P51D engine power underperforming

[Cripple]

Oh wait a minute, Solty, so suddenly that we have found out that there were no P-51D-25s over Normandy at all, that mantra that you have been spouted around in every single thread about no 109Ks over Normandy is now INVALID all the sudden?

 

Its no longer a qualifying criteria for the P-51D-25, right, because whoa, suddenly history does not apply, only if it would serve the Allied fanboys daydream about trashing 1943 planes in his overboosted 1945-ish Mustang, right?

 

But wait a minute. Lets follow that thought. IF history no longer applies, where did the "I want my so-called historical 72" boost" go...? Yup, that's right brother, you flushed that down in the toilet as well.

 

If history will be damned, and we are to have P-51D-25s or 109Ks or 190Ds over Normandy that never were there, explain us why we would need to run them at historical boosts of the historical 8th AAF (and only the 8th AAF).

 

Spot on. One cannot claim historical precedent to support one's position, whilst simultaneously claiming that this is not a historical simulation when contrary evidence is given. Please pick one position and stick to it.

 

 

Personally, I can't see the problem. Okay, so the Mustang may be (allegedly) "underpowered" compared to her in-game contemporaries, but the individual skill of the pilot has not been "nerfed" (as I believe it is put). Would I have a problem flying a Spit-IX (or even a V) instead of the later up-engine mk-XIV uber-Spit? No. For some it's not about flying the "best" iteration of a particular model...

 

(Who's "hating" on the Mustang anyway?)

[Solty]

So in other words. Germans can get everything from 1945 because they do not claim it should be over Normandy, and yet Allies cannot have P-51D20 or D25 because they were not over Normandy.... What? This has no logic behind it.

 

The main reason why P-51D should get 72'hg was NEVER because of Normandy. There was no P-51D20 nor D25 over Normandy during D-Day. True. But was there a single Bf109K4 and Fw190D9 over Normandy at that time? NO. Not a single!

 

The reason for 72'hg is simple. The 72'hg rating was used even on P-51B/C with V-1650-7 engine prior to P-51D ever showing up(EVEN THOUGH P-51D5 was over Normandy!). And P-51D20 and D25 were using 72'hg HISTORICALLY FIGHTING BF109K4 and FW190D9 during November and December 1944.

 

Your manipulation is geting you into spots when it shows that you have no clue how it worked and that logic is not present in your own assesment of the situation, Kurfurst.

 

We are not getting a historical matchup over D-Day Normandy. But we are getting planes from late war Europe, and they should have fuel and power ratings to represent that conflict!

 

relegated

 

Yeah, Nr3 is the one I used. Relegated as in ASSIGNED

Edited June 14, 2016 by Solty

[GrapeJam]

Spot on. One cannot claim historical precedent to support one's position, whilst simultaneously claiming that this is not a historical simulation when contrary evidence is given. Please pick one position and stick to it.

 

 

Personally, I can't see the problem. Okay, so the Mustang may be (allegedly) "underpowered" compared to her in-game contemporaries, but the individual skill of the pilot has not been "nerfed" (as I believe it is put). Would I have a problem flying a Spit-IX (or even a V) instead of the later up-engine mk-XIV uber-Spit? No. For some it's not about flying the "best" iteration of a particular model...

 

(Who's "hating" on the Mustang anyway?)

 

 

Is it historically accurate for the K4 and D9 to be flying over Normandy?

 

No?

 

Why're you applying that logic to the 72"hg Mustang then?

[Cripple]

Yeah, Nr3 is the one I used. Relegated as in ASSIGNED

 

That's not the most common usage of 'relegated' in (UK) English btw. In fact, I've never heard it used in that context. It's more commonly used as a pejorative, as per definition #1 - hence the confusion.

[GrapeJam]

Oh wait a minute, Solty, so suddenly that we have found out that there were no P-51D-25s over Normandy at all, that mantra that you have been spouted around in every single thread about no 109Ks over Normandy is now INVALID all the sudden?

 

Its no longer a qualifying criteria for the P-51D-25, right, because whoa, suddenly history does not apply, only if it would serve the Allied fanboys daydream about trashing 1943 planes in his overboosted 1945-ish Mustang, right?

 

But wait a minute. Lets follow that thought. IF history no longer applies, where did the "I want my so-called historical 72" boost" go...? Yup, that's right brother, you flushed that down in the toilet as well.

 

If history will be damned, and we are to have P-51D-25s or 109Ks or 190Ds over Normandy that never were there, explain us why we would need to run them at historical boosts of the historical 8th AAF (and only the 8th AAF).

 

So?

 

If the K4 and D9(with EZ 42 gunsight) are historically inaccurate already, what's wrong with the D25?

 

And frankly half of the feature that was introduced with the D25 doesn't have any use in DCS, you're just gonna be anal about it to make cheap arguments out of it?

[Kurfürst]

Right. I take that as that you solemnly swear that there will be no more complaining about 190Ds and 109Ks being present? Because that would be great.

