Spitfire better than P-51D for online matches?

[Krupi]

An "historicaly correct" plane set, as you put it, is going to take years. That's what it took to get us there with 4 planes. I don't know what you really expect, tbh.

If it's about changing the current planes parameters to fit more to real numbers, then we need to show that current parameters are wrong, which doesn't seem to be, and it doesn't look like that's the point you're making.

If it's about asking for new planes, then crying that much will get us nowhere. We can only hope for third parties to take it in their hands. That disparity is part of the way dcs works unfortunately, the same issues are seen on every parts of the sim, and since then ED did nothing to show a will to correct this issue. They have taken over a project and done with what was given to them. The "original sin" (k4) wasn't on their hands. If they want to have the wwii project ongoing, they have to build on more historically numerous planes so I understands their choice of spitfire version. It's just going to take a looooong time to get past the original sin.

 

 

As for my first questions, I definitely confirm, it was not Monday but Sunday, at least you, Tomsk & me (kalbuth) on ts, round ended up for blue, while we were over friendly obj 3 (there were planes crashing into each others involved ;) ). That's anecdotal but all the horrible experiences shared here by allied pilots are totally not mine on BS , so I'm quite baffled by the complete negativity shown

 

The situation you witnessed in my experience is quite rare, most of the time there are more Luftwaffe fighters which only adds to the problem.

 

I am not being melodramatic here, I am just raising a point and would like ED to acknowledge the issue.

 

We can't just shrug and say one day VEAO might solve ED need to be the ones.

 

I blew a lot of money to back a Normandy 1944 sim and currently I am not seeing that and we can't just point a finger at RRG when ED are now in charge.

[DefaultFace]

I don't think anyone here is against having a 109G or a 190A/F/whatever the relevant variant here is. I don't think anyone is against giving the allies a Mk XIV, and as much as I'm pretty sure it will be a monster I would look forward to flying it and fighting against it. And I don't personally think that flying allied is that much harder than flying axis. Complaining that the K4 can run away from a spit is like if I were to complain about Mustangs running away from K4s. Yeah they can drop the nose and run away, and there's nothing I can do about it. It's cause that airplane is faster. If I wanna be able to catch him I ought to fly a Dora. Sure there were some questionable choices made. But saying the combat is horribly lopsided to the point where it's unplayable or not enjoyable is IMO not true.

 

So having said that no one is against this idea..... Does every thread need to turn into a huge whingefest about axis are so Op, only noobs fly 109, my life is so much harder than yours etc etc? This stuff will never convince ED to make a G10/14/6/whatever your dream opponent is. Can't we maybe think about some way we could convince ED it's worth their time to make one? Or to try and convince some other dev that making it would be a good idea. Or the even more out there version... Scour the Internet for people who know what they're doing and put a team together. Either way it's not gonna happen anytime soon.

[Krupi]

If you seriously believe that DefaultFace you obviously haven't flown allies

[DefaultFace]

Well I have but ok.

 

Feel free to disagree with me on that. My main point is that the never ending complaints about German OP only serve to get people warning points and not towards anything that will change the sim.

 

Edit: Also I don't know what you want ED to admit? They developed the models they promised to develop. Whether their not changing the planeset was a wise decision or not is quite obviously debateable as we do it here every day, but I really don't think you are ever gonna get them to comment on that... Even if they did come out and say that they feel it's lopsided, what then? Still doesn't mean they would develop anything else. I think alot of guys here would be the first to hop on the Hype train towards a G14 but that train ain't leavin any time soon....

Edited January 25, 2017 by DefaultFace

[Hiromachi]

Complaining that the K4 can run away from a spit is like if I were to complain about Mustangs running away from K4s. Yeah they can drop the nose and run away, and there's nothing I can do about it.

I have yet to see that, more often K-4 is capable of sticking to P-51 tail like someone would apply glue.

 

If I wanna be able to catch him I ought to fly a Dora.

I do. Dora is a great warbird and simplicity of operating it is only challenged by my beloved MiG-15. Though I'd greatly appreciate having 190 A-8, since radials are a lot more exciting for me :thumbup:

 

Does every thread need to turn into a huge whingefest about axis are so Op, only noobs fly 109, my life is so much harder than yours etc etc? This stuff will never convince ED to make a G10/14/6/whatever your dream opponent is.

I dont think every thread turns into whine festival and dont think whining is exclusive to allied pilots. Following forums of various flight sims since at least 2003 I can recall all sides having their ups and downs. Just a human nature.

 

Can't we maybe think about some way we could convince ED it's worth their time to make one? Or to try and convince some other dev that making it would be a good idea. Or the even more out there version...

