Jump to content
ITAF_Rani

When the P51 will be available?

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, JG27_Steini said:

 

What do you mean with most powerful toys?

 

1.98 ata in the K4

Share this post


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

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".

My definition of balance is properly set because devs released Spit mkIX without 25lbs of boost which is well documented to be existed but they dont hesitate to include 1.98 ata which is not. So i dont think i miss the target asking for balance... 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

 

Im not in favor of asking the devs to include anything for the sake of balance alone.

 

Who is doing that?  Everyone here just wants the 150 octane.

 

 

Edited by BraveSirRobin
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The constant whine about the 1.98ata K4 is becoming ridiculous. Just as the false claims that it's not "well documented", or "never flown". Quite the opposite is the case, there are several documents showing the performance, there is even a performance chart, and there is proof that they were used in combat sorties. Just because you can't read German doesn't mean they are not there. So please allied whiners, just stop posting nonsense. I wonder btw why it is harder to get P51 performance charts with 150 octane fuel then performance charts of the K4 with 1.98 ata...just some thoughts. Not against 150 octane fuel, I have seen believable sources that they have even been used in the actual operation Bodenplatte, so it should definitely be included. But the hate against 1.98ata just ridicules the points many make, since it's just as historical. Same for the 262, D9, Arado and co.

Same goes for the aircraft set - people crying for the Axis to get their "uber-planes" and not only G6, A8 and stuff. It couldn't be more biased and in contradiction to historical facts. The 5 aircraft included in BoBp on the Axis side are actually the 5 most used aircraft in the timeframe of BoBp by the LW. At the time and aftermath of Bodenplatte there were barely any G6s left, all units consisted mainly exactly of the 5 aircraft we just got. If we disregard nightfighter and alike, 6 and 7 would be taken by the Arado Ar 234 (which we hopefully get) and the 109 G10 (which is quite popular but was a very rare aircraft with less units built then 262 or K4). The Devs decided to choose a scenario where LW had once again better aircraft then the Allies, that's just how it was in history. No point in crying about that, just get over it. Would it be an early 1944 scenario it would be the other way round, but we don't have an early 1944 scenario. Maybe the next one. Or western mid/late 1943, should be pretty balanced as well (probably slightly in favour of Allies). No point in crying about historical facts. I didn't see the Russians crying about Moscow or Stalingrad aircraft, even though it was clear that they won't have the edge in performance. 

Edited by II./JG77_Manu*
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


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

 The Devs decided to choose a scenario where LW had once again better aircraft then the Allies, that's just how it was in history. 

 

The devs had no chance even if they would have been searching for a long time, they wouldn´t have found something. There is no date in WW2 in the ETO where any allied nation had better planes than the germans. Neither 39,40,41,42,43,44 nor 45. There are many timeframes however when the allied had better pilot quality and/or numeric superiority. The pilot quality and the numeric advantage finally proved to be the decicive factors.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, sevenless said:

 

The devs had no chance even if they would have been searching for a long time, they wouldn´t have found something. There is no date in WW2 in the ETO where any allied nation had better planes than the germans. Neither 39,40,41,42,43,44 nor 45. There are many timeframes however when the allied had better pilot quality and/or numeric superiority. The pilot quality and the numeric advantage finally proved to be the decicive factors.

 

I tend to disagree. In Operation Husky the Allies had aircraft like the Spit Mk9, already the P-38-L and the Mustang Mk1/A/B. On the other side the Germans had mostly the G6 and 190-A4/5 in combat , i'd still say they are inferior, even if not by much. In 1944 when the Mustang came in bigger numbers, Germans still mostly had the G6 and only slowly more and more G14 were introduced. Only when the late war aircraft like G-10, K4 and alike came, the tide went towards the Germans again regarding aircraft performance(too little, to late)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

 

Who is doing that?  Everyone here just wants the 150 octane.

