How do I properly fly the P-51D?

[Talisman_VR]

I would just like to say that I think the P51D does cut it against the LW types, but it is not easy, which is as it should be IMHO.

The P51D is not at its best in air-quake type scenarios against human or AI, but that is to be expected, surely. I think that once we get more realistic WWII situations with more Allied aircraft and the Normandy map (and the air-to-air visual visibility penalty solved), the P51D will shine more. However, flown with care to the aircrafts strength, I can still hold my own on a MP air-quake server against the 109 and 190. In fact, I have never really been a fan of the Mustang, as I am a big Spitfire fan, but since flying the P51D in DCS I have definitely been converted to a big Mustang fan as well now :thumbup:

 

Happy landings,

 

Talisman

[Ala13_ManOWar]

In fact, I have never really been a fan of the Mustang, as I am a big Spitfire fan, but since flying the P51D in DCS I have definitely been converted to a big Mustang fan as well now

But that's a DCS really big BIG trouble, you get fan of everything you fly. I'm now D9 fan, 109K4 fan, P-51D fan, will be spit fan once released, not to mention P-47, but also I'm F-86 fan, really surprisingly MiG-15 big fan, MiG-21 fan, even Huey fan. And that's annoying, I can't fly it all at once :lol:.

 

S!

[Solty]

If you think you're having trouble with the K-4, just wait until you run into a ME-262.

I can guarantee you that Me262 with current AI is going to be easier than K4. Expert AI 109 is nearly unbeatable except if you exploit the terrain or get him after the first pass in a zoom-out. Even MiG29 with missles is way easier. :D Human in K4 is easier for me than the AI 109. (well most of the time that is :P. At least you can run xD)

 

 

[ame]

[/ame]

:pilotfly:

 

Realy though, the hard part is to evade the missles :P

Edited March 18, 2016 by Solty

[Buzzles]

Is it possible the OP is more a critisism of the AI and SFM rather than the aircraft modeling itself? Perhaps the AI 51s should be using different tactics?

 

I would still put this issue behind infantry AI.

 

I respectfully disagree with you here, Slazi.

In my opinion DCSW is a flight sim first, so the AI of the planes is by far the most important one, followed by the AI of units that interact with planes, like ATC and SAM systems.

 

And it was already acknowledged that ED has to improve AI and the flight model it uses.

 

[snip]

 

The two bolded bits are one and the same though. I have no idea on the feasibilty of it from a performance side of things, but obviously getting the AI using the PFM/EFM would even out the performance and control differences that exist currently.

 

You'll still have the issues of AI vs Human, but at least the AI won't be able to fully cheat as they do now.

[Aginor]

I don't think AI can't handle the AFM properly at the moment, and I am not sure how hard that would be to code and how it would affect game performance. I guess it wouldn't be easy.

 

But yes, of course that would be cool, the AI having to cope with all the stuff a player does, like proper stalls, overheating and so on.

 

But Maybe with a few tweaks a good SFM might be enough for the AI. That leaves us with the problem that the AI apparently doesn't know what tactics to use, I even think it only knows ONE dogfight tactic. And that one only works because of the rather unrealistic flight model. AI would be much worse without it.

 

So yeah, the problem is complex.

[WinterH]

I Think we have at least estabilished that :

- AI anything vs AI anything is not a measure of anything meaningful

- AI really, reeaaly needs some revolutionary updates

:D

[Sporg]

But that's a DCS really big BIG trouble, you get fan of everything you fly. I'm now D9 fan, 109K4 fan, P-51D fan, will be spit fan once released, not to mention P-47, but also I'm F-86 fan, really surprisingly MiG-15 big fan, MiG-21 fan, even Huey fan. And that's annoying, I can't fly it all at once :lol:.

 

S!

Super +1. :D

[NakedSquirrel]

The AI in DCS is terrible.

 

If you really want to see how bad the AI is, try a dogfight with a P-51 vs a Mig-15, Mig-21, or Mig-29 AI, they are comically easy to shoot down. Is that a measure of the Mig-29s performance vs the P51? :unsure: Probably not...

 

DCS AI has an extremely simplified flight model with simple tactics. (A: climb to minimum stall speed B: Turn at minimum speed and shoot). On top of that, there's no DM (it's either 100% dead or 0% dead).

 

 

If you want a normalesque looking dogfight with AI K4s vs P51s, try adjusting the skill levels. Unfortunately... there really isn't much besides the few AI levels to adjust (Excellent, high, average, good), so if you increase the skill level of the P51, they will snipe down the enemy AI in short bursts (and vice versa).

 

If you play around with the skill levels enough you might make a somewhat believable looking dogfight, but in the end the AI just fly to the deck and turn/stall fight at minimum speed until they run out of ammo or die.