It doesnt seem that any other dev is interested in ww2 sufficiently to make the difference. Polychop had a brilliant idea with Ju-87 but they have problems and seems Stuka is indefinitely postponed, LN is ... well, nobody knows what LN is up to with their ww2 module since they made no communication about it for over a year.

 

That is an honest concern - if ww2 modules give so little profit or we just need to find another 3rd party that can add something valuable to the ww2 table.

[DefaultFace]

The difference is admittedly close and probably has alot to do with who manages their rads/prop better but it is easily possible for a Mustang to drop the nose and move around a bit and drag a 109 all the way across the map, just outside of effective guns range.

 

I agree 190's are cool.

 

No not every thread. But I've seen it alot. Not always necessarily the same people but it gets brought up often. It's happened here, in the 109 section, in the Dora section, and in the Mustang section. Every time it devolves into rants about production numbers of the K4, someone saying the P-51H is awesome and that all 109 pilots are noobs and my charts are better than your charts bla bla bla.

 

And no of course it's not just allied pilots.

[Solty]

The difference is admittedly close and probably has alot to do with who manages their rads/prop better but it is easily possible for a Mustang to drop the nose and move around a bit and drag a 109 all the way across the map, just outside of effective guns range.

 

I agree 190's are cool.

 

No not every thread. But I've seen it alot. Not always necessarily the same people but it gets brought up often. It's happened here, in the 109 section, in the Dora section, and in the Mustang section. Every time it devolves into rants about production numbers of the K4, someone saying the P-51H is awesome and that all 109 pilots are noobs and my charts are better than your charts bla bla bla.

 

And no of course it's not just allied pilots.

 

Just check how many axis threads, in other games happen about "stalinwood", USSR OP, Russian bias, flaps OP, etc. Based only on assumptions while our Mustang case always revives around historically correct fuel and engine power.

[DefaultFace]

My god. Solty please read the last line. There are a grand total of 0 people here saying that the Mustang shouldn't get it's fuel. ED already said they are doing it.

 

Not once did I say that only allies complain. They complain about this issue alot more. Which is understandable. Also what do complaints about russian bias in Il2 have to do with this here?

[Tomsk]

In any case, DCS is not a prime choice for multiplayer yet. Not with this netcode and optimalization, where you get around HALF the fps you get offline, and not without a working DM.

 

Honestly, this is somewhat my current opinion. I'm enjoying the DCS WWII birds and I've been flying them online quite a bit. The VR support is great (big kudos to ED on that), and I really like the flight and systems modelling.

 

However, I'm not seriously invested at the moment in DCS as a WWII platform. As Kurfürst says, the netcode isn't great and the DM is flat out terrible. Additionally there is no period map yet, even when we get it there are currently no plans for flyable bombers ... which IMO are really key for getting multiplayer scenarios that are more interesting than air quake. The fact that the current planes are not well balanced doesn't help either.

 

WWII in DCS is a bit of a "jewel in the rough". There's some really great things about it, it has huge potential ... but there's a lot that still needs to happen IMO to make DCS a good general WWII sim. Maybe one day that'll happen, and I look forward to seeing it.

[panzer_18]

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/AL_963.pdf

 

I wonder, if anbody of the +23 fraction has read page 4 of that paper.

 

"...... some severe handling tests to check rapid opening up and acceleration, an internal mechanical failure of the pump occurred, ......."

 

It isn't all sunshine with higher boost settings.

 

And about the P51 H thing: If it was so great, why didn't it replace the D even after the war????

 

1944, with 150 octane high boost works!

No engine broke down!

 

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/no1_25lbs.jpg

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/25lbs_approval.jpg

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/no165_25lbs.jpg

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/adgbs29867g.gif

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/2taf150_112044.gif

Edited January 25, 2017 by panzer_18

[amazingme]

I have yet to see that, more often K-4 is capable of sticking to P-51 tail like someone would apply glue.

That's nonsense.. it depends on multiple factors.

 

I do. Dora is a great warbird and simplicity of operating it is only challenged by my beloved MiG-15. Though I'd greatly appreciate having 190 A-8, since radials are a lot more exciting for me :thumbup:

Just your personal preference..and a lot of subjectivity.

 

I dont think every thread turns into whine festival and dont think whining is exclusive to allied pilots. Following forums of various flight sims since at least 2003 I can recall all sides having their ups and downs. Just a human nature.

Check K4 thread and compare it to Spit thread.. then draw your own conclusions..