 

 

 

Yep, About time they put it in. Well after the D9/262 release of course. First things fist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, sevenless said:

The devs had no chance even if they would have been searching for a long time, they wouldn´t have found something. There is no date in WW2 in the ETO where any allied nation had better planes than the germans. Neither 39,40,41,42,43,44 nor 45. There are many timeframes however when the allied had better pilot quality and/or numeric superiority. The pilot quality and the numeric advantage finally proved to be the decicive factors.

They had the chance to use historically proven fuel for allied planes but they simple didn't. Why?

Share this post


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

They had the chance to use historically proven fuel for allied planes but they simple didn't. Why?

 

Time, it was posted elsewhere. I don't remember the exact wording but it's on the plan to be included, but apparently not as easy as some might think

Edited by II./JG77_Manu*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, =GEMINI=marbessi said:

They had the chance to use historically proven fuel for allied planes but they simple didn't. Why?

 

Jason has already answered that somewhere. They have had no time yet, which implies that they will deal with it, once their priorities get to that point. Remember we are still in early access with BoBP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm with sevenless. Virtual LW pilots are far more experienced than real german pilots during '44 and '45. They also fight in equal (when not superior) numbers.

Facing large streams of bombers with heavy escort would be a different story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, sevenless said:

There are many timeframes however when the allied had better pilot quality and/or numeric superiority. The pilot quality and the numeric advantage finally proved to be the decicive factors.

MP will almost be a Wehraboo's wet dream come true without any of these allied advantages factoring in...almost only because it still isn't what really happened.  

Edited by =AVG77=Garven

Share this post


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

 

I tend to disagree. In Operation Husky the Allies had aircraft like the Spit Mk9, already the P-38-L and the Mustang Mk1/A/B. On the other side the Germans had mostly the G6 and 190-A4/5 in combat , i'd still say they are inferior, even if not by much. In 1944 when the Mustang came in bigger numbers, Germans still mostly had the G6 and only slowly more and more G14 were introduced. Only when the late war aircraft like G-10, K4 and alike came, the tide went towards the Germans again regarding aircraft performance(too little, to late)

 

I don´t see a significant difference between the GAF 1943 fighters 109 G6 and 190 A5 and the 1943 Spit or Mustang, neither do I see a significant difference between G5/AS, G6/AS or G14/AS, 190 A6 and A7 and the Mustangs of early/mid 1944.

Share this post


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

I wonder btw why it is harder to get P51 performance charts with 150 octane fuel then performance charts of the K4 with 1.98 ata...

 

Because the P-51 was really flown with 150 octane fuel, the charts all calculate horsepower with ram for a realistic number.

 

1.98ata K-4s are so rare that the horsepower is calculated on paper, not measured in a moving aircraft with ram.

 

I've been in discussion with the FM team on this topic and 1C need charts without ram for their engine modelling.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, =AVG77=Garven said:

MP will almost be a Wehraboo's wet dream come true without any of these allied advantages...almost only because it still isn't what really happened.  

 

This game is not about MP. It is about SP and getting as close as authentic documentation can be modelled.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, sevenless said:

There is no date in WW2 in the ETO where any allied nation had better planes than the germans.

 

Let's not forget in May 1944 Tempests, Jugs on water, P-51Bs and Griffon Spitfires are shooting down G-6s and A-5s.

Edited by Talon_
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, =AVG77=Garven said:

MP will almost be a Wehraboo's wet dream come true without any of these allied advantages factoring in...almost only because it still isn't what really happened.  

 

Agree, on the other side in all our eastern scenarios the opposite is the case and many allied disadvantages are not factored in. In the end it's a good thing, because war mostly was a very one-sided affair, be it early eastern front in favour of Axis or late western front in favour of the Allies. We would not want that in a sim I guess

Edited by II./JG77_Manu*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, sevenless said:

It is about SP and getting as close as authentic documentation can be modelled.

I never said anything against that.  That being said You'll likely come across way more Luftwaffe aircraft in the air in single player than a real allied pilot did.  If you fly a German career you will always have fuel available.:P

Edited by =AVG77=Garven
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Talon_ said:

 

Let's not forget in May 1944 Tempests, Jugs on water, P-51Bs and Griffon Spitfires are shooting down G-6s and A-5s.

