Jump to content

Jumo-213A for Dora


Yo-Yo

Recommended Posts

Look, it isn't incorrect. There were P-51Ds that ran 150 fuel, but there were also P-51Ds that didn't. That they're simulating one of the ones that didn't doesn't make it wrong or a less-detailed simulation. It may be "artificial balancing," but no more than choosing the FW 190D as the opponent instead of the Me 109G or FW 190A. Your implication that the 130 fuel in the P-51 is historically incorrect is perplexing; there are two valid, historical options for the P-51's fuel, and ED has chosen the one which best makes a competitive match with the FW 190D. Such is the only logical choice for a hardcore, 100%-realism simmer who also enjoys competitive dogfighting.

 

No, my implication was not that 130 is incorrect. What I meant was that both fuel types were used, 150 as well, and thus should be in the game as a choice in the editor.

 

If the mission maker then decides to disable it for a certain mission it's his choice, but don't cut the option to use one of historically correct fuel types out of the game completely because of perceived balance issues. there will never be balance between planes nor should there be. Each was unique and if we want to have the 100% historical sim then the only concern should be the historical accuracy of the plane models.

Balance then is up to mission makers only on how many planes there are, what types, what fuel etc. But the game should have all the correct types modelled. I hope it's more clear now. If you wanted balance then 262 should not be available but it will be, even as AI if strech goal is not reached. That does not mean it should be cut out (because it's imbalancing) but rather that a mission maker can choose to allow it or now. Simple as that.

 

 

If we could have everything, I would prefer to have the option of choosing fuel grade in the mission editor. (This would allow us to experience a challenge faced by the late-war Luftwaffe, and would also allow a better VFP to handicap himself by giving his opponent the better airplane.)

 

Exactly, it should be a loadout option. Same as armament or fuel quantity.

 

However, such an option would involve a ton of extra work on ED's part--not exactly a whole new aircraft, but still far from a simple tweaking of a few lines of code.

 

Not really. If the other fuel type is in game then having an option in the editor to use it or not is simple. Same as with weapon types. If it's modelled in the game then the ability to choose it as a loadout option is pretty straightforward. The thing is it just needs to be in the game first.

 

This isn't a world where we can have such unnecessary luxuries, so the choice is simple: a historical portrayal that isn't balanced, or a historical portrayal that is balanced. The better choice seems clear to me.

 

Again, planes should not be handicapped, having flight models/ammo/abilities changed to preserve artificial balance. Balance is always up to the mission makers and in a hardcore flight sim like DCS all should be as historically correct as possible. So the choice you present is very far from simple. For plane enthusiasts that buy DCS: Mustang to be able to experience everything in that plane, as historically as possible it's a very touchy subject. It's also similar to the dicsussion when Spitfire's in another game were not able to use historically correct 100 Oct fuel.

 

Anyway, taking away a plane feature because it upsets perceived balance is simply the same as lowering plane performance, nerfing some ammo type ahistorically etc. and has no place in a hardcore flight sim. Balance is only up to the players and mission makers and how they use the historically correct planes, with what loadouts etc. as per the Me262 example.

 

 

In Yo-Yo I trust!

 

I trust Yo-Yo as well as so far everything he modelled is nearly perfect. That's why I trust 150 Octane fuel will not be omitted and will be in the game as a historically correct feature of the Mustang. Especially that he also mentioned the Spit as being able to use the same fuel with the same engine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

taking away a plane feature because it upsets perceived balance is simply the same as lowering plane performance, nerfing some ammo type ahistorically etc. and has no place in a hardcore flight sim.

 

That isn't at all the same. Realistically modelling an aircraft with the worse of two configurations it used IRL is quite different from adjusting the modelling to something that never was. One is an accurate portrayal of a certain scenario during the actual war, and the other is simply incorrect and unrealistic.