 

Now as for the point because you seem to missed it. You always seem to focus that historical part that suits you, but a different standard is applied when they do not. As you have said, D25s, D9s and K4s were pitted against each other, so please, let there be no more complaining from you about why you have to see late war Axis planes when flying late war Allied planes. OK?

 

As for the 72" boost. 8th AAF used it from about the 2nd half of 1944, the other AAF formations in the MTO (15th AAF ) or in the Pacific did not. I do not see either could be incorrect even on historical grounds. I cannot see either that the P-51D was singled out for using one of the lower than historically possible boost, after all, its the same case in the 109K, it runs at 1,8 ata instead of 1,98 ata, or the upcoming Spitfire IX, which will have +18 lbs instead of +25 lbs. All of them are getting the "base" boost, regardless of what was historically possible or used or to what extend.

[Solty]

That's not the most common usage of 'relegated' in (UK) English btw. In fact, I've never heard it used in that context. It's more commonly used as a pejorative, as per definition #1 - hence the confusion.

Fine, be as it may. Doesnt matter. It was used as a Ground Pounder since late 1944 because it lacked range to escort the bombers over Germany. And I do remember word 'relegated' used in one of the American documentaries when they were speaking about the P-47 itself.

 

Thats what you get for not beeing borne an Englishman

[Cripple]

Why're you applying that logic to the 72"hg Mustang then?

 

*I* am not...

 

What I am doing is objecting to others attempting to do so ("historically plane X in TAF-Z had Y, therefore Sim-X should have Feature-Y"), whilst simultaneously claiming this is not a historical sim ("because plane Sim-A has Feature-B"). Follow?

 

If anyone wants a bigger will...er engine for the Mustang, fine - it won't magically make anyone a better pilot. But please do not try and use an appeal to the gods of Historical Accuracy if this is not a 100% accurate historical sim.

 

(However, if it's not a historically accurate simulation, then exactly where is the problem with having a smaller peni...er engine on the current sim-'stang? Just not big enough, eh?):P

[Kurfürst]

So?

 

So its high time people would make up their minds about throwing around these "historical" arguments and apply it both way, not only when it suits them and their favorite plane. If I would have got a penny every time I have read how deeply unhistorical the current Axis planeset over not even finished Normandy map was, I could have bought an actual original warbird already.

[Solty]

*I* am not...

 

What I am doing is objecting to others attempting to do so ("historically plane X in TAF-Z had Y, therefore Sim-X should have Feature-Y"), whilst simultaneously claiming this is not a historical sim ("because plane Sim-A has Feature-B"). Follow?

 

If anyone wants a bigger will...er engine for the Mustang, fine - it won't magically make anyone a better pilot. But please do not try and use an appeal to the gods of Historical Accuracy if this is not a 100% accurate historical sim.

 

(However, if it's not a historically accurate simulation, then exactly where is the problem with having a smaller peni...er engine on the current sim-'stang? Just not big enough, eh?):P

And yet P-51D used for very long time 72'hg. So? It beeing historical is just another reason for it. It deserves 72'hg because Allies were not idiots. They knew that Germans are developing new airframes and they are direct response to newere Bf109 models and Fw190D9 and Me262.

 

Listen. P-51B used 72'hg when G-14 was not even out. Not even one produced. And yet we have Bf109K4 which is even newer than G14. But we are using the stock 67'hg because people do not understand how it worked during the war.

[Kurfürst]

Listen. P-51B used 72'hg when G-14 was not even out. Not even one produced. And yet we have Bf109K4 which is even newer than G14. But we are using the stock 67'hg because people do not understand how it worked during the war.

 

Wrong on the first account.

 

I'd like to remind you that when the 109Ks speed was bugged in DCS a couple of months ago (20-30 km/h too slow), it was basically just an overweight and slightlly underperforming G-14. Yet I believe the complaning about our bugged DCS 109 "K" was the loudest at that point.

 

I can't cease to remind you that if we would ever get a G-14, at these altitudes, you'd be probably worser off against it than our K-4.

[gavagai]

So?

 

If the K4 and D9(with EZ 42 gunsight) are historically inaccurate already, what's wrong with the D25?

 

You misunderstand his argument. He's not saying anything is wrong with the D25. He's just pointing out that the same people who criticize the K4 and D9 in Normandy are clamoring for a P-51 that wasn't there either.

[Ala13_ManOWar]

C'mon guys, no current aircraft fits Normandy. They're still calling the map Nomandy but if we see something even close to Wags info request it won't be Normandy any more, just western Europe 1944. There's no point in arguing about that.

 

S!

[GrapeJam]

You misunderstand his argument. He's not saying anything is wrong with the D25. He's just pointing out that the same people who criticize the K4 and D9 in Normandy are clamoring for a P-51 that wasn't there either.

 

I think people missed Solty's point. He's always meant that since the K4 and the D9 are historically inaccurate already, there's nothing wrong with the D25 with 72"hg setting fighting them over Normandy.

[Kurfürst]

And what's wrong with fighting them at 67" boost then...?

[Cripple]

I think people missed Solty's point. He's always meant that since the K4 and the D9 are historically inaccurate already, there's nothing wrong with the D25 with 72"hg setting fighting them over Normandy.

