Jump to content

WW2 Planeset


gavagai

Recommended Posts

Did a couple sorties in multiplayer today after a long time away from the WW2 modules. Flew on the LFDM server and had a good time.

 

Now, technical accuracy is great in DCS, but the choice of planeset that we have in our sim is pretty lopsided. I'm excited to get back into WW2 stuff with the new DM, but also concerned.

 

Still no P-51 with 72" Hg. Spitfire IX is like two or three years behind the 109K-4 and 190D-9. The 190A-8 was a good addition, but expecting people to downgrade isn't going to work. Is it going to be years and years before we have a competitive lineup?

P-51D | Fw 190D-9 | Bf 109K-4 | Spitfire Mk IX | P-47D | WW2 assets pack | F-86 | Mig-15 | Mig-21 | Mirage 2000C | A-10C II | F-5E | F-16 | F/A-18 | Ka-50 | Combined Arms | FC3 | Nevada | Normandy | Straight of Hormuz | Syria

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet Pilot skill and teamwork can easily make the two Allied aircraft superior to the Axis ones in actual fighting.

 

 

 

It really doesn't bother me what was historically accurate or whether gameplay is "fair" or not. What DCS does is provide a level of detail in the planes that is second to none and I don't think we should accept lesser work just to make up the numbers.

 

 

 

Lets see what happens with the P47, Mosquito, F4U because I think after that you would need some more Axis maybe a 109 G2/6, 190 A5 or something Japanese like a Ki-84.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet Pilot skill and teamwork can easily make the two Allied aircraft superior to the Axis ones in actual fighting.

 

No, pilot skill and teamwork just make the pilots better than their opponents. Aircraft performance remains unchanged, unless you are fighting someone who is so incompetent he cannot manage his engine correctly.

 

Look, I've been playing ww2 combat sims online since dial up. I don't need a lesson on the importance of practice, teamwork, etc. Let's just stick to the facts about aircraft performance. The 190D-9 and 109K-4 are in a class above our 67" Hg P-51 and 1942 Spit IX. It is accurate, yes, but I like to fly German planes sometimes and I just feel kind of cheap if I have a huge leg up on my opponents.

 

P.S. Didn't we fly in a AH scenario together way back? ;)

P-51D | Fw 190D-9 | Bf 109K-4 | Spitfire Mk IX | P-47D | WW2 assets pack | F-86 | Mig-15 | Mig-21 | Mirage 2000C | A-10C II | F-5E | F-16 | F/A-18 | Ka-50 | Combined Arms | FC3 | Nevada | Normandy | Straight of Hormuz | Syria

Link to comment
Share on other sites

german aircraft pilots are generally higher skilled imo, most know when to break away, what tactics to use and what weight to fly at where as most mustang pilots seem to fly with full wing tanks then complain they cant turn.

 

having a wingman really does help however as gavagai said it still does not make the aircraft you're flying any more equal.

 

109s and 190s just accelerate away from spitfires and sometimes even mustangs.

 

personally i would like to see more equal aircraft in terms of year however i historically mis matched aircraft flew against eachother so i can deal with having to tilt the favour in my odds.

 

a griffon spitfire would be neat or an earlier 109 however weather people choose to deliberately fly older aircraft is something that we can debate as is other options like adding higher optain fuel or gyro sights for the mustang and spitfire respectively.

 

with the earlier griffon spitfires im not sure exactly what the differences are in terms of acceleration as documents indicate that earlier griffon spitfires were heavier and climbed slower then the mk9.


Edited by zcrazyx
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The disparity in performance can partially be dealt with by removing access to MW50.

If you're referring to a disparity in multi-player, the answer is to ask the server owner to remove it.

System: 9700, 64GB DDR4, 2070S, NVME2, Rift S, Jetseat, Thrustmaster F18 grip, VPC T50 stick base and throttle, CH Throttle, MFG crosswinds, custom button box, Logitech G502 and Marble mouse.

Server: i5 2500@3.9Ghz, 1080, 24GB DDR3, SSD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

or just give mustang the ability to push 72

 

This is the way to go because, as I said in the OP, it is not realistic to expect people to downgrade. Any server owner who took away MW50 would probably see the players migrate somewhere else.

