Jump to content

Bf 109G and Fw 190A's


andremsmv

Recommended Posts

The reality is the Spitfire IX, P-51 and P-47 should be fighting poorly constructed Fw-190A8s and Bf-109G-14s while using 150 grade fuel(I can't fully speak for the IX). <- This should've been the roster from the start if you're calling for historical accuracy.

 

This does not sound like historical accuracy at all. It sounds like the Standard Allied Dream That Repeats Itself on Every WW2 Flight Sim Board, the desire for conditions síita le for trashing the poorest possible opposition while flying the best / fiction / semi-fictional / ultra rare Allied aircraft at the highest possible performance ratings one can dream of.

 

rall...

You can never satisfied all People here, and we should go overall for 190A8 and G6AS as make the Mustang even faster compare to the Spit, and all other Planes suffer to catch a P-51 in game.

 

Fun fact - due to a bug in the K-4's drag model that existed for some time (and has been corrected long ago), the 109K had a lot more drag than it should have and it basically had the performance of a G-6/AS (in fact less, as it still had more weight)

 

Guess when the whining about flying against Axis aircraft that are 'too good' was at its peak - that's right, when they were actually flew against a G-6/AS that historically even preceded the introduction P-51D by a couple of months...


Edited by Kurfürst

http://www.kurfurst.org - The Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance Resource Site

 

Vezérünk a bátorság, Kísérőnk a szerencse!

-Motto of the RHAF 101st 'Puma' Home Air Defense Fighter Regiment

The Answer to the Ultimate Question of the K-4, the Universe, and Everything: Powerloading 550 HP / ton, 1593 having been made up to 31th March 1945, 314 K-4s were being operated in frontline service on 31 January 1945.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again I see sweeping generalisations and polarisation when in fact the argument is far more nuanced.

 

Point 1 - Only 8th Air Force P-51s, P-47s and P-38s used 150 octane fuel. The 9th Air Force did not.

 

The 8th AF was primarily a Mustang equipped force by the period the Kurfurst and Dora enter service. The 9th on the other hand was primarily Jug equipped.

 

So whilst it would have been arguably more likely for a Kufurst/Dora to meet an 8th Air Force 72" Pony it was entirely possible for a 61" P-51 to meet Dora and Kurfurst in late '44 and early '45.

 

 

Point 2 - 25lb (150 Octane) Spits is a complicated story, thanks to a phased test period in Fighter Command or, as it was known for a while, Air Defence Great Britain (ADGB) in early 1944, and the fact that the expeditionary air arm of the RAF, 2nd Tactical Air Force - a very different entity by the way - did not use 150 Octane till after Bodenplatte - and not for very long either.

 

I suspect that logistics and supply was a factor in the latter. Suffice to say that given the time period when the Kurfurst and Dora are in Jagdwaffe service until the end of the war, there are more months where they would statistically have likely met 18lb Spits than meeting 25lb.

 

Ergo the LF. Mk IXc we have in game is an entirely protypical match for the German models. It could be argued that a Mk.XIV would be a better indivudual a/c match-up.

 

Point 3 - Whilst certain members of our community would like to gloss over the fact that the build quality of the late war German fighters was necessarily of a sub-standard compared to earlier part of the war (slave-labour, sabotage, material shortages) and equally be dismissive of the dire shortages of parts, fuel, lubricants and the increasing paucity of skilled hands to maintain the aircraft as mechanics were transferred to the infantry, they cannot be ignored as having an effect on the protypical effectiveness of the aircraft and the fighter arm as a whole.

 

The real question is should this effect be reflected in game? That is a difficult question with many facets, all to some degree valid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This does not sound like historical accuracy at all. It sounds like the Standard Allied Dream That Repeats Itself on Every WW2 Flight Sim Board, the desire for conditions síita le for trashing the poorest possible opposition while flying the best / fiction / semi-fictional / ultra rare Allied aircraft at the highest possible performance ratings one can dream of.

