P-51D, 3 types of flights online

The issue until this paradigm shift was that the German's were using a head-on attack on their first pass, which was very successful. Since the 8th's SOP was for the escorts to remain with the bombers until attacked, this first pass was unopposed and uninterrupted by fighters. Even if the escorts spotted the interceptors, they were not in a position to do anything about it.

 

One of the first things which changed, was that the fighters, or a portion of the fighters, positioned themselves far ahead of the bombers, this preventing a head-on attack and breaking up the interceptor formation.

 

The other thing which changed, was that once the bomber were heading back to England, and outside the likely attack radius of interceptors, the escorts were to quit the bombers and attack airfields and other ground targets, like rail yards.

 

Basically, none of this is in in anyway represented in air-quake or any other mission I've seen.

Of course not. Because it was war, not a game. IRL those missions were flown for 6 to 8 hours. Who wants to sit for that long in front of their PC and wait for a sudden death?

And you asked,

I'm not really up on my air-war history, but did the allies actually ever conduct air superiority missions?

8th AAF of the USAAF was doing a lot of ASF and escort during 1944 and 1945. They broke the German back, because they were allowed, since Doolittle took control, to pursue the German aircraft and they ended up on the deck. ASF is not only waiting for the enemy to come up. It is destruction of the enemy air force in any means necessary. So bombing airfields and factories and shooting down airplanes whenever they appear also wins air superiority.

A good documentary on the subject:

Well, the P51D pilots have very bad times on the servers and "Air-quake" missions but they usually win.

In most of the servers, the ground targets are being destroyed by the allied side while the Luftwaffe usually goes only A-A.

I always find enemies at 1.000m - 2.000m with their ordinance and because of that, the allied loses usually are heavier than the Luftwaffe.

The type of mustang here don´t make any difference, the mission is the "problem", I am sure that if the Mustangs went for A-A at 6.000m-7.000m the things would be more equal.

IMHO the K4 is a beast and of course, even a novice pilot can be a problem to any P51, the problem comes when you encounter a Fw190. I have the three planes from the WW2 and I usually fly the 190 or the P51.

People usually fly the "Upper hand toy" or what they think it is so you will find loads of 109 on the server but the story is different with the 190, they are usually taken by "expertens". From my experiene, 80% of the fights with a 190, the 190 wins.

I am not experten on it but is the plane I fly the most. This thing used to a limit like all the planes is deadly but this one needs to be master like the 51 to use the 100% of it, and more equal to a 51.

I wish I won 80% of the time in my D9 :) . Having been on TS with very experienced P51 pilots while flying both the k4 and d9, they say the k4 is way harder to deal with than the d9

I wish I won 80% of the time in my D9. Having been on TS with very experienced P51 pilots while flying both the k4 and d9, they say the k4 is way harder to deal with than the d9

For me, I always found that most of the D9 pilots will always get the advantage. Sure the K4 is a thougher enemy but the Dora in good hands is lethal.

Of course I am talking about experienced pilots in both sides, a good dogfight ends without any kill.

Well, the P51D pilots have very bad times on the servers and "Air-quake" missions but they usually win.

 

In most of the servers, the ground targets are being destroyed by the allied side while the Luftwaffe usually goes only A-A.

This shouldn't surprise anyone. The 190 and 109 can take one bomb, while the P-51 can carry 2 bombs and 6 rockets. The former are not suited for ground attack.

Multiplayer maps almost always tie objectives to players dropping bombs, while the actual job of fighter aircraft is the control of airspace.

The Luftwaffe really needs a 190F-8 or Me 410 before we can reasonably insist that both sides are attacking things on the ground.

I wish I won 80% of the time in my D9 :) . Having been on TS with very experienced P51 pilots while flying both the k4 and d9, they say the k4 is way harder to deal with than the d9

1vs1, sure. In a group and using cooperative tactics the 190D-9 is a better fighter than the 109K-4, and it's better than the P-51, too.