 

So, yes, a better Mustang, a Spit XIV, a Tempest, I don't really care, just something so it's more comparable. But we're going to see a Me-262 before any of those, so I'm wasting my breath.

P-51D | Fw 190D-9 | Bf 109K-4 | Spitfire Mk IX | P-47D | WW2 assets pack | F-86 | Mig-15 | Mig-21 | Mirage 2000C | A-10C II | F-5E | F-16 | F/A-18 | Ka-50 | Combined Arms | FC3 | Nevada | Normandy | Straight of Hormuz | Syria

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aha! Gav is back! Hey, Gav!

 

I gotta agree with Gav. I can't imagine what DCS was thinking matching mid-war Allied fighters with late war German. The A8 is the only historically correct match-up we have.

 

Accuracy in the plane builds is great but what's the point when the match-ups are all wrong?

 

This is also why I avoid online (MP) flying in DCS.

 

S!


Edited by HotTom

Exceptional engineering...and a large hammer to make it fit!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

or just give mustang the ability to push 72

 

72 only solves the issue for the Mustang and requires development.

Restricting MW50 requires no development and can be done NOW.

It’s how I solve the issue when I run WW2 missions.

System: 9700, 64GB DDR4, 2070S, NVME2, Rift S, Jetseat, Thrustmaster F18 grip, VPC T50 stick base and throttle, CH Throttle, MFG crosswinds, custom button box, Logitech G502 and Marble mouse.

Server: i5 2500@3.9Ghz, 1080, 24GB DDR3, SSD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sukebe, you are missing the point entirely.

 

Sure, you can modify the late war German planes and dumb them down.

 

But in a sim in which the planes are so accurate, what have you gained by having to neuter them? You've switched from simmer to gamer. Accuracy should be the ONLY goal in a sim.

Exceptional engineering...and a large hammer to make it fit!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the end of the day this is a combat simulator that strives to deliver as accurate representation of aircraft as possible, the solution is not to remove parts of an aircraft for balance as this then becomes unrealistic and you are intentionally making an aircraft worse.

 

People pay good money for a module, I expect they should be able to make full use of it especially given how few good ww2 servers there are.

 

There are some grey areas such as with 150 octane, it is documented that large numbers of mustangs flew with it and had the mods to use such fuel to gain the extra mp.

 

However because not all mustangs flew with the higher grade fuel it is a grey zone as to If in a server it should fly with it considering IRL it was a mish mash of aircraft.

 

Adding later aircraft or later modifications would help the issue out, gyro gun sight for spitfire mk9 that became standard being one example however you need to ask if it would be financially viable for ED to make such a module to which I would say in most cases it will be.

 

In servers where all aircraft are included such as in burning skies, you can choose to fly the ishak or a8 but few people do because in a competitive environment it does not make sense to.

 

I fly the spitfire in BS and I do extremely well due to tactics but there is no hiding that I will rarely be able to keep with a 109 who runs nor should I be able to because my aircraft is older. If you gave me the choice between a 9 and say a 14 with a griffon engine in a competitive environment where k/d matters I would likely lean on the 14 more.

 

Hell the mosquito is coming out soon and I'll fly that and adjust my style to fly with it even against newer aircraft but that's my choice and I'm not gonna force a German aircraft player to fly without mw50 cause balance.

 

As of now 109s can fly seemingly fine with smoke spewing everywhere and even in this state can still outrun spitfires and sometimes Mustangs and the 190 can boom and zoom all it wants and a mustang will struggle to stay with it as it should without the boost.

 

That being said, I think a lot of this sentiment comes not from balance standpoint but the damage models being ridiculous, mustangs engines dying randomly if wep is enabled even if kept below 5 minutes of use, 109s tanking obscene damage, spitfires visually flying with no wing (rarely though) and with the new damage models coming soon I believe that people will be much happier with the current aircraft standings.

 

I hear that they are modeling things such as cylinder damage and better bullet ballistics that will make those who are good marksmen more successful especially on the allied side who deal with lower calibre weaponry and will make aircraft running away with unrealistic damage unlikely.

 

As for how I feel on 150 octane, it was fielded in substantial quantities when mustangs and 190s were fighting and therefore I think It should be added, its accurate, it brings the mustangs performance up and it's not taking away from the other team.

