Jump to content
ITAF_Rani

When the P51 will be available?

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, 9./JG27DefaultFace said:

I don't know how the modification system works but I think a B/C as a mod wouldn't really work.... Different wings, canopy/empennage, only 4 guns. Pretty big differences. A K prop would be cool but IDK how feasible that is.

As long as we get the funky dual rear view mirrors as a mod I'll be happy ūüėĄ

 

Thanks for getting me!

 

The B/C can't be a mod of the D, but they're basicly the same airplane to each other. And they're a must - just like the Razorback Jug.

I think the K did have slightly different specs, so a simple mod probably won't do.

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Jason_Williams said:

 

Yes I hope to someday over the rainbow, but not just for Scripted Campaigns, for Career as well. For now, I have partnered with Pat to have him add it to PWCG in the meantime and get some feedback on the subject. 

 

Jason

This is wonderfull news!

Really looking forward to this, this will boost mp experience a lot!

Thanks for all your work, dedication and endurance!

S!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, EAF_Ribbon said:

Yes spit ix really is uber nice and currently best match for K4 even K4 1.98 ata is really superior.

My point was ppl think K4 and other 109's are best planes so they fly it and we have quite inbalance on certain servers. 

But other reasons are axis fly more in squadrons and are better organized covering each other unlike lone wolfing allies which end up leaving server.

About rewarding thing as i said in original post is when you get away alive while outnumbered by superior or even matching planes.

Flying Spit vs. K4 1on1 is rewarding for both sides, even it's more rewarding for Spit pilot.

P51 will for sure bring balance due to it's popularity rather than performance capability cos as always fight won't go up high.

 

I don't know about being more organized... there are plenty of coordinating reds also. The main difference I feel is the axis has always had the best fighters (and still will with BoBP... it'll take the Spit XIV or maybe +50 boost to redress that), so naturally the axis tends to attract fighter pilots more (obviously that's a generalization, but there's certainly a decent subset of fighter pilots who prefer having flying the better hardware).

 

This, in turn, results in the axis generally having more fighters in the air than the reds, which tend to have a more diverse population that focuses somewhat more on ground attack. This is, at least, based on my experience on wings, and it is reflected in the results: reds tend to win the ground war, while the blues generally chalk up more air kills. 

 

Of course, it's not quite so clear cut, since the traditional "air superiority" blue flight profile doesn't lend itself perfectly to guarding objectives or defending bombers, which create situations where the reds do win air dominance sometimes (though a careful blue pilot will have a lot more options to extent and escape than a red one does when situations are reversed). 

 

As for Spit vs K4, aye it is rewarding, though is nothing new. It's basically like Yak vs 109 we see today. In a duel it's quite a challenge, and a skilled and cautious 109 pilot can fight in a way that leaves very little option to the other pilot (push angles and hope for a good deflection shot, risk a head on, or more likely stay defensive until you make your way to backup... all the while open you don't make a mistake and get yourself killed).

 

That said, that's one thing the P-51 will do: it will bring in a lot of fans. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Ehret said:

 

I'd expect the Me262 to be released with the Tempest.

I'm sorry to say that but such release schedule could end MP of the BOBP early access. Good luck facing all those LW whitebooks in the IX or the '-12" MP' Jug. I had tried to be optimistic before but now...

 

?

 

17 hours ago, Jason_Williams said:

Guys,

 

The release order is as follows for vehicles, maps are harder to judge, but I won't put dates on any of them yet because they often change.

*condensed*

P.S. all this was announced in the beginning as part of our overall plan, but I've tried to give you some context. The order of the planeset releases is determined by what is possible when, no other reason. Planes can be restricted by the MP server operators if people complain. 

 

Jason

 

Thanks for the context Jason. Things look good on the horizon for il2!

 

 

Edited by 1_Robert_

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

Thanks for getting me!

 

The B/C can't be a mod of the D, but they're basicly the same airplane to each other. And they're a must - just like the Razorback Jug.

I think the K did have slightly different specs, so a simple mod probably won't do.

 

 

 

I would love to see a B/C Mustang! There were some still around at the time of Bodenplatte, but I think by that time the majority had been replaced with Ds. They are quite similar, but there are some subtle differences other than just the canopy. The wing (and its internal structure) were changed as well as a few other minor things.

