Possibility of other 109 Models as an addon?

[OnlyforDCS]

[exasperated sigh]

 

we have a better-than-average example of a 1945 Messerschmitt 109 and a worse-than-average example of a 1945 P-51

 

All I am saying (and others in this thread) is that the difference between those two planes is very, very minor, when flown correctly, and used to their strengths.

 

Sure the 109 can turn better, and outclimb the P51. However I doubt that it can match it's performance at high altitude, and it's definitely worse in a dive.

 

As for the difference between a 109G and K, it is definitely not enough to make any kind of noticable difference in a fight with a Mustang.

 

Do you really believe that adifference of a few miles per hour in top speed, will drastically change how basically the same airframe behaves in a fight? Even if the pilots who flew them flew them "perfectly" 100% of the time. How many on here can claim this? How many RL pilots could claim this who flew them in WWII? Can you? I sure as hell know that I can't.

 

A case can be made that the Mustang's firepower is undermodeled in DCS. Even the early 109E would still have a significant advantage over the Mustang in that regard.

Edited April 15, 2017 by OnlyforDCS

[otto]

[exasperated sigh]

 

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?

 

 

You should lighten up with that exasperated sigh:D.The fact is that people fly online with unhistoricaly low amounts of fuel for p51 that was primarely used as long range fighter .That way you turn and climb better.You can't have 1000% realism unless you want to fight 10x or 20x numbers and odds with Luftwaffe.

 

 

[exasperated sigh]

 

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.

 

 

My point is I got a lot of kills without the 400hp boost we know as the mw50 on the 109. But not on the 109 that turns like today but the one the used the old FM and turned much worse.:D

That would be arguably a worse plane than a historical G6 from 1943 that turned much much better.

 

So even a g6 from 1943 would still be a most capable plane in the hands of someone that flyes smart .

 

PS: Why is it so important to have equal planes measured with a ruler to the last millimeter.

I'll even try flying without mw50 vs a spit 14 because it's challenging and fun.I used to fly a mig 21 online vs mirage2000 and it was also fun.

[Echo38]

The fact is that people fly online with unhistoricaly low amounts of fuel for p51 that was primarely used as long range fighter .That way you turn and climb better.

 

What on the goddess' earthy earth does that have to do with what we were talking about?

 

[perplexed as heck]

[otto]

 

As for the difference between a 109G and K, it is definitely not enough to make any kind of noticable difference in a fight with a Mustang.

 

.

 

Everything makes a difference .But even a g6 from 1943 would be slower for sure but it would turn much better. You would still have the classic energy fighter vs an angles fighter and the pilot would make the difference.

[OnlyforDCS]

You would still have the classic energy fighter vs an angles fighter and the pilot would make the difference.

 

This is the point I'm trying to make.

[DefaultFace]

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. It's going to be similar enough in maneuverability that it's going to be almost unheard of for that 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.)

 

Drag and Weight do not affect the same things in aircraft. Yes the increase in drag will affect turn performance and climb performance and generally everything in one way or another. However it wont necessarily affect it by the same amount. Maybe if you were saying that a 3% increase in thrust would perfectly offset a 3% increase in drag although I would wager that this is also too simple to describe reality.

 

Also remember that a decrease in mass with the same amount of thrust (better prop, more or less same engine) will also affect accelleration. Will this balance out the increase in drag? I don't know but since these are all fairly minimal changes all counteracting each other, one could presume that the difference will not necessarily be huge. Certainly not huge enough to shift the balance in a turnfight.

 

For about the 100th time I am not saying that less mass is more important than more drag. They affect different things, which are needed for different types of fights. You can hypothesize whatever you want. Speed is more important in a long chase, turning is more important in a turnfight.

 

I'm not going to argue this with you any further. TBH its pointless anyway because we aren't going to see these aircraft in DCS anytime soon.

 

also +1@ onlyforDCS and Otto

[otto]

What on the goddess' earthy earth does that have to do with what we were talking about?

 

[perplexed as heck]

 

I don't get what's so hard .The boost you want for the p51 would be used on a plane that once it drops the external wing fuel tanks still needs to be full of fuel internally to get all the way back to UK from Germany.So with that much fuel it would turn and fly like a pig and the boost would't make much difference in my book.