 

Sure, but don´t forget the 190 A6/A7 and G5/AS and G6/AS guys also got a few of those. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, =AVG77=Garven said:

I never said anything against that.  That being said You'll likely come across way more Luftwaffe aircraft in the air in single player than a real allied pilot did.  If you fly a German career you will always have fuel available.:P

And in Russian aircraft you can see out of the cockpit. Has to be fixed Asap! 🧐

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, VBF-12_Pequod said:

I'm with sevenless. Virtual LW pilots are far more experienced than real german pilots during '44 and '45. They also fight in equal (when not superior) numbers.

Facing large streams of bombers with heavy escort would be a different story.

 

The only difference compared t othe 44/45 German pilot cadre was that historically that made up basically 25% hardcore Aces with dozens if not hundreds of victories and 75% noobs. I.e.  very uneven tema. Allied team was basically regulars, basically good but not very experienced pilots with a number of old, experienced pilots. Say 90% avarage players, 10% aces.

 

What predicably happened historically was that if you flew for the Allies, you had a good chance to easily rekt the LW noobs were rekt, who would be replaced by even worse noobs and rekt again, but when you met the LW aces they were so far more experienced than you that unless you were lucky, they had all the winning cards in an engagement, gathered through years of combat and hundreds of combat sorties. 

 

Also you can mimic the 5 to 1 superiority in numbers and sorties on the other side, but just like in history, it would be an utterly boring experience. Basically, set up 5 servers, 4 out 5 in which is Allies only and consists of ground pounding Allied missions only against AI ground targets and flak, with an occiasional AI rookie 109/190,  with forced loadouts with bombs and rockets. But on the 5th server (you do not know which one) the server balance will be set to 65% Axis (a number of reserved places for LW clans, but all noobs forced to join LW side) 35% allies, which is basically how the LW operated in late 44/45. It tried to find a weak spot on the bomber streams, find unprotected ones, jump on fighter bombers and overwhelm it with mass attacks, and often even had local numerical superoirity, even though pilot skill was way lower on avarage

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, =AVG77=Garven said:

I never said anything against that.  That being said You'll likely come across way more Luftwaffe aircraft in the air in single player than a real allied pilot did.  If you fly a German career you will always have fuel available.:P

 

True. But on the other hand it is a game after all, supposed to make fun to play. If we would have "real" conditions at least one side (german) wouldn´t have any fun anymore.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, sevenless said:

True. But on the other hand it is a game after all, supposed to make fun to play. If we would have "real" conditions at least one side (german) wouldn´t have any fun anymore.  

 

This is why I find the hand-wringing about 1.98ata slightly baffling. Server administrators can lock it out if they want (it's a pain to configure, but you can do it). If you have 1.98 K-4 UFOs kerb stomping elderly Allied planes your server will be no fun and you should fix it. If you have a significant numbers imbalance your server will be no fun and you should (try to) fix it. See long TAW thread on numbers balance. It's an impossible job but they're putting in a lot of work to get a good mixture of fairness and fun.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uber Axis planes, castrated allied planes, 3 to 1 numerical advantage for the axis, MP is shitlers wet dream.

 

18. Claiming that FM is incorrect without the required proof and starting a flame thread based on such claim is prohibited.

The form for an FM claim consists of:

  • short but consistent description of the claim;
  • link to a reference and to a specific part of such reference that describes correct behaviour of a disputed element/situation;
  • game track record and the list of conditions used to recreate disputed element/situation.

Exception to this rule: FM discussion

 

First offense - 7 days ban on entry

 

19. Systematic message spam on the forum, unfounded negative comments about the game, derogatory comparison of the game with other products without pointing out specific flaws, constant distraction of forum administration and developers by repetitive complaints about false problems are prohibited.