 

There's nothing rare or dreamy about flying a P-51 using 150 fuel against a Fw-190A8. There isn't anything historically accurate about an entire team only consisting of D9s and K4s. Lets admit it this game isn't historically accurate from the choice of map to the choice of planes. But you know what? That's okay. I think its interesting that they choose the D9 and K4 over the A8 and G-14. Whats not interesting is a team full of bare bone P-51s and soon to be P-47s.

 

My "dream" is to see a Big Week campaign. P-38Js, P-47 razor backs, early P-51 with -3 engines against Fw-190A8s and Bf-109G-6s. An extremely balanced scenario while also being historically accurate. So believe me I'm not calling for a P-47M to fight against a Bf-109G-6 without MW50, lol.

 

The way I view it is this is the Luftwaffe in the best case scenario without going too over the top by adding Ta-152H-1s and D-13s. So why not expect the same from the allies?

 

Btw, whats you're point? Its okay to add whatever aircraft if the enemy can't tell the difference?

 

Come on, not again this Topic discussed no endless Time again and again...

The Majority of the Luftwaffe was bad build 109's with less experienced Pilots about overwhelming Allied Airforce Power at end War Stages there is no doubt...

But still a game, how want to Fight in Multiplayer with crappy G6 a P-51 that climbs twice as fast can Fly Circles around you...

That current FW-190D9 ingame have a hart Time to fight P-51 with it superior Handlings Charactirstics...

I love to fly the P-51 because of its good Handling overall...

You can never satisfied all People here, and we should go overall for 190A8 and G6AS as make the Mustang even faster compare to the Spit, and all other Planes suffer to catch a P-51 in game.

And dont make exotic Planes like realy rare P-47M who propably suffer more reliability Problems then the crappy 109s to the end of the War...

 

Is this not whats happening in game right now? There's a reason why there are more K4s than P-51s, Fw-190s and Spitfires.

 

Flying against the P-51 isn't that difficult if you take the Fw-190 in the vertical.

 

IIRC the P-47M's reliability issues were due to poor shipping of engines. P-47D was running at 70"Hg while the P-47M was at 72"Hg with a CH-5 turbo allowing it to have a higher critical alt. The difference between 2"Hg in manifold pressure wouldn't suddenly plague a plane with countless reliability issues.

 

Again I see sweeping generalisations and polarisation when in fact the argument is far more nuanced.

 

Point 1 - Only 8th Air Force P-51s, P-47s and P-38s used 150 octane fuel. The 9th Air Force did not.

 

The 8th AF was primarily a Mustang equipped force by the period the Kurfurst and Dora enter service. The 9th on the other hand was primarily Jug equipped.

 

So whilst it would have been arguably more likely for a Kufurst/Dora to meet an 8th Air Force 72" Pony it was entirely possible for a 61" P-51 to meet Dora and Kurfurst in late '44 and early '45.

 

 

Point 2 - 25lb (150 Octane) Spits is a complicated story, thanks to a phased test period in Fighter Command or, as it was known for a while, Air Defence Great Britain (ADGB) in early 1944, and the fact that the expeditionary air arm of the RAF, 2nd Tactical Air Force - a very different entity by the way - did not use 150 Octane till after Bodenplatte - and not for very long either.

 

I suspect that logistics and supply was a factor in the latter. Suffice to say that given the time period when the Kurfurst and Dora are in Jagdwaffe service until the end of the war, there are more months where they would statistically have likely met 18lb Spits than meeting 25lb.

 

Ergo the LF. Mk IXc we have in game is an entirely protypical match for the German models. It could be argued that a Mk.XIV would be a better indivudual a/c match-up.

 

Point 3 - Whilst certain members of our community would like to gloss over the fact that the build quality of the late war German fighters was necessarily of a sub-standard compared to earlier part of the war (slave-labour, sabotage, material shortages) and equally be dismissive of the dire shortages of parts, fuel, lubricants and the increasing paucity of skilled hands to maintain the aircraft as mechanics were transferred to the infantry, they cannot be ignored as having an effect on the protypical effectiveness of the aircraft and the fighter arm as a whole.