Edited by Echo38
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That isn't at all the same. Realistically modelling an aircraft with the worse of two configurations it used IRL is quite different from adjusting the modelling to something that never was. One is an accurate portrayal of a certain scenario during the actual war, and the other is simply incorrect and unrealistic. If one approaches this objectively rather than emotionally, I think one must see how different the two cases are.

 

It isn't the same but serves the same purpose, in this case artificially preserving the balance.

 

If you want to discuss then discuss the whole argument, don't just cut out one sentence you can pry your fingernail under ignoring the sense and context of the whole thing...

 

I hate when people do that on the internet. You put some effort into explaining your position on a certain matter writing a long post about it, and then someone comes, cuts one sentence out of context completely ignoring the rest and is all happy that he caught his "opponent" off guard...

 

Anyway, I'll put it in a simpler manner with some highlights so you don't have any doubts Echo :)

 

Any changes or omissions to flight model, loadout, damage model and other aircraft performance factors in order to artificially preserve balance between 2 or more aircraft and which do not come from lack of appropriate data or technical difficulties have no place in a study sim such as DCS.

 

The aircraft should be modelled up to the limit which the current technology allows, according to available historical data etc. So far it seems to have been the case with most aspects of the A10, KA-50 or the Mustang.

You don't see ED nerfing A10 or not modelling something because it would upset the balance against Su25T right? Sure, some systems might not be entirely correctly modelled, like ECM, but that's the technical difficulty and lacking documentation to do it properly, not "balance" issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, I agree--in a perfect world--that every historical loadout should be available in the sim, and I most emphatically insist that everything that is featured be modelled as accurately as humanly possible. However, this is not such a perfect world--because of the limitations on resources (development time & budget, namely), we can't have everything. So if, due to budget constraints, it comes down to a choice: do we model the P-51D with 100/130 or with 100/150? The choice is clear; since both are historical & realistic, we choose the one which makes for a better competitive match for the FW 190D.

 

In my book, "artificial balance" only becomes a problem when something is modelled incorrectly. Pitting an accurately-modelled 100/130 fuel P-51D against an accurately-modelled FW 190D may be artificial balance, but I see no problem (as long as they are well-matched) because the two are modelled accurately. 100/150 would be a nice "third option," but is not necessary for the pair to be modelled accurately. As I said before, even the choice of FW 190D instead of Me 109G (or, heck, A6M Zero) is "artificial balance," but I don't hear you complaining about that.

 

If I were the Lord High Master of All, I think you'd be happy with how I'd clap my hands and do it. All historical options available, all perfectly modelled. But this is Earth, and there are tiresome things like budgets and a tiny flightsim market that the developers are dealing with. Sure, maybe you're right--maybe I'm naive and they're simply too lazy to model the results of the second fuel type in the P-51D ... but I seriously doubt that, given the evidence of how thorough the simulation has been so far.


Edited by Echo38
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Besides, all current aicraft in the sim can run on a variety of fuels, well there real life counterparts can.

 

For non of em you can select which you want to use, so why add that feature just for the P-51?

 

If you do it, do it for all planes and all possible options.

 

Which is a rather time consuming task and has a huge possibility of messing up the rest of the simulation big time.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

The keeper of all mathematical knowledge and the oracle of flight modeling.:)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is not some useless gimmick, some spare screw somewhere in the back of the cockipt but something that changed the aircraft performance very very much - speed by several mph and rate of climb by a couple hundred feet per minute.

 

Now this is pretty darn significant and if the true aircraft, used at that time was able to use the fuel and achieve such results then DCS being a proper study sim should allow for that.

 

You're treating this is a petty whim of a thing that some players would like to see in the game while this is something that was used normally for this aircraft operation in 1944 and which changed how the plane peformed by A LOT.

 

It's the same case with Dora and MW50. This just has to be in. Can you imagine a situation where it's not modelled because it would upset the balance?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want to discuss then discuss the whole argument, don't just cut out one sentence you can pry your fingernail under ignoring the sense and context of the whole thing...

