-life recommended operating procedures. The simulator's job is to simulate the tools as they are in reality, and let the users decide what to do with those tools within the simulation (and let them see what happens when they use the simulated tools in a manner contrary to the recommended operating procedures--e.g. engine failure due to fuel starvation, or being wildly out of trim because of unwise adjustments in the hangar)."

 

We have expecations based on our ability to press a button and respawn. It's a whole different story when you can't do that now, isn't it?

 

Yes. Here's what I wrote on that, in another thread (which, ironically, was also about comparing models of 109):

 

In real life, speed is life, and you usually don't want to slow down to sustained turn speeds in air combat. It's a quick way to get killed by another fighter you don't see, and minimizes your options for disengaging if things don't work as planned. So, usually, IRL, they had loads of altitude and loads of speed, and were in no hurry to burn either one. If they couldn't get a good shot right away, they'd often try to extend, or to maneuver defensively (staying fast, rather than burning E to try to get on the enemy's tail) while waiting for a friendly to help out.

 

Thus, the nature of real air combat, with greater fighter saturation and real consequences, was such that "burn E to get on his tail ASAP and finish the fight at sustained turn speed" wasn't the order of the day, the way it often is in multiplayer sims. Most simmers put a greater priority on potential kills, and a lower priority on personal survival, than real fighter pilots. After all, we respawn each time.

 

For this reason, I believe, real air combat tends to happen at much higher speeds (as well as altitudes), on average, and thus takes far longer to get down to sustained turn speed. So, IRL, instantaneous turn often matters more than sustained turns. The F model had better instantaneous turn than the G, but I expect most G variants to have better sustained turn (because of the power increases).

 

So, a simmer might rightly consider the G-10 more maneuverable than the F, because we're more concerned with sustained turns, because our burn-E-to-make-the-kill duels at low altitude get down to sustained turn speeds very quickly. But a real fighter pilot might rightly consider the F more maneuverable than the G-10, because he's more concerned with instantaneous turns, because he has a lot more E to work with.

 

For these reasons, in real life, if given the choice between two fighters, one of which had better instantaneous turn and the other of which had better sustained turn--well, I'd take the one that was faster, but if speed wasn't the deciding factor--I'd take the one that had better instantaneous turn. However, in a sim, I'd take the one with sustained turn, rather than the one with instantaneous. The overly-aggressive (good for kills/hour, bad for survival chances) way that we simmers behave ... we spend most of the fight at sustained turn speeds. In a duel to the death, sustained turn beats instantaneous turn, because when both pilots perform maximum-effectiveness maneuvers to get a killshot, very little of the fight is spent at corner turning speed and most of it will be at sustained.

Edited April 14, 2017 by Echo38

[otto]

we have a better-than-average example of a 109 and a worse-than-average example of a P-51. Not exactly fair, especially when the result tends to be the 109 mopping the floor with the P-51 in multiplayer.

 

- i posted these a bunch of times.

-This footage was taken when flying without mw50 so with 400horsepowerp less :

 

H90jgDfCm2E

wZlguXL5JuE

XoSNOEBLh9I

 

With the FM the K4 had at the time, it was slower and turned much worse than it does now .So it was practically a g6 that turned much much worse than a g6, climbed worse because of the extra weight of a k4.

 

-It's a mistery to me how you decided the 109 is so much better based on what ?

I've flown them both and the 109 has the big disadvantage of controls locking at 710 ors Km/g.While the mustang can dive much faster and still be able to take aim. That improved energy fighting by a lot.

There is also frontal visibility that is exellent on the p51, i don't lose targets like i do in the 109.Rear as well.

 

-Also a p51 from 1945 with tail saving radar and bubble canopy is a worse than average p51 ?

 

 

Wait, what? The K was the apex of 109s

 

There is also the 109k with C3 fuel.I think the G14 is a much better fighter for low alt duels like we have in MP because it's a little slower but turnes and climbs better.While the k4 was optimised for high alt fight against bombers.

I don't see an apex. One is good for one thing the other one for another.

[DefaultFace]

In order to be better than the K-4 in any area of flight, the drag increase would have to be smaller than ~2.5%

.

 

This makes no sense, and that is not how airplanes work.

 

As far as having a better chance against a G-6 (once again whatever that means...... Turn fight? BNZ? High alt? Airshow? Prettyness?) if you talk about being able to just run away with high speed then sure in this field you have a bit more of an advantage. But what you gain in being able to run away (which the P-51 can already do anyway) you lose in a dogfight. Same deal for the spitfire. You might be able to catch someone flying straight lines all the time (which most 109 pilots do against the spitty, because it is very diffcult to dogfight with) but if you come against someone who knows how to fly their life got a whole lot easier when they are flying high yo yos and shooting you to bits.

 

The Mustang in DCS really doesn't suck that bad. With a little bit of brain you can rule just as well as you can in a 109. Most pilots in DCS are clueless anyway. No matter what you fly if you fly well you can pretty much kill any aircraft.

