Jump to content

OutOnTheOP

Members
  • Posts

    1034
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by OutOnTheOP

  1. I meant what I said: that I had to click "submit", then wait almost 10 minutes before the post would complete. It did not appear to be linked to the internet connectivity on my side, as I had no issues at that time with high-data-throughput tasks like streaming video at the exact same time that the ED forum was taking so long to complete the post. Perhaps your server was undergoing maintenance
  2. The current DCS implementation actually feels like it limits the extent to which the radiator doors can be opened: at max open, it allows higher speed than the real aircraft, but also less effective cooling. This limits the aircraft's abilities in a low speed/ high engine power scenario. At low speeds, drag is less a factor, but cooling is critical, as it is the limiting factor on performance in a hard-turning low speed turn fight: less cooling means that the engine oil will rapidly overheat unless the pilot reduces engine power (which, in turn, reduces sustained turn performance). This means that the apparently artificially narrowed scope of radiator door positioning in DCS strongly negatively impacts P-51 turn-fighting capacity. Yes, I know, P-51 is not a classical "turn fighter", but there are situations where that performance is necessary to finish an opponent. And beyond that, the current implementation isn't quite true to the real aircraft at the edges of it's envelope, which should be reason enough to want to tune it. As an aside: the changes to the forum here are a bit oppressive; you can't edit or delete posts whatsoever, and it takes 10 minutes of "saving" for them to post in the first place. Not great.
  3. Except that the airflow coming off the oil cooler exits by it's own ducting without ever touching the radiator cooling air-stream. And the supercharger charge air is never routed through the coolant radiator. The radiator air scoop positions should have basically nothing to do with charge temperature; only engine temperature and coolant temperature should have anything to do with it; the radiator scoop position is only very indirectly involved (in that it impacts coolant temperature). The intercooler itself is part of the engine accessories and the chin scoop, not the belly scoop. I don't think a 8 C difference in temperatures and 19 mph difference in speed at the extreme ends of oil radiator positioning compared to the flown test data, are quite "the same results as RL test" though.
  4. The Germans in 1944-45 didn't really have the luxury of making perfect to-spec Bf-190 K4s with high-quality materials and fuels, either, but we have THOSE in the game. A German attack bomber would be useful for gameplay, and for mission design (to include online scenarios). Personally, I would most like to see an Me-410 before any other German aircraft. It fills the role of heavy fighter, night fighter, and ground attack, so it is imminently useful for mission design, and it has some (but not extreme) defensive turrets, making it challenging to attack.
  5. Well, the good news is that the Ju-88 does in fact die, and you can kill it with snapshots from the P-47. The bad news is, it doesn't die QUICKLY. It seems like the mechanism of kill for me, almost every time, it to bleed the engines of oil or similar: it doesn't take too many round to kill them, but they don't actually die until several minutes after you shoot them up. I have only managed to get an immediate kill on them a couple times: with pilot kills in a head on pass, and by knocking a wing off one. To do the latter requires getting way too close, and you will get shot up. Related: the windshield armor on the P-47 appears to do precisely nothing, because the Ju-88 gunners manage to kill the pilot with 8mm through the windshield ENTIRELY too often. I have to report the same as some other folks in this thread: The Ju-88, even when assigned to a WW2 bomber section formation and "no reaction", will immediately break formation.
  6. No, but limiting the availability of MW50 via mission editor would make a huge difference for online play. But... then the luftwhiners get their turn to gripe and moan about how unfair it is. Personally, I wish we could just go back to the days when it was only Doras vs Mustangs, because that's actually a pretty fair match-up. The Dora has a tiny edge in low altitude speed, roll, and weaponry, the Mustang has a tiny advantage in situational awareness, gunnery, and turning. And the dogfights were fantastic. The introduction of Kurfursts saw the devolution of the online scene into 3:1 Luftwaffe gang-up vulching (at least, as of the last time I bothered checking in on it a few months back). Wow, such fun. Much happy.
