sobek Posted March 4, 2015 Posted March 4, 2015 Balance is achieved through mission design, not by choosing airframes that match each other as closely as possible. Good, fast, cheap. Choose any two. Come let's eat grandpa! Use punctuation, save lives!
Zunzun Posted March 4, 2015 Posted March 4, 2015 In my opinion the option chosen of modelling K and D was a quite bad one (I understand it was the previous team option not DCS). they aren´t very representative of the luftwaffe in 1944 and that open the door now to the race for the highest boost. a D22-D28 P-47 variants facing G-6-g14 or Fw190A6-a8 would have being much more representative of the year. K and D are basically 1945 planes (or very late 44) if we speak about representative numbers. Moreover, 45 is a very misleading year when speaking about variants. The luftwaffe was either forced to throw anything it has in its inventory in order to survive and the Ta-152, D-13 or high boost K were being tested on a combat air-space. Meanwhile the allies where already focusing on post-war scenario. Normal variants were more than sufficient as Luftwaffe wasn´t a big threat anymore (still dangerous when encountered but that was quite rare for the average allied pilot). And speaking about advanced variants, the P-47N, XP-72, P-51H, Tempest II, Spit XXI..... were safely being tested hundreds of miles from the combat lines. There wasn´t any need to rush any of them into combat.
Echo38 Posted March 4, 2015 Posted March 4, 2015 Balance is achieved through mission design, not by choosing airframes that match each other as closely as possible. But that doesn't answer my fundamental question: why are some people so insistent that the aircraft on the German side be based on higher-end examples than the aircraft on the U.S. side, when the end result of this is a situation is both less well-balanced and less historically-representative than choosing similar examples for both?
ED Team NineLine Posted March 4, 2015 ED Team Posted March 4, 2015 But that doesn't answer my fundamental question: why are some people so insistent that the aircraft on the German side be based on higher-end examples than the aircraft on the U.S. side, when the end result of this is a situation is both less well-balanced and less historically-representative than choosing similar examples for both? People are human ;) Forum Rules • My YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**
Zunzun Posted March 4, 2015 Posted March 4, 2015 Changing subjets a little bit. Is there any news about the turbo and whether it will be fully implemented?
JST Posted March 4, 2015 Posted March 4, 2015 What some people have already forgotten; Both the P-51D and Fw 190 D-9 were individual developments from ED way before even the "Europe 1944" Kickstarter was a thing and they are implemented as intended, outside of any WW2 balance factors. Is this ideal? No. Does it obligate ED to make extreme performance modifications to these planes just to please the 1944 niche? No. Just something to think about. On another note, This "low build quality" discussion (I hope it's just that, words exchanging words) is a can of worms that shouldn't be opened, even as a simple historical discussion it's questionable at best. Let War Thunder keep that stuff. My skins/liveries for Fw 190 D-9 and Bf 109 K-4: My blog or Forums. Open for requests as well. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
MiloMorai Posted March 4, 2015 Posted March 4, 2015 Balance is achieved through mission design, not by choosing airframes that match each other as closely as possible. Yes servers allow only 1 K-4/D-9 for every 7 P-51s and 5 P-47s.
TAGERT Posted March 4, 2015 Posted March 4, 2015 Yes servers allow only 1 K-4/D-9 for every 7 P-51s and 5 P-47s.LOL
Crumpp Posted March 4, 2015 Posted March 4, 2015 situation is both less well-balanced and less historically-representative than choosing similar examples for both? I agree that would be a bad situation. The problem I have I do not see the where the one side has "higher end aircraft" than the other. I am equally bad in all of them! :megalol: Seriously, I have no problems with the P-51. I love to fly it and it is one of the best dog-fighters in the game. I do not get to fly as much I would like because of balance. There simply is more P-51's on the servers when I get to play. When balance allows me, I take the Mustang. It is a stable, fast, and maneuverable. The tail warning radar is cool too, btw. It has saved my bacon a couple of times. It is very competitive in the current planeset, IMHO. It does not matter what airplane I have been in. When I get shot down, it has always been my fault and not the FM's. These airplanes represent the pinnacle of piston engined fighter development. The P-47 when it comes out is not going to be hanger queen. It was and will be a powerful and competitive fighter just as it was in 1944. That is competitive not dominate. Answers to most important questions ATC can ask that every pilot should memorize: 1. No, I do not have a pen. 2. Indicating 250
Kurfürst Posted March 4, 2015 Posted March 4, 2015 But that doesn't answer my fundamental question: why are some people so insistent that the aircraft on the German side be based on higher-end examples than the aircraft on the U.S. side, when the end result of this is a situation is both less well-balanced and less historically-representative than choosing similar examples for both? I can only see you being insistent on Allied aircraft should be always based on higher-end examples... :music_whistling: http://www.kurfurst.org - The Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance Resource Site Vezérünk a bátorság, Kísérőnk a szerencse! -Motto of the RHAF 101st 'Puma' Home Air Defense Fighter Regiment The Answer to the Ultimate Question of the K-4, the Universe, and Everything: Powerloading 550 HP / ton, 1593 having been made up to 31th March 1945, 314 K-4s were being operated in frontline service on 31 January 1945.