 

What I really want to know is how often the spitfire run high octane fuel, I see many sites reference the use of it on the mk9 allowing it to push 25 boost but I haven't come across any official documents reporting this.

 

this gentleman shows a document that appears to show the mk9 with Merlin 66 at least being tested with 150
Edited by zcrazyx
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Gav,

Actually, the K-4 and the Dora are not THAT much better. The Dora is fast, but takes a very skilled pilot to handle properly. Kind of like a SPAD in WWI. If the pilot is less than an expert, it's toast.

 

The K-4 doesn't perform too much better than, say, a G-10. It's a little faster, but heavier too, and it turns worse. Skilled pilots can make it deadly, but it's definitely not difficult to beat in a Spit or Mustang. Take away the MW50, and it becomes downright inferior IMO.

 

This being said, I'd LOVE a Tempest! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Gav,

Actually, the K-4 and the Dora are not THAT much better. The Dora is fast, but takes a very skilled pilot to handle properly. Kind of like a SPAD in WWI. If the pilot is less than an expert, it's toast.

 

The K-4 doesn't perform too much better than, say, a G-10. It's a little faster, but heavier too, and it turns worse. Skilled pilots can make it deadly, but it's definitely not difficult to beat in a Spit or Mustang. Take away the MW50, and it becomes downright inferior IMO.

 

This being said, I'd LOVE a Tempest! :)

 

1 on 1 for a mustang to beat a 109 it takes an experienced pilot and around 40% fuel with the usage of flaps to even stand a chance of dealing with a 109 and it is by no means easy.

 

For the 190 it would be closer speed wise if wep didn't randomly kill the engine after short use.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for how I feel on 150 octane, it was fielded in substantial quantities when mustangs and 190s were fighting and therefore I think It should be added, its accurate, it brings the mustangs performance up and it's not taking away from the other team.

 

What I really want to know is how often the spitfire run high octane fuel, I see many sites reference the use of it on the mk9 allowing it to push 25 boost but I haven't come across any official documents reporting this.

 

this gentleman shows a document that appears to show the mk9 with Merlin 66 at least being tested with 150

 

 

Whilst the Spitfire 9 did use the 150 Octane Fuel later in its career, folks should be aware that the 2nd Tactical Air Force was not supplied with this fuel until November 1944.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/150_Grade_20-11-44.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/trinder.html

 

This is well after the breakout from Normandy/ Falaise.

 

Players who are doing the "historically based" thing in DCS would consider to only allow English-based Allied fighters to use the 150 Octane fuel. Fighters located at bases on the French side of the Normandy DCS map should not really be using 150 Octane fuel.


Edited by philstyle

On YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/philstylenz

Storm of War WW2 server website: https://stormofwar.net/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whilst the Spitfire 9 did use the 150 Octane Fuel later in its career, folks should be aware that the 2nd Tactical Air Force was not supplied with this fuel until November 1944.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/150_Grade_20-11-44.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/trinder.html

 

This is well after the breakout from Normandy/ Falaise.

 

Players who are doing the "historically based" thing in DCS would consider to only allow English-based Allied fighters to use the 150 Octane fuel. Fighters located at bases on the French side of the Normandy DCS map should not really be using 150 Octane fuel.

 

Well, I think that the 109K entered service after the Normandy landings, sometime in late 1944. The Dora may be a bit earlier than that. If someone has exact dates that would be nice to know. In any case they were a rarity till 1945. So, if we align the matchup to end of 44 start of 45, 150 octane fuel may be justified. Intruder squadrons Mosquitoes FB.VI on day missions beyond the front were also issued 150 octane and tuned to achieve +25 boost. I am not sure about the Coastal Command mosquitoes though.

 

What about the coming P47-D? This one is going to struggle against MW50 109K/190D, if limited to factory standard boosts. Many groups overboosted their jugs up to 70” ish levels even on normal fuel. 56FG in particular were regularity doing this well before june 44, still in their razorbacks. The P-47M incorporated this as factory standard (72” MP) but D models were already flying like that.

“Mosquitoes fly, but flies don’t Mosquito” :pilotfly:

- Geoffrey de Havilland.

 

... well, he could have said it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I think that the 109K entered service after the Normandy landings, sometime in late 1944. The Dora may be a bit earlier than that. If someone has exact dates that would be nice to know. In any case they were a rarity till 1945. So, if we align the matchup to end of 44 start of 45, 150 octane fuel may be justified.