Those were the majority of missions flown by p51.

 

PS:Now if you'll excuse me i'm going to get a bite to eat.

[Echo38]

But even a g6 from 1943 would be slower for sure but it would turn much better.

 

The "bad G-6" was worse than the K-4 in not only drag but also in thrust-to-mass, yes? Being lighter made it better at instantaneous turn, but having worse thrust-to-mass made it worse at climb, acceleration, and sustained turn (and sustained turn speed is where most of the turning happens in multiplayer). This would be true even if the G-6 had the same drag as the K-4, by the way. As the G-6 was draggier, this compounded the problem.

 

So, while an early G-6 had better instantaneous turn from being lighter, it had worse sustained turn (along with climb, acceleration, and speed) from having a worse thrust/mass ratio (as well as more drag). Overall, the K-4 was a much better turning fighter for normal multiplayer altitudes, even ignoring the climb and acceleration. At higher altitudes, the G-6 would have more potential energy with which to utilize its superior instantaneous turn, but then, too, the K-4 should have an even better thrust/mass ratio up there because of the supercharger (or whatever it was that was optimized for high altitude on the K-4), which again means that the K-4 is the overall superior turner, up high, too.

 

I don't get what's so hard .The boost you want for the p51 would be used on a plane that once it drops the external wing fuel tanks still needs to be full of fuel internally to get all the way back to UK from Germany.So with that much fuel it would turn and fly like a pig and the boost would't make much difference in my book.

 

Pretty sure the standard operating procedure was to burn the rear tank off before starting on the drop tanks. So, after dropping the tanks, you'd be at ~70% internal fuel, not 100%.

 

But, regardless, this tangent ... no, completely irrelevant point you've embarked on has nothing to do with the subject of the thread, or the encompassing discussion! How much fuel players carry in multiplayer has nothing to do with which aircraft is best matched to which aircraft. I don't see the connection you seem to see.

 

Whether all players use 100% fuel, or 15% fuel ... whether all P-51 players use 15% fuel and all 109 players use 100% fuel, or the other way around, or any other combination of fuel states, my point about 67" P-51D vs. 109K remains unaffected. It's more true at some fuel states, but still true at all fuel states. Hence my utter confusion at what your point is, and how any such point could possibly be relevant to the discussion you were aiming it at.

Edited April 16, 2017 by Echo38

[otto]

The "bad G-6" was worse than the K-4 in not only drag but also in thrust-to-mass, yes? Being lighter made it better at instantaneous turn, but having worse thrust-to-mass made it worse at climb, acceleration, and sustained turn (and sustained turn speed is where most of the turning happens in multiplayer). This would be true even if the G-6 had the same drag as the K-4, by the way. As the G-6 was draggier, this compounded the problem.

 

So, while an early G-6 had better instantaneous turn from being lighter, it had worse sustained turn (along with climb, acceleration, and speed) from having a worse thrust/mass ratio (as well as more drag). Overall, the K-4 was a much better turning fighter for normal multiplayer altitudes, even ignoring the climb and acceleration. At higher altitudes, the G-6 would have more potential energy with which to utilize its superior instantaneous turn, but then, too, the K-4 should have an even better thrust/mass ratio up there because of the supercharger (or whatever it was that was optimized for high altitude on the K-4), which again means that the K-4 is the overall superior turner, up high, too.

 

 

 

Pretty sure the standard operating procedure was to burn the rear tank off before starting on the drop tanks. So, after dropping the tanks, you'd be at ~70% internal fuel, not 100%.

 

But, regardless, this tangent ... no, completely irrelevant point you've embarked on has nothing to do with the subject of the thread, or the encompassing discussion! How much fuel players carry in multiplayer has nothing to do with which aircraft is best matched to which aircraft. I don't see the connection you seem to see.

 

Whether all players use 100% fuel, or 15% fuel ... whether all P-51 players use 15% fuel and all 109 players use 100% fuel, or the other way around, or any other combination of fuel states, my point about 67" P-51D vs. 109K remains unaffected. It's more true at some fuel states, but still true at all fuel states. Hence my utter confusion at what your point is, and how any such point could possibly be relevant to the discussion you were aiming it at.