 

The real question is should this effect be reflected in game? That is a difficult question with many facets, all to some degree valid.

 

1. Depending on where you're looking on the D9 and K4 timeline you could have anywhere from 4 to 1 Fighter Group(s) using P-47s in the 8th air force.

 

2. I can't speak for the Spitfire but what would the difference be if an entire team was flying 25lb+ Spitfires against a team only consisting of D9s and K4s?

 

3. I highly doubt you'd have a player base at that point, lol.

 

You've got to draw the line of realism somewhere so you have predictability of what to expect in a simulator. Frankly DCS has no line or at least a very vague one.

 

This is why a big week campaign would be ideal since the Luftwaffe was still very much prevalent :smartass:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this not whats happening in game right now? There's a reason why there are more K4s than P-51s, Fw-190s and Spitfires.

In fact, that is not true.

D-9 and K-4 are mostly outnumbered on online.

Especialy after Spitfire was released.

 

btw. played hours for planes used online during last, ongoing, season

P-51 532hrs

K-4 312hrs

D-9 204hrs

Spit 3hrs (is totaly bugged, and not used)

even Spitfire is not, "Alied wins"

F-15E | F-14A/B

P-51D | P-47D | Mosquito FB Mk VI |Spitfire | Fw 190D | Fw 190A | Bf 109K |  WWII Assets Pack

Normandy 2 | The Channel | Sinai | Syria | PG | NTTR | South Atlantic 

F/A-18 | F-86 | F-16C | A-10C | FC-3 | CA | SC |

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Flying against the P-51 isn't that difficult if you take the Fw-190 in the vertical.

 

I'll challenge you on that one! My bet is you're gonna lose 9 times out of 10, and not because you're a worse pilot.

 

The ingame Fw190 is seemingly flying around with symmetrical airfoil polars, so it's not performing at all as it should IMHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Fun fact" there was no Dora's or K-4's around during the Invasion of Normandy ergo they shouldn't have been selected by RRG. They were not "rare" they weren't anywhere close to the front line!

 

End of story.

 

Now one thing that we can all agree on, unless you are in denial, is that when these aircraft finally did arrive the impact was insignificant. Lack of fuel, green pilots... Why green pilots because they were lost facing a much larger force when they were in comparable aircraft.

 

Either way you spin it with your own personal bias what we currently have is ironically unrealistic!


Edited by Krupi

Windows 10 Pro | ASUS RANGER VIII | i5 6600K @ 4.6GHz| MSI RTX 2060 SUPER | 32GB RAM | Corsair H100i | Corsair Carbide 540 | HP Reverb G2 | MFG crosswind Pedals | Custom Spitfire Cockpit

Project IX Cockpit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In fact, that is not true.

D-9 and K-4 are mostly outnumbered on online.

Especialy after Spitfire was released.

 

btw. played hours for planes used online during last, ongoing, season

P-51 532hrs

K-4 312hrs

D-9 204hrs

Spit 3hrs (is totaly bugged, and not used)

even Spitfire is not, "Alied wins"

 

I stand corrected.

 

I was just judging from my anecdotal experience. I usually fly whatever team has the least amount of players and I find myself flying the P-51 over the Fw-190 quite a bit.

 

I'll challenge you on that one! My bet is you're gonna lose 9 times out of 10, and not because you're a worse pilot.

 

The ingame Fw190 is seemingly flying around with symmetrical airfoil polars, so it's not performing at all as it should IMHO.

 

Crumpp wanted to challenge me to after I said I'm not afraid of P-51s in my D9. I don't know why people underestimate the Fw-190 all the time. You may not like dog fighting me because I refuse to play to the enemies advantages. My aim is absolute trash so I wouldn't be surprised if I ran out of ammo before I even hit you. In BOS its the same story I just spiral climb away from yaks and they consistently and stubbornly stall out before I do. Then its a matter if I can even hit the target xD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I stand corrected.