 

If I focus on a single part of your argument and ignore the rest, then it usually means that I only object to that one part. Again, our ultimate preference is the same: both options, realistically modelled. Our disagreement is one of the viability thereof, and also my objection to the specific reasoning you used ("only having 100/130 fuel is the same as having wrong performance").

 

It's the same case with Dora and MW50. This just has to be in. Can you imagine a situation where it's not modelled because it would upset the balance?

 

I'm not an expert on the FW 190D. If the MW50 was standard--that is, if it were unusual to find an FW 190D without MW50--then, yes, I would be disappointed if the MW50 were not modelled. But that isn't so with the P-51D; that isn't an honest comparison. The P-51D used 100/130 fuel as standard. It may have also used 100/150 fuel as standard, but it did also use 100/130 as standard! You're comparing something non-standard with something standard, and then implying that they're the same thing. This is my primary objection to your argument--even though I share your desire of having the option for both fuel types. Argue for both fuel types--I would like that, too. But argue it honestly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No i cant, and the reason that the high octane fuel is not modelled has nothing to do whit balance.

 

But whit time.

 

And as said before, if you give one plane the option of alternate fuel types, then all should have it.

 

Cause a different fuel means a significant change in performance for any aircraft, not just the P-51.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

The keeper of all mathematical knowledge and the oracle of flight modeling.:)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Besides, all current aicraft in the sim can run on a variety of fuels, well there real life counterparts can.

For non of em you can select which you want to use, so why add that feature just for the P-51?

 

If you do it, do it for all planes and all possible options.

Which is a rather time consuming task and has a huge possibility of messing up the rest of the simulation big time.

 

This is what I was getting at earlier: adding a new fuel type for an aircraft isn't as simple as changing a number somewhere. It'd be a big job, Endy. That is why--although I would prefer the option of both fuel types, in a perfect world--I am content with simply the one which better fits competitive balance with the opponent aircraft. It's the only logical choice I can see for max-realism competitive dogfighting within the limits of what this world's flightsim market imposes. If ED can someday find the time to do more fuel types, great--I'm all for it. If they can't, I understand. It's a tiny market, hardcore flightsims; I don't think anyone at ED is swimming in gold coins.

 

(Incidentally, unless I am badly mistaken, the real P-51s never operate on 100/150 today, so they'd have nothing to compare to the way they do with a 100/130 model.)


Edited by Echo38
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you overestinate the amount of work related to increased engine performance with better fuel. It's not the same as a changed wing shape for example which could change several parameters. Sure, it is some work of course as everything else, but this is what this sim is all about, having proper FMs etc.

 

Also, it was done in another game which I shall not name, for Spitfires and later the 109 :)

 

Trust me, like I said, if that was only some minor gadget somewhere in the plane, its absence changing nothing major, then I would not object. I realize stuff like limited budget etc. But it's not some minor thing, it's also not some kind of fuel they put somewhere experimentally once and accidentally got better performance. This fuel was used, in operational squadrons in 1944. It was normal procedure in many cases and common, not some garage modification by some crazy mechanic that someone heard of once.

 

It's of the same value to the P51 as MW50 in the Dora or Spits achieving proper boost levels. I just can't imagine the FW190, Spit IX with weaker performance than reality. The sim stops being a proper sim then if it does not reflect real aircraft performance.

 

DCS is great exactly because of that, it's attention to detail and systems modelling. That's why the latest update was awesome, Yo-Yo showing the huge amount of work that went into modelling all the forces and internal systems of the pony. Now if you model stuff like battery loading under different conditions or icing then you can't miss stuff like 150 Octane fuel that was used for it. If it stops pursuing to model important stuff like that we might as well fly with simplified flight models because that would save a great deal of money etc. But I dare say it's not what most of us are looking for in DCS and we love it exactly because it's the best thing we can get on the market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Discussion of 100/150 grade fuel here:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/150-grade-fuel.html

Basically the advantages were slightly faster speed in P51B of about 12mph and improved climb rate of 600ft/min. It wasn't used until late '44, in December. It's disadvatages were spark plug fouling and a 50% decrease in engine lifespan. To resolve that problem, an additive was incorporated but after 1 month it was discovered all aircraft using it were suffering from damage to valves. The US airforce reverted to 100/130 fuel from Feb '45. Other things you may wish to consider are increased fuel consumption at higher boost (not a problem on the postage stamp we'll be flying over though), thus less range. Also, and I don't know if this can be modelled, but the increase in the amount of time aircraft spent being maintained on the ground as opposed to being in the air, factors which heavily influenced the reversion to 100/130. Still keep whining for it!