Violations of this rule will result in the following:
 
First offense - 7 days ban on entry
Edited by BlackSix
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Rolling_Thunder said:

Uber Axis planes, castrated allied planes

What?
Welcome to history class

Edited by -[HRAF]BubiHUN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎1‎/‎16‎/‎2019 at 6:09 PM, 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.

 

 

British Mustangs were doing business with 2nd TAF on the continent and thus Mustang IIIs would indeed make much sense for BoBP (19 Sqd, 65 Sqd, 68 Sqd, 122 Sqd). even Mustang I/IAs (2 Sqd, 168 Sqd, 268 Sqd, 430 Sqd) and Mustang IIs (2 Sqd, 268 Sqd) were there as per 2ndTAF book by Shores&Thomas Vol.2-3. Don´t know about 9th AF squadrons and Mustang B/Cs though.

Could be, on the other hand, that we have to wait for the "Razorback" Mustangs & Thunderbolts until they do a Normandy scenario from 3/44-9/44 starting with tactical strikes over the Channel as preparation for Overlord and ending in the Netherlands where BoBP begins in 9/44.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, -[HRAF]BubiHUN said:

What?
Welcome to history class

 

We don't have the 150 octane and it means -6" of MP and is ahistoric. Thanks to the artificial timer in the P-47D you have to set MP -6" just to get full 15m of ADI in one go thus the Jug has a combined handicap of -12" MP! There are pilots debriefs where they stated prolonged times running at WEP well beyond the "in the manual 5m". Why we can not in "the sim"?!

 

The Russians considered P-40/P-39 duds on "in the manual" settings thus they ignored them completely. They just replaced engines as needed as often as one per few sorties. Again - why, assuming "the sim" is about historic realities, we can not do the same?

 

We will see if the 262 will get realistic things like compressor stalls. The P-47D didn't get turbo failures thus it's doubtful...

For the history "class" that's funny because the Bodenplatte was a catastrophe for the LW after which it stopped being a cohesive air-force for good. What we have in the BOBP MP is a borderline alternative history fantasy.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

 

This game is not about MP. It is about SP and getting as close as authentic documentation can be modelled.

 

For me it is.  I could not care less about Single Player. 

  • Sad 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

 

For me it is.  I could not care less about Single Player. 

+1

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If only USAF buy better airplanes from Soviets in ww2, we would have no timer, recharge and octane problems, and have La5FNs and Yak9s for BoBp 😄

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

 

British Mustangs were doing business with 2nd TAF on the continent and thus Mustang IIIs would indeed make much sense for BoBP (19 Sqd, 65 Sqd, 68 Sqd, 122 Sqd). even Mustang I/IAs (2 Sqd, 168 Sqd, 268 Sqd, 430 Sqd) and Mustang IIs (2 Sqd, 268 Sqd) were there as per 2ndTAF book by Shores&Thomas Vol.2-3. Don´t know about 9th AF squadrons and Mustang B/Cs though.

Could be, on the other hand, that we have to wait for the "Razorback" Mustangs & Thunderbolts until they do a Normandy scenario from 3/44-9/44 starting with tactical strikes over the Channel as preparation for Overlord and ending in the Netherlands where BoBP begins in 9/44.

If you look at Blacksixs post that I linked above you'll see they already found USAAF P-51B/Cs still in units during the Bodenplatte timeframe. The majority at that time were Ds though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MP is about cherry picking historical facts to balance "gameplay". It's a shame no server owners have the gonads to implement 100%, hell 50% historical ratios whether that be down to fuel, manpower, parts whatever. It's just not fun is it? May as well take all "historical accuracy" out of every MP discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Rolling_Thunder said:

MP is about cherry picking historical facts to balance "gameplay". It's a shame no server owners have the gonads to implement 100%, hell 50% historical ratios whether that be down to fuel, manpower, parts whatever. It's just not fun is it? May as well take all "historical accuracy" out of every MP discussion.