 

I was just judging from my anecdotal experience. I usually fly whatever team has the least amount of players and I find myself flying the P-51 over the Fw-190 quite a bit.

 

 

 

Crumpp wanted to challenge me to after I said I'm not afraid of P-51s in my D9. I don't know why people underestimate the Fw-190 all the time. You may not like dog fighting me because I refuse to play to the enemies advantages. My aim is absolute trash so I wouldn't be surprised if I ran out of ammo before I even hit you. In BOS its the same story I just spiral climb away from yaks and they consistently and stubbornly stall out before I do. Then its a matter if I can even hit the target xD.

 

All this talk about the Fw-190 vs the P-51. I'd gladly take you up for that challenge for fun. Personally I have never encountered a 190 pilot that has given me any trouble whatsoever, so I would love to change that.

 

 

About the game though. I just wonder why D9's and K4's were chosen over G14's and A8's. I personally don't think K4's and D9's are nearly as OP as people say they are (except against spitfires), especially if you are very comfortable flying a p-51. That being said though, this is a simulator not a game. Historical accuracy is more important than balance, as long as the advantage isn't completely skewed to one side.

 

My idea would be to have G14's and A8's cost about 75% as much as mustangs and spits so more people would generally fly axis planes than allied planes, roughly balancing out the individual airplane advantages. This would also be more historically accurate since Germans tended to fight in larger squadrons than the Americans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry if this has been heavily discussed before, but I did a little searching around and found pretty much nothing on this topic.

 

The Bf 109K4 started production in late 1944 (October), the Fw 190D9 in mid 1944 (August). The P-51D on the other hand, started production in 1943 (could not find a month) and was combat ready by June 1944 (not a huge deal), and the Spitfire Mk IX LF was introduced (engine switch to Merlin 66) in mid 1943 (big difference).

 

The questions I have now are 1) Will we see earlier versions of the Bf 109, Fw 190, or the P-51D (Bf 109G's, Fw 190A's, or P-51D's without gyroscopic gunsights) in order to make WWII match ups more realistic? and 2) Would it be easy to make earlier versions of these planes (i.e. would the devs simply be able to modify the current models that they have) or would they have to be made from scratch like any other plane?

 

I think having these earlier planes would open the door to many possibilities and would make other planes such as the P-47, P-38, Typhoon, the Spitfire IX (which we already have), or the P-40 much more relevant.

Well… don't know how you did search, but as you see not only it has been wildly discussed before, also it has been discussed by the very same people acting here right now. You just reopened Pandora's box… for the fourth or fifth time… :music_whistling: :lol:

 

Yes, AI aircraft of those models will be made, but if a lets say Bf109G-6 is modelled flyable, will anybody want to fly it having tasted the monster performance ultimate 109K4? I doubt it, they fly the best 109 available and still they complain they want more performance… Don't get me wrong, I would like to see many more models available and fly them to a DCS level simulation, just I don't see that's exactly a solution to both sides complains about performances as they always want more based on supposed "historical facts", but they overlook that's impossible as a certain date should be selected and don't move the slightest of it for a perfect historical background that anyway couldn't be perfectly matched (pilot's skills, supplies, everything should be modelled, so no way), but then it would be complains about the date selected :megalol:. There is no solution to people's performance greed, and I think ED do right by modelling a certain historical model we all know and has information available and sticking with it, there would be complains anyway in any other choice.

 

 

 

Let me play the devil's advocate. The problem is that by removing MW50 you make things less historical. Even G models had this if I'm not mistaken. Also, the K is only a little faster than the G10, and is less maneuverable. So a K without MW50 would perform much worse than a G10 that was in action over Normandy. As far as I know...

