FW190D9 can't dogfight.

For balance and historical compromise.

 

The maps and planeset are one big anachronism.

 

Germans should have MW50 if its balance your aiming for. Without the 109K4(with MW50 obviously) the germans dont have a plane that can hold its own vs the allies.

Germans should have MW50 if its balance your aiming for. Without the 109K4(with MW50 obviously) the germans dont have a plane that can hold its own vs the allies.

 

Don't you see the contradiction, seriously...

 

If you can't hold your own against the P-51 or Spit in a K4 without MW50 you need to review your flying style.

 

I don't want to hear the word balance ever and that is fortunately EDs take on this too.

 

All I want is the correct plane set.

Well if the wish is historical accuracy then the next problem is that removing MW50 puts the 109 at a disadvantage it never had, as the K-4 is heavier than both a G6 or G14, something MW50 compensated for. Furthermore MW50 came as std. on the G14 which flew over Normandy in July.

 

Hence it seems very silly to remove MW50 from the 109, and considering the D9 wasn't even available at Normady it makes no sense to strip it of MW50 and yet leave the airplane in either.

 

In other words wanting "realism" is a poor excuse IMO, and it's more likely that the goal with the server was just to create an Allied pilots wet dream.

The underlying problem is that the maps are older than the planes (K-4 and Dora 9). But, using non-existent planes (K-4 and Dora 9 w/o MW-50) on those maps is just as wrong or even silly, I might add. I want to fly the planes as they REALLY were. The so called 'historical' missions are in no way achievable on our computers (hundreds of planes, thousands of troops and so on) so what's left on the 'historical' table are the actual planes that we bought and fly, as they WERE. You can take out the MW50 for the AI, I'm ok with that.. but create a PvE mission not a PvP mission. Claiming it's 'historical'.. is neither realistically correct nor fair.

Well if the wish is historical accuracy then the next problem is that removing MW50 puts the 109 at a disadvantage it never had, as the K-4 is heavier than both a G6 or G14, something MW50 compensated for. Furthermore MW50 came as std. on the G14 which flew over Normandy in July.

 

Hence it seems very silly to remove MW50 from the 109, and considering the D9 wasn't even available at Normady it makes no sense to strip it of MW50 and yet leave the airplane in either.

 

In other words wanting "realism" is a poor excuse IMO, and it's more likely that the goal with the server was just to create an Allied pilots wet dream.

 

That is a correct assumption. :thumbup:

Well if the wish is historical accuracy then the next problem is that removing MW50 puts the 109 at a disadvantage it never had, as the K-4 is heavier than both a G6 or G14, something MW50 compensated for. Furthermore MW50 came as std. on the G14 which flew over Normandy in July.

 

Hence it seems very silly to remove MW50 from the 109, and considering the D9 wasn't even available at Normady it makes no sense to strip it of MW50 and yet leave the airplane in either.

 

In other words wanting "realism" is a poor excuse IMO, and it's more likely that the goal with the server was just to create an Allied pilots wet dream.

 

Wow... your indignation is telling.

 

Guess what; SoW owes you nothing. You pay nothing, you thus far contribute no useful - and in particular, polite - critique to benefit the server and thus you and your opinion are of f-all value.

 

Besides which Phil & Dietrich are completely entitled to run their server in which ever way they so wish, cos they're putting in the effort, they're putting up the hardware, they're spending the money, so it's their house, their rules.

 

Go create your own little Lufty wet dream server where you can out climb, out run and one shot all the Allied planes if it makes you feel less butt-hurt.

Guess what; SoW owes you nothing.

 

Didn't say they did.

 

Im just saying their excuse of wanting realism is just that, an excuse, and a poor one at that.

 

If your feelers can't take that, well too bad.

Didn't say they did.

 

Im just saying their excuse of wanting realism is just that, an excuse, and a poor one at that.

 

If your feelers can't take that, well too bad.

 

"My feelers"?

 

You're the one instigating bad feeling with the use of deprecating terms and casting aspersions on those who utilise the server and that smacks of a pretty petty form of jealousy. The fact you assign bias to their choices rather than their repeated explanation of their reasoning only exposes your own prejudices.

Im just saying their excuse of wanting realism is just that, an excuse, and a poor one at that.

 

 

Where is wanting realism specified as the excuse?

. Furthermore MW50 came as std. on the G14 which flew over Normandy in July.

 

 

Any chance you have a source for the date during July that the G-14s with MW50 entered the Normandy theatre?

The original plan was to hold off on the K4s with MW50 until the Falaise pocket missions, however, I'd overlooked the G-14 entry date.

If someone knows exactly when the G-14s with MW50 were operating, then we can use that date to bring in the K4s with MW50 as a stand-in for the G-14.

Didn't say they did.

 

Im just saying their excuse of wanting realism is just that, an excuse, and a poor one at that.

 

If your feelers can't take that, well too bad.

 

It simply is not an excuse, why, because if we had a Spitfire Mk. XIV and you only had a ME109G6 you would be taking umbrage with the exact thing we are.

Where is wanting realism specified as the excuse?

