DCS: Spitfire Mk LF IXc Discussion

[Zunzun]

Would be cool if something random could be done with MIST scripting though... not always, but occasionally you could get a lemon...

 

 

Indeed. But moreover, would be fantastic if individual planes condition could be recorded and maintained for following missions. This way you could introduce random failures for abused engines or work externally a virtual repair/maintenance service. For a multiplayer virtual war this could introduce the need for caring for the engine and play around with serviceability rates (for example by attacking supply columns or attacking airfields that would lower the moral of the ground crews).

All of this can be done externally for as long as the sim keeps an accessible record of the planes status (damage to airframe, engine...) after each mission.

[Camembert]

Indeed. But moreover, would be fantastic if individual planes condition could be recorded and maintained for following missions. This way you could introduce random failures for abused engines or work externally a virtual repair/maintenance service. For a multiplayer virtual war this could introduce the need for caring for the engine and play around with serviceability rates (for example by attacking supply columns or attacking airfields that would lower the moral of the ground crews).

All of this can be done externally for as long as the sim keeps an accessible record of the planes status (damage to airframe, engine...) after each mission.

 

I don't need anyone to keep a record of my planes status. I just look at the end of the runway to see all the burnt out wrecks of my Mustangs.

[Solty]

Indeed. But moreover, would be fantastic if individual planes condition could be recorded and maintained for following missions. This way you could introduce random failures for abused engines or work externally a virtual repair/maintenance service. For a multiplayer virtual war this could introduce the need for caring for the engine and play around with serviceability rates (for example by attacking supply columns or attacking airfields that would lower the moral of the ground crews).

All of this can be done externally for as long as the sim keeps an accessible record of the planes status (damage to airframe, engine...) after each mission.

That doesn't make any sense.

 

If your aircraft is damaged during combat, it is grounded and you are grounded. Or if your unit is short of pilots you get a new replacement aircraft to fly the next mission.

 

In the air, it is "your" airplane. On the ground it is the chief mechanic's airplane. If your plane is not repaired, you will not fly. Remember, that you are a human resource of the army that payed a lot for your training and payed a lot for that airplane, they don't want to loose that money because somebody wanted to fly with a damaged prop pitch.

 

After every mission the pilot writes a report about the mission, how much power did he use, for how long and how much ammo was used etc. Ground crew checks the engine, airframe, everything! It is their job to make the airplane fly again, and that you won't crash it.

 

Or you get grounded :)

Edited April 28, 2016 by Solty

[Merlin-27]

That doesn't make any sense.

 

If your aircraft is damaged during combat, it is grounded and you are grounded. Or if your unit is short of pilots you get a new replacement aircraft to fly the next mission.

 

In the air, it is "your" airplane. On the ground it is the chief mechanic's airplane. If your plane is not repaired, you will not fly. Remember, that you are a human resource of the army that payed a lot for your training and payed a lot for that airplane, they don't want to loose that money because somebody wanted to fly with a damaged prop pitch.

 

After every mission the pilot writes a report about the mission, how much power did he use, for how long and how much ammo was used etc. Ground crew checks the engine, airframe, everything! It is their job to make the airplane fly again, and that you won't crash it.

 

Or you get grounded :)

 

Agreed. And I would only want random failures if we can bail out and fight our way back to base on foot. Or steal a Kubewagen and tear through the countryside. Seems outside the scope of this project.

[NineLine]

Agreed. And I would only want random failures if we can bail out and fight our way back to base on foot. Or steal a Kubewagen and tear through the countryside. Seems outside the scope of this project.

 

I dunno if I agree with that, random failures in an aircraft are a little more realistic (and relevant to the FM) than a pilot bailing out, driving back to base and jumping into a new aircraft and returning to combat.

[Krupi]

Imagine all the whinging "you only shot me down because I had a dud engine..." :doh:

[Ala13_ManOWar]

That doesn't make any sense.

 

If your aircraft is damaged during combat, it is grounded and you are grounded. Or if your unit is short of pilots you get a new replacement aircraft to fly the next mission.

 

In the air, it is "your" airplane. On the ground it is the chief mechanic's airplane. If your plane is not repaired, you will not fly. Remember, that you are a human resource of the army that payed a lot for your training and payed a lot for that airplane, they don't want to loose that money because somebody wanted to fly with a damaged prop pitch.

 

After every mission the pilot writes a report about the mission, how much power did he use, for how long and how much ammo was used etc. Ground crew checks the engine, airframe, everything! It is their job to make the airplane fly again, and that you won't crash it.

