Eurpean thatre : Normandy Approrpiate Bf109?

The comparable performance of the G-14 stays the same for all current planes, it will outurn and be slower than a Mustang and Dora, it will be outturned but faster than a Spit. What do we gain? Well, nothing really.

 

A historical match-up pertinent to the map we have. Christ, I do have to keep repeating myself.

 

Lets face it, noone who owns the K-4 would buy a G-14 for another 50$, its too similiar and a waste of model.

 

I would. So would pilots who want a historical match-up pertinent with the only map we have currently that represents a WW2 timeframe.

 

Many Allied only jocks dont even own axis planes at all.

 

And many do. Irrelevant to the discussion.

 

So, whos the audience here?

 

Yet again: pilots who want a historical match-up pertinent with the only map we have currently that represents a WW2 timeframe.

 

The only late G model that makes sense to me is a G-10 as addon to the K-4. Same engine, same everything, just slower and lighter. Remove a few 3 model parts, throw in MG151 code, remove a few kilos in the code, done!

 

Great. Another non-Normandy Invasion era 109, and thus even further irrelevant to the title of this post

 

I am not even sure the A-8 will sell well,

 

Really? What evidence? Note evidence - not supposition.

 

there is no real reason to choose it over the Dora

 

A third time: pilots who want a historical match-up pertinent with the only map we have currently that represents a WW2 timeframe.

 

except for nicer looks and supposed accuracy for the inaccurate Normandy map.

 

Compounding one inaccuracy with further other inaccuracies is a such viable solution. Bravo.

 

I own the Dora and I dont think I will invest in such a similiar plane.

 

Your loss.

 

Id much rather have them set up a mid war timeline over Normandy, get rid of the stupid ALGs and add a few airports in Britain and up to Calais. If it could be community modable this map would go crazy!

 

Basically air war played out at mid- to long-ranges, played primarily around fighter-sweeps, medium bomber escorts and fighter bomber interdiction, and their interception, with the minimum of a 15-20 minute flight before meeting the opposition. Very sparse in the way of tactical Close Air Support, and if played for realism, very weighted in offense for the Allies.

 

Whilst I agree those of us who fly Storm of War and others with an eye on increased prototypical operations would love such a Map, we are not representative of the general Multiplayer community who want quicker PVP or PVE, within 5-10 minutes of takeoff and a quicker turn around in the action.

 

At least the Invasion front Normandy provides the option to do this with some more conveniently located bases for air-quake, whilst also providing some (albeit limited at the current moment) resources for more prototypical operations giving the potential for all aspects of WW2 air-ops.

 

For the late war uberplane stuff a Bodenplatte type map or german soil map would be much more fitting. Although the Luftwaffe was basically done at that point in time anyway.

 

Agreed. An Ardennes map as first release would have made a lot more sense.

..Christ, I do have to keep repeating myself...

 

..Really? What evidence? Note evidence - not supposition...

 

..A third time..

 

..Compounding one inaccuracy with further other inaccuracies is a such viable solution. Bravo...

 

..Your loss...

 

Have I somehow attacked you? I wasnt even addressing you, so chill mate. Still all my points stand. :thumbup:

Edited October 9, 2018 by rel4y

But it isn't representative of the most likely to encounter variant. Surely when presented with such a diversity of types and sub-types on both sides and with limited resources to produce you choose that which represents the most common on the basis that model is the most likely variant to be encountered.

 

 

 

I have many detail issues with the Normandy map in it's current state but I was not the one who defined the era(s) that represents; that came from others.

 

Whatever errors it exhibits, however, we know from the developers that it is supposed to represent Normandy in near immediate post invasion period. That of itself defines a plane-set, and ergo makes above a defining factor.

 

 

 

I don't disagree with the principal, ideally the temporary airfields should be able to be added/removed based on date/user desire would have made this map a much more flexible entity for prototypical operations across a wide range .