 

It doesnt seem that any other dev is interested in ww2 sufficiently to make the difference. Polychop had a brilliant idea with Ju-87 but they have problems and seems Stuka is indefinitely postponed, LN is ... well, nobody knows what LN is up to with their ww2 module since they made no communication about it for over a year.

Speculations.

That is an honest concern - if ww2 modules give so little profit or we just need to find another 3rd party that can add something valuable to the ww2 table.

Now you understand..

My comments in BLUE ;)

[Talisman_VR]

1944, with 150 octane high boost works!

No engine broke down!

 

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/no1_25lbs.jpg

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/25lbs_approval.jpg

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/no165_25lbs.jpg

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/adgbs29867g.gif

http://www.spitfireperformance.com/2taf150_112044.gif

 

Thank you for the above informative references. It never ceases to amaze me that some people still want to be 25lbs boost deniers. There is so much proof out there.

 

ADGB Spit IX aircraft started using 150 grade fuel with 25lbs boost in 1944. The following is and extract from http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...rade-fuel.html

“Following successful testing, the Spitfire IX's Merlin 66 was cleared in March 1944 to use +25 lbs, obtainable with 150 grade fuel. In early May, No. 1 and No. 165 Squadrons comprising the Predannack Wing, were the first to convert their Spitfires to +25 lbs boost and employ 150 grade fuel on operations.”

It is worth noting that the Predannack Wing is quoted as the 'first', not the 'only' or the 'last'.

'First' means that more ADFG Spitfire Mk IX aircraft converted after No 1 and 165 Squadrons.

 

We also have it on record from Mr A. C. Lovesley, (Rolls-Royce 'Chief Experimental Engineer' and later 'Chief Engineer (Aircraft Engines)' then deputy director of engineering and a member of the Aero Engine Division board of directors before he retired in 1964) that, regarding 150 grade fuel, "The first operational use of this fuel was against the flying bombs in the middle of 1944. Subsequently the whole of A.D.G.B. Was put on this fuel. Later it was used by the Second Tactical Air Force during and after the invasion of the Continent."

 

 

It is worth noting that 2nd TAF was attached to ADGB for the invasion period.

 

“By mid August the V-1 diver threat was largly eliminated with the advance of the allied armies beyond the launching areas. The ADGB squadrons that had converted to 150 grade fuel now found more time to operate over the continent. The Spitfire IX Squadrons were permanently pulled off anti-diver duty on 10 August and went over completely to escort work, sweeps and armed recces. They paid their first visit to Germany on 27 August 1944.”

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...rade-fuel.html

It is worth noting that the phrase “more time” indicates that, of course, the ADGB Spit IX squadrons were also already spending time engaged on missions across the Channel, but now they had even more time and resources to focus on sorties over the Continent. Anti diver (V1 flying bomb) squadrons did not spend all their time on anti diver duties. They were rotated on standby and sometimes would fly anti diver for the morning and other operational sorties in the afternoon. There were lots of aircraft and squadrons sharing the anti diver task and they were not all needed at the same time.

 

Though the V-1 diver threat war largely eliminated, the attacks only stopped when the last launch site was over-run on 29th March 1945, so ADGB was using 150 grade fuel well into 1945.

 

Below are 2 Operational Reports from ADGB Spit LF Mk IX 150 grade fuel, 25lbs boost, Armed Recce sorties, from England to the Continent and back.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...p_16sept44.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.o...ep-27aug44.jpg

 

By the end of June 44 ADGB and 2nd TAF had flown almost 46,000 sorties of ground operations, losing 740 aircraft in the process. (Fighter Command 1939-45 by David Oliver, ISBN 000 7629087) Also, during July 44 ADGB Spitfires took part in operations over France, particularly to take Caen.

 

2nd TAF Mk IX Spitfires continued operations on the continent to the end of the war and were one of the major users of 150 grade fuel and 25lbs boost.

 

A DCS Spitfire Mk IX 25lbs boost should be very much in keeping with the historical time-line of the Normandy 1944 Map, which includes England. Moreover, I believe that the 25lbs boost Spit Mk IX would in no way be out of place, as some tend to claim, for the historical area of operations depicted on the forthcoming DCS map. In fact, almost any version of the Mk IX Spit is more in keeping with the Normandy 1944 map than any other WWII aircraft currently provided by DCS. However, given the later advanced WWII German aircraft opposition in DCS at the moment, and the Me 262 in the pipeline, the addition of a Spitfire Mk IX with 25lbs boost would be a much needed addition to the DCS WWII aircraft stable and totally in keeping with the new map.

Of course, the Normandy map will be able to be used for any number of scenarios and aircraft types and I am by no means suggesting that its use should be limited to Normandy 1944.