 

Or you get grounded :)

Well, yes, and no. We all know while front line maintenance tries to keep the machines working properly also IRL there aren't two aircraft performing exactly the same, even two brand new factory fresh machines doesn't perform the same at all. So with use (and abuse) machines get worn and usually the last newbie arriving to the unit got the worst aircraft available, working, but far from better performers. I'm not sure that can be easily done or not, or even it should be replicated but what I'm pretty sure is people would complain really a lot about such a feature, realistic though. So at the end factory fresh machines with a proper average performance is the easiest way to keep people happy, and even that way you know.

 

S!

[klem]

Wow, I seem to have touched a nerve! :)

 

It was only a semi-humorous thought but reflected the alleged unreliability of the 109K due to manufacturing (materials?, facilities?, sabotage?, whatever).

 

Actually, with the complaints about the 109K not being a true numerical contemporary of the IXc (given that the only 109 available is the K) a minor 'Condition' of say 98% might be a historically balancing factor. Why should LW players have such an alleged "overpowering advantage" over the "poor old IXc" AND equality of numbers?

 

Mind you, I don't recall Johnny Johnson complaining about 109Ks. Probably because by that time the LW was a spent force. And they didn't have the numbers to face up to the Allies anyway. Hmmm, ok, that's the answer, a 3:1 Allies advantage of numbers over the LW. Design your missions accordingly, sorry, historically. :)

 

Look at it this way. If the Ks were to some degree unreliable and you had reliable 109G's available, what would you choose to fly? You'd have a choice with some historical risk attached to the 109Ks. And would mission designers limit the number of 109Ks available?

 

I know these ideas won't be adopted but......

[Zunzun]

Well, yes, and no. We all know while front line maintenance tries to keep the machines working properly also IRL there aren't two aircraft performing exactly the same, even two brand new factory fresh machines doesn't perform the same at all. So with use (and abuse) machines get worn and usually the last newbie arriving to the unit got the worst aircraft available, working, but far from better performers. I'm not sure that can be easily done or not, or even it should be replicated but what I'm pretty sure is people would complain really a lot about such a feature, realistic though. So at the end factory fresh machines with a proper average performance is the easiest way to keep people happy, and even that way you know.

 

S!

 

That´s the point. Is not forcing you to fly on a badly stricken plane but to making suffer you (and your side) the consequences. You abuse your engine or don´t care about being shot upon then your virtual ground crew will need to repair it. If you dare to fly without that then chances of something "breaking appart" in mid fly got much bigger. Maybe it can be "patched up" but then there is not enough time for overhauling the engine as "front conditions" urge to use any available plane for an important mission and you are "forced" to fly on a underperfoming and dangerous one. Options are limitless. For as long as the sim keeps the record of everything that happen to a plane in the sim (damage to skin, internal structure, system, worn out engine etc....) is up to a online war designer to introduce as much complexity as he/she wants.

But don´t get me wrong, that is a feature for really hardcore flying only. Not for a casual dogfight in wich, I can understand, could be quite an annoying feature. But for as long as is something optional I only see technical and developing limitations.

In general I don´t see the point of seeking a perfect match between virtual and real planes performances when at the same time having a disregard for the other things that influence airwar in a similar fashion; atrittion, logistic for arming, fuelling, repairing etc.... Even pilots phisiology is something not really simulated in deep and that have a lot of influence.

[Merlin-27]

I dunno if I agree with that, random failures in an aircraft are a little more realistic (and relevant to the FM) than a pilot bailing out, driving back to base and jumping into a new aircraft and returning to combat.

 

I see your point but a random engine failure away from base would result in a death. At least that is the current situation, right? (aside from a few situations like a manageable gov failure or a flyable flaming half-wing) Then you re-spawn. That is realism? In reality, if you were lucky, you'd return to base and sit out the mission. Doesn't sound like a fun way to spend your free time.

 

Hopefully it'd be a mission editor option like the current offering.

 

Just my .02

[HeadHunter52]

Is it to do with the 100 grade/150 grade fuel argument, if they give the spit +25 lb boost then they will be forced to give the P-51 a boost?

 

The only piece of official information I can find is this...

 

 

 

Which lets be honest is not an answer... I don't see what energy has to do with ANYTHING here, all that matters is SPEED and historic data.

 

I am a 190 pilot and I cannot fathom out why we get the December 1944/1945 version of the Dora and the allies keep on getting cut short?

 

Who the hell knows? A simple fuel boost for the 51 is rejected because, "it won't help much"? It'll be the same for any under-powered Allied plane. I keep seeing tweaks and tunes for the Germans, and for a while, there were updates for something like 2 out of 3 patches. Were they necessary? Why wouldn't the fuel issue be taken care of simply to shut the mouths of the Stang pilots?

 

I don't know what it is, but this silly refusal to hop up the fuel, while bones are thrown to the Krauts is beyond understanding. The reasoning behind it isn't reasoning - it's excuses.

[Ala13_ManOWar]

I keep seeing tweaks and tunes for the Germans, and for a while, there were updates for something like 2 out of 3 patches. Were they necessary?