[Echo38]

a p51 from 1945 with tail saving radar and bubble canopy is a worse than average p51?

 

[exasperated sigh]

 

Firstly, the tail warning radar is virtually useless in a multiplayer dogfight. A P-51D block with TWR isn't automatically better than a P-51D block without TWR. (Indeed, a lot of real P-51 pilots didn't even use the TWR, because they considered it unhelpful, even during the long cruises where it was supposed to shine.)

 

Secondly, the year of a block's actual introduction is irrelevant if it's using a horsepower rating from 1943 or 1944, rather than one more appropriate to 1945.

 

Now, the bubbletop canopy is a fair point, because that's a large advantage in a fighter (although not so much during the dogfight itself). So, an amendment to my statement: we have a better-than-average example of a 1945 Messerschmitt 109 and a worse-than-average example of a 1945 P-51. The two fighters in the sim may be technically contemporaries, but the matchup is not representative of the average P-51 versus the average 109, particularly during the year being depicted. The lowest-utilized WEP rating for the P-51 is the reason (WEP rating is colossally more important than minor details like TWR). Make sense now?

 

As for the rest of your post: I didn't watch the videos, because you just posted three videos with a "there" and didn't explain what I was supposed to be watching them for or what they point they were supposed to address / be relevant to. Sorry.

[Echo38]

This makes no sense, and that is not how airplanes work.

 

Rather than mean-spiritedly throwing a -rep message at me, calling me stupid for suggesting that drag is as important as mass, and then dropping a "no it isn't" in this thread, perhaps you could instead elucidate? I'm not an expert on aerodynamics (although I rather doubt that you are, either), so it's possible that I'm wrong when I say that the % of drag decrease can offset the % of mass increase. But you're going to need to explain how I'm wrong, rather than simply sneering "you're wrong."

 

That really isn't how correct a misimpression, nor how to conduct an intellectual debate. What's your motivation for this hostility, anyway? It's almost as if you're emotionally invested in trying to prove that no change is needed to the aircraft matchup, rather than being objective about whether or not an improvement is needed. I'm guessing you mostly fly 109, yes?

Edited April 15, 2017 by Echo38

[DefaultFace]

I never said one is more important than the other. Just that they don't necessarily balance each other out as you are trying to suggest. Nowhere do I claim to be an expert on aerodynamics, or aircraft physics or performance in general. But drag and weight affect different things. This is fairly basic and doesn't require a degree in engineering to understand. (F=ma)

 

An increase in drag will generally have more of an effect on top speed and accelleration. Weight on the other hand has more of an effect on turn performance and climb performance etc. (this is also simplified, obviously weight indirectly affects Top speed etc etc etc, just not directly or on the same scale)

 

I don't care if you are a rocket scientist or not. Just stop trying to make up pseudo science to argue your point. Yes the G 109 has an increase in some areas of performance and a loss in others. This doesn't mean that those are linearly related by the equation you made up on the other page.

 

Edit since you keep adding things to your post: Yes I do mostly fly 109 but I've flown all of them enough. No I am not against a change in lineup. Give me a G 109 I'll be the first in line to fly it. Im also 100% for the Mustang getting its engine improvements. What I am against is people who don't understand how airplanes work making statements that don't make sense. TBH I also have no idea what a 0.0812m^2 difference makes. But I can tell you from flying the K in DCS that a 100-200kg difference in weight (burning 200l of fuel) definitely makes a difference. And If you look at top speed performance charts you can see what the difference is. Yeah it will be important in some fights, and less so in others.

 

None of what I'm writing here is intended to be a 'hahaha you are dumb, look how much smarter I am than you lololol'. Just saying that your argument is an oversimplification of a very complex topic which doesn't accurately describe what we are talking about. None of what rel4y, Kurfürst, I or many others are posting here is necessarily an exact scientific analysis of the subject either.

Edited April 15, 2017 by DefaultFace

[Echo38]

Pseudo-science? You can't say, "It's got 3% more mass and 3% less drag; it must be less maneuverable, since it has more mass!" That ignores the very significant effect that drag has on climb, acceleration, and turn.

 

It's true that drag isn't as linear of a problem as mass, since drag is more of a problem at high airspeed than at low airspeed, but the best climb speeds and best turn speeds for these birds are still high enough for drag to be a big player. You can't just assume that the airplane with a little bit more mass is less maneuverable than the airplane with a little bit more drag, the way you (pl) are, which is what I was originally objecting to.

 

Given my understanding of how mass and drag affect performance, I would hypothesize that the fighter with 3% more mass and 3% less frontal drag is going to be the better fighter, even when prioritizing kills as highly as survival. It's going to be similar enough in maneuverability that it's going to be almost unheard of for it to make the difference in a maneuvering fight, while being faster enough to decidedly make the difference in a long-term chase. (Only the very best pilots are going to be able to notice, or even utilize, that difference in maneuverability, while almost any pilot can notice and utilize that difference in speed.)

Edited April 15, 2017 by Echo38