 

It's the same explanation given everytime anyone asks why there's no MW50 availabe on the SoW server: "Because the 109 didn't have MW50 over Normandy" and "the Dora 9 wasn't even there"

 

The first excuse is false as the G6/AS had been running with MW50 since May/April 44, and the G14 came with it Std. as of July 44 (ready since June), where fighting was still taking place over Normandy.

 

2nd excuse is moot as no D9 flew over Normandy, and none ever without either MW50 or Erh.Notleistung. So why even leave it in? Is it because then you have more neutered targets to shoot at ? ;)

 

But hey, it's your server so you're free to do with it as you please, as I am free to call something for what it is when I see it. In short I'm not saying you should change it, I'm just saying that if your reasoning for leaving out MW50 is to maintain realism then it is deeply flawed.

Edited August 12, 2020 by Hummingbird

It simply is not an excuse, why, because if we had a Spitfire Mk. XIV and you only had a ME109G6 you would be taking umbrage with the exact thing we are.

 

Nope, I'd be happily flying the Mk.XIV which I don't understand why isn't already here.

 

That said your analogy is pretty extreme as a 109K4/190D9/190A8 vs P51D/P47D/Spit IX setup is nowhere near as extreme as a Spit Mk.XIV vs 109G6 one.

Edited August 12, 2020 by Hummingbird

But hey, it's your server so you're free to do with it as you please, as I am free to call something for what it is when I see it. In short I'm not saying you should change it, I'm just saying that if your reasoning for leaving out MW50 is to maintain realism then it is deeply flawed.

 

 

The reasoning, as stated multiple times, is to provide stand-ins for the missing types. You are absolutely right that they shouldn't be there at all. This is also stated numerous times in SoW related documents and posts. They are "semi-historical" compromises.

 

Including the DORA allows player who, for whatever reason, cannot purchase the ANTON, which is the correct type for the map/ period.

Including the K4. Eventually the Dora will be removed from the server, once it's clear that the bulk of the player base is happy to use the other modules. We are getting close to that now, as the current server stats show that the Dora has been the least favored type now for some time.

 

Including the 109-K4 is almost a necessity at the moment, given how ED has decided to deliver aircraft modules. The "right" 109 simply is not there. Having no 109s at all on the server would be a step too far, in our judgement. So, the question is, can the K4 be fudged to stand in as a G6, which is the machine that really belongs there?

 

So far, based on information collected from various online sources (such as the excellent Kurfurst website) the K4 is understood to perform closer to the G6 when the K4 is run at 1.42 ATA than it does with MW50 enabled, even with it being 4% heavier.

 

As one example, the K4 without MW50, at 1.42 ATA is understood to be 0.9% variant from the 109-G6 (under notleistung) at sea level in level flight. The K4 with MW50 enabled is out by 11%. . Other data show similar differentials.

 

I'd be happy to entertain performance data which shows that, in fact, 109-K4 with MW50 is closer to the 109-G6 in terms of level speeds, climb rates, turn rates, roll rates and max dive speeds that it is without. That would make for a pretty convincing argument to enable to MW50 in the K4.

But that measns sourcing three sets of data for each category and mapping them together for comparison. If people really want to do the leg work, then I'd be happy to see the results.

The reasoning, as stated multiple times, is to provide stand-ins for the missing types. You are absolutely right that they shouldn't be there at all. This is also stated numerous times in SoW related documents and posts. They are "semi-historical" compromises.

 

Including the DORA allows player who, for whatever reason, cannot purchase the ANTON, which is the correct type for the map/ period.

Including the K4. Eventually the Dora will be removed from the server, once it's clear that the bulk of the player base is happy to use the other modules. We are getting close to that now, as the current server stats show that the Dora has been the least favored type now for some time.

 

Including the 109-K4 is almost a necessity at the moment, given how ED has decided to deliver aircraft modules. The "right" 109 simply is not there. Having no 109s at all on the server would be a step too far, in our judgement. So, the question is, can the K4 be fudged to stand in as a G6, which is the machine that really belongs there?

 

So far, based on information collected from various online sources (such as the excellent Kurfurst website) the K4 is understood to perform closer to the G6 when the K4 is run at 1.42 ATA than it does with MW50 enabled, even with it being 4% heavier.

 

As one example, the K4 without MW50, at 1.42 ATA is understood to be 0.9% variant from the 109-G6 (under notleistung) at sea level in level flight. The K4 with MW50 enabled is out by 11%. . Other data show similar differentials.

 

I'd be happy to entertain performance data which shows that, in fact, 109-K4 with MW50 is closer to the 109-G6 in terms of level speeds, climb rates, turn rates, roll rates and max dive speeds that it is without. That would make for a pretty convincing argument to enable to MW50 in the K4.

But that measns sourcing three sets of data for each category and mapping them together for comparison. If people really want to do the leg work, then I'd be happy to see the results.

Without MW-50 you will lose 2 important things.. acceleration and climbing advantage, in other words the soughtful ENERGY. You'll lose the whole point of the 109 K-4. Try some dogfights, PvP, one with MW and one without, do it like 100 times and see who will always win the battle.