But you can't be serious about that. What you call "tweaks" has been only refinements for the Beta models which P-51 is out since long ago. And even those weren't major tweaks in basic performance that is the same since start, may be with the underrating in climb speed for 109 as the only example of major performance tweaking. You can't compare details tweaking and mostly just details added (since they were lacking from Beta) with other simulators out there changing their FM every week just to keep happy some of the players (while pissing others, of course).

 

S!

[Kurfürst]

Wow, I seem to have touched a nerve! :)

 

It was only a semi-humorous thought but reflected the alleged unreliability of the 109K due to manufacturing (materials?, facilities?, sabotage?, whatever).

 

It kinda opens Pandora's box when you consider that quite typically 5-10% of the USAAF's planes aborted their missions due to some mechanical trouble, and that's the USAAF with its well built planes. Imagine the RAF.

 

Actually, with the complaints about the 109K not being a true numerical contemporary of the IXc (given that the only 109 available is the K) a minor 'Condition' of say 98% might be a historically balancing factor. Why should LW players have such an alleged "overpowering advantage" over the "poor old IXc" AND equality of numbers?

 

Mind you, I don't recall Johnny Johnson complaining about 109Ks. Probably because by that time the LW was a spent force. And they didn't have the numbers to face up to the Allies anyway. Hmmm, ok, that's the answer, a 3:1 Allies advantage of numbers over the LW. Design your missions accordingly, sorry, historically. :)

 

The short answer to that is, as much as this thought irritates some, that the Germans had a lot of K-4s at the time which was a numerical contemporary of the Mark IX.

 

You want historical balance? Then lets model another 109 and allow each server to have 1 K-4, 5 other (pretty similar) 109Gs, 4 190s a single Mark IX sitting on the tarmac and the pilot sipping tea and - when the Yanks spare you some fuel to fly around - doing ground attack missions around the airbase and drop some bomblets on Flakvierlings and Opel Blitzes, while the 40 Mustangs on every server duke it out with the 109s and 190s... I am not sure if that scenario would be more your cup of tea than having to battle late war 109s on 1 vs 1.

 

Just look at the production graphs. By late 1944, the entire two stage Merlin production (of which IXc w. M66 amounted to 200-250 in the best month in 1944) barely matched that of the K-4 alone (200-300 per given month).

 

 

Edited April 29, 2016 by Kurfürst

[Zunzun]

Well, It all depend which time frame and theatre you consider; the Kurfust wasn't a contemporary until October 1944 (and even then it was only started to be introduced). Starting on second half of 1944 and for the following three months spits IX saw lot of action in Normandy (the theatre that DCS will give us) while K4 saw none.

 

I think that none of us would like a perfect historical recreation of ww2 in aerial combat. Don't think many people would have the time or the will to fly a mustang for many hours to Germany and back or the German opposition sitting down for hours until given the go to start the interception. But on the other hand introducing all those factors (random engine problems, repairing, different qualities etc...) would only enrich the virtual flying experience albeit as being an option wouldn't had to be used all the time (you can always relax the rules for more casual dogfights).

[Ala13_ManOWar]

The short answer to that is, as much as this thought irritates some, that the Germans had a lot of K-4s at the time which was a numerical contemporary of the Mark IX

You're right but lets face the full background, even though 1944 was the highest producing year in Germany, how many of those manufactured aircraft could fly due to fuel shortages and pilots lack? I think the grounded Luftwaffe also had something to do with the final defeat. How do we 'model' that?

 

 

S!

[MiloMorai]

Doesn't matter what the production numbers were if they aren't with the JGs.

 

On Jan 1 1945 (Bodenplatte) the fighter force consisted of ~32% Fw190A-8s, ~3% Fw190A-9s, ~30% Bf109G-14s, ~6% Bf109G-10s, ~20% Fw190D-9s and ~11% Bf109K-4s. That 11% was 92 (55%) serviceable K-4s out of 167 on hand and that was all the Luftwaffe had. Some 212 had been written off or ~25% of 1944 production.

 

Of the 95,488 sorties flown by fighters in the ETO in the last quarter of 1944, some 3472 had to abort due to mechanical reasons (3.6%).

 

Spitfire production out paced K-4 production by ~50% if the Spitfire XVI numbers are included.

[Esac_mirmidon]

So?

 

I want to fly one of this 92 K4 against the Spitfires or Mustangs. Whats the problem?

 

I'm flying the Ka-50 in DCS and only 12 were built.

 

You are flying a simulator not time traveling to 1944.

 

If you dont like it mount your own server with realistic settings with an allied ratio of 50 to 1. But dont expect to be very pupulated.

