Jump to content

P-51 vs 109


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 189
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The flight modeling is probably the most accurate you'll ever get for these specific warbirds. The terrible result for gameplay is on ED because of the variants they chose to model.

 

You can be successful in any of our four fighters, of course. It just gets tiresome that one side always has the advantage.

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

It would appear that the G6 is very similar to the K, the key difference being its lack of MW50.

As such, ensure that you create or play on servers with that configuration as it’s easy to limit.

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

The flight modeling is probably the most accurate you'll ever get for these specific warbirds. The terrible result for gameplay is on ED because of the variants they chose to model.

 

 

 

You can be successful in any of our four fighters, of course. It just gets tiresome that one side always has the advantage.

This. Absolutely.

Hardware: T-16000M Pack, Saitek 3 Throttle Quadrant, Homemade 32-function Leo Bodnar Button Box, MFG Crosswind Pedals Oculus Rift S

System Specs: MSI MPG X570 GAMING PLUS, GTX 1070 SC2, AMD RX3700, 32GB DDR4-3200, Samsung 860 EVO, Samsung 970 EVO 250GB

Modules: Ka-50, Mi-8MTV2, FC3, F/A-18C, F-14B, F-5E, P-51D, Spitfire Mk LF Mk. IXc, Bf-109K-4, Fw-190A-8

Maps: Normandy, Nevada

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

This is my humble opinion on the whole P51 controversy:

1. Game balance issue cannot be ignored. You may keep hammering the idea that authenticity is all what ED is famous of and cares about. But you cannot change the fact that DCS is first and foremost a game before it is a simulation regardless how authenticity it aspires to be. It is not built for military to train its pilot only; it is for military simulation gamers worldwide to get together and have fun. Your bottom line is dependent on how many modules you can sell. If you leave one side continuously advantaged then the losing side will either switch over or quit. Without an opponent, the winning side will also slowly wither on the vine. Regardless how much you love BF-109k4, would you like to go on a server and wait for hours to find someone to kill? Would you like to see the whole server to have 20-30+ 109’s while only 5 human piloted p51’s to kill? Given how steep the learning curve is for planes like P51, do you think the new pilots would be encouraged to spend time training on it when they know for the same amount of training they would be racking up far more kills in a 109? Why do you think Blizzard hires hundreds coders and spend hundreds of thousands dollars every quarter to tweak the game balance? True, it is totally a different game, but the logic is the same. Unbalanced games will eventually lose popularity and die.

 

2. Authenticity can only go so far. It is because no matter how authentic each module is, you still can’t be authentic enough. Can you model Germany’s late war crumpling war industries in DCS? Can you portrait receding maintenance standards of late war Luftwaffe in your game? Can you accurately depict the fuel supply issues of each warring nation? Or even better. Can you limit out of ten 109s flying online, only 5 can have MW50 boost? Can you limit only inexperienced pilots can fly 109s and experienced can only fly P51’s? You have to recognize every simulation has its limitations, regardless how real it wants to be. Therefore, you need make reasonable adjustments accordingly to redress the balance.

 

3. Game balance is ED’s responsibility. I mean yes, it is you, ED. You cannot say all I care about is to make authentic aircraft modules and nothing else. Each module of aircraft you sell contains not only the computer codes but also your reputation. If players lose faith or interest in you, it is your reputation that suffers, not the authenticity. What do you think the disadvantaged side that got frustrated would say? Would they say “oh sh**, our training sucks and we need practice more?” Would they say “we accept it we are just lousy and low skilled pilots.” The first thing that would come to their mind would probably be “F*** ED porked flight model again.” I am not saying they are right, but that’s human psychology and a fact you have to live with.

 

However, I am not trying to say that authenticity and game balance are inherently incompatible. There are solutions to achieve both goals. Some possible solutions:

 

1. New modules. FW109A8 is a good start in the right direction, but we need more. 109G series is a must. Late marks of spitfire. You need more selections that servers can choose in order to customize their online battles.

 

2. Higher octane engined P51s (I would say even go up to 75” there were reports of people reaching that figure in combat over Europe). People may argue the historical availability or, once again, “authenticity”. But, in my opinion, for game balance, it is a tiny sacrifice worth taking. It is not like asking you to put a jet engine in P51. To be honest, not a single aircraft during the real life WWII is exactly the same. K4 is a great plane, but can you model all those built with crude materials and under relaxed factory standards in the late war environment? If you give a tip-top plane to one person, why not let everyone have tip-top version?

 

3. Build in an ability for players and servers to take away certain things such as MW50 boost or types of propeller.

 

Don't get me wrong. My words may be critical, but I really do want ED and DCS to be successful. I have worked in game industry for years. I understand how importance game balance is to a developer's success.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3. Build in an ability for players and servers to take away certain things such as MW50 boost.