 

However, we have no idea of the technological limitations of the map making software; it may be (and it appears, is) impossible to add or remove airfields at will. In which case do you demand another version of Normandy? Are you gonna pay for that or demand it for free?

 

 

 

Maybe on your planet. For the rest of us it's a completely different aircraft with different performance, being heavier & draggier than the K-4. For all the reasons outlined above a G-6 or -14 is a better representation of a typical 109 on the Western Front at the time defined by the developers.

 

 

 

What relevance is this to the conversation? Why not go further? Let's have an Emil! or better yet, why not a Fokker Dr.1! May I remind you what the title of the thread is?

 

Isn't the aim here to try and end up with a cohesive, cogent and convincing environment and theatre to best simulate to the most realistic manner currently limited by our technologies

a selected period of the WW2 air war?

 

Or is it simply a mish mash of chronologically inconsistent pet-projects in one of the most aerodynamically sophisticated simulators?

 

 

i have written a pretty long post, which i just lost because of having to log in again...anyway...long story short...

 

stood up with the wrong foot today?

the most likely plane to encounter as an allied pilot would be another allied aircraft in normandy 1944....not much action in the air in this point of time.

 

if you insist on staying at this map in this time period, while we already know that another european ww2 map is in progress, then yes, a late g whatever version makes more sense...and if you want it historical, then better only sell like 20modules of it, and watch the ww2 part of dcs die.

Have I somehow attacked you? I wasnt even addressing you, so chill mate. Still all my points stand.

 

And my point is that yours, in relation to this thread, is irrelevant.

 

OP is trying to establish which of the two Normandy map appropriate Bf 109 variants we might see become a further fully fledged module, with further discussions entailing as to which would better represent the most appropriate variant.

 

Then you wade in saying what's the point in historically pertinent aircraft to the map, here's *(totally inappropriate 109 model irrelevant to discussion)* what I want.

 

Well, that's nice.

 

So my issue is clouding the issue with unsolicited opinion irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Edited October 9, 2018 by DD_Fenrir

normandy appropriate??? 109f definitely is...maybe not in 1944 invasion period...the most boring part when its about aircombat. yes, you have a point. :) and nobody ever didsagreed with that

Edited October 9, 2018 by birdstrike

stood up with the wrong foot today?

the most likely plane to encounter as an allied pilot would be another allied aircraft in normandy 1944....not much action in the air in this point of time.

 

Then I suggest you read some AARs from the 2nd TAF, or the Ninth Army Air Force from this time; they tell a different story.

 

if you insist on staying at this map in this time period, while we already know that another european ww2 map is in progress, then yes, a late g whatever version makes more sense...and if you want it historical, then better only sell like 20modules of it, and watch the ww2 part of dcs die.

 

Riiiiiiiiiight.

yeah there was much action in the air...mainly allied. :) especially at the areas we have on the map. anyway...im out of this discussion now. got better things to do now than arguing for hours about planes we might never see anyway.

 

go for a late g model mate and not much will change.

This thread is a Deja vue:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=158033

 

IMHO G14 and/or G10 should be added as addons for the K4 module. Earlier models could be warped up in their own module.

After a while every thread here is Deja vu :lol::lol:

 

Lets face it, noone who owns the K-4 would buy a G-14 for another 50$, its too similiar and a waste of model. Many Allied only jocks dont even own axis planes at all. So, whos the audience here?

The only late G model that makes sense to me is a G-10 as addon to the K-4. Same engine, same everything, just slower and lighter. Remove a few 3 model parts, throw in MG151 code, remove a few kilos in the code, done!

 

I am not even sure the A-8 will sell well, there is no real reason to choose it over the Dora except for nicer looks and supposed accuracy for the inaccurate Normandy map. I own the Dora and I dont think I will invest in such a similiar plane.The same argument as I made for the G-14 performance can be made for the A-8, but at least it has a different engine and is sexier.