 

" It's more true at some fuel states, but still true at all fuel states"

i'm amazed that sounds logical to you.

 

Based on the fact i actually did fly a 68% fueled mustang in mp and also at 35% fuel the difference in huge .Based on the fact i've actually flown a K4 without mw50 in Mp and got 30 kills with it i actually know what i'm talking about while you're just making presumptions .

 

I looks to me like you're putting you're fingers in your ears and telling me that: - doesn't matter what you say i'm not listening,-i'm not watching your videos , -i still believe what i want to believe.

 

You didn't even watch the 5 minute videos that i posted.Honestly I can't take this conversation seriously anymore .

Edited April 17, 2017 by otto

[Echo38]

i'm amazed that sounds logical to you.

 

What's so difficult to understand about this? Certain absolutely true statements are even stronger in some cases than in others, but remain true in cases in which the statement is weaker.

 

As an example, the case in point: a 109K has superior sustained turn to a P-51D at 10,000 feet, assuming standardized conditions (e.g. both running clean, both optimally maintained, both running historical ratings, etc.). This statement is true whether the P-51D is running at 67" or at 72". However, the statement is even more true if it's a 67" P-51 than if it's a 72" P-51. The 109K still out-turns the 72" P-51, but the 109 doesn't out-turn it as easily as it out-turns a 67" P-51.

 

Ergo, the statement "the 109K has a superior sustained turn to a P-51D" is true in both cases, but it is more true in the case of the 67" P-51 than it is in the case of the 72" P-51.

 

I assume you are being intentionally difficult by mocking this logic. I don't have any other choice, as I believe the logic is self-evident.

 

You didn't even watch the 5 minute videos that i posted.Honestly I can't take this conversation seriously anymore .

 

Your videos, by your own description, show you shooting down P-51s with a gimped 109. I don't need to watch them to find two major problems with this.

 

Firstly, the fact that even a gimped 109 is able to take out P-51s is support of my position, not yours. My core position is that the 109K is too strong for a 67" P-51 in multiplayer, so if even a weak example of a 109K is stronger than a 67" P-51, then the current (stronger) example of the 109 is really too strong for the P-51.

 

Secondly, even a thousand videos of Fighter X shooting down Fighter Y in multiplayer (or even in real life!) is not actually evidence that Fighter X is better than Fighter Y. Superior pilot skill (or an initial energy advantage, etc.) can allow an inferior airplane to emerge victorious over a superior airplane. So, another logical fallacy on your part. It just so happens that in the case of your example, your airplane was superior, but—as I explained in the previous paragraph—that's hardly compelling evidence against the need for a better P-51, is it?

 

I'm having a hard time taking this conversation seriously, too, now. It looks like you've been treating it as a bit of a joke, all along.

Edited April 18, 2017 by Echo38
grammar & phrasing

[rogonaut]

Firstly, the fact that even a gimped 109 is able to take out P-51s is support of my position, not yours. My core position is that the 109K is too strong for a 67" P-51 in multiplayer, so if even a weak example of a 109K is stronger than a 67" P-51, then the current (stronger) example of the 109 is really too strong for the P-51.

 

just go fly and get better at it, cause thats just not true. i loose against a P-51 with my 109 so whats the better plane? its the pilot in almost every case that decides over loss or victory... dont get in a turn fight with the mustang unless you really now what your doing. theres gonna be a better version of the P51 in the future.

[Echo38]

its the pilot in almost every case that decides over loss or victory

 

"It's the pilot, not the plane" is a favorite saying of the pilot in the better plane. (Thanks, Gav!) No one wants to admit that their victory is due—at least in part—to having the advantage of superior equipment. They want to believe that it was solely due to their skill—that they earned it.

 

But the equipment is as important as the skill. A bad pilot can't do much with a great plane, it's true, but a great pilot can't do much with a bad plane, either. I mean, sure, a great pilot in a bad plane can knock down bad pilots in good planes, but he's generally not going to be able to take out even average pilots in great planes—much less good pilots in great planes.

 

If you spend thousands of hours in competitive duels against the very best virtual pilots in the world—as I have—you'll come to realize that, while pilot skill is vital to victory, so is having an aircraft that isn't significantly inferior to your opponent's. Unless you're fighting pilots who are less experienced than you, that is. In which case, you can come to an erroneous conclusion about the role of equipment.