 

already possible

I won't comment on th rest, would not be constructive

Whisper of old OFP & C6 forums, now Kalbuth.

Specs : i7 6700K / MSI 1070 / 32G RAM / SSD / Rift S / Virpil MongooseT50 / Virpil T50 CM2 Throttle / MFG Crosswind.

All but Viggen, Yak52 & F16

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2587 vs 2606 airkills on burning skies. looks horribly unbalanced to me :) taking away the top10 pilots of each side and the allies lead by a few hundred kills, and this on a typical "furball" mission, with airfields quite close together, and usually low altitude dogfights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have worked in game industry for years. I understand how importance game balance is to a developer's success.

hooo really strong credentials right there lmao i am shaking in awe

if you actually observed anything in the game industry is that balance is a farce and has no bearing on the longevity (rather, the lack thereof) of a game so dont even try to use this canned argument

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is my humble opinion on the whole P51 controversy:

1. Game balance issue cannot be ignored. You may keep hammering the idea that authenticity is all what ED is famous of and cares about. But you cannot change the fact that DCS is first and foremost a game before it is a simulation regardless how authenticity it aspires to be. It is not built for military to train its pilot only; it is for military simulation gamers worldwide to get together and have fun. Your bottom line is dependent on how many modules you can sell. If you leave one side continuously advantaged then the losing side will either switch over or quit. Without an opponent, the winning side will also slowly wither on the vine. Regardless how much you love BF-109k4, would you like to go on a server and wait for hours to find someone to kill? Would you like to see the whole server to have 20-30+ 109’s while only 5 human piloted p51’s to kill? Given how steep the learning curve is for planes like P51, do you think the new pilots would be encouraged to spend time training on it when they know for the same amount of training they would be racking up far more kills in a 109? Why do you think Blizzard hires hundreds coders and spend hundreds of thousands dollars every quarter to tweak the game balance? True, it is totally a different game, but the logic is the same. Unbalanced games will eventually lose popularity and die.

You're right about game balance is a thing and that's something I see pretty clear now after so many years of simming although competence ""sims"" keep saying they don't balance a thing (they don't, my ass :lol: ). But just something you seem to forget, while that somewhat balance could be enhanced by widening the modules offer, which is likely to happen in the foreseeable future, so we would have more to choose from and some kind of balance in the way of closer performances despite realism, I wouldn't be here without that realism you say is a game killer and I think many people here would say the same. So for me yes, that realism is ED seal of quality, their signature if you want but without it many of the people using DCS wouldn't be using it at all or it would be probably even more a niche than it already is. I don't want any kind of balance, I want the feeling that I'm sitting in the closer to the damn real thing you can get in front of a screen. That's what infatuated me in the first place I sat in the P-51 back in 2012 and said to myself "holy crap, feels just like the damn real thing I flew a couple hours ago (just a Cessna indeed)". That feeling or it being real is what keeps me here now I can no longer fly IRL and I wouldn't change that for any balance in the World. For a balance you already have other options, and crappy FMs indeed.

 

 

S!


Edited by Ala13_ManOWar

"I went into the British Army believing that if you want peace you must prepare for war. I believe now that if you prepare for war, you get war."

-- Major-General Frederick B. Maurice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're right about game balance is a thing and that's something I see pretty clear now after so many years of simming although competence ""sims"" keep saying they don't balance a thing (they don't, my ass :lol: ). But just something you seem to forget, while that somewhat balance could be enhanced by widening the modules offer, which is likely to happen in the foreseeable future, so we would have more to choose from and some kind of balance in the way of closer performances despite realism, I wouldn't be here without that realism you say is a game killer and I think many people here would say the same. So for me yes, that realism is ED seal of quality, their signature if you want but without it many of the people using DCS wouldn't be using it at all or it would be probably even more a niche than it already is. I don't want any kind of balance, I want the feeling that I'm sitting in the closer to the damn real thing you can get in front of a screen. That's what infatuated me in the first place I sat in the P-51 back in 2012 and said to myself "holy crap, feels just like the damn real thing I flew a couple hours ago (just a Cessna indeed)". That feeling or it being real is what keeps me here now I can no longer fly IRL and I wouldn't change that for any balance in the World. For a balance you already have other options, and crappy FMs indeed.

 

 

S!

you just took words out of my mouth i agree with you 1000%

But i would be more then happy if ED would put 75inHg p-51 version in to game tho

Small tip for anyone strugling flying p-51 in combat try reduce fuel quantity to 30%


Edited by grafspee

System specs: I7 14700KF, Gigabyte Z690 Aorus Elite, 64GB DDR4 3600MHz, Gigabyte RTX 4090,Win 11, 48" OLED LG TV + 42" LG LED monitor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you can win fights with any fuel% (well, under 68%) as long as the fight is you pouncing people from above.