 

Wags said they were working on AI functionality so they could do some different aerobatic maneuvers in the future, hopefully they add some sliders, scripts, combat routines, or something we can use to make the AI dogfight experience more enjoyable.

 

Until then...

 

Ces't la vie

 

Go shoot down some Mig-29s :pilotfly:

[KansasCS]

Actually, IMHO, the flight model that the AI uses is much more of a problem than its logic to go high and what not. Going vertical in a 109, I can barely keep up with the mustang in front of me, let alone pull such a tight high yoyo after he basically just lost all his e.

It is obscene and wildly differs from online performances, IMHO.

 

 

Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk

[ponhard]

Maybe it is the 109 that has superpowers? I have never flown a real P-51 but it feels damn realistic... Then again I feel like a superman in the 109 :)

[Yo-Yo]

Maybe it is the 109 that has superpowers? I have never flown a real P-51 but it feels damn realistic... Then again I feel like a superman in the 109 :)

 

You have more than 1800 HP in 3300 kg plane vs 4300 kg driving only by 1650 hp...

[Solty]

You have more than 1800 HP in 3300 kg plane vs 4300 kg driving only by 1650 hp...

 

YoYo it's 1720hp at 67hg

Edited March 20, 2016 by Solty

[Kurfürst]

Solty, you are correct, but its a bit about different standards, "apples and oranges".

 

Power depends on the reference altitude - the Germans and Russians usually gave engine power at SL, but it actually peaked a bit higher than that because of the power curve of the engine increasing a bit after SL... for example the nominally 1475 PS DB605A peaked out at 1550 PS.

 

The Western Allies usually gave it at the peak altitude (and sometimes gave an "international" rating that was lower, too which must have been derived from some cruise rating..?). So it just really boils down to different customs (and metric units, too, see metric horsepower vs mechanical horsepower)

 

In any way, I think YoYo meant to point out that "its a feature, not a bug". ;)

Edited March 21, 2016 by Kurfürst

[Yo-Yo]

Solty, you are correct, but its a bit about different standards, "apples and oranges".

 

Power depends on the reference altitude - the Germans and Russians usually gave engine power at SL, but it actually peaked a bit higher than that because of the power curve of the engine increasing a bit after SL... for example the nominally 1475 PS DB605A peaked out at 1550 PS.

 

The Western Allies usually gave it at the peak altitude (and sometimes gave an "international" rating that was lower, too which must have been derived from some cruise rating..?). So it just really boils down to different customs (and metric units, too, see metric horsepower vs mechanical horsepower)

 

In any way, I think YoYo meant to point out that "its a feature, not a bug". ;)

 

Yes, the exact number depends on the altitude... but in this case it has no significance in comparison. :)

[MiloMorai]

Article on DB engines, http://www.enginehistory.org/German/daimler-benz.shtml

[jester_]

Article on DB engines, http://www.enginehistory.org/German/daimler-benz.shtml

 

I'm sorry, this info is inconsistent with secret russian documents.

[Aginor]

I think the more important info here is the weight, not those few horse power give or take.

[xaoslaad]

Actually, IMHO, the flight model that the AI uses is much more of a problem than its logic to go high and what not. Going vertical in a 109, I can barely keep up with the mustang in front of me, let alone pull such a tight high yoyo after he basically just lost all his e.

It is obscene and wildly differs from online performances, IMHO.

 

 

Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk

It's also that the AI has three states, "Everything's Great!", RTB, and Dead. I know none of the aircraft are terribly over/under-powered compared to their contemporaries in the game. That's because my buddy and I, who are not terribly skilled with any of them can hop in the pit of one and take down the other.

 

That said there is nothing like clobbering your enemy and watching him still fly perfectly. It's especially noticable when you don't have cannons to blow pieces of plane away as they just don't deteriorate. That's probably due largely to them flying with an SFM and probably very limited systems mgmt. It still makes me nuts watching aircraft with the vertical stab missing RTB smooth as silk. If that happens to you or I we fish-tail into an unrecoverable spin.

 

If they did deteriorate a lot of the frustration might go away as they'd probably die trying to maneuver or be sitting ducks for the kill shot. Over time though you can get a feel for good places to shoot. Tails, such that if I miss my rounds should hit the body of the plane, and wing roots are my preference.

 

It's not perfect, but it's what we have so we have to adapt.

[nervousenergy]

I don't think AI can't handle the AFM properly at the moment, and I am not sure how hard that would be to code and how it would affect game performance. I guess it wouldn't be easy.

 

But yes, of course that would be cool, the AI having to cope with all the stuff a player does, like proper stalls, overheating and so on.

 

But Maybe with a few tweaks a good SFM might be enough for the AI. That leaves us with the problem that the AI apparently doesn't know what tactics to use, I even think it only knows ONE dogfight tactic. And that one only works because of the rather unrealistic flight model. AI would be much worse without it.