Twisting around in a prolonged engagement is a mug's game.

IMHO the K4 is a beast and of course, even a novice pilot can be a problem to any P51, the problem comes when you encounter a Fw190. I have the three planes from the WW2 and I usually fly the 190 or the P51.

 

People usually fly the "Upper hand toy" or what they think it is so you will find loads of 109 on the server but the story is different with the 190, they are usually taken by "expertens". From my experiene, 80% of the fights with a 190, the 190 wins.

See, it's funny that everyone says all the best pilots are flying the K4 online, or that the K4 is the best plane for experts to fly... I actually disagree. For me, the K4 is the best plane for a mediocre pilot to fly.

Now, before people get all up in arms, when I say "mediocre", I don't mean terrible and skill-less, I mean it seems best suited to pilots of moderate skill. The K4 is terrible for low-skill pilots, because it's flight characteristics will just kill them on takeoff and landing. So the pilot has to be reasonably skilled just to *fly* it. However, once airborne and in a dogfight, the K4 is very forgiving of mistakes, because it a) is very difficult to stall out a wing, and b) it has enough power-to-weight to fairly rapidly re-build energy that was lost.

However, I think the P-51D is actually the best aircraft for the REALLY good pilots. This is because the Mustang's advantages in situational awareness, the superior gunsight, and the vastly superior ballistics of the weapons means it can successfully engage from parameters the other aircraft cannot. People REALLY underestimate that advantage. In a turn fight, the Mustang *can* turn with even a K4, and a good pilot in the Mustang will kill the K4, because it is capable of those high-deflection shots. The K4, on the other hand, is extremely difficult to land high-deflection shots with. When I fly DCS WW2 online, I find that the only time the K4 kills me is when I never even knew it was there (probably 80-90% of my losses, and I have a favorable k:d flying 51D vs K4); the K4 weapons systems just aren't that good. So... if you fly with a wingman to prevent a K4 from just sneaking up on you, they're a lot less dangerous.

The K4 is clearly a superior aerobatics machine. The Mustang is a superior weapons platform. This means the K4 has an edge in a 1v1, but the SA and weapons systems advantages of the Mustang make it superior in a 2v2 or many vs many... assuming that the P-51D pilots have worked on their gunnery and deflection shooting technique.

Does that mean the Mustang shouldn't be improved? No. It would really benefit from the additional WEP boost rating. Probably more important, though, is to tweak engine failure characteristics. This appears to have been done a couple times over the life of the module already, but the single biggest problem the Mustang has in a turn fight with a K4 is not the Mustang it cannot turn with it; the Mustang slightly out-turns the K4 at high speeds, and at low speeds if you drop one notch flaps and it can turn with the K4. The problem is that the Merlin fails- and fails catastrophically- too easily, it seems. In the real world, the Merlin was run for 15-30 minutes at 80" without issue numerous times, and in testing it was run for 7 hours without issue at 75".... yet in DCS, it can fail catastrophically, and without warning, 30 seconds into a run at 67".

1vs1, sure. In a group and using cooperative tactics the 190D-9 is a better fighter than the 109K-4, and it's better than the P-51, too.

I don't know if I'd go quite *that* far; P-51D and Fw190d9 are quite close in aerodynamic perfomance, and the D9 are certainly much closer to the Mustang in SA and gunnery ability, but I still think the Mustang's gunnery and SA advantages are superior enough to call it the better for a many vs many situation. I absolutely agree with the basic premise, though: the K4 is the best 1v1 dogfighter, but in a many vs many with cooperating and communicating team-mates, the 190 is superior to the K4, for the same reason the Mustang is: it has better SA, a better disengage/ dive-away, and far superior weapons/sighting setup for longer-range and/or high-deflection kills against maneuvering opponents.

Now, if only more than a couple players on any given team were ever on TS and felt like flying cooperatively....