 

I don't know too much about the K. I was under the impression it was just a D-NT with an Aeroproducts prop instead of a Hamilton. Apparently they had production shortages with the Hamilton so they built some in Dallas with the Aeroproducts one instead to keep things moving. I watched an interview recently where the pilot claimed the K was a little faster. Only 1-2 mph, but he said his airplane always pulled away from his wingmen when he went to full power. Whatever the difference, it wasn't huge. Apparently the Aeroproducts props had some vibration issues as well, which were never really resolved....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, 9./JG27DefaultFace said:

In an attempt to "re-rail" the thread...

 

D-25 was confirmed a typo IIRC.

 

Blacksix discussed what variant to make in this post.....

I'm not sure that this list is exhaustive but this was posted over on the ED forums as far as differences between the blocks: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2252477&postcount=1

 

The big things AFAIK were the inclusion of the Dorsal fin for A/C coming off the production line with the D-10 (the fin was retrofitted to older D-5s as well though), and the K-14 on the D-20. The D-25 and D-30 have some different radios/IFF/navigation equipment added along with the required antennas and batterys for these (the D-30 has 2 on the tail, D-25 only one). And of course the tail radar showed up somewhere in there too (D-25 I think).

 

Timeline wise I poked around a bit (although by no means en exhaustive search) when DCS released the D-25 as their "ETO" mustang. Earliest delivery I found for a D-25 to the USAF was something like 2nd of Jan 45. And the aircraft still had to be transported to europe from there, which took a little while. D-25s did serve in the ETO but only for the last month or 2 of the war from what I can tell. I think the earliest D-20 I found was delivered was Nov. 44... On the other hand I found references to K-14s being introduced to the D-20 around Oct.44 (maybe this was referring to them being included in production?).

 

Anyway I think a D-10/15 makes the most sense... Although it would surprise me if we don't get the K-14 for the mustang after its inclusion on the other aircraft... Maybe if the only significant difference between our D-15 and a D-20 would be the Gunsight, our D-15 will be a D-20 when the gunsight is fitted or something like that..?

 

I don't know how the modification system works but I think a B/C as a mod wouldn't really work.... Different wings, canopy/empennage, only 4 guns. Pretty big differences. A K prop would be cool but IDK how feasible that is.

As long as we get the funky dual rear view mirrors as a mod I'll be happy ūüėĄ

 

 

It would be nice to get K-14 as modification, also maybe metal elevators they probably come with D-20 and probably retrofited on earlyer models in 1945, like it was with tail fin on D-5 models. B/C is just totaly differant airplane better have it free for some future expantions :)

 

But how will timers and recharges work will determin if airplane will be of any use for normal servers, on berloga it will be fun like 47 is, for rest its just to masohistic

2 minutes ago, =AVG77=Garven said:

Time to service ceiling at WEP is 28minutes....Good luck trying that in game...

he he 5min wep rest recharg on nominal :) 

 

and after i read that report again i see it was with bomb racks so maybe that 610kmh is posible on clean version, for P-47D that is in game they say just bomb racks lose 7kmh on top speed, and report say on deck speed is 603kmh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, II./JG77_Manu* said:

 

Yes but those late war P-51 came almost one year after the start of BoBp campaign so not really an option. We are expecting the D-15


He is talking about P-51s with engine settings using 150 octane (72"/75"), this didn't depend on the variant (B, C, D or block numbers). RAF Mustangs used 81" which afaik were even faster than the Tempest at sea level.

Edited by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, =621=Samikatz said:

 

The game has had a team-balancing option in it forever that stops everyone stacking onto one side. Whiners oppose it because it means they don't always get to play the best aircraft and win all the time. I've seen servers drop to 40 vs 2 before with nobody switching teams, it's ridiculous

 

IIRC some servers even design maps with imbalance in mind. If we're getting Dora and 262 next, I may reconsider which sim to fly in MP until the sides balance out or more servers start enforcing 1:1 side balance. Not 5:3 as evident lately.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, 77.CountZero said:

he he 5min wep rest recharg on nominal :) 

Looked at one of the charts forgot manifold pressure drops as altitude increases, but still they had no problem staying at 67 for at the very least 6.2 minutes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The D9 worries me a little but the 262 not so much. The only way I see a 262 getting me is if I do not see it, which is the same for any other aircraft. 

