Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Solty

  1. On 3/29/2018 at 1:10 AM, =LD=Hethwill said:

    Large caliber cannon with HE is devastating as it should be. Interceptor weapon of choice, be it on a LW or VVS interception duty, the enemy bombers and attackers will suffer. 

    Let the nimble redbarons have their fun with the other fighters for aerial superiority. No destruction of ground stuff, no winning the scenarios.


    Rocking the 30mm as LW or the 37mm as VVS in interceptor duty is the way to go, peshkas and cement planes, 111's, etc will go down. Stay on target. Let the air cover worry about the fighters.


    2 cents



    To me, the current performance of 20mm is overmodeled. There is almost no difference between MG151 and MK108 in power. Both guns need one or 2 shots to completely cripple a P-40 and I have lost wings from both of them with 2 to 4 shots. Not to mention I started loosing engine from shots that didn't land near my engine. Sometimes even when I get hit behind the cockpit my engine gets damaged.

    Is it because of latency? Possible... but I still have to say that 20mm cannons, especially MG151/20 are damn powerful and are way more powerful than they were and yet I still see people complain that they do "nothing".

     I think 109 players have a perspective that 1 hit should cripple the plane so that it becomes a non-maneuvering target and 5 shots should destroy any plane completely, even if all those hits are in different places on a plane and the plane is sturdy (P-40, Pe-2). Not even Mk108 should be guaranteed to destroy a target with one shot. Shot placement is important. If you hit a critical component with a cannon or HMG it will be damaged / destroyed. Don't expect it when you shoot the middle  of a wing.

    To me the DM got worse with time in the game and planes became very fragile and it lacks nuance. I think it is time for an update and I hope Bodenplatte will add a bit more depth into it. It is not bad, but lacks features IMHO.

  2. I played since original IL2 (and even before that) and after a while when WT came out it  realy looked like the next way to go. I spent lots of time in WT especially on the SB (Simulation) mode.

    What I liked about the WT was the fact that each time you were thrown into a battle and had only one life and faced with repair costs afterwards. That makes it very intense and people tended to be more careful and didn't wanted to get into furballs. It made the experience very natural and people were realy trying to survive, diving away from danger and trying to gain advantage.

    With so many planes and many factions each fight was a bit different and that created lots of cool and interesting fights that always pushed you outside of your comfort zone.

    It is still a fine game. Are its FMs good? Some... kinda. But mostly it is quite simplistic and lacks consistency (eg. Bf109G2 has no forces modeled at high speeds, while G6 has quite realistic stifness on the controls). I would recomend the game to new people as it can realy spark interest in flightgames and planes of different periods. It is definitely not perfect, but in my opinion it is a good starting point for flight sims, especailly on SB.

    I definitely do not think that deserves the hate that people in flight sim communities give it.

    PS. IMHO tank battles are also very entertaining and nowadays I actually play more tanks than planes in wt.

  3. Not only speeds but unusually fast cruise and fuel efficiency. I hope we will get other version as a collector plane, because, frankly, the D is worst of the bunch. The handling and damage resilience were compromised, too, and it's clear P51Ds were needed for range mostly.

    I think you should assume less.V1650-7 was optimised for low level. That canopy design went through a lot of wind tunnel tests. P-51D with 67' achieved during a test at SL 375 mph with wing racks on. Hardly slower than B.

    • Upvote 3

  4. An important question to all, I would like to know your opinions: 370th FG had replaced its P-38J with P-51D-20/K-10 in Feb 1945. We'll do one the early version of P-51D - D-5, D-10 or D-15. Will it be acceptably if we continue the career for this group using our early version of P-51D instead of D-20/K-10?


    For example, now we use LaGG-3 s.29 throughout 1943 in the BOK career as we've no any later modifications of this plane.

    Please do not do D-5. It was an early version that was later modified in field to later blocks. There were conversion kits added to every P-51D to make the block more modern with the added tailfin. Especially that we have late war German planes like the G-14 (which was already produced after D-10 came out and maybe even D-15) and K4 which was introduced at the same time as the D-20 was and you are introducing Dora and Me262.


    I would love to see D-20 because of the K-14 gunsight, but I would also love to see the G-Suit added. And it was the most numerous production model of them all. And if you are making a gyro sight for the Spit the technology would also be there to do it for the P-51 which was the first to be produced with standardised sight like the K14.


    Regardless of the version I hope we will see different fuel/power settings, just as we see that with different engines for Spit MkVb.


    Here, check this site for more details about the P-51







    • Upvote 2

  5. 21.5 sec would be quite accurate estimate for P-51D with standard load, but if one takes 30% of fuel which is still about 40min of low level flying with not too conservative power settings and that turn time drops to 20 sec with 67'. With higher power rating it should be improved further.


    Not to mention a quite significantly better instantneous turn performance than the 109.


    But to claim that Fw190A8 would be able to match or even beat that turn performance is quite silly. Even Dora in sustained turns will have issues against P51D. 109 G14 and K4 will have around 18 to 19 sec depending on load.

  6. That comes to who has the better ground pounding equipment. Allies have it on the eastern front. Allies have it on the western front. So as long as the game mode is determined by who ground pounds the best the Allies will win the majority of the time.