 

As I like to say, ask an Olympic runner if he minds carrying a weight weighing 10% of his bodymass, during the big race, while his opponent runs unhindered. I assure you that he will not take a fancy to the idea. The point is: superior skill generally wins the fight, but when the two opponents are of similar skill, it is the quality of the equipment which determines the outcome of the fight (along with other factors, like starting energy state).

Edited April 17, 2017 by Echo38

[OnlyforDCS]

So, another logical fallacy on your part. It just so happens that in the case of your example, your airplane was superior, but—as I explained in the previous paragraph—that's hardly compelling evidence against the need for a better P-51, is it?

 

Sorry to butt in to your conversation, but the argument put forward in this thread was not for a better P51D but a "worse" 109. What Otto was trying to demonstrate is that even a considerably "gimped" 109 can still be flown succesfully.

 

This is the point you are consistently ignoring. You have put forward that an earlier model 109 would be better balanced against the P51D, Otto is arguing the point that when flown to it's strengths it would really make very little difference in the current DCS environment.

 

DCS World can't really be balanced for fair gameplay, it doesn't work like that, and unlike most games that have come before the DCS WWII it doesn't cater to balance.

 

I for one am very excited for the improved DMG modeling, it will let us use the P51D (and the other 50 cal powerhouse, the P47 once it arrives) the way it was meant to. I would really be happy if they update it's boost too. Though that has not been confirmed by any dev so far. It's mostly rampant speculation on the forums.

 

The thing is this, it will not really change anything drastically. That's the point that Otto, myself and a few others are trying to make. The P51D is a great plane, when used to its strengths. It has serious drawbacks too, and giving it high octane fuel, some more manifold pressure boost, won't solve those.

[Echo38]

the argument put forward in this thread was not for a better P51D but a "worse" 109.

 

The argument put forward in this thread has been for a better P-51 vs. 109 matchup. There are two ways to do that: bring in a better P-51, or bring in a worse 109. Either one could work to solve that problem, although I favor (for reasons already given) the introduction of the 72" P-51D over that of the 109G-6. That makes this argument academic, but I'll humor you, for now.

 

What Otto was trying to demonstrate is that even a considerably "gimped" 109 can still be flown succesfully. This is the point you are consistently ignoring.

 

Ignoring? To the contrary, I addressed that point, in the very post you quoted. I wrote, "Even a thousand videos of Fighter X shooting down Fighter Y in multiplayer (or even in real life!) is not actually evidence that Fighter X is better than Fighter Y. Superior pilot skill (or an initial energy advantage, etc.) can allow an inferior airplane to emerge victorious over a superior airplane." Once again, it is deeply flawed logic to suggest that being able to win in a fighter makes a statement about that fighter's combat effectiveness relative to any other fighter. Any fighter can be "flown successfully," if you're fighting unskilled opponents. Doesn't make it a good match.

 

You have put forward that an earlier model 109 would be better balanced against the P51D, Otto is arguing the point that when flown to it's strengths it would really make very little difference in the current DCS environment.

 

[...]

 

giving [the P-51] high octane fuel, some more manifold pressure boost, won't solve those [problems].

 

[sigh] "Less underpowered" is better than "more underpowered." I don't know how you [pl] come to the daft conclusion that still being underpowered after an improvement makes the improvement not worthwhile.

 

The thing is this, it will not really change anything drastically.

 

Here's what I wrote yesterday about that:

 

"That's a 7.5% power increase. The average pilot may not be able to notice it, but the good ones certainly can. To recycle the analogy I just used yesterday in another thread, ask an Olympic runner if he's cool with the idea of carrying a weight that weighs 7% of his bodymass, during the big race, while his opponent runs unhindered. You think he'll be agreeable to the notion that it isn't that big of a deal? I'll give you a hint: he won't be.

 

At the highest levels of competition, 1% can mean the difference between win and loss. [...] To any fighter pilot worth his avgas, 7.5% more power is a large improvement, more than noticeable to a good pilot. 72" is that big of a deal."