 

Plus only a certain few will be able to use the 262 well, without blowing up or becoming a sitting duck because they were drawn into a turn fight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can avoid 262’s all day long.

I found that to be the case flying them and against them in the old sim.

 

Still loads of fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:


He is talking about P-51s with engine settings using 150 octane (72"/75"), this didn't depend on the variant (B, C, D or block numbers). RAF Mustangs used 81" which afaik were even faster than the Tempest at sea level.

Do you have a source for the D doing 620 ground speed with 150 octane? If so, i'd be all for having it in the game. More balance in performance is always appreciated (and would most likely prevent Tempest-only situations in competitive servers)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Argh at P-38 being last but good things come to those who wait!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, II./JG77_Manu* said:

Do you have a source for the D doing 620 ground speed with 150 octane? If so, i'd be all for having it in the game. More balance in performance is always appreciated (and would most likely prevent Tempest-only situations in competitive servers)

Tempest apeal is maybe more in 4x20mm hispanos, does anyone know if Tempest could split to fire 2x20 and 2x20 insted all 4 at once, if thats posible it would be even better, i remenber in 1946 P-47 could do that, 4and4 on two trigers.

 

edit:

here is report for P-51B with 67" and 75", with and ithout bomb racks, and with 150 octan and 75" its 16mph faster then 67", and 8mph faster without bomb racks then with bomb racks, max speed is 388mph on deck thats 624kmh, so he was probably thinking about this one.

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/mustangtest.html

 

So if diff could be +16mph with 150 fuel, then D-15 model that does 375mph at 67" from report on same link would be even faster then 624kmh on deck lol, add 16mph of 150octan and 8mph for removed bomb racks, and you get 399mph and thats 642kmh on deck lol

Edited by 77.CountZero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

150 octane is necessary for the balance that's the matter. I asked directly but get no answer so I really don't if we'll get it some day

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, II./JG77_Manu* said:

Do you have a source for the D doing 620 ground speed with 150 octane? If so, i'd be all for having it in the game. More balance in performance is always appreciated (and would most likely prevent Tempest-only situations in competitive servers)


For P-51B there are a few with 75" and British +25 boost (~80-81"). For example the first one being without wing racks at 75", at roughly 621 km/h, the second one is a Britsh Mustang Mk IV (P-51D) at 80-81" doing 611 km/h with wing racks, so without them it would be a bit faster, last one is another British P-51B, at 80" doing ~627 km/h, don't know about wing condition.

 

Spoiler

P-51B_24777_Speed_Altitude.jpg

tk589-level.jpg

mustang-tempest-150.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, =GEMINI=marbessi said:

150 octane is necessary for the balance that's the matter. I asked directly but get no answer so I really don't if we'll get it some day

They said they will do it when time and resources allows them.

They are missing Merlin 70 +25boost charts.

Merlin 66 on 150octane fuel charts are available and i hope they will give us that within next 2 updates, for M70 i don't care too much.

K4 with 1.98ata which was barely in operational  numbers is ingame so 150octane fuel for Allies which was standard at that time is something they must do to release BoBp.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, =GEMINI=marbessi said:

150 octane is necessary for the balance that's the matter. I asked directly but get no answer so I really don't if we'll get it some day

 

Yes but... do we need balance?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Jade_Monkey said:

 

Yes but... do we need balance?

nah we can use lagg-23 with P-51 skins and La5FNs with P-47 skins and play on bobp map like that, probably would do better with that vs 45 lufftwafe now in game then with usaf airplanes how they are now in game, and it was shown before that there was planty of 150octan fuel to trow around late in war from what i see on forum, so its not balance its historical to have it¬†ūüėĄ

Edited by 77.CountZero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Jade_Monkey said:

Yes but... do we need balance?

 

Do you like matches where one team has +3x numerical advantage? 2x is quite common now; after incoming releases +3x could become a standard. Perhaps, some are masochists or like racing with several teammates to few remaining targets... Perhaps, many more are not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hmmm. an AI B-25 model before the Tempest. The commonwealth really are the red headed stepchildren of this franchise. Followed closely by the USAAF

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New MP Lobby - fingers crossed, won't be easy"

 

I love that Jason and team have this set as a goal, even if it proves too much in the short term for 2019, it's enough for me to know (and we've known for a long time) that Jason gets it

 

Edited by Gambit21
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

"New MP Lobby - fingers crossed, won't be easy"

 

I love that Jason and team have this set as a goal, even if it proves too much in the short term for 2019, it's enough for me to know (and we've known for a long time) that Jason gets it.