 

Historical accuracy in Multiplayer depends on the mission design of the people running the server.  Real life air combat and history is about man vs man, team vs team, human skill against human skill.   Does Single Player model that part of 'Historical Accuracy'?    The fact is, in a Single Player Bodenplatte scenario you can make all of the AI Alies 'Ace' and all of the Axis 'Novice' (or if you want, Ace themselves), and call it historically accurate all you want, but it still isn't going to present as realistic a challenge to you, the human player, as having human opponents would.  

Edited by SeaSerpent

Share this post


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

 the 109 G10 (which is quite popular but was a very rare aircraft with less units built then 262 or K4)

 

There was, G-10 - 2048, K-4 - 1693 new builds. So if my math is not wrong there was 355 more G-10s built than K-4s. Me262 were even less.

 

There has been no proof provided that 1.98ata K-4s actually flew missions other than on Jan 1 1945 when 11 flew. By the time 1.98ata was cleared (late March 1945) for use, the fuel and methanol supply was critical. `Cleared` doesn't mean used.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

Real life air combat and history

Was about numbers. Manpower and materials. The romantic "knights of the air" was all propaganda and comic books for kids. but whatever, you got to measure your dick somewhere right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

 

Historical accuracy in Multiplayer depends on the mission design of the people running the server.  Real life air combat and history is about man vs man, team vs team, human skill against human skill.   Does Single Player model that part of 'Historical Accuracy'? 

 

That's not historical accuracy.  Historical air combat was not some sort of man on man duel.  In many cases, if all went well,  it was cold blooded murder with no risk to the attacker.  Otherwise it was more about best team than best man.  Training, numbers, and initial advantage  meant much more than 1.98 ata and 150 octane fuel.

 

One of my favorite analogies is the mythical wild west duel.  Meet at 10 paces, draw and shoot.  That happened maybe one time in the history of the west.  Most "duels" consisted of one guy shooting the other in the back of the head.  

Edited by PatrickAWlson
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Rolling_Thunder said:

Was about numbers. Manpower and materials. The romantic "knights of the air" was all propaganda and comic books for kids. but whatever, you got to measure your dick somewhere right?

 

And thinking, breathing, human opponents trying to maintain situational awareness, protect their wingmen, yelling out to each other on comms, trying to bring real tactics and strategies to bear on their opponents, etc etc etc.   Do you really think that becoming an Ace against AI-bots is giving you an historically realistic challenge?  Is that what you are measuring 'yours' by?

 

27 minutes ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

That's not historical accuracy.  Historical air combat was not some sort of man on man duel.  In many cases, if all went well,  it was cold blooded murder with no risk to the attacker.  Otherwise it was more about best team than best man.  Training, numbers, and initial advantage  meant much more than 1.98 ata and 150 octane fuel.

 

One of my favorite analogies is the mythical wild west duel.  Meet at 10 paces, draw and shoot.  That happened maybe one time in the history of the west.  Most "duels" consisted of one guy shooting the other in the back of the head.  

 

You make a good contribution to Il-2 with your campaign generator Pat, but honestly, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to multiplayer.  In your mind, multiplayer is a "duel and dogfight server" or "team deathmatch".  There are servers that cater to that sort of thing, but certainly not the ones I play on.  I don't do "duels", and most of my victories are via bounces, opponent never saw me, (as are most of my defeats),  and my fights are team oriented:  me with one or more wingmen on comms, fighting as a team against others similarly arrayed.  Just as in real life, many battles end inconclusively, with one side losing tactical advantage and disengaging.  So thanks for your explanation of "what multiplayer is" but it simply isn't accurate.

 

The idea that in discussion such as this, where we are talking about historical realities vs 'balance', that Multiplayer is somehow irrelevent to the discussion, is simply nonsense.

Edited by SeaSerpent
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

Yawn...

 

I don't need to measure mine. I'm quite happy with what I have. 😉 

For me it's about the mission not the opponent. That is fundamentally the difference between the SP and MP mentality. MP is about the individual, just look at your posts SS. It's all about measuring manhood. 1 on 1. For the SP participant it's about the mission getting the job done. Way more Historically accurate than getting the ruler out.. 

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...