 

Happy landings,

 

56RAF_Talisman

[Hiromachi]

(...)

 

Not much of a comments are they. Rather ... speculations.

[Kurfürst]

I thought octane discussions were banned on this board by the order of state commisariat.

[NineLine]

I thought octane discussions were banned on this board by the order of state commisariat.

 

More so they were banned because they same points have been made about 50 times alone on this forum, and who knows how many more time on other forums...

 

 

What is the best thing for online matches and DCS dogfighting?? The upcoming improvements to the damage model, not if you put premium in your tank.

[MiloMorai]

More so they were banned because they same points have been made about 50 times alone on this forum, and who knows how many more time on other forums...

 

And no matter how many times it has been mentioned the deniers still won't accept that it was used. The same happens with the wide spread use of 100 fuel during the BoB.

[NineLine]

And no matter how many times it has been mentioned the deniers still won't accept that it was used. The same happens with the wide spread use of 100 fuel during the BoB.

 

Who cares? If you know then you know, no need to prove it to anyone anymore. Some people think the earth is flat as well... I am not going to sweat those people either ;)

 

Enoy the sim, I cant imagine the arguing has any sort of enjoyment factor for anyone.

[MiloMorai]

Who cares? If you know then you know, no need to prove it to anyone anymore. Some people think the earth is flat as well... I am not going to sweat those people either ;)

 

Enjoy the sim, I cant imagine the arguing has any sort of enjoyment factor for anyone.

 

So you don't mind the Holocaust deniers?

[NineLine]

So you don't mind the Holocaust deniers?

 

Seriously? What does that have to do with this forum, there are a lot of people that dont believe a lot of things or believe in different things (even if it pisses me off, I dont sweat ignorance). What are you going to do about it? Sometimes you have to let it go, show me what good arguing with Kurfurst over many many years and many many forums has done for you. Answer = NOTHING.

[NineLine]

Thank you for the above informative references. It never ceases to amaze me that some people still want to be 25lbs boost deniers. There is so much proof out there.

 

Soon as we get V1s in the sim, then I will fight for the addition of 25lbs, but most of what I have seen, and the opinion of the owner of TFC state that it was mostly used for special operations, such as interception of V1s.

 

Damage model and more realistic missions with the addition of terrain and era specific units will help "balance" things out.

[Hiromachi]

There will be V1s ? Havent heard about that. I loved the sound of that engine on one of the airshows, that thing was so weird and yet appealing.

[NineLine]

There will be V1s ? Havent heard about that. I loved the sound of that engine on one of the airshows, that thing was so weird and yet appealing.

 

I dont know, I hope so, one day. V1 and V2 sites would make good targets I think as well.

[OutOnTheOP]

More so they were banned because they same points have been made about 50 times alone on this forum, and who knows how many more time on other forums...

 

 

What is the best thing for online matches and DCS dogfighting?? The upcoming improvements to the damage model, not if you put premium in your tank.

 

Really? You think that a performance boost for the allied aircraft, which the current consensus agrees are outmatched by the axis aircraft, would not be a really, REALLY good thing to have?

 

Even though we have actually experienced the slow death of the WW2 servers and players drifting away from them (myself included) because of the imbalance (which is further exacerbated by the numerical imbalance that is a direct result of players gravitating to the superior machines)?

 

I think anything to level the playing field (within the bounds of historical accuracy) should be applauded and enacted as quickly as possible.

 

...I mean, unless you like watching your product die a slow death in the face of market forces like "consumer opinion".

[NineLine]

Really? You think that a performance boost for the allied aircraft, which the current consensus agrees are outmatched by the axis aircraft, would not be a really, REALLY good thing to have?

 

Even though we have actually experienced the slow death of the WW2 servers and players drifting away from them (myself included) because of the imbalance (which is further exacerbated by the numerical imbalance that is a direct result of players gravitating to the superior machines)?

 

I think anything to level the playing field (within the bounds of historical accuracy) should be applauded and enacted as quickly as possible.

 

...I mean, unless you like watching your product die a slow death in the face of market forces like "consumer opinion".

 

The German aircraft arent using the best fuel either, so you give it to one you give it to all, then what do you have, the same thing... the mission creator needs to help out and limit supplies and such.

 

So as I already said... Damage Model, and era specific units and missions will do more for DCS WWII than this ridiculous arguing about Octane (yes, its gotten ridiculous, sorry). Yes I would love to see more options, including boost and octane options, more options the better, but you guys are hanging way too much on it.

[NineLine]

PS We are getting changes to the P-51 to line up with 1944 better already...