Jump to content

Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, 357th_Dog said:

The P-51 should be plenty quick...even at normal rated power (IE continuous @ 46 inches and 2700 rpm) it should cruise at 323 mph/ 520 kmh on the deck

 

At combat power (61”/3k RPM) it’ll do 364 mph/ 585 kmh) 

 

A great point you're making here:

The P-51 cruises darned fast. That's one of it's hidden qualities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, [CPT]Crunch said:

Nothing changed just because escorts could reach all the way to Berlin, what changed the tide was Jimmy Doolittle's new doctrine of releasing the hounds once they were deep in enemy territory.  All of a sudden you have hundreds of free hunters all looking for some points.  Freedom to pick the time and place with an altitude advantage, oh yeah.

 

While there would eventually be hundreds of P-51s available to implement Doolittle's directive, in the beginning there were only three groups in the ETO.  The 4th and 357th in the Eighth AF and the 354th that I think was originally in the 9th. I'm going from memory so I may be wrong in that. Imagine being one of maybe 30 to 100 maximum long range fighters scattered over occupied Europe and Germany proper. Those pilots were long on courage knowing it was 100s of miles home with no friendlies around if anything went wrong. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

P-51 is the Allied plane I most enjoy flying, a natural beauty with long legs.

 

With the advent of the P-51, I hope to have finally a true online adversary that will fly in a tactically sound manner worthy of the dignity and honor demanded on the normal settings server with icons enabled that I fly on.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Awww...icons enabled?

Come now...part of the fun is struggling to tell the difference between a LA-5 and a FW-190 from long range at oblique angles

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shoot first, ask questions later.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, CUJO_1970 said:

Shoot first, ask questions later.


Okay Mr Friendly Fire, let's take it down a notch

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, 77.CountZero said:

But for 5 min only, and hell be facing faster K4s D9s and 262s, but it will be best allieds wil have so better that then what allieds have now 😄

 

If an emergency wouldn't decrease the combat it *could be* serviceable. That's is the overlooked ugliest thing in current system for US planes - you are barely left with more than a nominal after WEP use.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

 

If an emergency wouldn't decrease the combat it *could be* serviceable. That's is the overlooked ugliest thing in current system for US planes - you are barely left with more than a nominal after WEP use.

 

Yup, this is the bigger issue.

 

You're pretty much down to continuous after using up emergency, not combat. And considering at that point you're probably still facing an enemy that's running in emergency the odds get pretty steep.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, [CPT]Crunch said:

There's a different problem with .50's, and all non exploding rounds.  The way the game calculates kinetic energy, they can't get added energy off of closure rates, so damage effects are reduced, not so the explosive round.  Your getting the speed effect, the calculation don't matter, the explosion does it for you.

 

IMHO, the 50s are all about puncturing something critical in the e/a (like a cooler pipe or pilot's body) and not a raw damage output. (the latter is nice addition but secondary)

To make 50s work you need cycling rate (provided by battery of guns) and shoot-gun like pattern to increase odds of hitting something of value. For anti-air there is no point sending all bullets to a single place like we have with the current simple convergence setup.

 

What you would prefer - to hit the enemy pilot (or other critical place) with 6 50s rounds or hit with just one 50 but rolling the dice 6 times? Either way the enemy will be dead but the latter can happen much sooner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, [CPT]Crunch said:

Nothing changed just because escorts could reach all the way to Berlin, what changed the tide was Jimmy Doolittle's new doctrine of releasing the hounds once they were deep in enemy territory.  All of a sudden you have hundreds of free hunters all looking for some points.  Freedom to pick the time and place with an altitude advantage, oh yeah.

There's a different problem with .50's, and all non exploding rounds.  The way the game calculates kinetic energy, they can't get added energy off of closure rates, so damage effects are reduced, not so the explosive round.  Your getting the speed effect, the calculation don't matter, the explosion does it for you.

 

Actually that is the most commonly known tactic (change). But the one that gets often left out, like in your post - and had as much of an impact on the escort duties in '44 as the free reign to engage targets on their own - is the so called "phased escort". No longer were the designated squadrons loitering around the bomber formations and wasting fuel, instead, different groups covered different legs of the bombers journey. This way, they could fly at their optimal cruise settings (which gave them more range) and bombers always had escorts with enough ammo around them. The LW adopted their tactics to attack between switching of escorting groups, especially when the replacement group was late - that was their window of opportunity.