 

 

no fuel% can really win you co-energy fights against 109s, however. you are flying alligator-man: pounce with fury. if you don't get them, back in the water we go, we come back and try again later.

 

 

it's often tricky to use this strategy as mustang/spit/109 are basically indistinguishable until you are at spitting distance, but much of the time you will be pouncing engaged fighters. if he's shooting monogreen, come down from on high and introduce him to ma deuce.

 

 

but yes, fighting 109 mostly waste of time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

a little. you will get some extra inconclusive turns before he kills you. even taking off with 20% won't give you an actual advantage.

 

 

personally i always fly with 50%~ which gives me some actual loiter time, i can hang over the field with a 6000' advantage for much longer, plus run a higher throttle setting without worrying about one tank going out in the middle of a furball.

 

 

but ymmv i guess

Link to comment
Share on other sites

oh i made wrong impression i ment to say that less fuel helps i didnt say that it will turn tide

still bf109 k4 is lighter more powerfull and k-4 has couple aerodynamic improvments over G versions it will own p-51 at low altitude

System specs: I7 14700KF, Gigabyte Z690 Aorus Elite, 64GB DDR4 3600MHz, Gigabyte RTX 4090,Win 11, 48" OLED LG TV + 42" LG LED monitor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A new aircraft isnt necessary. All the P51D really needs is 72 HG and 150 octane fuel option, which isnt really forced balanced but adding engine and fuel options that actually existing within the specific blocks employed in ETO even if not all mustangs ran these settings.

 

Build:

 

Windows 10 64 bit Pro

Case/Tower: Corsair Graphite 760tm ,Asus Strix Z790 Motherboard, Intel Core i7 12700k ,Corsair Vengeance LPX DDR4 64gb ram (3600 mhz) , (Asus strix oc edition) Nvidia RTX 3080 12gb , Evga g2 850 watt psu, Hardrives ; Samsung 970 EVo, , Samsung evo 860 pro 1 TB SSD, Samsung evo 850 pro 1TB SSD,  WD 1TB HDD

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

p-51 could run 75inHg on 150 octane fueln not 72

oh in dcs we dont care about engine weare so 150 octane fuel and 75inHg p-51 will fit prefectly

i am sure when they reverted to 130 octane fuel max boost was reduced to 67inHg in p-51

and 150 give benefits only below critical altidude for supercharger so gains only at low altidudes for low and high speed blower

I think usa air force reverted 100/150 beouse it was no longer needed luftwaffe was almos crashed and aidional maintanance on engines runnig 100/150 was more trouble then benefit given by using 150 at this stage of war.

If US airfroce would stand against 5000 bf-109 k-4 they definetly would not revert 100/150 fuel :P

a. In view of the inconclusive nature of test results, it is not possible to make any definite decision concerning the operational use of nominal grade 104/150 fuel and the attending higher emergency power ratings.

b. Only three of the nine original test aircraft finished the specified test.

c. At this station, only very minor malfunctions and failures were traced specifically to the action of the nominal grade 104/150 fuel.

d. Maximum performance of all three types of aircraft was aided materially by the new power settings permitted with the new fuel.

last point this fuel was connected to new power settings for planes it would be logical whne they reverted 150 fuel they reverted power setting for this fuel type


Edited by grafspee

System specs: I7 14700KF, Gigabyte Z690 Aorus Elite, 64GB DDR4 3600MHz, Gigabyte RTX 4090,Win 11, 48" OLED LG TV + 42" LG LED monitor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

3. Build in an ability for players and servers to take away certain things such as MW50 boost or types of propeller.

 

 

That's one thing ED actually did, but none of the servers limit MW50. Someone correct me if that isn't true, thanks.

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

That's one thing ED actually did, but none of the servers limit MW50. Someone correct me if that isn't true, thanks.

 

It is true, however, every update the server operator needs to go back and edit every warehouse at every airfield which I can see getting old for those who have many missions in the rotation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's something you can select for the aircraft in the mission editor. It is not a warehouse change the way you do it for missiles and other munitions.

