How do you lure your prey?

Unfortunately, this is really the only thing that can work for P-51 pilots in DCS, given that we've got the lowest of the historical WEP ratings. I say "unfortunately" because the nature of multiplayer flight sim-games is such that it is neither reasonable nor practical to expect users to fly up to 30,000 feet every time they want a fight. You're going to very seldom find a fight up there, and even when you do, your combat-to-travel ratio is going to be appalling (which means that your ratio of learning to not-learning will be just as low; in effect, one cannot ever become truly proficient at dogfighting when burdened by such a poor rate of learning).

Okay. At the risk of starting a shitstorm, there are simmers and there are gamers. Multiplay (emphasis on "play") is a game. I've been flying flight sims (emphasis on "sim") for more than two decades and I have never yet seen online multiplayer that even remotely resembled the way the aircraft were used historically. I gave up on multiplayer crop dusting furball contests a long time ago.

The Mustang was designed and flown historically as a high altitude, long range bomber escort. Did it come down low? Yes, when returning from bomber escort missions to strafe enemy airfields and catch enemy fighters as they returned from missions. But its PRIMARY purpose was to protect bombers at 30,000 feet and it was very good at doing so.

If you don't want to fly the Mustang to its historical strengths, don't whine about the results.

Okay. At the risk of starting a shitstorm, there are simmers and there are gamers. Multiplay (emphasis on "play") is a game. I've been flying flight sims (emphasis on "sim") for more than two decades and I have never yet seen online multiplayer that even remotely resembled the way the aircraft were used historically. I gave up on multiplayer crop dusting furball contests a long time ago.

 

The Mustang was designed and flown historically as a high altitude, long range bomber escort. Did it come down low? Yes, when returning from bomber escort missions to strafe enemy airfields and catch enemy fighters as they returned from missions. But its PRIMARY purpose was to protect bombers at 30,000 feet and it was very good at doing so.

 

If you don't want to fly the Mustang to its historical strengths, don't whine about the results.

+1 and why I gave up on online too.

I have no interest in air quake with a bunch of inflated egos.

That's why we need proper online missions, probably after we get all wwii assets. I'm also sick'n'tired of those 'airquakes', but on the other hand, I haven't seen too many players on BlueFlag..

I haven't seen too many players on BlueFlag..

You are right, unfortunately. :(

I really like BlueFlag concept, but IMO it does not work on Normandy map.

This map is absolutely unsuitable for it. Combat area with targets on map is extremely small with no possibility to expand... No field air bases, for example.

@HotTom, I couldn't agree with you more. :thumbup:

That's why we need proper online missions, probably after we get all wwii assets. I'm also sick'n'tired of those 'airquakes', but on the other hand, I haven't seen too many players on BlueFlag..

I'm hoping my Dogs of War mates will be back when the unified game comes out. IF....

A couple have said the old missions we ran broke when the newer versions came out, and they won't rewrite them until there is something unified and stable.

I expect high altitude bomber missions then. We had a few before, with modded bombers, and it made for interesting fights up high.

Hope so.

Everybody is so picky about getting all the details right on a plane and then they don't want to fly them in proper missions. Do it all, or don't bother doing any of it.

Yep, same arguments I see here a lot, I do understand why the P-51 fans want the higher manifold pressure, higher octane fuel etc. It's so there on more of an equal ground down low 1 vs 1 with the same skill level player and dont have to waste time flying up to 30,000 feet when practicing online in MP.

Hard balance for this arena of MP and not to have many upset on both sides. You know, if they have this then we should have that LOL:). Like I said, hard to please this high skill level 1 vs 1 competitive guys.

.

I'm hoping my Dogs of War mates will be back when the unified game comes out. IF....

 

A couple have said the old missions we ran broke when the newer versions came out, and they won't rewrite them until there is something unified and stable.

 

I expect high altitude bomber missions then. We had a few before, with modded bombers, and it made for interesting fights up high.

Okay. At the risk of starting a shitstorm, there are simmers and there are gamers.