 

This way, even P-47s had enough legs to cover the bombers all the way to Berlin. Well, the latter variants with fuel tank changes most definitely had. All of this is ever so nicely described in the book: https://www.amazon.com/Men-Who-Killed-Luftwaffe-Against/dp/0811706591

 

The key ingredient to .50 cals was their APIT rounds, i.e. the Incendiary component. Haven't tried DCS MP much to judge, but offline I have no problems hitting targets. Due to proper harmonization there I find it easy to hit AI bots. In IL-2 GB, like in the old 1946, I need some adjustment when firing since all rounds go into one place.

Edited by [DBS]TH0R
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, Ehret said:

 

IMHO, the 50s are all about puncturing something critical in the e/a (like a cooler pipe or pilot's body) and not a raw damage output. (the latter is nice addition but secondary)

To make 50s work you need cycling rate (provided by battery of guns) and shoot-gun like pattern to increase odds of hitting something of value. For anti-air there is no point sending all bullets to a single place like we have with the current simple convergence setup.

 

What you would prefer - to hit the enemy pilot (or other critical place) with 6 50s rounds or hit with just one 50 but rolling the dice 6 times? Either way the enemy will be dead but the latter can happen much sooner.

 

That's why I suggested the devs add multiple convergence settings for American aircraft. Also devs really need to desynchronize the guns. It's the one thing I hate most about the .50s

Convergance.png

 

Or just have a pre set harmonization pattern selectable in the mod menu. 

P-47_gun_harmonization_-_two_types.jpg

Edited by Legioneod
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


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

 

Also devs really need to desynchronize the guns. It's the one thing I hate most about the .50s

 

 

 

I agree. I hope it's not a pipe dream to wish for it, especially since it totally changes how effective the .50s are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, 7.GShAP/Silas said:

 

 

I agree. I hope it's not a pipe dream to wish for it, especially since it totally changes how effective the .50s are.

Yep. Some players might think it's insignificant but having the guns synchronized like they are in-game leave a pretty large gap in you're fire and lessens the chance of a hit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm thinking July 4th would be an appropriate release date for the P-51.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CUJO_1970 said:

I'm thinking July 4th would be an appropriate release date for the P-51.

Haha that's being very hopeful. We haven't even seen cockpit shots of it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm thinking July 4th would be an appropriate for a good Mustang Dev blog the least...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, CUJO_1970 said:

I'm thinking July 4th would be an appropriate release date for the P-51.

 

July 2 would be better as that is when the document was finalized. July 4 was when the document was signed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A 4th of July Dev Diary featuing the P-51 and P-38 would be awesome...

It's a bit too soon to hope, realistically, for a release. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think engine timer will be a severe problem of BoBP P-51D, since its V-1650-7 is basically a license-built Merlin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, s9723 said:

I don't think engine timer will be a severe problem of BoBP P-51D, since its V-1650-7 is basically a license-built Merlin.

 

It will be. The timers on the P-51 are exactly the same as on the P-47.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

 

July 2 would be better as that is when the document was finalized. July 4 was when the document was signed.

Signing it is when it really counts imo and is why we celebrate on the 4th.

same with any other binding document/contract it really only matters once it’s signed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, s9723 said:

I don't think engine timer will be a severe problem of BoBP P-51D, since its V-1650-7 is basically a license-built Merlin.

 

1 hour ago, Legioneod said:

 

It will be. The timers on the P-51 are exactly the same as on the P-47.

 

Even worst on P-51, as it will have 3x recharg time, insted 2x P-47 got, so you use 5min and need to fly 15min to recharg it (same as same engine on Spitfire 9 in game now).

So combat of 15min you need to recharg flying 45min on continues, use it once and thats it go back home and land 😄

Germans and russians had realy fast recharg technologies in ww2, ussaf and raf had terible ones its in history books all know aboutz it.