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

  • 3 weeks later...

to ppl who thinks that allies won the war becouse everything what allies produce was great and was superior to germans produced stuff. i will put some number about tanks production during WW2

germas total production of tanks count is 30821

Panzer III 15350

Panzer IV 8121

Panzer V 5508

Panzer VI 1355

Panzer VIb 487

total allied production of tanks count 165200

Germans lost becouse they had much less manpower much less production power they got bomed hard while allied suffer minor damages from bombing, not at levels which germans got bombed for sure. Simple as that. Bf-109k4 was german answer to high alt bombing raids. Where G series suck hard. Bombs raids were done at 33k ft alt where bf-109 G series left with very low power i think it is safe to say that p-51 equiped with v-1650-3 had twice or almots twice the power of bf-109 G at this alt, at this alt p-51 eat bf109 G. With K-4 version bf could maintain power much higher but at this stage of war it didnt matter at all.

Thats why p-51 loose hard alt low alt it's much havier and K-4 with improved engine and improved aerodynamics out perform p-51 at low. But this fact has nothing to do with WW2 result at all

German army needed plane which will fight off air superiority over battle fields and bf109 was perfect plane for this it was designed to be good at this. Frist major feature is supercharger drive system via hydraulic coupling which allowed in supercharger speed beeing set idepedently of engine crank speed this gave bf109 great low to medium alt preformance, with no throttling loses at low level fights. It wasnt designed to fight bombers at 33k ft. 2 stage superchargers used by allied were superior to single stage supercharger but only at high alt. At low they suffered big throttling loses. at low k-4 have 1800 Hp vs p-51 1490hp weight bf109 2300kg vs 3400kg bf109 have wing slats preventing wing from stalling what you expect then ??

So we have to ignore all this facts and made p-51 better becouse allies won tha war very legit data i would say


Edited by grafspee

System specs: I7 14700KF, Gigabyte Z690 Aorus Elite, 64GB DDR4 3600MHz, Gigabyte RTX 4090,Win 11, 48" OLED LG TV + 42" LG LED monitor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...

The 109K4 was not the only varient of the 109 the germans produced but it was the last and the best ever produced. And it was not the varient that the P 51D confronted often either. The majority of 109s the allies faced were G6's. If we are going to have to fly againts the best variant of the 109 we should have one of the best variants of P 51D from WW2 which is a 150 octane 72" or 75" rating P51D.

 

No one wants to "ignore facts" and make the P51D better because the allies won WW2. This is about the DCS WW2 matchup.

 

 

to ppl who thinks that allies won the war becouse everything what allies produce was great and was superior to germans produced stuff. i will put some number about tanks production during WW2

germas total production of tanks count is 30821

Panzer III 15350

Panzer IV 8121

Panzer V 5508

Panzer VI 1355

Panzer VIb 487

total allied production of tanks count 165200

Germans lost becouse they had much less manpower much less production power they got bomed hard while allied suffer minor damages from bombing, not at levels which germans got bombed for sure. Simple as that. Bf-109k4 was german answer to high alt bombing raids. Where G series suck hard. Bombs raids were done at 33k ft alt where bf-109 G series left with very low power i think it is safe to say that p-51 equiped with v-1650-3 had twice or almots twice the power of bf-109 G at this alt, at this alt p-51 eat bf109 G. With K-4 version bf could maintain power much higher but at this stage of war it didnt matter at all.

Thats why p-51 loose hard alt low alt it's much havier and K-4 with improved engine and improved aerodynamics out perform p-51 at low. But this fact has nothing to do with WW2 result at all

German army needed plane which will fight off air superiority over battle fields and bf109 was perfect plane for this it was designed to be good at this. Frist major feature is supercharger drive system via hydraulic coupling which allowed in supercharger speed beeing set idepedently of engine crank speed this gave bf109 great low to medium alt preformance, with no throttling loses at low level fights. It wasnt designed to fight bombers at 33k ft. 2 stage superchargers used by allied were superior to single stage supercharger but only at high alt. At low they suffered big throttling loses. at low k-4 have 1800 Hp vs p-51 1490hp weight bf109 2300kg vs 3400kg bf109 have wing slats preventing wing from stalling what you expect then ??

So we have to ignore all this facts and made p-51 better becouse allies won tha war very legit data i would say

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

Germans lost becouse they had much less manpower much less production power ...

Don't forget that Hitler was the worst enemy of the German armed forces. His disastrous decisions greatly accelerated what was strategically inevitable anway, and made the disaster worse. As far as the air war is concerned, Galland's book "the first and the last" gives some good insight.

On the other hand, when you read Pierre Clostermann's book "the great circus" you discover that it was by no means a piece of cake for the allied fighter pilots.

LeCuvier

Windows 10 Pro 64Bit | i7-4790 CPU |16 GB RAM|SSD System Disk|SSD Gaming Disk| MSI GTX-1080 Gaming 8 GB| Acer XB270HU | TM Warthog HOTAS | VKB Gladiator Pro | MongoosT-50 | MFG Crosswind Pedals | TrackIR 5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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