  7. I am very, very skeptical of how ED calculated the engine failure chances, and what historical data they polled to get the failure rates. As far as I can tell, they looked the officially sanctioned power ratings provided by the respective air forces, and took them as gospel. Feel free to surprise me and inform me that they did an actual metallurgical analysis of the components of historical engines, then did a physics-based stress simulation of all component parts of the engine in real-time. I suppose all that computing overhead would explain the persistent frame-rate performance issues... :music_whistling: The problem with that is that the higher rating does not mean the probability of failure of a DB605 at it's maximum authorized rating was *actually* the same as the chances of a Merlin failing at it's maximum authorized rating. I would strongly suspect the struggling Luftwaffe in the last years of the war were willing to approve far riskier boost levels than was the RAF or USAAF... but it doesn't seem to be reflected in DCS, where the Merlin seems much more fragile. As to Merlin-engine pilots blowing their engines... ok, maybe, but give us that chance. Having the option to take that risk should be our choice as a pilot. Having the extra power means you can start the fight at faster speed, you lose speed less swiftly, and you can keep the fight at a higher airspeed (unless you're an idiot that goes straight to "stick-in-gut-turn"). By having more power, you have more speed, which means more airflow, which means more cooling, which means.... more power. It's a positive feedback loop. Having that extra couple hundred horsepower really *is* important. ....and it's already modeled for the Mustang: a (fairly rare) damage state is (or at least was, a few updates back) the loss of manifold pressure regulation, which then allows the aircraft to go up to 75" MP. What has my experience been with fighting in that state? Exactly what I mentioned above: that the power lets me stay faster, that the speed keeps the engine cooler, and that positive feedback loop gives the Mustang a huge boost in combat performance. Would it help the Spitfire that much? Perhaps not; I haven't flown the Spit extensively enough to have a good feel for the way the cooling system acts at different power/airspeed settings, and the Spitfire wing design is optimal for low-speed turn-fighting anyhow, so it probably wouldn't benefit from the higher boost nearly so much as would the Mustang.
  8. 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".
  9. No, I don't think I will bother. You bring nothing of value to the conversation, and it is not worth wasting any more time on your trolling.
  10. The paper isn't entirely irrelevant, only your note about the pump failures is irrelevant. Papers exist that show the raw performance from the +75" Mustangs, yes. Other papers exist that show the mechanical reliability of the up-rated Merlins (running for up to 7 hours straight on WEP in acceptance testing). Yet other papers exist that show the performance from +67" Mustangs. I chose *this* paper because it provided a convenient comparison between the performance of a Mustang at +67" AND THE PERFORMANCE OF THAT SAME MUSTANG WITH NO CHANGES BEYOND INCREASING HORSEPOWER. The point is that it shows that if you increase from a +67" rating to a +75" rating ON THE SAME AIRFRAME, exactly what performance increase you get. The fact that the horsepower increase was gained through an engine modification is irrelevant; the later V 1650-7 did not require the experimental fuel pump in order to attain +75" (or indeed, +81") power ratings. Therefore, the pump failures referenced are irrelevant as well. That pump cannot fail on the V 1650-7 Merlins, because the Mk II pump did not exist on the V 1650-7. The Lavochkins were swept from the skies in weeks, and it wasn't the P-51s that were tasked to do it. As I mentioned already, they were doing CAS work. ...I guess that means you want to re-equip all of the A-10 squadrons with F-22s, because clearly it is the wisest decision to give high-end air superiority airframes to CAS squadrons? You know... just in case?
  11. Not exactly. The test I posted was for a test conducted with a standard Mustang, using a standard Merlin 65 modified for increased fuel flow rate in order to test out what the performance gains for the airframe would be if it mounted an engine of higher power production. The test was commissioned in preparation for fielding the new Merlin RM14SM engines. As it happened in reality, the Packard V 1650-7 Merlins as mounted into the USAAF P-51D were capable of pulling +75" for 7 hours straight with no pump failures (or any other failures of any type, besides possibly spark plug fouling, easily avoided by periodically running the engine at high power setting for a short while) when fed 44-1 fuel. The point of my posting that test was to show the level of performance increase from the airframe, given the extra power. It is not, however, the same engine that was used in service to *provide* that extra power (as Solty has already pointed out). So the performance numbers are of use; the failure stats are not.