Everyone but a certain toxic troll can enjoy it whenever it comes.

 

 

OR, and this seems far more likely, hardly anyone will use it and they're only wasting resources.  You want a lobby?  Use Teamspeak.  

 

 

[edited]

Edited by SYN_Haashashin
Way to personal. Respect other members

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, pfrances said:

Argh at P-38 being last but good things come to those who wait!!!!

 

That's going to be a fun plane too....good stuff coming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ehret said:

 

Do you like matches where one team has +3x numerical advantage? 2x is quite common now; after incoming releases +3x could become a standard. Perhaps, some are masochists or like racing with several teammates to few remaining targets... Perhaps, many more are not.

I think JadeM's post was in sarcastic manner :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 77.CountZero said:

nah we can use lagg-23 with P-51 skins and La5FNs with P-47 skins and play on bobp map like that, probably would do better with that vs 45 lufftwafe now in game then with usaf airplanes how they are now in game, and it was shown before that there was planty of 150octan fuel to trow around late in war from what i see on forum, so its not balance its historical to have it¬†ūüėĄ

To be clear, I'm all for 150 octane fuel, it's been well documented and established that it was widely available during the time period of BoBP.

 

I'm against using balance as an argument for pretty much anything. Balancing should be a responsibility of mission designer and server owners, not the devs.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Jade_Monkey said:

 

Yes but... do we need balance?

 

No, we need historical accuracy.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jade_Monkey said:

I'm against using balance as an argument for pretty much anything. Balancing should be a responsibility of mission designer and server owners, not the devs.

 

Except in this case it's both historical AND needed for balance.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Most ppl go for better weapons, that is the human nature!"  which goes some way towards explaining the decision to incorporate them in the mix sooner.

 

I'd guess that 1CG/777 want the majority of their customers to be happier sooner.  It only affects MP, and the server operators can balance them out if they like.  If not, then don't join that MP server.

 

Truly, I wish I knew how to set up a MP server myself; that would be fun!

 

I'd rather see some better Allied aircraft, sooner, e.g. P-38J, but I would likely be in the minority there.  I've seen a lot to like over the last few years from the whole GB effort, like the growing number of WWI VR planes and the whole Tank Crew thing, so an occasional disappointment isn't going to make me complain.

 

All I want for Christmas is VRWorks/Liquid VR.

 

Edited by mpdugas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Voidhunger said:

Jumo engines were later improved to withstand quicker movement with the throttle

 

The German jet engines used in the Me-262 were deeply flawed.  Compressor blade design technology was in its infancy and compressor airflow was not yet well understood. Thus, in addition to inferior metals and shortage of strategic metals and poor construction at times and sabotage by slave laborers there were the design flaws inherent in the compressor blade designs. When the engines suffered compressor stalls from rapid throttle adjustment or excessive angle of attack flight the result wasn't just bangs, whistles and loss of power. The turbulent airflow in compressor stalls would often cause the turbine blades (due to their design flaws) to crack and break.

 

The broken blades would sling out like super-heated knives through fuel and hydraulic lines. High-pressure hydraulic fluid spraying from punctured lines spray vaporized hydraulic fluid more flammable than aviation fuel. The loss of blade mass unbalanced the compressor causing it to vibrate as it rotates at super-high speed flinging many more blades. The result were blazing nacelle fires actively fed by fuel and/or hydraulic fluid. So if the pilot was a new guy (and most post-Nowotny 262 pilots were new guys, read the 262 ace biography, Stormbirds) and he moved the throttle too rapidly or maneuvered too aggressively into a high AoA attitude he'd create a compressor stall and in addition to losing power he'd likely (pardon the phrase we used back in my military flying days) "shit blades" and create a fuel-fed fire. 

 

The problem was never solved.  Fuel shortages dwarfed most other considerations as only a few of the ready aircraft could be fueled.