 

Sent from my Redmi 5 using Tapatalk

Nope, I'd be happily flying the Mk.XIV which I don't understand why isn't already here.

 

That said your analogy is pretty extreme as a 109K4/190D9/190A8 vs P51D/P47D/Spit IX setup is nowhere near as extreme as a Spit Mk.XIV vs 109G6 one.

 

It is very damn close :doh:

 

AND further more from a historical point of view the Spitfire Mk. XIV ACTUALLY engaged ME109G6 over Normandy.

Edited August 12, 2020 by Krupi

Without MW-50 you will lose 2 important things.. acceleration and climbing advantage, in other words the soughtful ENERGY.

 

Sure, but where's the comparative data?

I know that turning Mw50 off causes losses in performance... no-body's disagreeing with that.

 

This is not the first time I've opened the door for people to make the case, only for them to go tangential.

 

Data which shows that, in fact, 109-K4 with MW50 is closer to the 109-G6 in terms of level speeds, climb rates, turn rates, roll rates and max dive speeds that it is without. That would make for a pretty convincing argument to enable to MW50 in the K4.

But that means sourcing three sets of data for each category and mapping them together for comparison. If people really want to do the leg work, then I'd be happy to see the results.

G14 MW50 (Notes state WITH Gunpods installed so NOT ENTIRELY COMPARABLE)

 

 

K4 (WITH & WITHOUT MW50)

 

 

 

G14 Climb (Notes state WITH Gunpods installed so NOT ENTIRELY COMPARABLE)

 

 

 

K4 Climb

 

 

I will update this with G14 without Gunpods if I can find an official one.

Edited August 12, 2020 by Krupi

It is very damn close :doh:

 

Only if you're being daft on purpose..

 

How else is pitting an aircraft with a 720 km/h top speed, 4700 ft/min climb rate and superior turning capability against one that can do ~650 km/h and ~3600 ft/min anywhere close?

 

Atleast the Spitfire Mk.IX can outmaneuver everything, and out climb or climb with most, the K4 being the exception.

G14 MW50

 

 

 

You do realize these are calculated performance with gondolas and a 300 L drop tank right? Hence the 3598 kg weight.

 

Actual test flown G14 performance (May 1944) under same conditions (gondolas + 300 L drop tank):

 

Also the K4 figures are calculated with the experimental Dünnblatt meant for better high alt performance at the cost of lower alt performance & climb rate.

Edited August 12, 2020 by Hummingbird

Sure, but where's the comparative data?

I know that turning Mw50 off causes losses in performance... no-body's disagreeing with that.

 

This is not the first time I've opened the door for people to make the case, only for them to go tangential.

 

Data which shows that, in fact, 109-K4 with MW50 is closer to the 109-G6 in terms of level speeds, climb rates, turn rates, roll rates and max dive speeds that it is without. That would make for a pretty convincing argument to enable to MW50 in the K4.

But that means sourcing three sets of data for each category and mapping them together for comparison. If people really want to do the leg work, then I'd be happy to see the results.

 

Another point that you're missing here is that the K-4 with MW-50 will fly differently than the G-6 or another K-4 w/o it. I want to fly the K-4 as it WAS, not a handicapped one. This is Digital COMBAT Simulator, not Digital MAP Simulator.. just sayin'..

You do realize these are with gondolas and a 300 L drop tank right? Hence the 3598 kg weight.

 

Also the K4 figures are with the experimental Dünnblatt meant for better high alt performance at the cost of lower alt performance & climb rate.

 

Well then YOU provide the perishing charts!!!! At least Krupi's done some bloody leg work you hypocrite!

Only if you're being daft on purpose..

 

How else is pitting an aircraft with a 720 km/h top speed, 4700 ft/min climb rate and superior turning capability against one that can do ~650 km/h and ~3600 ft/min anywhere close?

 

Atleast the Spitfire Mk.IX can outmaneuver everything, and out climb or climb with most, the K4 being the exception.

 

Where does ~650 km/h come from, without MW50... :music_whistling:

Another point that you're missing here is that the K-4 with MW-50 will fly differently than the G-6 or another K-4 w/o it. I want to fly the K-4 as it WAS, not a handicapped one. This is Digital COMBAT Simulator, not Digital MAP Simulator.. just sayin'..

 

 

I'm not "missing" that point, I'm just not making an argument that hangs on it.

 

 

As I've said time and time again, repeated here now fro the third time in less than an hour. I'd like to see ..

 

Data which shows that, in fact, 109-K4 with MW50 is closer to the 109-G6 in terms of level speeds, climb rates, turn rates, roll rates and max dive speeds that it is without. That would make for a pretty convincing argument to enable to MW50 in the K4.

But that means sourcing three sets of data for each category and mapping them together for comparison. If people really want to do the leg work, then I'd be happy to see the results.

You do realize these are with gondolas and a 300 L drop tank right? Hence the 3598 kg weight.

 

Also the K4 figures are with the experimental Dünnblatt meant for better high alt performance at the cost of lower alt performance & climb rate.

 

I apologise, I am doing this from my phone so I might have copied the wrong one.

 

Unfortunately I don't speak German.

 

I will update my post with the correct charts