  12. And my experience is that Kurfurst pilots in-game do exactly the same thing. The performance available in the airframe makes them lazy, and that makes them stupid.
  13. Irrelevant. That was the test of a 1943 EXPERIMENTAL modification (and was likely a -B or -C model, though never explicitly stated). Note that in the modifications list, the pump (to deliver the required fuel flow) was listed as a new part. The 1944 P-51D, however, ran at up to 81" with the standard pump. The mechanical reliability is not transferable from this test aircraft to a production aircraft. The performance, however, IS. Horsepower is horsepower. If the engine did not change the exterior profile of the aircraft (aerodynamics), did not change the overall weight of the aircraft, and did not change the center of balance, it will perform the same when provided the same horsepower to the prop, regardless of what model engine is providing that horsepower. The Merlin 65 may have weighed a few pounds more or less than the Merlin 66, but not so much that the performance difference would be greatly out of line with the testing. I will grant, however, that as the -B and -C are marginally lighter than the -D, the climb rate increase seen on a production -D may have been marginally lower. Perhaps +850 fpm instead of the +960 fpm noted in the test. The Mustang did gain 9% weight moving from the -B/-C to the -D, so +873 feet per minute would be the extrapolated gain. Gee, I can't imagine why they didn't continue making fighters from an entirely obsolete line of development after the introduction of jet engines. I just cannot fathom why.... Or do you mean "why did they use -D models in Korea instead of -H?" In which case, the answer is: because the Mustangs were used for CAS instead of air superiority, and therefore the increased performance wasn't required, but having plenty of spares on hand was useful. Not that many spares (either airframe or parts) available for the -H.
  14. And you will note I am talking in strategic terms. In the overall all-up scheme of risks to western allied fighter pilots in late 1944, you were statistically more likely to die in a mishap or equipment failure than being shot down by a Luftwaffe fighter. Light caliber (15-37mm) AAA was much more statistically dangerous than Luftwaffe fighters, as far as enemy action goes While there is no doubt that the RAF/ USAAF risk/benefit analysis on engine boost and aircraft modernization really cost a tiny handful of pilots that found themselves on the wrong side of the performance envelope, STATISTICALLY it saved lives and aircraft to not push the engines too far. To reference the excellent "Cost of WW2" post by Tusler: Almost half of the overseas losses (all types, all theaters) were non-combat accidents and mechanical failures, even WITHOUT the USAAF risking more engine failures with increased boost levels. Note that the statistic includes bombers, which had a higher combat loss rate, and includes the early days of the USAAF combat operations, when combat loss rates were MUCH higher than in late 1944. This means the losses by cause for Mustangs in late 1944 are probably skewed even more toward "accidents" than "enemy fighter action" than is indicated in the above statistic. I will see if I can look up the Mustang-specific losses by cause for 1944 later, but I haven't the time right this instant. Suffice to say that mechanical failure was a VERY significant threat, when compared to enemy fighter action. edit: from what I can quickly find, 41% of all 8th AF Mustang combat losses were lost to AAA; only 23% of combat losses were to enemy aircraft- meaning that out of total Mustang losses in the 8th AF including accidents, only around 13% were lost to enemy aircraft. Around 40% of the total were lost to accidents and failures.