But that's an entirely different problem, and one that would be GREATLY assisted by ED taking the time to make an in-game voice channel. The lack of it is possibly the single greatest flaw in DCS multiplayer.

TL;DR: The Mustang is an excellent fighter, perfectly capable of taking on K4s toe-to-toe with favorable exchange rates if the 'Stang driver fights smart and practices his deflection shooting. The Mustang should always be flown with wingmen to get the best out of the SA and weapons employment advantages.

 

Does that mean the Mustang shouldn't be improved? No. It would really benefit from the additional WEP boost rating. Probably more important, though, is to tweak engine failure characteristics. This appears to have been done a couple times over the life of the module already, but the single biggest problem the Mustang has in a turn fight with a K4 is not the Mustang it cannot turn with it; the Mustang slightly out-turns the K4 at high speeds, and at low speeds if you drop one notch flaps and it can turn with the K4. The problem is that the Merlin fails- and fails catastrophically- too easily, it seems. In the real world, the Merlin was run for 15-30 minutes at 80" without issue numerous times, and in testing it was run for 7 hours without issue at 75".... yet in DCS, it can fail catastrophically, and without warning, 30 seconds into a run at 67".

There is a lot of really good stuff in your post. I really want to hone in on what you said regarding the engine failure modeling on the DCS P-51D. Just today I got into a turning duel with a 51 driver on the Burning Skies server and pretty much forced him to fry his engine out to avoid any advantage to me. Once his engine did crap out I easily shot him down before other Blue players could arrive to help him out. I get that all is fair in love and war, but to me it seems like a cheap tactic.

I've been doing a lot of 51 training on my own and one of my supreme frustrations is how quickly it seems the engine cuts out after driving it hard in a 1v1 dogfight. How realistic is this?? It makes me really hesitant to jump into a P-51D as a lone wolf since I'm not a member of a squadron and sometimes airquake is the only thing happening. But I'm also frustrated by the warped numbers of 109s to 51s lately.

-SLACK

Very much agree with the two posts above regarding the RR engine and the break down situations. Its like a glass engine and I am sure RR was not in the business of producing glass engines. Still, I am no expert, but all I read about RR continuously testing engines to destruction and then improving the parts that break and testing again and again as part of development seems to be at odds with the DCS experience. Then there are all the pilot accounts of engines getting them home having been badly damaged and the pilots being amazed the engine kept going. All I have read indicates the RR engines were extremely reliable, pilots loved them and they had a margin for abuse in combat that was well over the guidance in the pilot notes. Any way, I accept I could be wrong about what I term as a 'glass engine' and stand to be corrected, but I must say it makes me somewhat concerned about how things might be with the upcoming Spitfire Mk IX.

Happy landings,

Talisman

Even though I managed to keep the engine running for a long time, I have to agree that sometimes it just likes to quit.

Yesterday I flew for 5 min continous WEP and nothing happened during combat. Then I put my throttle at continuous power setting and not even a minute has passed as my engine stopped.

Earlier I've landed and refueled and everything was fine and I put 25'hg and engine seized on the ground.

I also think that those operational limits which apply to keep the engine healthy between many missions, were taken as absolute limits.

Also the guns can use some more punch to em, I engaged a lone 109 pilot, dominated him, but he knew that:

A. my convergence was too far so i would miss (poor gunnery as well) or be able to only put one wing of guns on him

B. His 109 could soak up rounds like a corsair could from a zero, or a p47 could from a 109

C. eventually run out of ammo

D. tail him all the way back to base while trying to get a bead so the german mafia would gangster me outta their turf

personally I feel that the 50 cals don't do as much damage as they should

personally I feel that the 50 cals don't do as much damage as they should

Yes and no. I think it's less that the .50 does too little damage (though it *does* do too little damage), and more that the way the damage model works in DCS is horrible for small caliber solid slugs.

See, DCS appears to just defines each aircraft as a number of areas ("hit boxes") with a number of hit points each. If you reduce a particular hit box by a particular number of hit points, it results in a particular damage to the aircraft.