Edited by 77.CountZero

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's please not ruin another thread with your timer nonsense. We all dislike the timers. We get it. Stop posting about it on every thread. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 1
  • Sad 1
  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, -LUCKY-ThanksSkeletor said:

Let's please not ruin another thread with your timer nonsense. We all dislike the timers. We get it. Stop posting about it on every thread. 

 

They dont have to get rid of timers, they can fix it by having recharg work same on all airplanes 1:1 and not some 1:1 and some 1:3, and have use of emergancy depliting combat on all airplanes unlike its now where some airplanes dont use combat timer when they use emergancy timer, where is logic in that lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone know what the maximum bomb load on the P-51 is?  Did they carry rockets and bombs at the same time?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We all understand the issue, there isn't much sense to it. The Devs are clearly aware now. Nothing is done for the sake of balance and it should never be. This isn't a competitive game and it never will be. Multiplayer is also not a priority since its player base is a fraction of the size of the single player base. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, 7.GShAP/Silas said:

Does anyone know what the maximum bomb load on the P-51 is?  Did they carry rockets and bombs at the same time?

 

2x 1000lbs on the D/K (500lbs on the B/C, unless modified).

 

Not sure about rockets and bombs. Probably not a combined option before the zero length HVAR launchers anyway, which should not be included with our model (though I'd be happy to be surprised).

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

 

2x 1000lbs on the D/K (500lbs on the B/C, unless modified).

 

Not sure about rockets and bombs. Probably not a combined option before the zero length HVAR launchers anyway, which should not be included with our model (though I'd be happy to be surprised).

 

It was certainly possible on the B/C

 

North_American_P-51_With_1000_Pound_Bomb_And_Bazooka_Rocket_Tubes.jpg

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, -LUCKY-ThanksSkeletor said:

Let's please not ruin another thread with your timer nonsense. We all dislike the timers. We get it. Stop posting about it on every thread. 

 

I think it's a good thing players voice their discontent with the current timer system in every thread. It conveys a sense of urgency to the devs.

  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are those horrible tubes the only rocket mounting system that is appropriate for the USAAF at that time? No rails?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 7.GShAP/Silas said:

Are those horrible tubes the only rocket mounting system that is appropriate for the USAAF at that time? No rails?

For the time period that would be correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, 7.GShAP/Silas said:

Are those horrible tubes the only rocket mounting system that is appropriate for the USAAF at that time? No rails?

 

HVARs were mostly used in the PTO. Some found their way to the ETO, but they were the exception by orders of magnitude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/1/2019 at 1:56 PM, Ehret said:

 

IMHO, the 50s are all about puncturing something critical in the e/a (like a cooler pipe or pilot's body) and not a raw damage output. (the latter is nice addition but secondary)

To make 50s work you need cycling rate (provided by battery of guns) and shoot-gun like pattern to increase odds of hitting something of value. For anti-air there is no point sending all bullets to a single place like we have with the current simple convergence setup.

 

What you would prefer - to hit the enemy pilot (or other critical place) with 6 50s rounds or hit with just one 50 but rolling the dice 6 times? Either way the enemy will be dead but the latter can happen much sooner.

Nothing here to do with the point I raised.  My point, a 262 closing on you with a 850 Kph speed down hill, and you going up hill head on at 180 Mph, your both good shots and open fire at maximum range your able to connect.  He's going to win every time.  He has the best ballistic trajectory he's ever going to get with the added speed, his shells retain max explosive regardless of shooting distance.  Mean while the 850 Kph closure speed isn't added as energy to your fifties, they become cosmetic rather quickly based on distance, they'll make nice sparkles when they connect, just out of reach of registering effective damage based on distance, as you disintegrate.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, [CPT]Crunch said:

Nothing here to do with the point I raised.  My point, a 262 closing on you with a 850 Kph speed down hill, and you going up hill head on at 180 Mph, your both good shots and open fire at maximum range your able to connect.  He's going to win every time.  He has the best ballistic trajectory he's ever going to get with the added speed, his shells retain max explosive regardless of shooting distance.  Mean while the 850 Kph closure speed isn't added as energy to your fifties, they become cosmetic rather quickly based on distance, they'll make nice sparkles when they connect, just out of reach of registering effective damage based on distance, as you disintegrate.  