Here we go again. Tom, you've been throwing that line at me, whenever the two of us discuss this subject, since 2013 (or was it earlier?), and each time you've totally ignored my counterpoint.

Some real pilots (yes, the kind that fly real airplanes, in real life) do practice dogfighting in real aircraft, in a manner similar to the one which I favor in high-fidelity simulators. North American Top Gun was one company which did so, and there's still Air Combat USA (which, regrettably, uses a less sophisticated ballistics simulation* than NATG did).

In these mock dogfights, real pilots take up students in real airplanes, and they engage in pre-arranged one-on-one dogfights at low/medium altitude, just like I do in flight sim-games like DCS. Are these pilots (real pilots, remember) "mere gamers," who aren't interested in the reality of flight? By your logic, they are. And if you would open your eyes for one damned minute, you'd see why that's ridiculous.

I am no less a simmer than you are. I aim to simulate my scenario with the maximum amount of realism possible; the only reason that I'm not doing it in real airplanes is that I cannot, due to medical and financial reasons. When you (again, and again) imply with snark that I am a "gamer and not a simmer" because I'm not interested in recreating historical wartime missions, you fail to make the distinction between a realistic simulation of a fictional scenario, and a realistic simulation of a historical scenario. Both are high-fidelity simulations. Neither one is any less of a simulation than the other is, and neither one falls into the realm of a "mere gamer."

Give it a rest. We've been over this too many times since our time in Rise of Flight. It's getting old watching you make that jab and then ignore my counter, every damned time. It's almost as if you were trolling.

Look, it isn't that I think you're a complete jerkbag. I don't. You have a good head on your shoulders and I've seen you use it plenty. I just don't get why you consistently refuse to use it whenever the issue of non-historical max-fidelity flight simming comes up.

* NATG used T-6 Texans with on-board radars hooked up to computers. The radar would feed information to the computer, which would calculate (but not show to the pilot!) the lead necessary to hit the other aircraft. If the pilot's aim matched the correct firing solution when he pulled the trigger, the computer would register a "hit," at which point it would transmit this to the other aircraft, the computer of which would then turn on the black smoke generator. It was really quite brilliant. Unfortunately, ACUSA uses a much more simplistic solution which does not account for lead, bullet drop, or dispersion. With ACUSA, the pilot only needs to put the opponent aircraft in the center of the gunsight, regardless of speed or deflection angle.

You're missing Tom's point. If you're simulating fiction, you're gaming. We can't die in a sim, so we should be simulating WW2 missions just like the pilots did during the war.

The mock fights in real planes are just play fighting. Who wants to simulate that? There's no reality to air quake.

What echo is saying, correct me if i'm wrong.If flying long high flights, low probability contact

You're skill, gunnery will get rusty, not good place to learn how to fight.The P51 can fight.

Did Doolittle not change fighter escort tactics in 1944, that fighters were to hunt and chase down the german fighters

I believe german aircraft production increased ?

Did Dolittle say..............Ok, boys. Jump in your P-51 alone anytime you feel like it and fly into that furball. Good luck!

What?

A little louder.

Did Dolittle say..............Ok, boys. Jump in your P-51 alone anytime you feel like it and fly into that furball. Good luck!

Why you making things up ?

I didn't make anything up. You just don't understand what i'm saying.

Who made this statement?

Ok, boys. Jump in your P-51 alone anytime you feel like it and fly into that furball. Good luck!

If you're going to quote me. Quote all of it. You left out "Did Dolittle say" Did he say that? No, of course he didn't. It would be suicide for the pilots if he did. I gave that as an example of how stupid online flying is now, because that's exactly what the online players are doing.

Get it now?

People have lives,most can't spend 8hrs flying a round trip, and to think all fights were above 28,000+ is nonsense.

Online campaigns is what we have, to bring some sort of coordinated flying.

Nope.....?

If you're going to quote me. Quote all of it. You left out "Did Dolittle say" Did he say that? No, of course he didn't. It would be suicide for the pilots if he did. I gave that as an example of how stupid online flying is now, because that's exactly what the online players are doing.