 

The German jet engines were on the absolute cutting edge of an unknown technology and by far on the forefront of modern axial turbojet engine development (and had the best wind tunnels, etc.) but they were dealing with a terrific learning curve with a thousand unknowns in how one had to design each set of the multiple stages of turbine blades to get optimal airflow under varying flight conditions.  Just as the 262 airframe and airfoils had to deal with unforseen high-speed airflow compressibility problems so it was with varying aspects of the unproven and in-development axial jet turbines in combat use rather than in extended development.  They were pioneers in technology and the engine failures were a regular consequence of the undeveloped and immature technology.

Edited by TP_Sparky
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TP_Sparky said:

 

The German jet engines used in the Me-262 were deeply flawed.  Compressor blade design technology was in its infancy and compressor airflow was not yet well understood. Thus, in addition to inferior metals and shortage of strategic metals and poor construction at times and sabotage by slave laborers there were the design flaws inherent in the compressor blade designs. When the engines suffered compressor stalls from rapid throttle adjustment or excessive angle of attack flight the result wasn't just bangs, whistles and loss of power. The turbulent airflow in compressor stalls would often cause the turbine blades (due to their design flaws) to crack and break.

 

The broken blades would sling out like super-heated knives through fuel and hydraulic lines. High-pressure hydraulic fluid spraying from punctured lines spray vaporized hydraulic fluid more flammable than aviation fuel. The loss of blade mass unbalanced the compressor causing it to vibrate as it rotates at super-high speed flinging many more blades. The result were blazing nacelle fires actively fed by fuel and/or hydraulic fluid. So if the pilot was a new guy (and most post-Nowotny 262 pilots were new guys, read the 262 ace biography, Stormbirds) and he moved the throttle too rapidly or maneuvered too aggressively into a high AoA attitude he'd create a compressor stall and in addition to losing power he'd likely (pardon the phrase we used back in my military flying days) "shit blades" and create a fuel-fed fire. 

 

The problem was never solved.  Fuel shortages dwarfed most other considerations as only a few of the ready aircraft could be fueled.

 

The German jet engines were on the absolute cutting edge of an unknown technology and by far on the forefront of modern axial turbojet engine development (and had the best wind tunnels, etc.) but they were dealing with a terrific learning curve with a thousand unknowns in how one had to design each set of the multiple stages of turbine blades to get optimal airflow under varying flight conditions.  Just as the 262 airframe and airfoils had to deal with unforseen high-speed airflow compressibility problems so it was with varying aspects of the unproven and in-development axial jet turbines in combat use rather than in extended development.  They were pioneers in technology and the engine failures were a regular consequence of the undeveloped and immature technology.

 

I cant find it now, but I thought that I read somewhere that the engines were more resistant to quicker throttle movements later in the war.

But maybe it was only difference between the first 004B-0 and the standard 004B-1 engine

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Jade_Monkey said:

 

Yes but... do we need balance?

 

Not literal balance but both sides need to be treated fairly and held to the same standards. So Axis getting the most powerful toys with settings that are debatable if they saw combat that can use combat power from take off til they run out of fuel seems a little unfair in the face of allies only getting the lowest possible settings (despite more powerful ones being documented as regularly in combat use) that they can only use five minutes at a time seems a little bit unfair

 

If one side simply has better planes than the other (Moscow/Stalingrad) then it's fine, but like, if for example you restricted one side to weapons/mods that were only used in that specific battle, whereas the other side got anarchronisms and things from different fronts it would come off as unfair

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, =621=Samikatz said:

 

Not literal balance but both sides need to be treated fairly and held to the same standards. So Axis getting the most powerful toys with settings that are debatable if they saw combat that can use combat power from take off til they run out of fuel seems a little unfair in the face of allies only getting the lowest possible settings (despite more powerful ones being documented as regularly in combat use) that they can only use five minutes at a time seems a little bit unfair

 

If one side simply has better planes than the other (Moscow/Stalingrad) then it's fine, but like, if for example you restricted one side to weapons/mods that were only used in that specific battle, whereas the other side got anarchronisms and things from different fronts it would come off as unfair

 

What do you mean with most powerful toys? The Me 262 saw combat and we will get it. Whats your point? 777 developing the most used planes/modifications each side. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, =621=Samikatz said:

if for example you restricted one side to weapons/mods that were only used in that specific battle, whereas the other side got anarchronisms and things from different fronts it would come off as unfair

This is not the case in BoBp currently. Both sides have only aircraft and mods that have been used during Ardennenoffensive, Bodenplatte and Bodenplatte aftermath. I saw some people crying for aircraft like P-47M and alike, now they would really not fit the scenario (not even the timeframe). But I agree in general terms, that Allied fighters should get 150 octane

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Jade_Monkey said:

To be clear, I'm all for 150 octane fuel, it's been well documented and established that it was widely available during the time period of BoBP.