  15. This is another thing that bothers me: the way the new rendering works, the Mustang can be spotted from 3-4 times farther away than a Kurfurst. Yes, the K4 was smaller, but not THAT much smaller. It also doesn't help that all of the skins for the Kurfurst and Dora are subdued camo, while almost all of the ones for the Mustang are shiny hi-vis bare metal schemes. Yep, I got it, the bare-metal schemes are historical. They are historical for 8th air force, in the real-world strategic situation of late 1944, operating at high altitude in near-total air superiority. The bare metal was chosen because leaving the paint off and just giving the A/C a wax coat saved around a hundred pounds of paint in T/O weight (a weight bonus which we are not given in-game to counterbalance the ease of spotting us), and leaving the paint off slightly reduced drag (and of course saved on production cost and time) However, in the situation the DCS games are played, I would like to see the server owners give the Mustangs more subdued paint schemes so we aren't constantly being spotted before the Germans, and I would love to see ED include more subdued schemes for the Mustang (even if they are semi-fictional; IE create P-51D skins based on historical P-51A/B/C schemes from 1943 when air superiority was still strongly contested and the allies actually saw value in having camouflaged aircraft) If the real-world strategic scenario was what we see in DCS multiplayer servers, they would NOT have left the TAF fighters in bare metal. The SINGLE biggest advantage you can have in a fight is seeing the enemy well before he sees you, so leaving the Mustangs in bare metal schemes on the server is just giving yet another advantage to the German side.
  16. Except, it really does. When the RAF tested the difference between +18 (67" )and +23 (75") boost on the Mustang, they observed a +17 mph improvement in top speed (pretty significant), but even more importantly, they noted a +900 ft/min increase in climb rate, and the critical altitude for the engine went up 4000 feet. Those are huge, HUGE improvements. (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/AL_963.pdf) You're probably correct, but the extra boost would give a massive improvement to climb rate, top speed, and acceleration (and therefore sustained turning). Re-designing the in-game Mustang to an earlier model would help too, because (despite Kurfurst's assertions otherwise), the late Pacific models have inferior performance- simply because they're carrying a bunch of extra avionics weight on-board, most of which isn't even modelled in-game (Uncle Dog, Detrola, IFF, etc). Why? The C3 wasn't used on the K4 that widely (it's arguable that it was ever used with MW50 at all), while allied 44-1 fuel was well-documented and widely used. And just as importantly, 44-1 fuel brings the game into better gameplay balance, while C3 fuel on the K4s just further breaks the competitive aspect of the game. Look, the "everything must be completely historical with all historical options" argument is a bit... well, wrong. If we're doing everything fully historically, then the Kurfursts and Doras should be outnumbered 10:1, should have limited fuel available at the field, and should have random failures or random performance degradation to reflect the poor state of the German industry at the time. The problem is that the luftwaffe fans on the forum like to point out history when it pertains to the ideal performance of their aircraft, but ignore how the historical strategic situation plays into it. Yes, historically the Kurfurst had better performance than the DCS-modelled variants of the Mustang and Spitfire IX. However, that is because the RAF and USAAF were already dominating the Luftwaffe so badly that they didn't *need* to improve their aircraft performance. In 1943-early 1944, the USAAF developed lightweight short-range interceptor versions of the Mustang (P-51F) that would have been a pretty even match for the Kurfurst, but never put them into production because the Luftwaffe was not a threat. They had the P-51H ready to go by mid 1944, but again did not rush it into service because the Luftwaffe was not a threat. By early 1944, the allies could have been pushing their Merlin engines to +25/ 81" hg, but they chose not to (and didn't boost the Tactical Air Forces engines over 67") because the Luftwaffe was not a threat. Kurfurst loves to point out that the DCS Mustang should not have higher than 67" hg, because only the 8th AAF Mustangs used 44-1 fuel... ok, but if the Luftwaffe had been capable of putting up serious opposition in late 1944, the USAAF and RAF would have had to re-calculate their decisions on risk. In the real history, the Luftwaffe was a shattered shell, and the risk to allied aircrews from engine failure from higher boost levels was much, much more significant than the fairly insignificant risk the Luftwaffe posed to any given fighter pilot. So the allies chose not to overboost their engines. The Luftwaffe, on the other hand, was desperate, and chose to over-boost their engines even though it meant a great increase to the risks of engine failure. To the Luftwaffe, that didn't much matter in