Edited April 20, 2017 by Echo38
from one-liner to short story

[OnlyforDCS]

Well I really hope you get your wanted boost, so you can put that power increase to good use. I'm definitely not a good enough pilot to make the most of it. I have to warn you that the chances of that happening are slim to none. None of the developers have confirmed that any upgrades to the Mustang are happening, other than superficial changes that reflect a European Theater Mustang. (The model we currently have is a Pacific theatre one, apparently).

[otto]

Why is 72hg so important .I actually want it in game but you can have success without it:

 

 

To any fighter pilot worth his avgas, 7.5% more power is a large improvement, more than noticeable to a good pilot. 72" is that big of a deal.

 

 

Without Mw50 i used 1.42 ata and not 1.8 that would be used with mw50.That is 26% difference in power .So if it's possible to have succes like that it's certainly possible to have success without those 7%.

 

What's better for getting more people into MP ?

 

1.Showing you can have succes with a weaker plane ? And I've also got five p51 kills with a 61hg p51 because i didn't even set the key for wep and got shot down only once.

 

TN9oHgP13BA

 

I have more but i'll have to look for it.

 

 

2.Complaining constantly how weak your plane is and ending up with bunch of contradictions:

 

-so if even a weak example of a 109K is stronger than a 67" P-51

-Superior pilot skill can allow an inferior airplane to emerge victorious over a superior airplane

 

You're contradictiong yourself.

 

Your videos; so if even a weak example of a 109K is stronger than a 67" P-51

 

if you watch the videos you will see that i shoot pairs of p51s flyng in formation so that would mean they fly as a team + 2 vs 1 fight and 2 guys from same squadron one after the other.

So using your way of thinkig a weak example of a 109K is stronger than 2 67" P51s.

 

"Even a thousand videos of Fighter X shooting down Fighter Y in multiplayer (or even in real life!) is not actually evidence that Fighter X is better than Fighter Y. Superior pilot skill ( or an initial energy advantage, etc.) can allow an inferior airplane to emerge victorious over a superior airplane.

 

So the 109 is Too strong based on what because it would seem it's deeply flawed logic so sugest it's because a side has better success with it .That might be because it has better pilots acording to you.

Also it would seem it's not deepley flawed to presume one plane is better than another without actually flying both planes in mp.

 

 

whether all P-51 players use 15% fuel and all 109 players use 100% fuel, or the other way around, or any other combination of fuel states, my point about 67" P-51D vs. 109K remains unaffected. It's more true at some fuel states, but still true at all fuel state

 

the statement "the 109K has a superior sustained turn to a P-51D" is true in both cases, but it is more true in the case of the 67" P-51 than it is in the case of the 72" P-51.

 

 

You tried to back up your first statement with the second one but If a p51 player uses 15% fuel and a 109 player uses 100% fuel the p51 will outurn the 109 .You would know this if you actually tried it in game.But you're just making presumptions.

You say we have in game a below average example of p51.But players in game can choose to take much less fuel than real life missions.

If you think fuel level makes no difference but only 72hg does than make p51 players use 70% start fuel in mp like real life.That wouldn't make you very popular.

Also at high altitude 6000-8000 72Hg would make no differece but the fact you can take much less fuel than historical amount does help.

Edited April 22, 2017 by otto

[Echo38]

ending up with bunch of contradictions:

 

You're contradictiong yourself.

 

I almost never do this, but I stopped reading your post at this point. Please, think about what you're saying (and what I'm saying!) more carefully, before you post such a reply. There's simply no logic to this accusation of yours.

 

I'll address this one point of yours, about contradictions, but not the rest in that post. If you don't get the logic of this point, you won't for the rest of any responses I give to them.

 

"A weak example of a 109K is stronger than a 67" P-51" and "Superior pilot skill can allow an inferior airplane to emerge victorious over a superior airplane" are not contradictory statements. Can you not see this? Do I really need to explain why?

[otto]

I almost never do this, but I stopped reading your post at this point. Please, think about what you're saying (and what I'm saying!) more carefully, before you post such a reply. There's simply no logic to this accusation of yours.

 

I'll address this one point of yours, about contradictions, but not the rest in that post. If you don't get the logic of this point, you won't for the rest of any responses I give to them.