 

I'm more for correcting the engine performance of the Mustang to restore the relative balance of these types (by balance I don't mean they should be equal, but historically accurate)

Sorry but, as it has been addressed many times here in this very same forums, G10 entered service after K4 did, so no, there wasn't G10 over Normandy as it was a later model trying to match K4 standard in G model production lines. Regarding Mustang engine…

 

I don't get it. Why not just give P51 its 72-75" MP and be done with it. Each side gets its best as the history would allow. And there should be no more complaining.
…sorry too say, but no, there would be many complains as Germans would face a better aircraft (remember they already complain having the best aircraft out there) and Allied would complain engines burn faster and still they are unable to completely face 109's, even though Doras would disappear from the servers… more than they are now… I don't think that would be good per sé :huh: .

 

 

 

This does not sound like historical accuracy at all. It sounds like the Standard Allied Dream That Repeats Itself on Every WW2 Flight Sim Board, the desire for conditions síita le for trashing the poorest possible opposition while flying the best / fiction / semi-fictional / ultra rare Allied aircraft at the highest possible performance ratings one can dream of.

 

Our friend Kurfürst overlooking as always the facts to match his mighty Luftwaffe wet dream. Yeah, you're probably right and all of the aircraft were gorgeously made to the highest standards. That's probably why when they restored Champlin's museum Dora 13 they found the wings were filled with rags, wooden chunks, and sawdust by Jude slaves who made it… Yeah, that's high quality construction, the ultimate German quality, hope my Volkswagen is made like that :doh:.

 

 

 

About the game though. I just wonder why D9's and K4's were chosen over G14's and A8's. I personally don't think K4's and D9's are nearly as OP as people say they are (except against spitfires), especially if you are very comfortable flying a p-51. That being said though, this is a simulator not a game. Historical accuracy is more important than balance, as long as the advantage isn't completely skewed to one side.

 

My idea would be to have G14's and A8's cost about 75% as much as mustangs and spits so more people would generally fly axis planes than allied planes, roughly balancing out the individual airplane advantages. This would also be more historically accurate since Germans tended to fight in larger squadrons than the Americans.

As it has been said to extenuation, the models were chosen by Luthier and RRG studios in their kickstarter, but anyway and IIRC it has something to do with information available. For some reason K4 information were more readily available than for other late models. Dora 9 anyway was an ED choice as a pair to P-51, and I have to say a very well chosen one. Then RRG choice screwed it all, with K4 and Spit IX, but probably Luthier had in mind his old stuff with balanced "games" instead of simulator so he though K4 would have been better for a reason instead of a late G6 or G14.

 

Anyway, drop that "OP" mind, any aircraft here is OP or UP, they are just historically accurate to the model and date they are modelled, and information about that is available right here. As you could see complains are more about what that date and model is than raw performance itself. But there are no balance stuff in DCS, just accurate models to a certain date and perhaps that's why all of this discussion is even more stupid, to some extent almost any model could face other models in the war so discussion about it should be this or that model because History is pointless. And so I suddenly figured out something…

 

 

 

We know DCS modules require lots of work to complete because their complexity, so what if when AI aircraft are available that "balance" stuff people seems to look for is self regulated? I mean, we all know that story about Spit IX firsts models rushed into combat because new Fw190 were introduced. Then 190s had to respect every Spitfire out there because they couldn't tell from a distance if they were facing Spits V or IX. What if something like that happens in DCS? I mean an AI Bf109G couldn't be tell from a K4 until one is close enough and it's too late to disengage, and AI G model is planed. What if also lets say an AI Spit XIV is modelled and Germans couldn't tell what model they are facing until they are close enough? That would somewhat balance things in the servers in a historically accurate way as one don't know what is facing just in a spot. It may work until more flyable are available and so people could fly anything without fear as enemies will always respect what they find until they are sure what it is :smartass: .

 

 

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

I would gladly fly a G-6. And I know plenty of others who would too. A couple of us would even fly F-4 if it was made. That being said the performance of a late G-6 and a K isn’t as different as some people think it is. Same goes for a little bit extra HP on the mustang.