 

 

 

Don't tell anyone, but i'm pretty sure most of the 109 fans out there (me included) would buy G14 in a heartbeat. Same goes to A8. With DCS level of system modelling/FM etc i'll buy every ww2 plane they build even if i only can fly them around and learn to master them.

 

 

 

Of course i too hope other improvements come and there will be actual DCS ww2 game with missions etc to play some day...

Don't tell anyone, but i'm pretty sure most of the 109 fans out there (me included) would buy G14 in a heartbeat. Same goes to A8. With DCS level of system modelling/FM etc i'll buy every ww2 plane they build even if i only can fly them around and learn to master them.

 

 

 

Of course i too hope other improvements come and there will be actual DCS ww2 game with missions etc to play some day...

+1

 

 

S!

This thread is a Deja vue:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=158033

 

IMHO G14 and/or G10 should be added as addons for the K4 module. Earlier models could be warped up in their own module.

 

 

 

Here is how I'd prefer to see ED market these modules; to develop them in pairs. i.e. 1 Allied and 1 Axis aircraft, both of similar role and both of which enetred front-line service around the same time.

 

 

For example:

- Spitfire Mark vB (early 1941) and the 109 F2 or F4 (late 1940, mid 1941)

or FW190 A1 (mid 1941)

- Spitfire IX (March 1943) and the Bf109 G6 (February 1943)

Unfortunately, due to development time etc.. this is probably not a relistic expectation, gievn that aircraft tend to be released singly, and not in "sets" like this

Here is how I'd prefer to see ED market these modules; to develop them in pairs. i.e. 1 Allied and 1 Axis aircraft, both of similar role and both of which enetred front-line service around the same time.

 

 

For example:

- Spitfire Mark vB (early 1941) and the 109 F2 or F4 (late 1940, mid 1941)

or FW190 A1 (mid 1941)

- Spitfire IX (March 1943) and the Bf109 G6 (February 1943)

Unfortunately, due to development time etc.. this is probably not a relistic expectation, given that aircraft tend to be released singly, and not in "sets" like this

 

Something like flammig cliffs for WW2 to create a good basis to grow from would be neat.

 

However, releasing other versions of the same aircraft with minor differences as addons, is what i think would work best.

Model a G14 / G10 based upon the K4 and the data they probably gathered on these for making the K. Then sell each for lets say 10 to 20 bucks?

Quick source of income, from my perspective of course. This way we probably would see bugfixes for the k4, but now i'm going off topic.

Here is how I'd prefer to see ED market these modules; to develop them in pairs. i.e. 1 Allied and 1 Axis aircraft, both of similar role and both of which enetred front-line service around the same time.

 

 

For example:

- Spitfire Mark vB (early 1941) and the 109 F2 or F4 (late 1940, mid 1941)

or FW190 A1 (mid 1941)

- Spitfire IX (March 1943) and the Bf109 G6 (February 1943)

Unfortunately, due to development time etc.. this is probably not a relistic expectation, gievn that aircraft tend to be released singly, and not in "sets" like this

The thing is it's never that easy or straightforward. Spitfire IX first prototype is from 1942 IIRC but the model flew throughout the whole war and until 50's. The name stayed but the model experienced changes through that period of time, so Bf109F4/Fw190A-4 Vs Spitfire IX is not a straight comparison whatsoever. How could devs make such pairs keeping them more or less "balanced" but bearing in mind once you select a model it won't change, it's a lot of money and development time, so it makes sense going for the "ultimate" model of the thing in DCS, but then the pairs wouldn't be those you think of :huh: . How to make it then while keeping nitpicky customers that would choose a different pair each one of them happy?

 

 

S!

Edited October 11, 2018 by Ala13_ManOWar

The thing is it's never that easy or straightforward. Spitfire IX first prototype is from 1942 IIRC but the model flew throughout the whole war and until 50's.

 

 

 

I agree that this isn't easy. This why I used the term "entered service".