 

"A weak example of a 109K is stronger than a 67" P-51" and "Superior pilot skill can allow an inferior airplane to emerge victorious over a superior airplane" are not contradictory statements. Can you not see this? Do I really need to explain why?

 

You write these two consecutive conclusions about my video so let's see :

 

 

Firstly, the fact that even a gimped 109 is able to take out P-51s is support of my position, not yours. My core position is that the 109K is too strong for a 67" P-51 in multiplayer, so if even a weak example of a 109K is stronger than a 67" P-51, then the current (stronger) example of the 109 is really too strong for the P-51.

 

first you say my video shows a 109k without mw50 is better than 67" p51 because i can win with it.

 

Superior pilot skill (or an initial energy advantage, etc.) can allow an inferior airplane to emerge victorious over a superior airplane.

 

.

 

than you say better pilots can win with a bad aircraft vs a better one.So it's possible i win because I'm a better pilot with an inferiour plane.

 

so yea you're contradicting yourself.

 

There is also :

 

Your videos show:

 

Firstly, the fact that even a gimped 109 is able to take out P-51s is support of my position, not yours. My core position is that the 109K is too strong for a 67" P-51 in multiplayer, so if even a weak example of a 109K is stronger than a 67" P-51, then the current (stronger) example of the 109 is really too strong for the P-51.

 

Secondly, even a thousand videos of Fighter X shooting down Fighter Y in multiplayer (or even in real life!) is not actually evidence that Fighter X is better than Fighter Y. Superior pilot skill can allow an inferior airplane to emerge victorious over a superior airplane.

 

This is another contradiction. Even a thousand videos of fighter x shooting down fighter Y..is not actually evidence of fighter x is better.

But then in the first paragraph you seem to think it is evidence and that: the fact that even a gimped 109 is able to take out P-51s ...... even a weak example of 109K is stronger than a 67" P51.

 

 

 

Also from one day to the next:

 

04-17-2017

even a weak example of a 109K is stronger than a 67" P-51.

weak meaning no MW50 in this case.

 

 

04-18-2017:

when you take away the 109K's MW50, it becomes a real underdog compared to the 67" P-51

 

 

Anyway. Let's agree to disagree ,shake hands and move on .

Edited April 23, 2017 by otto

[Echo38]

You write these two consecutive conclusions about my video so let's see :

 

first you say my video shows a 109k without mw50 is better than 67" p51 because i can win with it.

 

than you say better pilots can win with a bad aircraft vs a better one.So it's possible i win because I'm a better pilot with an inferiour plane.

 

so yea you're contradicting yourself.

 

Is there a language barrier thing going on here, or what? It's as though aren't even reading my posts—just skimming them over and then making bizarre assumptions about what I meant. If English isn't your first language, I understand the difficulty. If it is, however, then I don't know what to say, other than that it's looking more and more like you're trolling me, instead of honestly trying to engage in a discussion.

 

Prime example: you quoted me as saying "Even a weak example of a 109K is stronger than a 67" P-51," and suggested that this contradicts something else I said. However, what I originally wrote was, "If even a weak example of a 109K is stronger than a 67" P-51 ..." You even quoted the "if" in your previous post, here: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3117356&postcount=141 In the middle of yet another inaccurate accusation of self-contradiction, no less!

 

"If X is true" is not the same thing as "X is true." Just so you're aware.

: /

Edited April 23, 2017 by Echo38
grammar, phrasing, etc.

[NineLine]

I think everyone needs to check the thread title again, that might help ;)

[Echo38]

first you say my video shows a 109k without mw50 is better than 67" p51 because i can win with it.

 

For the record, I never said that.

 

Now, to get closer to the actual thread topic: I'd like to conclude by reiterating that I don't think that adding additional models of 109 would be the best use of development resources at this point in time. However, if another 109 were to be added, I believe that a G-6 would be the best match for a 67" P-51D. This would allow standard multiplayer missions to be made which could contain all three fighters (Me 109G, FW 190D, and 67" P-51D), without any of them being at a serious disadvantage.

 

Not sure how the G-6 would fare against the Spitfire, though. Based on portrayals in older sim-games, I would assume that the G-6 would be at a general disadvantage, but you know how accurate the older sim-games were. Maybe it wouldn't be.