 

 

The .50’s dramatically outrage the 30mm’s and have much better trajectory. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Under real world and normal sim conditions, yeah.  But it's always been an issue when you have closure rates that aren't possible to calculate.  It's not a complaint, it's always been present in previous versions, just a little friendly tactical advise to new Mustang aces.  Be wary what your going head on with.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, -LUCKY-ThanksSkeletor said:

We all understand the issue, there isn't much sense to it. The Devs are clearly aware now. Nothing is done for the sake of balance and it should never be. This isn't a competitive game and it never will be. Multiplayer is also not a priority since its player base is a fraction of the size of the single player base. 

 

Are we all living on the same planet with the same history? It was the LW who got destroyed in the Operation Bodenplatte. The in game realities would make someone believe that a reverse had place...

If it's not about balance or (competitiveness in MP) then it must be about historical accuracy, then? Yes? If so by what rationalization in the game P-47D is a turn fighter because it how she is used in the game. And the list of such discrepancies is longer.

 

A bit more of it and there will be no point flying as Allies in the BOBP, anymore.

  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Ehret said:

 

Are we all living on the same planet with the same history? It was the LW who got destroyed in the Operation Bodenplatte. The in game realities would make someone believe that a reverse had place...

If it's not about balance or (competitiveness in MP) then it must be about historical accuracy, then? Yes? If so by what rationalization in the game P-47D is a turn fighter because it how she is used in the game. And the list of such discrepancies is longer.

 

A bit more of it and there will be no point flying as Allies in the BOBP, anymore.

 

I think you know as well as I do that comparing history to a sim is pointless.  Every aircraft you take in sim is perfect and free from defects.  In MP the servers generally demand balanced team numbers in the interest of fairness.  We are not trying to emulate Bodenplatte every time we log on to the game for a bit of fun.

 

So in those scenarios if you take up an Allied plane in a late war server, the following is always true.

  • Any LW plane you encounter will be very unlikely to be flown by a rookie with minimal training and zero experience.
  • No plane will have manufacturing defects because of poor build quality or even sabotage.
  • You won't have the benefit of having 20 - 1 odds in your favour.

 

So how Bodenplatte worked out in real life is utterly irrelevant in the context of this sim for MP.

 

  • Does the sim have issues with the engine overheat model?  Yes, it does so for aircraft from both sides.  So bear that in mind because it is not an issue that is unique to the USAAF and RAF planes.
  • Is the boost timer modelling in need of revision?  Yes it is but again it affects more than USAAF and RAF planes (1 min timer for most 109s for example).
  • Are the Western allies missing 150 octane?  Yes again but let's hope it is modelled soon.

The devs are doing the best they can and with limited resources.  So while there is room for improvement it's going to take time because the devs have to prioritise getting new content out there that gets new customers on board.  That doesn't mean bug fixes and issues are ignored, so please be patient and report issues by all means.

Edited by ICDP
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 7/1/2019 at 8:56 PM, Ehret said:

What you would prefer - to hit the enemy pilot (or other critical place) with 6 50s rounds or hit with just one 50 but rolling the dice 6 times? Either way the enemy will be dead but the latter can happen much sooner.

All .50 cals going into one place, but desynchronised. With a precise aim just a trigger touch is enough to down a german, I'd rather rely on my own skill, than on randomness of the gun spread.

Edited by CSAF-D3adCZE
Bug posted multiple posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

So this thread goes like this...

P51 won the war, Engine timers and German bias?

 

 

Sorry for the OT

Anyways, the P51 is fast in combat power. Even with the "debacle" of timers you will be able to catch 2/3 Germans you encounter. You will be able to catch G6s, G14s, A8s(F8,G8), any bomber, and have a little disadvantage in speed against a Dora or a K4 . And that in combat power.

Looking away from the timers, I don't know how this problem is so big. People are doing fine in the Spitfire despite being a lot slower and rather poorly in the P47 because of scenario conditions. Heck with that continous speed, you can fight with energy too.

 

Things can change with the P51 as you will be able to catch running Germans and have more time than them with their WEP modes of 10m wich is for me one thing the Spitfire lacks eventough you will be sacrificing agility and accel.

Edited by LF_Gallahad
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...