Echo38 Posted March 5, 2015 Posted March 5, 2015 (edited) I can only see you being insistent on Allied aircraft should be always based on higher-end examples... Why would you say something like this? I've never insisted that Allied aircraft be based on their higher-end examples. Rather, my post (see footnote) clearly stated that I thought that it would not be a good idea with the 109 we have in the sim. So why the false accusation? A 64" P-38L is a lower-middle-range example, not high-end. In fact, 64" is closer to low-end than it is to high-end, given that 60" was the lowest and 75" was the highest I've seen confirmed to have been used on the L. Even 66" is lower than the mode on that range; that is, 66" is closer to 60" than to 75". Our Me 109K is running a boost that is higher than its lowest historical one, right? Somewhere in the middle between its lowest and highest, if I recall aright? So why do you object to a P-38L doing the same thing, with 64" or so? Surely you don't think it would make the P-38 dominant? Footnote: Look, I'm not asking for a 75", ~1900 hp. P-38L. That would be uncalled for, unless we were facing the 1.98 ata Me 109. (from a few posts back in this very thread. I think there isn't much room for misinterpretation.) Edited March 5, 2015 by Echo38
Not_G Posted March 5, 2015 Posted March 5, 2015 Just my 2 cents but I keep seeing people getting so wrapped around the axle on the higher octane/ few extra inches of mercury thing... in truth those engine mods didn't make or break dogfights, they slightly altered the performance curve. I guess my point is, if ED just made it so the gauges read 75hg or 1.9ATA etc no one would be the wiser and we'd all be happy. The P-47 will be awesome to fly regardless
Echo38 Posted March 5, 2015 Posted March 5, 2015 (edited) those engine mods didn't make or break dogfights, they slightly altered the performance curve. Depends on which aircraft and which ratings we're talking about, but it often could mean the difference between which aircraft was faster and which was slower, at various altitudes, or even altogether. Maneuverability was similarly affected. Which is why I'm so concerned with the issue. The idea is to get evenly-balanced matchups without reducing the sim fidelity & historical accuracy. And, by carefully choosing/including WEP hp. ratings, this is possible. Simply modelling all the U.S. birds at their lowest historical WEP ratings is not the way to do this. When pitted against German aircraft which are idealized (and I'm glad that they're idealized! I don't want the German aircraft simulated to be examples which are worn and have manufacturing defects, because I love the German fighters, too), it just isn't good, neither for balance, nor even for historical accuracy. I'm rather baffled, at this point, by the resistance to the idea of "fair & balanced, without reducing fidelity & historical accuracy," so I guess I'm just going to have to trust in Yo-Yo. Yo-Yo is a very smart dude, and he loves these birds as much as I do, and so I guess I can trust him to recognize the problem when/if it arises and incorporate any necessary fixes as soon as possible. Didn't someone say that ED had already acknowledged plans, or at least the possibility, of incorporating a wider range of HP ratings after all of the initial five WWII fighters were released? Anyone have a link to the post? Edited March 5, 2015 by Echo38
Alladyn Posted March 5, 2015 Posted March 5, 2015 I don't care which one it'll be, just give me one, and take my money! P-47 :love:* [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
ED Team NineLine Posted March 5, 2015 ED Team Posted March 5, 2015 ED will model the best version of the D-30 they can, depending on information available. I am more worried about getting some ground units to slap around than anything else... Forum Rules • My YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**
Ultra Posted March 5, 2015 Posted March 5, 2015 I am more worried about getting some ground units to slap around than anything else... Definitely, this is a major part. :( Coming soon I hope... but I guess EDGE must come first.