Suggest you do some reading on the 109k, it outclimbs a mustang by a 1000ft a min, if we get the lightweight K4, the G10, then mustang fans should start to worry moreso if numbers are not 10 to 1 against for the 109's but evens! See you in the skies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you overestinate the amount of work related to increased engine performance with better fuel. It's not the same as a changed wing shape for example which could change several parameters. Sure, it is some work of course as everything else, but this is what this sim is all about, having proper FMs etc.

 

Here you go again--implying that not having the second fuel option is equivalent to having an incorrect FM. Good grief; I give up.


Edited by Echo38
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here you go again--implying that not having the second fuel option is equivalent to having an incorrect FM. Good grief; I give up.

 

No this is not what I'm implying, but go ahead, don't let me stop you. I don't even know how to explain that to you anymore and I've tried quite a few times... Yet of course you ignore what's being said and you have your mind set on some other idea and stick to it. Whatever...Thankfully it's not you that needs conincing here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way. Since this is a Dora thread after all. Just look how important it is for some people is a small bar on the bottom of the armored screen, the discussion is 15 pages long already. This is how such historical details are important to people, especially in any DCS sim.

 

So don't be surprised some people want to have the historically correct loadouts and fuel available, especially if their planes are affected in a significant way. I know you might not care in the slightest for such details in your game but for many people it's rather important to have this stuff in a study sim that is DCS. There, I can't say it clearer I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's no less accurate, and no less a study sim, if they chose not to model more than 1 type of fuel.

I can't see how this argument is any different to asking for a second type of sight, another model of the aircraft, or - that old chestnut - customisable gun convergence.

ED may chose to do any of these things, but if they don't, it will be an accurate model of a specific configuration of an aircraft...

Cheers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

 

It's disadvatages were spark plug fouling and a 50% decrease in engine lifespan.

Actually 50% decrease in spark plug lifespan... due to excessive leading (fouling), which was preventable by running the engine at high power at regular intervals.

 

The US airforce reverted to 100/130 fuel from Feb '45.
Where did you read that?

 

Also, and I don't know if this can be modelled, but the increase in the amount of time aircraft spent being maintained on the ground as opposed to being in the air, factors which heavily influenced the reversion to 100/130. Still keep whining for it!

Seriously? It is up to mission designers to choose aircraft availability. Besides, changing or cleaning plugs is not a difficult or long operation, I don't think it needs modelling... Especially if we aren't modelling the difficulties faced in maintaining all DCS WW2 aircraft, under their specific wartime conditions.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I take it you read the link I posted? I was posting from memory and admit I was wrong about the reversion to 100/130, as it says they reverted back to the original 100/150 mix losing the extra lead, which had caused problems not only with spark plugs but valve seats and according to some units the engines rubber seals and caused the occassional crash on take off. This is all in the link I posted.

The main point I was trying to make was that 150 fuel had pluses and minuses and the whine was for only the positives with no consideration for any negatives. It was US field commanders complaining about the time they spent in the shop not me. In game if we have 100/150 mustangs I don't have a problem with that, but wouldn't you agree that the pilot should have to use a blast of high revs to clean the plugs periodically as they did historically? More pilot workload and something else to remember with consequences modelled ingame if they don't?