9./JG27

 

"If you can't hit anything, it's because you suck. If you get shot down, it's because you suck. You and me, we know we suck, and that makes it ok." - Worst person in all of DCS

 

"In the end, which will never come, we will all be satisifed... we must fight them on forum, we will fight them on reddit..." - Dunravin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would gladly fly a G-6. And I know plenty of others who would too. A couple of us would even fly F-4 if it was made. That being said the performance of a late G-6 and a K isn’t as different as some people think it is. Same goes for a little bit extra HP on the mustang.

 

Okay, now if we compare it to the Gustavs actually present over Normandy... :doh:

Windows 10 Pro | ASUS RANGER VIII | i5 6600K @ 4.6GHz| MSI RTX 2060 SUPER | 32GB RAM | Corsair H100i | Corsair Carbide 540 | HP Reverb G2 | MFG crosswind Pedals | Custom Spitfire Cockpit

Project IX Cockpit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

G-14s = late G-6

9./JG27

 

"If you can't hit anything, it's because you suck. If you get shot down, it's because you suck. You and me, we know we suck, and that makes it ok." - Worst person in all of DCS

 

"In the end, which will never come, we will all be satisifed... we must fight them on forum, we will fight them on reddit..." - Dunravin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And was much slower than the K4, even the G14/AS, and was comparable in speed to the Spitfire IX...

 

The G14 had STARTED to arrive for Normandy and was the aircraft that should have been selected by RRG.

 

BTW the spitfire XIV even in small numbers was flying over Europe from early 1944.

 

At the end of the day it doesn't matter how realistic the aircraft are if the selected aircraft are not so realistic for the defined scenario, that is al that matters.

 

Why do you think a certain WW2 flight simulation soon to be released based upon operation Bodenplatte has both the K4 and G14. Based upon an operation I might add that was launched in 1945 and the K4 still wasn't the most common aircraft.

 

No matter how you spin it what we have now is not great.

 

Arguably we don't even have the right Spitfire IX for Normandy, the IXe was starting to arrive and IXc converted to IXE.

 

It is a great move by this other developer even if I don't support them, they see what is available right now and know that we are left lacking and are going to undermine ED.


Edited by Krupi

Windows 10 Pro | ASUS RANGER VIII | i5 6600K @ 4.6GHz| MSI RTX 2060 SUPER | 32GB RAM | Corsair H100i | Corsair Carbide 540 | HP Reverb G2 | MFG crosswind Pedals | Custom Spitfire Cockpit

Project IX Cockpit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
...undermine ED.

 

ED was locked into what was offered during the kickstarter, the head of the kickstarter are the only ones that can explain what they were thinking with the plane set and such. At this point, it is what it is. Feels like I explain that over and over to the same people...

 

Going forward, ED has started to look and prepare for the future of WWII, where it's going to go and how it will support existing aircraft as well as lay ground work for future WWII modules and maps. As soon as they are comfortable sharing that they will.

 

ED doesn't care about other games, they have their goals, they have different focuses, and anyone that plays all different sims and games knows that you get different things from each of these. DCS WWII is still in its infancy. It's growing and getting stronger. But it only competes with itself to get better and offer more.

 

I personally hope that when new models for the 109 and 190 come into game, they will consider flyable modules at some point. I do know that if they do add those or other aircraft, they will be the best simulation of those aircraft on the market, like their current aircraft already are.

64Sig.png
Forum RulesMy YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**

1146563203_makefg(6).png.82dab0a01be3a361522f3fff75916ba4.png  80141746_makefg(1).png.6fa028f2fe35222644e87c786da1fabb.png  28661714_makefg(2).png.b3816386a8f83b0cceab6cb43ae2477e.png  389390805_makefg(3).png.bca83a238dd2aaf235ea3ce2873b55bc.png  216757889_makefg(4).png.35cb826069cdae5c1a164a94deaff377.png  1359338181_makefg(5).png.e6135dea01fa097e5d841ee5fb3c2dc5.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From Ala15_ManOWar : “That's probably why when they restored Champlin's museum Dora 13 they found the wings were filled with rags, wooden chunks, and sawdust by Jude slaves who made it… Yeah, that's high quality construction, the ultimate German quality, hope my Volkswagen is made like that.”