 

 

This is true.. but we don't yet have the map for it (aligning with 1945 or late 1944).

For me right now, Normandy with the removal of the MW50 for the two later German aircraft (190 A8 is fine as it is) is a close as we can get to a sensible performance/ geography mix that looks like June to August 1944....

On YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/philstylenz

Storm of War WW2 server website: https://stormofwar.net/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whilst the Spitfire 9 did use the 150 Octane Fuel later in its career, folks should be aware that the 2nd Tactical Air Force was not supplied with this fuel until November 1944.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/150_Grade_20-11-44.jpg

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/trinder.html

 

This is well after the breakout from Normandy/ Falaise.

 

Players who are doing the "historically based" thing in DCS would consider to only allow English-based Allied fighters to use the 150 Octane fuel. Fighters located at bases on the French side of the Normandy DCS map should not really be using 150 Octane fuel.

 

i feel like module wise it would be good to incorperate it, that being said if players who are doing historical roles well thats gonna be map dependant, i.e normandy or uk when it comes out.

 

on causcaus though where its a mish mash i say why not, it will be player choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My experience is that with less than 40% fuel the P-51 can even out-turn the 109K in a flat circle. I reduce the default fuel load to 30% usually (sorry Hot Tom!).

 

But flat circles aren't worth as much as the 109K's impressive climbrate and the near impossibility of overheating its engine.

 

Also, the 190D-9 is underrated in my opinion. It has the most balanced controls of all our fighters, and when flown with group tactics it is simply the best. Truckload of ammo, good visibility, fast, accelerates well, rolls like a top... the only place it doesn't shine is furballing on the deck, if that's anyone's thing.

 

Keep hoping for a Spit 14, P-47M, Tempest, or whatever...

P-51D | Fw 190D-9 | Bf 109K-4 | Spitfire Mk IX | P-47D | WW2 assets pack | F-86 | Mig-15 | Mig-21 | Mirage 2000C | A-10C II | F-5E | F-16 | F/A-18 | Ka-50 | Combined Arms | FC3 | Nevada | Normandy | Straight of Hormuz | Syria

Link to comment
Share on other sites

have to admit I went into dcs wwII expecting the spitfire 9 to be lacking but it ended up being the plane in which I am most comfortable. I find it by far the easiest to handle on the ground (I don't have toe brakes on my pedals) and in the air, and especially to get kills with. I never really grasped energy fighting so having a plane that caters to my bad habits is quite intoxicating.

 

I have put many hours into the 109 and focke wulfs but in MP I have to think really hard about my engagements and be very careful attacking spitfires or I am toast. I guess it's nice being able to run away though. I would say 95% of my kills while flying the 109 are from sneaking up on people from below, and using my superior sustained climb and invisible 30mm bullets to give them a nasty surprise. Once a spitfire sees me and starts turning I just fly away.


Edited by Sceptre

RTX 2070 8GB | 32GB DDR4 2666 RAM | AMD Ryzen 5 3600 4.2Ghz | Asrock X570 | CH Fighterstick/Pro Throttle | TM MFDs | TrackIR 5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Gav,

Actually, the K-4 and the Dora are not THAT much better. The Dora is fast, but takes a very skilled pilot to handle properly. Kind of like a SPAD in WWI. If the pilot is less than an expert, it's toast.

 

The K-4 doesn't perform too much better than, say, a G-10. It's a little faster, but heavier too, and it turns worse. Skilled pilots can make it deadly, but it's definitely not difficult to beat in a Spit or Mustang. Take away the MW50, and it becomes downright inferior IMO.

 

This being said, I'd LOVE a Tempest! :)

 

Yeah, the difference is not that great. I think the spitfire is just as good as the 109K4 and better then the FW190s. The mustang can fight the 190s no problem and with lower fuel can give the K4 a run for its money. The main problem imo is the fact the P51D WEP breaks the engine and the damage model(which is being improved). With WEP (67") and reduced fuel I would say the mustang is equal to the 109K4. Problem is you cant use WEP without it randomly killing your engine. 72" MP won't be much help if WEP is not fixed.


Edited by Snapage
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...