 

I'm against using balance as an argument for pretty much anything. Balancing should be a responsibility of mission designer and server owners, not the devs.

You know why allies reserched and developed 150 grade fuel? To balance their planeset with powerful german planes. I mean balance in this way... If your argument is history then we should have servers with 20 germans vs 60 allies as it was IRL. In this way Germans dispose toys that never saw combat (1.98 ata is only in documents afaik), Allies didnt get what they dispose (150 grade fuel) and planes numbers are free on servers. So answer me... is this historically accurate?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, =GEMINI=marbessi said:

150 octane is necessary for the balance that's the matter. I asked directly but get no answer so I really don't if we'll get it some day

150 octane is a really bad idea. This setting was very unreliable irl and i doubt it would be used in mass because it is detrimental to your airforce. They did 25 octane in WT already and it was a mess.

 

Generally 1.98 ata is a big mistake in the game. This is just not a ww2 flight sim anymore and i would not hold my breath about playing BoBP altogether because all we get is d9 + k4 spam. We have had this in DCS already and it is bad enough.

 

G14, a8 and g6 are perfect german plans for this timeframe imo. They are good enough and are balanced with the american/british planes without being pony unicorns at the same time.

 

I dont blame the devs for 1.98 spam but hopefully the server owners will restrict things like these. Which as we all know they wont anyway (like the 24/7 removed me109 pilot armor etc).

Edited by Max_Damage
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JG27_Steini said:

 

What do you mean with most powerful toys? The Me 262 saw combat and we will get it. Whats your point? 777 developing the most used planes/modifications each side. 

 

Was referring to the K-4's engine settings

 

21 minutes ago, Max_Damage said:

150 octane is a really bad idea. This setting was very unreliable irl and i doubt it would be used in mass because it is detrimental to your airforce. They did 25 octane in WT already and it was a mess.

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/150grade/appendixa.pdf

 

image.png.72bf973492b2f0c2417e89bde7a24d5a.png

image.png.b0650ccfbfe8620a53b7183c1dabe2ab.png

 

There's plenty more detailed documents regarding the exact use of the stuff that people have posted on the forum before and it's quite a dead topic. Thousands and thousands of tons of fuel were used up, and if it wasn't going into planes, what was happening? Were the pilots drinking it?

 

 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, =GEMINI=marbessi said:

You know why allies reserched and developed 150 grade fuel? To balance their planeset with powerful german planes. I mean balance in this way... If your argument is history then we should have servers with 20 germans vs 60 allies as it was IRL. In this way Germans dispose toys that never saw combat (1.98 ata is only in documents afaik), Allies didnt get what they dispose (150 grade fuel) and planes numbers are free on servers. So answer me... is this historically accurate?

 

Seems like you didnt read a single bit of what you quoted me on. Im in favor of 150 octane fuel. Im not in favor of asking the devs to include anything for the sake of balance alone. It needs to have a better argument than balance, that's my only point. Also, I dont agree with your definition of balance, you are describing allies catching up, not "balancing".

 

Finally, the ratios of planes in MP servers have nothing to do with the devs. Go to the WOL or KOTA threads and make your case there. The devs won't be able to solve that problem other than in career mode.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jade Monkey is right, it's up to server admins to make ti historical or balanced and it's up to us shall we play on those servers, at the end power is in our hands.

If server is going to be German biased than allies can leave the server and let axis fly alone/one sided.

Il2 devs goal is to recreate historical great battles which has nothing to do with balance nor it shouldn't.

Majority of playerbase is SP (and axis pilots) so it makes sense.

How MP crowd is going to use it it's up to them.

150 octane fuel was there wide used so it should be ingame and i hope it will be otherwise it will be quite unhistorical.

They released k4 1.98ata (which i believe will be barely seen in career and if), a8, g14 and upcoming 262/D9, axis planes are no longer fragile so at least we don't see LW crying on forums anymore.

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...