Every sim so far has undermodelled allied pilot workload and minimised the great advantage of German fighters which had only a power lever with all other engine controls automated and linked to it. So forgive me if I'm somewhat peeved by the p51 won the war crowd who want not only the cake but to eat it as well when historically the situation wasn't that clear cut. As a 109 driver I'm thinking they'll be in for something of a shock meeting a properly modelled 109k4 which was just as fast, had better weapons and could outclimb them by a 1000ft a minute. Then the real whinning will start :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I take it you read the link I posted? I was posting from memory and admit I was wrong about the reversion to 100/130, as it says they reverted back to the original 100/150 mix losing the extra lead, which had caused problems not only with spark plugs but valve seats and according to some units the engines rubber seals and caused the occassional crash on take off. This is all in the link I posted.

The main point I was trying to make was that 150 fuel had pluses and minuses and the whine was for only the positives with no consideration for any negatives. It was US field commanders complaining about the time they spent in the shop not me. In game if we have 100/150 mustangs I don't have a problem with that, but wouldn't you agree that the pilot should have to use a blast of high revs to clean the plugs periodically as they did historically? More pilot workload and something else to remember with consequences modelled ingame if they don't?

 

I read your link because the 50% engine life sounded like sh!t to me, and found that it was. I then noticed the other points which disagree with your post.

 

The valve seat erosion problem was caused by the additive used to stop plug fouling, which they stopped using, not the lead.

 

I agree that if we use 150 grade fuel in the sim, we should have to deal with plug fouling.

 

I also think that different fuels should be available for mission designers to specify, to allow for mission balancing and different locations and times.

 

However, given this fuel's historical uptake, I think you are overstating the down-sides.

 

From your link:

"As a result of several months operational use with the fuel, an SOP – designed to reduce power failures on take-off, leading troubles in flight, and other things which were causing early returns and abortive aircraft – was published. This is inclosure no. 1. Almost immediately after this section published this SOP practically all of the troubles then existing ceased, although it was necessary to change plugs after each two missions or thereabouts. "

 

Every sim so far has undermodelled allied pilot workload and minimised the great advantage of German fighters which had only a power lever with all other engine controls automated and linked to it. So forgive me if I'm somewhat peeved by the p51 won the war crowd who want not only the cake but to eat it as well when historically the situation wasn't that clear cut. As a 109 driver I'm thinking they'll be in for something of a shock meeting a properly modelled 109k4 which was just as fast, had better weapons and could outclimb them by a 1000ft a minute. Then the real whinning will start :)

 

Workload "under modeling" is not something we have to worry about when engine operating limits and all controls are modeled, such as they are in DCS (note that plug fouling is already modeled at idle - it could be expanded for different fuel). Further, I don't think the linked throttle/RPM lever is very much of an advantage (you don't need to change RPM from combat setting when you change throttle), however automated mixture, oil cooler and radiator control are (which is why they became standard in many aircraft)

 

I am also peeved by "xxx won the war" posts. :smilewink: However I think we need to be careful to avoid cherry-picking data, and posting misinterpreted information (like you did with 50% engine life vs plug life, reversion to 130 grade, and valve seat erosion due to fuel vs anti-leading additive).

 

I'd prefer that the most common variants/states/fuels of each aircraft made it into the sim (at a given date), then expand from there and let the players decide what to use.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team

 

I agree that if we use 150 grade fuel in the sim, we should have to deal with plug fouling.

 

 

Yes, you are alredy dealing with fouling and not only at idle... :)

Ніщо так сильно не ранить мозок, як уламки скла від розбитих рожевих окулярів

There is nothing so hurtful for the brain as splinters of broken rose-coloured spectacles.

Ничто так сильно не ранит мозг, как осколки стекла от разбитых розовых очков (С) Me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm thinking they'll be in for something of a shock meeting a properly modelled 109k4 which was just as fast, had better weapons and could outclimb them by a 1000ft a minute. Then the real whinning will start :)

 

That would be the B4 fuel + MW50 model, right?:smilewink:

 

The MG131 didn't hit as hard as the Ma Deuce. That only leaves the MK108 which had the ballistics of a brick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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