DCS: P-47D-30 Discussion

[Whiplash]

+1 you're not making the wait any easier!

[HeadHunter52]

"With the paddle-blade prop, they could easily out-climb the Bf 109s & FW 190s. They could also out-turn the German fighters above 18,000 feet. And they knew that they could always break off the fight by hitting WEP & dropping the nose. Absolutely nothing in the war could catch a Jug in a power-dive. Not even an Me 262. And that's without cranking-up the boost. When the crew-chiefs cranked up the boost, the plane became all but invincible in the hands of a skilled pilot. They said the same thing that my dad had told me when was a little kid - hitting hitting the water-injection & pushing the throttle past the stop to full war-emergency-power shoved them into the seat so hard that they felt like they'd been kicked in the ass by a freight-train."

 

THIS is what I heard years ago. Almost to a word. Juggernaut wasn't a play on words for their pilots. I don't really believe it will be modeled this way, with "field fixes" included, but I can hope.

 

I'll tell you this, though - if it is a given to us as a tub that can't take a hit, I'll go away. The Mustang model suffers from problems that are not being addressed - and I'll not run the Jug for long if it's discovered to have some silly-assed concessions to playability against the Hun.

[AG-51_Razor]

Could someone throw us a bone on the progress of the Jug?

[Teapot]

Pugnacious fighter! Those curves ... definitely a Rubens model and she's beautiful ... I think I'm in love.

[Desode]

First of all a Big Salute Barrett g and his post from the RC forums. I Greatly enjoyed reading that.

 

I have a question that I hoped someone could answer because I must have missed the information.

Is Eagle building the Jug or is one of the 3rd party developers building it ?

[fastfreddie]

First of all a Big Salute Barrett g and his post from the RC forums. I Greatly enjoyed reading that.

 

I have a question that I hoped someone could answer because I must have missed the information.

Is Eagle building the Jug or is one of the 3rd party developers building it ?

 

It was part of the DCS WWII kickstarter that ED had to takeover. We will be getting the P-47, Spit IX, and Me 262 plus the Normandy map/WWII units eventually.

[Desode]

Ok, so Eagle Dynamic is developing this aircraft in house then.

Thanks !

I was wondering because if it was a third party developer I wanted to make sure to have their FB page liked so I could see any updates on the progress of the Jug .

 

Desode

[9.JG27 DavidRed]

i said it already, but have to say it again...the Jug is the one allied fighter im most looking forward to. it has something appealing i cant really describe.loved it from the first second when i first glanced at a picture when i was a little kid.its ugly and yet a beauty at the same time somehow. fascinating bird for sure.

[DB 605]

^Gotta agreed, jug was one of my favorites when i was kid. Did several models of it too, of course with Gabreski's colours...

 

 

Will be interesting bird to fly in DCS for sure.

[nick10]

Pretty quiet here

[fastfreddie]

i said it already, but have to say it again...the Jug is the one allied fighter im most looking forward to. it has something appealing i cant really describe.loved it from the first second when i first glanced at a picture when i was a little kid.its ugly and yet a beauty at the same time somehow. fascinating bird for sure.

 

Same here and pretty much the FW190 was the same thing. Never got the fascination with the Spitfires that others have but to each their own. Hopefully we get some news on the big girl pretty some and the ground units.

[Barrett_g]

Wonder how accurate the sound and performance will be on the P-47 if most that fly today don't have working turbochargers or WEP systems?

[javelina1]

Wonder how accurate the sound and performance will be on the P-47 if most that fly today don't have working turbochargers or WEP systems?

 

Not worried about the sound, plenty of audiophile's around here to take of that via a future mod. :) :thumbup:

[OutOnTheOP]

Wonder how accurate the sound and performance will be on the P-47 if most that fly today don't have working turbochargers or WEP systems?

 

I would guess "a lot more accurate than the Dora", considering that there are a lot more flying P-47 in configurations a lot closer to wartime, than there are FW190D9s in flyable wartime configuration.

 

ED did fine with the FW190D9 it seems (despite some early gross performance errors and one or two minor ones that are being ironed out... just part of the beta process), so I'm sure they'll manage the P-47.

[NineLine]

I wouldnt say 'a lot more' than the Dora, when all major issues are buttoned up the Dora will be almost as accurate as any in DCS I am sure.