    Many of the targets are soft, so 109 should be able to deal with them.


    Not to mention that Hs129 is in the game and over western allies Germans have Ju88 which is quite fast with big payload. Me 262 might also have bombs and be an almost untouchable.


    Most of the German players currently fly at 7000m and wait for a single Yak to come by. While soviets have whole wings of Peshka and IL2's doing their jobs.

    • Upvote 1

  7. No, but they'll out-turns them instead, and they'll still out-climb them. So the situation will be reversed with the allies, particularly US, being the ones who have to play very cautious BnZ like the Germans have to now against the VVS.

    I think you will be surprised by P38, 51 and Tempest. They aren't amazing at turn fighting, but good enough to make 109s feel uneasy and 190 will have no edge there.

  8. Air combat in Il-2 will be affected not only by new aircraft, but also by changes to the game engine itself.


    For example, the increased terrain rendering distance announced in October will make high-altidue combat more attractive. It will no longer be disconcerting due to the absence of a horizon.

    Oh yes, I am waiting for that. The current bubble is really annoying. That change will definitely make B&Z aircraft way more useful and comfortable.


    But I have to mention that we will see a little change of pace, as no longer will German planes be able to easily dive away. Currently only La5 and Yak1b can follow 109s in a dive but they ultimately unable to catch them with enough separation.


    With addition of P-51D, Tempest, P-38L and P-47 we will see that standard German planes like 109G14 and Fw190A will be unable to run away from most allied airplanes.

  9. I don't disagree with you here. However, we both know that the "crazy planes" are the sole reason a large number of people will purchase this expansion. Left unchecked by server set up, the Spit Mk. IX, P38L, 190A8, and G14 will be the rarely flown bottom feeder aircraft in this expansion.


    I fully expect to see the sky full of 262s, D9s, and a few K4s, vs. a few Allied pilots in P51s and P47s struggling to survive in lopsided online match ups, just like what we see now.


    Almost exactly how I think it will go. But I think that G14 and K4 will be the most prominent.

  10. I am still sad that no improvements to the DM have been done.


    Yes, the new/old terrain looks promissing but the lack of proper DM still makes me unwilling to come back for long.

  11. By this time in France/Low Countries, only 3 FGs used P-38s in the WTO. By the end of the war it was only one, the other fighter groups converted to P-51 and P-47 in 1945. P-38 was certainly a rare sight over Western Europe in this period of the war

    I think you guys are underestimating the numbers of that plane. Need I remind you that an American Fighter Group (FG) is a way bigger organisation than British Squadron (Sq). From what I remember, there were 125 airplanes in a single FG and 12 planes in a single British Sq. That would totall 375 planes (Number for P-51's in 372th FG) in the theater. I wonder were there any more units for example in Itally that used P-38? Or maybe French Squadrons using it?


    That is still more than Fw190D9 were produced from introduction date to November (366 planes).


    So if P-38L is a unicorn, then so is Fw190D9.

  12. I think that our whole thermodynamic system is too simple to just erease those limits. I would like to see, as JTD says, a system that incorporates engine failure depending on engine limitations. If you fly too much on too high power, while beeing too slow, you will get an engine failure due to overheating, If you dive and push the throttle too much you will overrevv etc.


    I do not like the current system, but if nothing is changed to how planes overheat, we will see 109s that have neverending boost and fly everywhere at max ATA. The last thing I want is players just pushing throttle to the max and flying like that untill their fuel runs out. It all depends on engine and its limitations and engine life. For example DB605 is never going to be so heat resistant as the R-2800 etc.


    There is also another question how those limits are set. If they are after the pilot's manual, that is not optimal. I've read some time ago that III Reich changed their manual limits because they were more afraid of loosing pilots than planes at later stages of the war and the WEP from 5 min rose to 10min with MW50 and later to 30min with MW50 while power was increasing. That would mean that disparity between Allied planes and German planes would become unberable as our P-47 and P-51 would loose engines after 5min (thats the allowable pilot manual limit, if I recall correctly [not sure about P47]), while 109s and 190s will fly full power for 30min even though their engine lifetime was half of the Merlin engine at that time of the war.


    I agree that current way they are implemented is bad, it is just not realistic. But I fear that if we turn it off everyone will start flying WEP only with the way the engines currently almost never overheat. It is a dilema.


    :russian_ru: If I was to vote on something, I would like to see an option of failure based on "physics based failures, but without random failures during optimal operation" That is because I think that it would random failures would disrupt things like duels and I do not like the idea to punish people that fly within the limits. But for now I will vote for the removal of those limits so that we can get a proper system in place in the future :cray:.


    PS. My friend sent me something about P-51D engine limits. Can anybody tell where is this excerpt coming from?:






    • Upvote 2

  13. Some players: "We want MW-50 because it was available about a year after the BoK timeframe, close enough".


    Fine then, can I have a P51B now too?



    Exactly, but if you say that you want 72'hg power for P51D in December 1944 because 8th AAF used it they will tell you that not enough planes had it even if it is well documented.
  • Create New...