The problem is, that's horribly unrealistic. It means that in order to kill the engine, for example, you MUST put X number of rounds into the engine bay. It also means that while, say, 50 hit points to a single area kills the aircraft, if you don't get *concentrated* hits on one hit box, you could do 49 hit points to 10 different locations and basically not hurt it at all (even though you put 490 hit points of damage onto it!) The .50 is low-damage/ high ROF, so it's more negatively impacted by that artificiality than are high-damage/ low ROF weapons (like, say, the 30mm on the K4).

In the real world, however, you *could* kill that engine with one, single, solitary .50 cal. Or you *could* pour 50 rounds into the engine bay and not manage to hit anything vital whatsoever (even though that's incredibly unlikely). You *could* put 100 rounds into a wing and do nothing but punch a bunch of half inch holes that just go through the wing skin for minimal effect, or you *could* put one single .50 cal through the center of the main wing spar and snap the wing off.

To realistically model .50 cal damage, the entire damage model has to be re-done, either by modeling every critical component in 3d inside the aircraft and tracking the path of each projectile as it passes through the aircraft, or by a probability-driven damage model that "rolls the dice" to see if you hit anything super-vital with any given round. ED has said they are completely re-working the WW2 aircraft damage models, so there's certainly hope.

Hit points are for chumps.

Yes and no. I think it's less that the .50 does too little damage (though it *does* do too little damage), and more that the way the damage model works in DCS is horrible for small caliber solid slugs.

 

See, DCS appears to just defines each aircraft as a number of areas ("hit boxes") with a number of hit points each. If you reduce a particular hit box by a particular number of hit points, it results in a particular damage to the aircraft.

 

The problem is, that's horribly unrealistic. It means that in order to kill the engine, for example, you MUST put X number of rounds into the engine bay. It also means that while, say, 50 hit points to a single area kills the aircraft, if you don't get *concentrated* hits on one hit box, you could do 49 hit points to 10 different locations and basically not hurt it at all (even though you put 490 hit points of damage onto it!) The .50 is low-damage/ high ROF, so it's more negatively impacted by that artificiality than are high-damage/ low ROF weapons (like, say, the 30mm on the K4).

 

In the real world, however, you *could* kill that engine with one, single, solitary .50 cal. Or you *could* pour 50 rounds into the engine bay and not manage to hit anything vital whatsoever (even though that's incredibly unlikely). You *could* put 100 rounds into a wing and do nothing but punch a bunch of half inch holes that just go through the wing skin for minimal effect, or you *could* put one single .50 cal through the center of the main wing spar and snap the wing off.

 

To realistically model .50 cal damage, the entire damage model has to be re-done, either by modeling every critical component in 3d inside the aircraft and tracking the path of each projectile as it passes through the aircraft, or by a probability-driven damage model that "rolls the dice" to see if you hit anything super-vital with any given round. ED has said they are completely re-working the WW2 aircraft damage models, so there's certainly hope.

 

Hit points are for chumps.

Yep, exactly it all depends on the bullet and where it hits and how hard it hits.

.50cal looses a lot of its killing power due to this simplistic DM.

We have great sources to see how those .50cals work IRL thanks to the internet and some good people that shared those videos.

Exact moment where gun cam footage starts and continues nearly till the end of the video:

https://youtu.be/MCiHa0h-6Rs?t=20m18s

I agree with the 0.50 cal damage. German heavier amunnition is unafeccted by this issue.

Now looks like if you were shooting with the .303 or less but ED is already working in a solution and if it comes from ED it will be nuts.

I just want to see DCS WW2 in some years :D

Yep, exactly it all depends on the bullet and where it hits and how hard it hits.

 

.50cal looses a lot of its killing power due to this simplistic DM.

We have great sources to see how those .50cals work IRL thanks to the internet and some good people that shared those videos.