 

Nor the current model. QED

[Charly_Owl]

C'mon guys, no current aircraft fits Normandy. They're still calling the map Nomandy but if we see something even close to Wags info request it won't be Normandy any more, just western Europe 1944. There's no point in arguing about that.

 

S!

 

I don't think we'll ever have a 100 % historically-accurate line-up of aircraft. Especially NOT for a study sim like DCS. I accepted that a long time ago, and sooner or later people will have to get a grip on reality.

 

A "WW2 era" theater is what we're going to have. Period. It can be argued ad nauseam about what P-51 block we "want" for the sake of balance or historical accuracy, or what german fighters should or should not have been modelled... the conclusion I've come to is that people will never be happy no matter what.

 

Hell, in another sim about the Battle of Britain, I've heard some complain about the fact that the ratio of Spitfires was "off" in multiplayer servers (Mk I vs Ia vs IIa) and was not historically accurate. Some want a Hurricane with Hispanos instead of .303 machineguns. Some want historically-accurate ratios of Bf.109E (E1 vs E3 vs E4 vs E4N) and debates about "why the E4N was not produced in great enough numbers to be modelled in game" go on for weeks. In my experience, competitive people want to fly the best fighter available more than they care about their historical relevance.

 

Given an infinite amount of time and money, I'm sure a "historically-accurate" lineup of aircraft and theaters could be achieved. But the reality is not that perfect due to schedules and budget. Developers have real-life constraints about what documentation they have access to, what they can or cannot model, what aircraft they have available to use as source material... It's extremely difficult to find an aircraft variant that has every bit of documentation available. Accurate guesswork is often required and it's a daunting task. Most of the time, the result of guesstimates is a jigsaw puzzle made of pieces that "sort of" fit together. Therefore, the modules and the variants we have are a result of a compromise more than anything else.

 

I attempted to make a full 3D model of a Spitfire in CATIA about 2 years ago in my free time... I had to give up at some point since the variant I was going for was missing important info about certain parts of the aircraft since the technical drawings I needed were either lost, destroyed or missing. Some aircraft parts were sub-contracted to small companies that do not exist anymore. I can't even imagine how difficult it must be for other aspects of the plane.

 

TLDR: I'm happy with what we have. Sue me.

Edited June 14, 2016 by Charly_Owl

[gavagai]

I think people missed Solty's point. He's always meant that since the K4 and the D9 are historically inaccurate already, there's nothing wrong with the D25 with 72"hg setting fighting them over Normandy.

 

I agree with that, too.

:)

[x39crazy]

But the 67" we have would be correct for the 15th Air Force right?

Performance wise not 3d

Edited June 14, 2016 by x39crazy

[saburo_cz]

But the 67" we have would be correct for the 15th Air Force right?

 

For every USAAF users except 8th AF...

[Solty]

For every USAAF users except 8th AF...

As we have established before, the main user of P-51D Mustang in Europe.

[MAD-MM]

Hope we see in the future P-51 D20 190 A8 and G10/G14, I believe start a discussing about every week over Mustang 72HG did not speed up the develop of WW2.

[Pandacat]

Wow this topic is really contentious. But I think this debate is healthy:D I have a different thought here. I am a firm believer of game balance here. I know you may argue anything about historical accuracy etc and DCS is a sim blah blah. Regardless how authentic it is, it is still a game.

 

I am not suggesting creating something totally out of blue with no historical basis (such as a bf109 that can fly to the moon). I think under the big framework of historical accuracy in technical details (such as engine power, aerodynamics), it is legitimate for a game maker to have some wiggling room as to what to put on the table. At the end of the day, you don't want to see online server dominated by players from one side because the other side has shittier planes. After all, what would be fun to have a server with no worthy opponents?

 

If we come back to look at our current situation, you will see a big imbalance here. Say we are lucky and get spitfire9, 262 and p47 and everything that has been promised. Which side would be stronger? We all know k4 is currently outperforming p51. Would spitfire 9 fare any better? I doubt it. 47? You think so? Ok, say your 47 and spitfire 9 can hold their own. Then I have the jet at my disposal. Then the story would be Allied pilots got slaughtered on MP servers. And then most people complained allied birds are shit and flock to German side. With so few people to play against, the server battles become bored. People start to leave and then we have empty servers again.

[Ala13_ManOWar]

… the conclusion I've come to is that people will never be happy no matter what.

 

… In my experience, competitive people want to fly the best fighter available more than they care about their historical relevance.

Gorgeous :megalol::megalol::megalol: :thumbup:. Plain truth no matter what most people usually say.

 

S!

[otto]

In a few months the spitfire 14 will be available and it's going to outperform all other piston planes.

 

Also it's hard for me to believe that the 8th airforce mustangs that flew mostly hight altitude escort to Germany and back would fly with 30% starting fuel like most p51 pilots online.When you fly escort missions you consume more fuel because you need to weave and ,or fly slower as to keep the bombers in sight.So you gain advantages that are not historically accurate anyway.