[Echo38]

First of all a Big Salute Barrett g and his post from the RC forums. I Greatly enjoyed reading that.

 

Ditto. That's the sort of Thunderbolt I always heard about, myself, as well. I'm afraid we aren't going to see it in its full glory, being limited to woefully-underpowered factory WEP ratings. The heavier the aircraft, the more they suffer from the power reductions (reduction from standard field ratings, down to factory ratings), which is one of the larger of the reasons why the U.S. heavies aren't going to do as well versus the 109 & 190 in DCS as they did historically. The more power you have, the less a few thousand pounds of extra weight matters. The Thunderbolt is going to be particularly harmed by this, because of its colossal weight.

 

Thing was almost as heavy as a Lightning, but only had one engine. Its crazy-high power was so vital to its good maneuverability. Take it away, and you're stuck with a brick. I'm afraid we're going to end up with a ship that's no good unless the odds are stacked in other areas (e.g. numbers), unlike the real thing. Real Thunderbolt couldn't turn fight worth a damn (maybe with a 190--maybe--but that's about it), but (like the 190) the P-47 was quite maneuverable in the vertical--when it had its usual horsepower ratings.

Edited April 19, 2015 by Echo38

[RAZBAM_ELMO]

Ditto. That's the sort of Thunderbolt I always heard about, myself, as well. I'm afraid we aren't going to see it in its full glory, being limited to woefully-underpowered factory WEP ratings. The heavier the aircraft, the more they suffer from the power reductions (reduction from standard field ratings, down to factory ratings), which is one of the larger of the reasons why the U.S. heavies aren't going to do as well versus the 109 & 190 in DCS as they did historically. The more power you have, the less a few thousand pounds of extra weight matters. The Thunderbolt is going to be particularly harmed by this, because of its colossal weight.

 

Thing was almost as heavy as a Lightning, but only had one engine. Its crazy-high power was so vital to its good maneuverability. Take it away, and you're stuck with a brick. I'm afraid we're going to end up with a ship that's no good unless the odds are stacked in other areas (e.g. numbers), unlike the real thing. Real Thunderbolt couldn't turn fight worth a damn (maybe with a 190--maybe--but that's about it), but (like the 190) the P-47 was quite maneuverable in the vertical--when it had its usual horsepower ratings.

 

But yet again, use the aircraft where it's most powerful at those higher altitudes, right now pony pilots make the mistake online of flying below 4000m where the Dora and K-4 accell. Should they bring it up into the higher altitudes you really start to see the limitations that the Dora and Kurfurst have up there. I say that ED is doing it right by not making crazy field mods applicable to their aircraft and keeping them standard. There were field apps that the K-4 and Dora had like the Dora with a higher bubble canopy and the Kurfurst with B3 fuel so on and so on. Keeping everything factory by itself keeps things even and in common sense will not let you blow your engine in the first 5 minutes of a tussle. So if you want your Jug to do well, stay high and don't let them drag you to the deck.

[Echo38]

I say that ED is doing it right by not making crazy field mods applicable to their aircraft and keeping them standard. There were field apps that the K-4 and Dora had like the Dora with a higher bubble canopy and the Kurfurst with B3 fuel so on and so on. Keeping everything factory by itself keeps things even and in common sense will not let you blow your engine in the first 5 minutes of a tussle.

 

Some of these "crazy field mods" were standard. To the point where, in some cases, factory-default was non-standard and "modded" was standard. E.g. certain of the moderately higher WEP ratings (e.g. 64" & 66" on the P-38) were officially authorized (and for the standard fuel, too, not just the fighter groups which got the good stuff) and used as standard from that point on. The "pilot manuals" just never got updated--many pilots never even saw the manuals, you know; the USAAF was not on top of their game in regards to the manuals, which contained not only these omissions but several outright errors.

 

Limiting the "Big Three" (the USAAF fast heavy fighters) to the extreme-conservative factory settings is less representative of how things really were in general practice; portraying them at their actual wartime standards is both the most fair and the most realistic & historical representation. Everyone wins, except for the people who want the US birds to be "nerfed" so that the Axis fighters have an unfair (and not-historical) advantage.