 

Get it now?

Contrary to what some people believe.... dogfights did happen. Maybe they were less common, or slightly different to what people do in video games where we can respawn, but they did happen. This certainly includes the Mustang, which had many aggressive pilots more than ready to mix it up with 109s and 190s.

Ok, if you could just calm your s*t, that would be great, pal.

What makes you think i'm not calm? It takes way more than this to excite me.

It wasn't me pushing it. I was just responding. You seem s bit excited though. Calm down.............pal.

People have lives,most can't spend 8hrs flying a round trip, and to think all fights were above 28,000+ is nonsense.

 

Online campaigns is what we have, to bring some sort of coordinated flying.

 

Nope.....?

Of course the flights would have to be shorter. I'm not even sure we have the maps for those kind of flights? We do need the flights instead of what we have now though. Yes, we'd have dogfights during the missions, but the goal is to protect the bombers instead of getting some useless score in air quake. You wouldn't be alone. That's suicide.

@ Echo -- yes, we have had this discussion before in Rise of Flight forums. If you want to call "fly-die-respawn" your idea of virtual combat, have fun doing it. I'm not trying to take it away from you.

But, no matter how detailed and deep the airplane sim is, don't pretend you are also simulating WWII air combat. You aren't.

It's a valid discussion but, as I said when I first posted in this topic, I knew I was starting a shitstorm because it is one on which people are very polarized. That hasn't changed and neither have I (nor you). S!

Were there low level dogfights involving Mustangs? Yes. There was a point when Doolittle did order VIII Fighter Command to attack Luftwaffe airfields and destroy the German planes on the ground. But that's not what I see simulated in MP. It's "Fly to the Big X on the map and rumble." Walter Mitty stuff for sure.

And, of course there was Operation Bodenplatte where the Luftwaffe tried to destroy the Allied air bases during the Battle of the Bulge. http://donhollway.com/bodenplatte/

I would love to see some single player campaigns based around those two efforts. But for MP? No. They would just devolve into fly-die-respawn quakefests.

I've seen lots of good points and different points of view over the last 10-20 posts. Most don't really contradict each other. They mostly simply represent different aspects of the situation.

Training is a good idea, and IMHO probably not really to be expected on MP servers in a pick-up situation. Of course there is always the chance of meeting somebody online who would be willing to do that, but honestly on an airquake server, it would not be the best place to do so.

Yes, some aerial combat did take place at lower altitudes in Europe. Not nearly as much as is represented in airquake --which would be nearly 100%-- but it happened.

I would love to see missions where the main goal to escorting bombers well above 20k, but I don't expect to see them really outside blue flag missions, set up in advance where the players all come at a scheduled time to participate. You simply can't play as a pick-up player if the bombers are already even 10 minutes ahead of you. It simply won't work. Besides, the amount of time spent simply flying up to altitude and to the bombing target would be like 80-90% of playing time, and I don't imaging very conducive to attracting players.

That being said, I can imagine missions that only run for 10-20 minutes. Once completed they start over again. You would have one-mission = one-life, which would certainly change playing styles for many players. You would need that DCS allowed for a short period of time for players to choose sides and slots and organize themselves. Many games have such systems, allowing the players to organize, and then confirm when they are ready to start. Once all, or most, are ready, the mission would do an air-start with bombers, escorts, and interceptors already at mission designated altitudes and positions (possibly varying starting positions for interceptors, maybe for some escorts as well). Slots not occupied by players get controlled by AI, so that the mission is basically always balanced, even if most players want to be on one side. The mission ends when the bombers have completed their bombing mission, and bombers and escorts have left the area, and/or all interceptors have RTB'ed or been eliminated. One could also allow for escorts to conduct ground attacks before mission end, which interceptors could try to prevent.

Such a mission would have a fairly limited run time, so that pick-up players, or players who were shot down, would not have long periods of time to wait, before the next mission started.

Of course, to do this, ED would have to create the framework for the preparation phase and the mission start when players are ready.

What do you guys think?