 

So yeah, the problem is complex.

 

I agree... even a proper SFM would be a vast improvement. The AI model appears to be much, much simpler than even SFM right now, since they do things that are impossible under SFM rules.

 

I'd love to see ED spin AI off to it's own threaded app. Being able to load up a 16 core host server with most of those cores hosting AI bots at full EFM with a large repertoire of flight maneuvers would be a titanic improvement. I recall the old mid-90's days with Quake 2 and the problems we had with players cheating with client side bots, and think how great it would be if client side bots could help us in DCS.

s

[Chrinik]

And even if it was not superior to the 109, it is not nearly as hard as it is in DCS to get this plane to 20,000 feet. Please keep in mind that these pilots fly out of AZ and Nevada where the conditions are identical to the NTTR map. I just cannot believe that all of these guys, and the things I have researched are wrong.

Sorry ED but the P51 isn't right in my opinion. And I'm grounding her.

 

Just my opinion...............................................

 

Remember that the P-51 was not designed to fight at 100% full tanks.

It is very easy in DCS to just run an air start and put all planes at 100% fuel.

The P-51D had to fly-off about 45 Minutes of fuel just to get into a decent trim again, because they crammed so much fuel into this thing to be able to do it´s stuff.

 

On airshows, they typically do not load it up with full fuel because they don´t need to be going anywhere...they put in exactly what they need, plus an emergency amount and that´s it.

 

Those Pilots would probably tell you how much of a bathtub the P-51 is with full tanks, if they even ever flew her that way.

[gavagai]

In the NTTR map, I can barely get the P51 up to 17,000 ft. The thing just does not have the power. I am fully aware of technique of getting there. And ask anyone, please post a video of you getting it there from the ground. I would truly like to see it.

 

Something isn't right. It's pretty easy to get the P-51 up to 30,000ft if you are patient. We can help, but this thread isn't the right place.

[Coyote Duster]

I'm always seeing on here the p-51 was designed as a high altitude escort fighter, it seems that people have forgotten that the p-51s would fly in front of the bombers and sweep the surrounding area before the bombers got into range, essentially destroying and dismantling the luftwaffe from takeoff, to forming up, to landing, many luftwaffe aces lives were claimed by roving patrols of p-51s, same reason why the me262 never really shined, the p-51 was as good on the deck as it was at high altitude, the 109 just retains too much energy compared to the p-51s "streamlined" design and laminar flow wings.

[MAD-MM]

First laminar flow wing came with GFK constructions like on glider.

There is also good articel about the none laminar of the Mustangs.

Is advantage came manily from the high quality of build at this time,

and his low drag producing wing, compare to the germans they have 30% + more drag because of the bad quality.

Next one the Me-262 was interceptor with high speed realy poor accerleration because of the characteristics of early jet engines, and nearyl every prob powered plane at 1945 was faster in accerleration, for no reasons the Mustangs hang around me-262 airfields.

allied was in 10:1 Air superiority, this few k4' and D9 where slaughtered.

The Mustang was on of the best WW2 birds no claim i lover here lines, but your streamlined is about 1t heavyer then 109, i would intressted how you came to that conclusion Coyote?

[Coyote Duster]

First laminar flow wing came with GFK constructions like on glider.

There is also good articel about the none laminar of the Mustangs.

Is advantage came manily from the high quality of build at this time,

and his low drag producing wing, compare to the germans they have 30% + more drag because of the bad quality.

Next one the Me-262 was interceptor with high speed realy poor accerleration because of the characteristics of early jet engines, and nearyl every prob powered plane at 1945 was faster in accerleration, for no reasons the Mustangs hang around me-262 airfields.

allied was in 10:1 Air superiority, this few k4' and D9 where slaughtered.

The Mustang was on of the best WW2 birds no claim i lover here lines, but your streamlined is about 1t heavyer then 109, i would intressted how you came to that conclusion Coyote?

 

just because its heavier doesn't mean it has lower performance, the challenger hellcat is heavier than the ford mustang, yet it has better performance lol, idk where you got the notion of bad quality from, american planes are built with the highest quality in mind compared to late war german aircraft, due to constant bombing of german factories, idk either where you're getting this high drag from seeing how the p-51 has had countless hours in the wind tunnels, you ever heard of the term "high speed low drag"? Honestly the d9 is not this axis monster you guys portray it to be, i mean above 15k the p47 runs circles around it, and its twice as heavy! lol The germans never really conquered the high altitude realm. Btw the leading edge slats on the 109 are overrated, all they do is give the aircraft a higher angle of attack, they cause massive drag in a spiral climb, which p47 pilots took great advantage of.

[MAD-MM]

For misunderstanding i described P-51 high quality build compare to german fighters at this time.

Because of heavier yes but there is defently a difference between hang around on stall speed fighting where is weight important and high speed turns and dives.