 

Telling people "lol just don't fight at low altitudes" isn't gonna cut it, for so many reasons. I myself greatly enjoy high altitude (~30,000 ft.) fights, but it's very difficult to get fights up there, 'coz almost no one goes up there (for several reasons that aren't forseeably going away). Besides, handicapping one side's ships and telling them "you'll be fine, as long as you restrict yourself to a location where few people go" isn't fair at all.

 

For clarification: I support the idea of modelling both side's aircraft on standard wartime examples (which doesn't mean factory), and since wartime standard examples vary greatly (e.g. one boost pressure in 1943, but another boost pressure in 1944--just to name one), that gives a lot of room for picking examples which are well-balanced against each other, without even slightly compromising realism, historical accuracy, & aircraft fidelity.

Edited April 19, 2015 by Echo38

[Sarge55]

Cherry picking mods to create "balance" isn't very realistic either.

 

If you want a balanced fight both pilots should fly the same aircraft.

 

If you want the ebb and flow of advancement in aircraft development through the war then you have to accept that one aircraft will be better than another (Allied or Axis). It's not about favouring one side or the other.

[OutOnTheOP]

I wouldnt say 'a lot more' than the Dora, when all major issues are buttoned up the Dora will be almost as accurate as any in DCS I am sure.

 

That was tongue-in-cheek. The point is that the Dora has come out just fine and seems to (barring those little niggling details) match real-world performance data quite well. Considering that, and that there are way more flying P-47 (IE, *some*), worrying that the number of flying P-47 equates to some kind of difficulty in modeling, is kind of pointless.

Edited April 19, 2015 by OutOnTheOP

[Ultra]

If you want the ebb and flow of advancement in aircraft development through the war then you have to accept that one aircraft will be better than another (Allied or Axis). It's not about favouring one side or the other.

 

That's fine and I prefer that way, but then Multiplayer servers and the game in general should be practically forced to represent the Allies' numerical superiority. That would make it appropriately realistic.

[OutOnTheOP]

Cherry picking mods to create "balance" isn't very realistic either.

 

If you want a balanced fight both pilots should fly the same aircraft.

 

If you want the ebb and flow of advancement in aircraft development through the war then you have to accept that one aircraft will be better than another (Allied or Axis). It's not about favouring one side or the other.

 

The higher boost pressures in USAAF aircraft is anything *but* cherry-picking. When you consider that by the Normandy landings, an order had already been cut that ONLY 44-1 fuel (and the accompanying higher boost pressures) was to be used for ALL USAAF fighters in England. It would be more cherry-picky to go with anything *but* 44-1 fuel and higher boost.

 

The "ebb and flow of advancement" also (rather inconveniently for the Luftwaffe) included standard mods to the engine ratings of the V1710s, V1650s, and R2800s. Any argument for either "historical accuracy" or "standard settings" for late '44 must, by definition, accept these higher ratings.

 

Now, if you want to argue that DCS WW2:1944 is supposed to cover the Normandy landing period, then I suppose there is slightly less impetus to model the higher boost... but in that case, they would have to remove the Dora and Kurfurst outright, as the models didn't even exist at the time of the Normandy landings; neither even *started* production until August. Not to mention the precise marks of K4 and D9 depicted are significantly later models than the initial production runs.

Edited April 19, 2015 by OutOnTheOP

[HeadHunter52]

I've met a couple Jug drivers, and seen plenty of interviews. With the paddle prop and crew-inspired WEP settings, it was a beast. If it is left to factory specs in the sim, it WILL BE inaccurate as fielded in combat except as represented by dead pilots all over the sim-scape.

 

"Now, if you want to argue that DCS WW2:1944 is supposed to cover the Normandy landing period, then I suppose there is slightly less impetus to model the higher boost... but in that case, they would have to remove the Dora and Kurfurst outright, as the models didn't even exist at the time of the Normandy landings;"

 

---THIS is an excellent point. I don't give a rat's arse about getting everything down to the niggling picky details that so many test-jockeys seem to thrive on. Variances between groups or even squadrons were many. The GENERAL widespread experience is what is key - and the point of the sim. In general, field mods of the most popular variety should be included because they represent the real-world application of the technology actually used in the war effort. It would have been a wholoe lot better to field the 109-G variants and leave the K out of it.

 

Have a squadron that brewed their own fuel, and modified their WEP independently of the rest? Nuh uh.... no-go.

Have an Air Force that generally introduced fighting tunes above factory spec? You damned well better include it. Those boys in the field know a hell of a lot, and some are still around to talk about it.