the real history: the aircraft probably wasn't going to survive a sortie anyway. The problem is that right now, we have aircraft that are configured in they way they are configured due to the REAL situation in 1944, but we are fighting simulated battles that do not reflect that situation. We are fighting battles in-game that reflect a situation of strategic parity between RAF/USAAF and Luftwaffe. If that had actually been the case, the RAF/USAAF would have cleared higher boost levels (if Luftwaffe action is a bigger threat to aircrew and aircraft than is engine failure due to high boost, you put the boost in!) and would likely have re-configured some of it's Mustangs with field modification kits to optimize them as short-range interceptors (probably through removal of the fuselage tank and associated plumbing, maybe 2x .50 cals, and anything else to lighten it), would have cleared the TAFs for 44-1 fuel, and quite possibly would have brought in P-51F and P-51H before the end of the war. Meanwhile, the Luftwaffe would have been far more hesitant to risk losing it's Bf109K4s through ludicrous amounts of over-boost, and would probably not have approved the boost levels seen on the K4 if it had not been such a desperate situation. TL;DR: you can't pedantically insist on sticking to historical performance values and air-force-approved boost levels if you don't ALSO pedantically stick to the real-world strategic situation (not without being a huge hypocrite, anyway). BLUF: The Mustang and Spitfire IX LF need to have +25 lb/ 75" hg boost levels, because that would make online play more balanced (and therefore more fun), while ALSO being historically valid configurations for the real-world history, AND would be more realistic configurations for the make-believe strategic context (Luftwaffe-Allied parity) in which everyone plays DCS online. I'm actually very disappointed in ED for failing to take the opportunity presented by the Spitfire IX LF development cycle to code a +25 lb/ 75" hg Merlin. They could have used the development cycle to code the higher-boost version for the Spit, then port the new code to the Mustang... but instead appear to have just stuck with what was already developed for the Mustang, to get the Spitfire out the door more quickly. I am hopeful the intent was to get the Spitfire out as quickly as they could so people could start enjoying it, then working on an update to both the Mustang and Spitfire to bring them up to higher boost as the next step. Community consensus seems to be that the +18/ 67" Merlin-engined allied aircraft just aren't a fair match for the super-late-war Luftwaffe birds in-game now.
  17. Funny; I had the opposite experience: after a while of flying the DCS Mustang, I went up with a company that flies SF.260 military trainers, and my experience was that the stick was so sensitive that you basically had to *think* where you wanted the aircraft to go (even for 6-7 g maneuvers), rather than make any consciously discernable movements. Seems it just varies from aircraft to aircraft.
  18. Of course the 75" Hg MP settings would go a long way to equalizing things. I really don't get how ED reps can keep saying "oh, it won't help as much as you think it will", when RAF flight testing showed a ONE THOUSAND feet per minute increase in climb rate going from +67" to +72". It makes a huge difference. ...I think the devs are just saying "it would only be a minor tweak" as a means of silencing critique by downplaying the significance of it, by letting the "everything must be correct down to the rivet, burn the heretics!" attitude roast anyone who says the Mustang needs the boost. Keeps their customers from getting too irate about their failure to make a (relatively minor) tweak that is already in-game anyway (as a failure state on the MP limiter).
  19. ...trying not to put it too bluntly, but it's kind of a silly poll. It's asking the wrong question. "Who would like a MiG-25?" Everyone. Duh. Even the people that hate MiG-25. If one could just be *poof* materialized in DCS, everyone would accept it. The real question is "Who would like development resources diverted to a MiG-25 project INSTEAD OF the MiG/Su/F/A/B-XYZ". Because that's what the wishlists are really about: what *priority* would people put on any given aircraft. I'd love a MiG-25. But there are about two or three dozen airframes I'd like even more. For the same timeframe and nationality, I'd rather see a MiG-23, MiG-27, or Su-7 /17 / 20/ 22. Or Su-24. Or Mi-24. Or even a Tu-22M.
  20. Good tactics. I had to kind of chuckle at his recommendation at 5:19, because suckering the opponent into committing to a high-g turn bleeding off his energy at the merge it is *exactly* what I suggested in a P-51D vs Bf109K4 thread back in september (here, in fact https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=2893524#post2893524)
  21. Yep. That and a few other disappointments (Hawk, anyone?) are why I will no longer pre-order anything. I have grown very jaded about DCS releases. I will wait until it's out, there are reviews up on youtube, and the bugs are mostly worked out. So, like... three years after release, at the average rate of debugging.