Friedrich-4B Posted March 5, 2015 Posted March 5, 2015 Mainly for interest, here are some encounter reports from late 1944, P-47s at medium-low altitudes: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/er/56-bast-23dec44.jpg http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/er/56-baughman-18nov44.jpg http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/er/56-brown-21sept44.jpg http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/er/56-butliste-31dec44.jpg http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/er/56-chasko-23dec44.jpg http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/er/56-davis-18nov44.jpg There are plenty more where they came from: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47-encounter-reports.html [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]************************************* Fortunately, Mk IX is slightly stable, anyway, the required stick travel is not high... but nothing extraordinary. Very pleasant to fly, very controllable, predictable and steady. We never refuse to correct something that was found outside ED if it is really proven...But we never will follow some "experts" who think that only they are the greatest aerodynamic guru with a secret knowledge. :smartass: WWII AIRCRAFT PERFORMANCE
alfredo_laredo Posted March 5, 2015 Posted March 5, 2015 What are the main differences between the P47D-30 RA and the RE versions? A.K.A. Timon -117th- in game
Friedrich-4B Posted March 5, 2015 Posted March 5, 2015 What are the main differences between the P47D-30 RA and the RE versions? There were no differences, except in the tail numbers; see: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2338731&postcount=319 [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]************************************* Fortunately, Mk IX is slightly stable, anyway, the required stick travel is not high... but nothing extraordinary. Very pleasant to fly, very controllable, predictable and steady. We never refuse to correct something that was found outside ED if it is really proven...But we never will follow some "experts" who think that only they are the greatest aerodynamic guru with a secret knowledge. :smartass: WWII AIRCRAFT PERFORMANCE
Zunzun Posted March 5, 2015 Posted March 5, 2015 (edited) Just the plant where they were made. Farmingdale (RE) and Evansville (RA). Edited March 5, 2015 by Zunzun
ED Team NineLine Posted March 5, 2015 ED Team Posted March 5, 2015 And once again... STAY ON TOPIC. As an example... Fuel used in the P-47 is on topic, fuel used in anything else isn't. Forum Rules • My YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**
Kurfürst Posted March 5, 2015 Posted March 5, 2015 Well the thing is that by the time 150 grade fuel was introduced into the 8th AAF Fighter Command, the only US formation to use that fuel in Europe, there weren't many P-47 Fighter Groups left, and even those converted to Mustangs soon enough. Same goes to the P-38. The 15th AAF may have still had a plenty of these two older types, but the 15th AAF did not get 150 grade supply at all. By the time the D-9s and K-4 were arriving in the field (or air), there were only four P-47 Fighter Groups left for escort, which number was halved to just two by December. http://www.kurfurst.org - The Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance Resource Site Vezérünk a bátorság, Kísérőnk a szerencse! -Motto of the RHAF 101st 'Puma' Home Air Defense Fighter Regiment The Answer to the Ultimate Question of the K-4, the Universe, and Everything: Powerloading 550 HP / ton, 1593 having been made up to 31th March 1945, 314 K-4s were being operated in frontline service on 31 January 1945.
MiloMorai Posted March 5, 2015 Posted March 5, 2015 So, there about the same number of P-47s as there was K-4s and almost 3 times the number of P-51s as there was K-4s. In Oct '44, there was a total of 1922 P-47s and 1366 P-51s on hand in the ETO.
Crumpp Posted March 5, 2015 Posted March 5, 2015 What are the main differences between the P47D-30 RA and the RE versions? It appears to designate where it was built. The P-47 Thunderbolt was produced by Republic Aviation in 2 factories Farmingdale, NY (-RE serial numbers) Evansville, IN (-RA serial numbers) Curtis Aircraft Industries produced a limited number of P-47's (-CU serial numbers) http://www.368thfightergroup.com/P-47-2.html The Germans used factory codes included in the logbooks to designate the manufacturer's subcontractors. This information is important for maintenance. Build logs are kept for each airframe and this tells the maintenance guys who to get a hold of if a question arises. Answers to most important questions ATC can ask that every pilot should memorize: 1. No, I do not have a pen. 2. Indicating 250
Kobak5 Posted March 5, 2015 Posted March 5, 2015 Well if you want the p47 fuel setting to be realistic, set the german side to realistic as well. As in only being able to fuel your plane up half... and no refuels.. Or remove the mw50. It should go both ways.. Endless discussion .. Cant wait for the p47 and EDGE, love the other ww2 modules so far :) Cheers :pilotfly:
Recommended Posts