 

Never heard this before and it is funny as hell...we all know why they did that. If it was their decision to do that then Kudos to those “slaves”. I have to believe it was their effort to “fight back” . Their part in the war effort! Who can blame them considering what they had to endure. On the other hand, If they were directed to do that by their captors well then thats a whole different story.


Edited by MegOhm_SD
Cuz I wanted to

 

Cooler Master HAF XB EVO , ASUS P8Z77-V, i7-3770K @ 4.6GHz, Noctua AC, 32GB Corsair Vengeance Pro, EVGA 1080TI 11GB, 2 Samsung 840 Pro 540GB SSDs Raid 0, 1TB HDD, EVGA SuperNOVA 1300W PS, G930 Wireless SS Headset, TrackIR5/Wireless Proclip, TM Warthog, Saitek Pro Combat Pedals, 75" Samsung 4K QLED, HP Reverb G2, Win 10

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I want for DCS: WWII right now is to make it more enjoyable. At the moment, it appears that it's somewhat biased, even if the aircraft chosen were from a kickstarter. Though, as SiThSpAwN said, WWII is still in its infancy, so we could just be at a turning point at the moment. This is how it appears to me. I can only hope that changes to the selection of aircraft (and maybe existing ones) will be done in the future, down the road, while still maintaining some historical accuracy.

My opinion, but I'll stand by it. The way I see things, the balance of sides is not any more or less important than historical accuracy. It's simply another element to consider when deciding which aircraft to build upon.


Edited by Magic Zach

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

  • ED Team

I have done a lot of research now with ED, and while looking at some different sources, I came across a document, a correspondence discussing the use of slave labour in different aspects of production, kind punches you in the gut and reminds you why WWII was fought.... Anyways, sorry for the OT, but wanted to add that.

 

From Ala15_ManOWar : “That's probably why when they restored Champlin's museum Dora 13 they found the wings were filled with rags, wooden chunks, and sawdust by Jude slaves who made it… Yeah, that's high quality construction, the ultimate German quality, hope my Volkswagen is made like that.”

 

Never heard this before and it is funny as hell...we all know why they did that. If it was their decision to do that then Kudos to those “slaves”. I have to believe it was their effort to “fight back” . Their part in the war effort! Who can blame them considering what they had to endure. On the other hand, If they were directed to do that by their captors well then thats a whole different story.

64Sig.png
Forum RulesMy YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**

1146563203_makefg(6).png.82dab0a01be3a361522f3fff75916ba4.png  80141746_makefg(1).png.6fa028f2fe35222644e87c786da1fabb.png  28661714_makefg(2).png.b3816386a8f83b0cceab6cb43ae2477e.png  389390805_makefg(3).png.bca83a238dd2aaf235ea3ce2873b55bc.png  216757889_makefg(4).png.35cb826069cdae5c1a164a94deaff377.png  1359338181_makefg(5).png.e6135dea01fa097e5d841ee5fb3c2dc5.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team

I dont want to go down the balance path of course, its a deep dark hole that will eat your soul, but balance isnt a thing when you discuss realistic simulation. This has to be addressed in mission design, not only by ED's options in mission building, but the mission builders themselves as well.

 

The fights we see in DCS in MP probably arent that historically accurate, late war the allies out numbered and out skilled the Axis. The German were able to put up some of the most advanced aircraft, but it means nothing if the pilots and supplies couldnt support it.

 

We dont want ED trying to artificially balancing things, but we do need the most options for mission design as possible.

 

 

All I want for DCS: WWII right now is to make it more enjoyable. At the moment, it appears that it's somewhat biased, even if the aircraft chosen were from a kickstarter. Though, as SiThSpAwN said, WWII is still in its infancy, so we could just be at a turning point at the moment. This is how it appears to me. I can only hope that changes to the selection of aircraft (and maybe existing ones) will be done in the future, down the road, while still maintaining some historical accuracy.