 

Exact moment where gun cam footage starts and continues nearly till the end of the video:

https://youtu.be/MCiHa0h-6Rs?t=20m18s

You notice how that fw went up like an m80? I've been told that vitals and fuel are stored in the right wing root, so any lucky strikes there would blow the wing off.

We have great sources to see how those .50cals work IRL thanks to the internet and some good people that shared those videos.

 

MCiHa0h-6Rs?t=14m37s

Exact moment where gun cam footage starts and continues nearly till the end of the video:

https://youtu.be/MCiHa0h-6Rs?t=20m18s

PLxI6kW7bFU

Watching videos like these always remind me how absolutely brutal the air war was. Incredible footage, and incredibly sobering.

One thing I definitely noticed was the number of leaking radiators. Also, those external fuel tanks... yikes.

Basically, every hit in a specific hit-box should do a "random" amount of damage. Otherwise you would have to model ever single nut, bolt, rivet, wire, fuel line, coolant line, etc in it's entire length, plus the effects of any damage do to it, regardless of how minor.

Nicking a fuel line so that it 'drips' a small amount of fuel over time might fill the wing with fumes, which might ignite through an additional hit 10 minutes later, or a second nicking of the fuel line might cause additional leakage. So you'd have to have a Fuel-Line-Simulation™ (Available soon on a DCS home page near you ;)) and similar for every single part of and A/C.

Or you do it generically, with hit-points being applied at various levels per hit, with the possibility of a single hit to a hit box resulting in catastrophic damage, or many hits doing only limited damage.

I don't want to even imagine the computationally capacity necessary to run such a detailed simulation, where every single system and part has it's own simulation, all connected will all others to simulate the cross effects of damage. You'd need an HPC cluster to manage all the calculations.

In the end, you, as the player, if it is done correctly, would never be able to tell the difference, because you cannot take the A/C apart and examine every single part for damage, nor even know what the true effects of that damage would be in detail. We as players can only experience the effects of hits through interfacing with the simulation and noting the effects which are simulated.

Of course not. Because it was war, not a game. IRL those missions were flown for 6 to 8 hours. Who wants to sit for that long in front of their PC and wait for a sudden death?

 

And you asked,Air quake missions are not ASF missions. They are just what they are, people respawning and getting kills. You cannot win air superiority in these types of missions, they are too limited in scope and people can respawn.

 

8th AAF of the USAAF was doing a lot of ASF and escort during 1944 and 1945. They broke the German back, because they were allowed, since Doolittle took control, to pursue the German aircraft and they ended up on the deck. ASF is not only waiting for the enemy to come up. It is destruction of the enemy air force in any means necessary. So bombing airfields and factories and shooting down airplanes whenever they appear also wins air superiority.

 

A good documentary on the subject:

 

I agree with you on almost all points. I'd just like to make the 'game' a little less.... gamey ;)

If we had the framework to make such missions, we could do an air-start to fly only around the time a bomber formation is being attacked. There is no necessity to actually fly-off a base in England, rendezvous with the bombers, fly along with them for half an hour or so and first then be attacked. Also, what are the German pilots supposed to do in the 2 hours while the allies are sortieing and rendezvousing? Watch YT videos? They will only start once the bomber formation starts approaching their target. And what if you want to join a server with such a long multi-hour mission which is already an hour into the mission?

With the envelope of of the mission being reduced to around the action, a mission could run for 10-20 minutes, which would allow new players to join after a fairly short wait, along with players who were shot down. There would not be a constant re-spawn and re-joining of the battle. Each battle would be contained within itself. And within a hour or so you could run several such battles.

The mission would have a far different flair and environment, and from my experience, the one-mission, one-life paradigm will influence the players to act more realistically.