Edited April 29, 2016 by Esac_mirmidon

[Solty]

Well, It all depend which time frame and theatre you consider; the Kurfust wasn't a contemporary until October 1944 (and even then it was only started to be introduced). Starting on second half of 1944 and for the following three months spits IX saw lot of action in Normandy (the theatre that DCS will give us) while K4 saw none.

 

I think that none of us would like a perfect historical recreation of ww2 in aerial combat. Don't think many people would have the time or the will to fly a mustang for many hours to Germany and back or the German opposition sitting down for hours until given the go to start the interception. But on the other hand introducing all those factors (random engine problems, repairing, different qualities etc...) would only enrich the virtual flying experience albeit as being an option wouldn't had to be used all the time (you can always relax the rules for more casual dogfights).

 

The main problem is that many people do not understand what happened when their engine stops. Now with random failures people will be even more confused. And as you said it would waste time of many.

[Zunzun]

Well, for as long as it is a mission side feature I don't see the problem.

If you want fast and quick action you join a casual dogfight. You want a deeper experience you fly an on line war where the aim is not just to shot things down but to recreate ww2 experience as much as possible.

Obviously that is debatable as we all will have different opinions in the matters but at least with my squadron had a really fun experience in an online war (in a different sim) with this type of features. In it you have to pay a price for repairing planes (and other things like ammo, fuel.....) and wasn't uncommon for the losing side flying the last mission with a big lack of planes and with several pilots not able to fly at all. It may sound unacceptable for many but for our squadron (and I suppose for our allies and opponent too) was very immersive and enjoyable.

Edited April 29, 2016 by Zunzun

[Esac_mirmidon]

Thats exactly my point.

 

If you want ultra realistic and accurated missions mount your server with overwhelming allied superiority with ratios of 50/1 against the luftwaffe, dozens of fighter bomber Mustangs riding over LW bases straffing and attacking, Bf-109 and Fw-190 with crytical short fuel suplies and a lot of engine and airframe failures and also but much more difficult, selecting the noobish pilots you have in your squads against the most talented and veteran ones on the allied side.

 

Fantastic option for everyone who like that. Nothing against that.

 

But please let the rest of us enjoy flying WWII modules between each other for the pure pleassure to fly them without bounds or extreme historical limits. Only because is fun to fly and fight a Mustang with a K4 or a D9. Only because this is a simulator. Only because i like it.

 

So difficult to understand?

 

Maybe i'm a ignorant.

[HeadHunter52]

Hehe. Maybe. But I doubt it.

 

Give us the cooler fuel, and we'll call it even, as far as gimmes go. The Kraut has been getting far too much love to max out its perkiness.

[NineLine]

Lets try and steer the discussion back towards the DCS Spitfire IX module please.

[msalama]

Naaah, no asset ratios like 1/50 or badly manufactured planes, unless you're into masochism big time.

 

Anyway, if DCS WW2 ever gets to a point where all important ground units and (at least) attack AC are modelled, I'll probably run missions centering on the ground ops / ground pounding part of the conflict. Sure, fighters will be there too; but as a defensive element they're not that important, taken into account that RL wars are won by being offensive on the ground.

 

So _there's_ some real realism for you, ye reprobate fighter pukes ;)

 

EDIT: right you are Sith, didn't see your post before pressing send...

Edited April 29, 2016 by msalama

[Ala13_ManOWar]

So?

 

I want to fly one of this 92 K4 against the Spitfires or Mustangs. Whats the problem?

 

I'm flying the Ka-50 in DCS and only 12 were built.

 

You are flying a simulator not time traveling to 1944.

 

If you dont like it mount your own server with realistic settings with an allied ratio of 50 to 1. But dont expect to be very pupulated.

Not to mention the Su-25T. The point is some have arguments to K4 production, some arguments to Spit production so each of them wants the other to be downgraded to some point and or in some way (and we don't even have Spit IX yet :lol:). I want to fly them all and I don't think any random failure, random performance or battlefield levelling of any kind would be very welcome by most of the people. The point in a hardcore simulator is simulating the real machine and that's all. If anybody wants to level missions you can always do in mission editor but I don't think asking devs to level things up in any way is fair while we ask at the same time for the absolute realism of the sim modules. Of course I would like to have more versions, 109Fs and Gs, Spits V and initial IXc, Fw190As, and so on... but I want just to fly and enjoy them in DCS level, not to level things up in the battlefield even though of course people would have better mission options that way. The asking for the other side (or own) to be up/downgraded is an endless argue.

 

S!

[Esac_mirmidon]

All i want is a historical accurated WWII airplane module. But a WORKING ONE.

 

If i want failures, overwhelming odds, unbalance historical battlefronts, fuel shortages, etc let mission developers and server admins to adjust that.

 

But from ED i want a perfectly WORKING Mk IX Spitfire to fly with and against with.

 

The rest is for editors and servers.