Edited April 23, 2017 by Echo38
Spitfire

[otto]

I think everyone needs to check the thread title again, that might help ;)

 

:D

it's time to agree to disagree, shake hands and move on.

[OnlyforDCS]

 

Not sure how the G-6 would fare against the Spitfire, though. Based on portrayals in older sim-games, I would assume that the G-6 would be at a general disadvantage, but you know how accurate the older sim-games were. Maybe it wouldn't be.

 

Was the G6 variant fitted with the MW50 water injection system? I've read that some had it, and others did not.

[Echo38]

Was the G6 variant fitted with the MW50 water injection system? I've read that some had it, and others did not.

 

Whether an "upper-end" or "lower-end" G-6 would be the best fit, in multiplayer, is the big question. Our resident 109 expert consistently refuses to answer my query on this point; I don't know if it's because he doesn't have any idea which would be a better competitive match, or if it's because he doesn't like the idea of improving competitive balance without reducing historical accuracy. The complete silence each time would normally incline me to suspect the latter, but I'd like to be charitable. Although the 109 does have the upper hand in multiplayer, I'm sure it's a complete coincidence that most of the people who resist the idea fly primarily or exclusively 109.

 

But I digress. The solution to the hypothetical question, "If another 109 were to be added to the sim, which would be the best match for a 67" WEP P-51D," is rather simple. If I were developing the sim, what I'd do is make (in a test environment) a quick, crude adjustment to the K-4, an extrapolated estimate of how the lower-end G-6 should perform, and then a second one for the higher-end G-6. Have the best pilots in the community have at it in standard-protocol duels, switching aircraft back and forth (X vs. X, Y vs. Y, Z vs. Z, X vs. Y, Y vs. X, X vs. Z, Z vs. X) until it becomes clear which of the two extrapolated G-6 variants is the best match for the 67" P-51 in multiplayer. This is how I used to balance my planesets in sim-games which had many variants to choose from. The method works well.

 

The only flaw in that test method is that it can't account for the scenario in which both are true: A) one of the fighters is easy to push to its max, while the other fighter is difficult to push to its max, and B) the pilots are more familiar with the easier-to-fly fighter than with the harder-to-fly fighter. In this situation, the results can be misleading, as one of the fighters wasn't pushed to its max (and thus is potentially better than it appeared to be in the test). In other words, you can have two fighters appear equal, but one of them is actually better, because neither pilot was accustomed to it sufficiently to push it to its max when it was his turn to fly that one. However, a sufficiently broad pool of highly-skilled pilots can solve even this problem. You just got to make sure you have enough pilots who are experienced with both aircraft.

Edited April 24, 2017 by Echo38

[Ala13_ManOWar]

But I digress. The solution to the hypothetical question, "If another 109 were to be added to the sim, which would be the best match for a 67" WEP P-51D," is rather simple. If I were developing the sim, what I'd do is make (in a test environment) a quick, crude adjustment to the K-4, an extrapolated estimate of how the lower-end G-6 should perform, and then a second one for the higher-end G-6. Have the best pilots in the community have at it in standard-protocol duels, switching aircraft back and forth (X vs. X, Y vs. Y, Z vs. Z, X vs. Y, Y vs. X, X vs. Z, Z vs. X) until it becomes clear which of the two extrapolated G-6 variants is the best match for the 67" P-51 in multiplayer. This is how I used to balance my planesets in sim-games which had many variants to choose from. The method works well.

In my squad we used to make tests like that in order to tackle with the planesets in the old SEOW campaigns. Fair enough it's a good starting point, though one never knows how "RL" will behave compared to tests.

 

 

Anyway, I think it was Pman who explained not far ago that the whole point in DCS is not, and never was, any kind of balance but simulation accuracy and realism, and the reason is obvious, accuracy and realism doesn't depend on what we want to model but on the data available about a certain model. To go further, current planeset, IMHO, has demonstrated that anything can happen in the sky. So, I believe it's not a question of "balance", but suitable and historically matching planeset now we talk about IA. Of course, with regard to any full module, it's gonna be harder than that due to data availability.

 

 

That said, it doesn't mean I wouldn't like to see more 109 flyable models in DCS, but that "balance" mind might not be helpful.

 

 

S!