We'd also not have an issue with base-camping, which I've seen happen, even with massive AA cover at an airfield. I've jumped into air-quake missions in their 3rd hour in which every single AA unit had already been destroyed on my base with the enemy zooming directly over the runway while I'm trying to take off. Not what the creator intended I'm sure :doh:

Basically, every hit in a specific hit-box should do a "random" amount of damage. Otherwise you would have to model ever single nut, bolt, rivet, wire, fuel line, coolant line, etc in it's entire length, plus the effects of any damage do to it, regardless of how minor.

 

Nicking a fuel line so that it 'drips' a small amount of fuel over time might fill the wing with fumes, which might ignite through an additional hit 10 minutes later, or a second nicking of the fuel line might cause additional leakage. So you'd have to have a Fuel-Line-Simulation™ (Available soon on a DCS home page near you ;)) and similar for every single part of and A/C.

 

Or you do it generically, with hit-points being applied at various levels per hit, with the possibility of a single hit to a hit box resulting in catastrophic damage, or many hits doing only limited damage.

 

I don't want to even imagine the computationally capacity necessary to run such a detailed simulation, where every single system and part has it's own simulation, all connected will all others to simulate the cross effects of damage. You'd need an HPC cluster to manage all the calculations.

 

In the end, you, as the player, if it is done correctly, would never be able to tell the difference, because you cannot take the A/C apart and examine every single part for damage, nor even know what the true effects of that damage would be in detail. We as players can only experience the effects of hits through interfacing with the simulation and noting the effects which are simulated.

Well, all I am expecting something on the level of CloD or at least BOS.

Well, all I am expecting is something on the level of CloD or at least BOS.

Not having flown those, I can't really say much about them, but I do hope and expect much improvement in the DM's. I'm really tired of my prop-governor sh*tting its pants every time a bullet wizes close by, which happens a lot with me :music_whistling: Note which direction my avatar is looking :D

[snip]

 

In the end, you, as the player, if it is done correctly, would never be able to tell the difference, because you cannot take the A/C apart and examine every single part for damage, nor even know what the true effects of that damage would be in detail. We as players can only experience the effects of hits through interfacing with the simulation and noting the effects which are simulated.

You have seen this thread about the new damage model yes? Specifically Racoon's image of the new modelling? It's going down to the component level, things like fuel and coolant lines are clearly modelled.

A lot of what you've posted about in your last couple of posts about the damage model do look like they might be taken care of.

Yes, I've followed that thread from its start. It is still using hit boxes. Just a lot more of them, which allows for differentiating more single components.

Anyway, this thread was started to discuss "types of flights online". We really should be getting back to that.

Yes, I've followed that thread from its start. It is still using hit boxes. Just a lot more of them, which allows for differentiating more single components.

 

Anyway, this thread was started to discuss "types of flights online". We really should be getting back to that.

And how to not suck in the P-51 online :smilewink:.

So far the pointers have been:

1. Start higher than the 109/190
   
2. Stay faster than them
   
3. Don't turn with a 109
   
4. Fight 109's 2v1 with TS
   

Basically, every hit in a specific hit-box should do a "random" amount of damage.

I should add, a random between X and Y values (not too far one from another), and maybe a % of chance to do a critical damage that will for instance double or triple the damage and that would mean a lucky shot on a critical part...

And how to not suck in the P-51 online :smilewink:.

 

So far the pointers have been:

 

 

1. Start higher than the 109/190
   
2. Stay faster than them
   
3. Don't turn with a 109
   
4. Fight 109's 2v1 with TS
   

I agree, that's basically what I've picked up from this. Sorta dis-heartening. I will say this has made me feel a lot less better about my PvP kills in the 109.

Flying the P-51D is really hard, and since its a chore to fight the airplane in addition to your opponent, I'm not sure it makes you that much better of a BFM'er.

I'm dying to know, and maybe its impossible to answer since there are probably no real life P-51D pilots on this forum....but did the airplane really depart that quickly when making rapid AOA changes in a dogfight? It seems regardless of my speed, if I try to turn in hard the plane buffets and immediately departs. Sucks and it blows my mind that this plane could be considered such a legendary "dogfighter."

-SLACK