  22. You're correct, it would not be inappropriate. I just think the A-20, A-26, or B-26 would be *more* appropriate, both in the numbers used by then, and their superior performance giving them better chances in online play. I will admit that the 75mm-armed B-25s would be great for anti-shipping when Pacific theater eventually comes along, but I think the broader roles and proliferation of the A-20, or the vastly superior aerodynamic performance and long service life of the A-26 would make them (in my opinion) better selections for development. The A-20 and A-26 are reputed as handling "like fighters", making them a bit more survivable. They are 25% and 30% faster than a B-25, respectively. A-26, despite being rather smaller, carried twice the bomb load of the B-25. Also keep in mind that the B-25 is a 6-man crew, while A-20 and A-26 are 3 man crews: this means the A-20 or -26 can be operated by a single player with less "cheats" / workarounds, automation, or seat-jumping.
  23. I agree they should first focus on rounding out the current stable, but I would personally think the A-20, A-26 and B-26 would be more appropriate for late '44 than the B-25 (A-20 having the broadest roles and proliferation in 1944, but A-26 being usable for Korea and Vietnam). Me410 would probably be the best choice for the German light bomber/ attack role, as the He111 were very low numbers and practically out of service by late 1944. ...I guess Ju88 would give a good variety of roles beyond just bomber, though, and would make a good match to the A-20 as they both had variants in the night fighter, torpedo bomber, and ground attack/ heavy strafing role And on a side note: for everyone that like to thumb their nose and act superior about how "balance isn't important, everything should be simulated to reality, and anyone who wants balance is a HAWX noob!", THIS is how you balance the game while staying a pure simulation: by selecting to develop aircraft that are well-balanced in capabilities against each other, while still historically compatible. You *could* pit a P-51D-25 against an A6M2 (Japan, 1944) or an F-15C versus a MiG-21 (Iraq, 1991) or an F-22 against a MiG-17 (DPRK, current day), and it would be totally historically valid. It would *also* be a wildly unfair matchup. Instead, choose good analogs: P-51B versus FW190A8; P-51D (75"MP) or Spitfire XIV versus Bf109K4; Spitfire IX versus Bf109G6; F-5E versus MiG-21bis; MiG-15 versus F-86. Don't throw a Brewster Buffalo up against a Bf109K4 and call it fair just because they were technically in service at the same time, then act like you're intellectually superior just because you value "accuracy". :music_whistling:
  24. What a compelling argument. You can't make a coherent counter-argument, so you just deflect. *YOU'RE* wrong about the armor on the Mustang (twice! Wrong TWICE!), therefore *I* need to re-read? Physics don't apply to 13mm, because you assume I haven't read? :megalol::lol::megalol::lol::megalol: Ok, "dude". I'll get right on that.
  25. Actually, the upper portion of the Mustang's pilot armor is 7/16". That's 11.1mm. And it covers from head to middle of the shoulder blade (the bottom edge being below the bottom of the radio mounts). So... to recap, you are claiming 8mm on K4 cannot be perforated by a 640 grain 12.7mm API moving at 2910 feet per second, but a 594 grain 13mm API moving at 2329 feet per second readily defeats 8-11mm armor on Mustang? A .50 cal delivering 16,432 joules at the muzzle, with a more aerodynamic bullet and less energy loss to drag, is markedly inferior to a 13mm delivering 9,776 joules at the muzzle? Even though the relative energy delivered gets MORE disparate as range increases? Am I understanding you correctly? Oh, and hey, the canopy is about as resistant to bullets as, and as a thicker, lower-density medium, MORE likely to precipitate bullets tumbling, than is the aircraft skin, so your notion that the 13mm can easily perforate the 11.1mm of pilot armor after penetrating the canopy is a joke. Let's not forget that when firing at any deflection angle above maybe 5 degrees, all the .50 cal has to contend with on the K4 is.... yep, just thin aluminum aircraft skin and 8mm pilot armor. How, exactly, does this justify the 13mm being more likely to kill pilots? Failing to see the logic here.
×
×
  • Create New...