 

Makes we wonder about the behind-the-scenes reasons for some of the devs' decisions.

 

And yes, if the Axis fan-boys were neutered, I'd be howling for their side, too, so don't go there. As much as I hate everything those bastards stood for, and will personally never fly an Axis aircraft in a sim, crippling a historical representation in the face of historical application is just pointless.

[Echo38]

If you want the ebb and flow of advancement in aircraft development through the war then you have to accept that one aircraft will be better than another (Allied or Axis).

 

That is inaccurate. For most of these matchups, the question wasn't "which is better," but rather "which is better at what" and "which is better at that under X conditions." With most of the contemporary front-line fighters on the Western front, there was no clear superiority between two opposing fighters. Often, there wasn't even a clear superiority between the two within a given area (such as speed).

 

Even trying to narrow it down to a superiority in said given area (e.g. turning ability) didn't always let you make a clear statement about which is better, because the answers often depended on a bunch of conditions which you're pretending didn't exist (which models? which altitude? which WEP ratings? what fuel masses?). Even a change in one of the latter could, for some of the matchups, cause the statement to go from X turns better to Y turns better. A combination can do it easier.

 

I think you know this*, so I'd rather avoid rattling off a longer and clumsier list of said variables. Your bias, I suspect, causes you to support "factory for all," even though this is neither fair nor historically-accurate/representative, because the common on-paper figures for US meant "almost the very worst examples," while the common on-paper figures for Germany meant "almost the very best examples." This is a years-old bandwagon for those with a pro-Axis (or anti-Allied) fighter bias; seeking to gain/retain an unfair (and not-historical) advantage over their opponents in multiplayer, they hide behind the deception of "factory for both is historical" (despite it being less so than my alternative).

 

The majority of these fighters on both sides didn't fight under factory conditions, anyway. Like the other fellow said, you're doing a fair bit of cherry-picking yourself. Hence my suspicion of bias. You can't have your cake and eat it as well. And before you suggest it, "fair & realistic" isn't doing the cake thing. Pitting well-matched aircraft against each other meets both requirements handily, without having to stretch (fair because they're well-matched, and realistic because those two did regularly meet each other in battle--and, I'd wager, more often than your two factory-fresh ones did).

 

 

 

*Any reasonably experienced virtual fighter pilot must know that the fuel load alone can often tip the balance between one aircraft turning better, and the other. The ambiguity of "which is better at X" only gets greater when you throw in "which model/block" and "and what altitude" etc. etc. If you genuinely don't know what I'm talking about--which I doubt--then fire up DCS and check out the difference between the P-51D vs. A-10C matchup with same fuel percentage, and then the same matchup with grossly disparate fuel percentages. With 100% vs. 15%, respectively, they're on fairly even terms in a standard duel, but with 50% vs. 50%, the P-51 eats the A-10 for lunch (all else equal in both cases, of course, if the SD wasn't a giveaway). The same principle applies even more noticeably when you pick two aircraft which are closer to each other to begin with (e.g. the P-47 and FW 190, or even Me 109, rather than the P-51 and A-10).

 

This is why no one with any significant knowledge of WWII fighters can "accept that one aircraft will be better than another," when comparing ships like the P-47 & Me 109. It wasn't & isn't that simple, whether comparing fighters (e.g. P-47 & Me 109) or even models (e.g. P-47D & Me 109K)--let alone blocks et al. I cannot imagine that anyone who knows enough about the subject {to be able to start up the WWII fighters in DCS} wouldn't already understand that, and so I can only assume a dishonest bias, as has often proven to be the case in the past, on the part of those who favor "nerfing" the Allied fighters like this (while keeping a higher standard for the Luftwaffe birds, relative to the historical norm).

Edited April 19, 2015 by Echo38

[otto]

forced to represent the Allies' numerical superiority. That would make it appropriately realistic.

 

If i fly for axis I would love that i mean to be outnubered .But i don't think i's possible because if i want to fly axis and the server will not let me join because it has a certain ratio of allies to axis aircraft than i can't play at all.

But if i fly the p47 i wouldn't like it .Too few targets.

 

 

I do support the crazy high power settings on the p47.But the allied fighters will have to face the me262. and it's a better energy fighter than any allied fighter anyway.

Edited April 19, 2015 by otto