My opinion, but I'll stand by it. The way I see things, the balance of sides is not any more or less important than historical accuracy. It's simply another element to consider when deciding which aircraft to build upon.

64Sig.png
Forum RulesMy YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**

1146563203_makefg(6).png.82dab0a01be3a361522f3fff75916ba4.png  80141746_makefg(1).png.6fa028f2fe35222644e87c786da1fabb.png  28661714_makefg(2).png.b3816386a8f83b0cceab6cb43ae2477e.png  389390805_makefg(3).png.bca83a238dd2aaf235ea3ce2873b55bc.png  216757889_makefg(4).png.35cb826069cdae5c1a164a94deaff377.png  1359338181_makefg(5).png.e6135dea01fa097e5d841ee5fb3c2dc5.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the new DM, when we eventually get it, is going to have more of an impact than the small variations between the types we have and the types that would seemingly match better.
+1 to this! Can't agree more! I can't believe this had slipped my mind.

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

I think the new DM, when we eventually get it, is going to have more of an impact than the small variations between the types we have and the types that would seemingly match better.

 

 

 

Absolutely! It doesn’t really matter what’s OP or not. At the moment the damage model is so horrible that nothing is historically accurate. The 109’s can prop hang for days without over heating and that needs to be fixed but other then that the other issues are DM related. One bullet to a 190 (dead engine), one bullet to a 51 (engine dead or pilot dead). 200 50cal rounds to a 109 sets him on fire and he loses a wing. Still flying and combat effective. Saw that happen just yesterday on the MP server. I would normally say that the 50cal rounds are super weak and very under represented for their destructive capabilities. However, with the current DM a 109 is practically indestructible so who really knows?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I personally hope that when new models for the 109 and 190 come into game, they will consider flyable modules at some point. I do know that if they do add those or other aircraft, they will be the best simulation of those aircraft on the market, like their current aircraft already are.

So say we all… :worthy:

:lol::lol::lol:

 

 

Never heard this before and it is funny as hell...we all know why they did that. If it was their decision to do that then Kudos to those “slaves”. I have to believe it was their effort to “fight back” . Their part in the war effort! Who can blame them considering what they had to endure. On the other hand, If they were directed to do that by their captors well then thats a whole different story.
Read it somewhere talking about the various restorations of Dora 13, this probably was during the first one in the seventies (even Kurt Tank was there IIRC), the one in which they painted her all in a not very historical light grey cammo. They took apart everything and riveted again so many interesting things popped up. I think something was said about they didn't know why those things were there, but the slave manpower was documented even for this rare prototype so they guessed that was the reason. Shocking…

 

I have done a lot of research now with ED, and while looking at some different sources, I came across a document, a correspondence discussing the use of slave labour in different aspects of production, kind punches you in the gut and reminds you why WWII was fought.... Anyways, sorry for the OT, but wanted to add that.
Definitely mate… :(

 

 

Back on topic, I don't know why that obsession with balance. I think many people think something like that would be the solution to all of their problems fighting online, but a glance at those other games out there that are in fact balanced shows us they have the same if not worst problems in MM. I really doubt any kind of balance would be a solution. What doesn't mean I don't want to see all of the aircraft possible available, of course I want to.

 

 

S!

"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

Sorry - I think I know what this statement means, but I'm not sure.

 

At the end of the day it doesn't matter how realistic the aircraft are if the selected aircraft are not so realistic for the defined scenario, that is al that matters.

 

I can read it as either of:

 

"it doesn't matter how realistic the aircraft are, it they're not the correct aircraft for the scenario, the scenario can't play out realistically"

or

"I don't care if the aircraft aren't as realistically modelled, all that matters is that they are the correct models for the scenario"

 

I think the first, but I just wanted to be clear in my mind.

Cheers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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