The day the first air-frame with that designation entered an operational squadon. This gets around the problem of propotypes, and at least then it can be argued that the aircraft are contemporaries with each other, if they entered service close to each other in time.

 

In the end though, you are right. There is no perfect solution to all this. Just look at all the discussions we had with IL2:Cliffs of Dover, for the Spitfire alone:

Spitfire 1 (87 octane)

Spitfire 1 (100 octane)

Spitfire 1a (87 octane +rotol),

Spitfire 1a (100 octane +rotol)

Spitfire 2a.

And questions about whether or not the 1b or 2b should be included!

All of this for "one" aircraft over a 6 month period of the war :)

A little bit off-topic but it would also be quite nice to get 2 russian warbirds which would fit in the period and like a "graphical" update to the caucasus map where buildings get changed to appropriate ones from the time period and those nuclear powerplants get removed and u have a pretty good theatre for the eastern front. :) I mean an update where u just change buildings or remove some to make cities a bit smaller should not consume as much time as a completely new does.

I agree that a G-14 wouldn't be different enough to validate all the work that needs to go into it. A G-6 on the other hand would open up new dimensions for 1943 scenarios too.

 

Well, it’s worth considering that if you have no MW 50 booster in the tank, the G-14 becomes a (from the visual point of view late production) G-6 performance wise. You can have two aircraft for the price of one.

 

It’s also worth considering that while the standardised late G-6 under the designation did indeed came into production and use over Normandy in July 1944, de facto equivalents in the form of G-6s retrofitted with MW boost did exist and were used for some months by that time. In fact the official description of the G-14 in German type sheet suggest that the main difference between the G-6 and G-14 by that time was that the former used pressurised bottles to actuate the mw system while the latter tapped the supercharger for the same purpose.

Kurfürst do you know how much weight the MW-50 system added when the tank was empty or used for fuel instead? Other than that and maybe the large rudder and Erla canopy which may not have made it on to all late G-6s (but don't significantly alter flight performance as far as I can tell) there doesn't seem to be much difference as you say.

 

I still think if we DCS wants to continue to develop the era in which its already in (which would make the most sense tbh) which is late 44 to 45, a low altitude G-6/G-14 would add the most to the simulation. A G-10 or an AS model would be pretty much the same as a K-4 but with the option for a 20mm cannon. Certainly the 1945 109s with ASB/ASC engines are very similar in performance to the K-4. While the 44 ones are a bit slower its still IMO not a huge enough difference that Id want to see one of them before seeing something new added to DCS (like a Tempest or a P-38 or a Me 410 etc etc, some aircraft which we don't have at all yet).

 

I'd love an F-4 too, and while I'd probably still fly it against Spit IXs and Mustangs, by the time we get the appropriate oponnents and maps etc we'll all be old men.

The light alloy tank itself curiously added zero, as it weighted 32 kg but it was built in the place of the laminated dural armoured bulkhead behind the fuel tank, which was removed to make place for the tank and which also weighted 32 kg, so they cancelled out each other.

 

The mw liquid weighted about 1 kg / liter, and 70 to 85 liter seems to be the official norm, though in practice it could be more or less. So the liquid itself adds about 70-75 kg. The tank itself had a volume of 115 litres. On the 109K it could be tapped fully with fuel as well, and CoG would remain still the same because of lower density of fuel.

 

I agree that the other high altitude 109s would be a waste of time, as they are almost entirely identical to the 109K in performance (the only meaningful difference is that they are a bit slower, purely due to aerodynamics).

 

F-4 would be totally out of place, as it was long retired by this time. Gs almost completely replaced it by 1943.

Very interesting!

A vanilla G-6 would be an insta-buy for me.

 

I'm much more interested in work-horse fighters than 'rock star' variants.

I think Kurfust is on the money here. I see the only viable way to make a G6 module would be to have it in a bundle with the G14. Both aircraft are practically the same. It would not take much to make a G6 from a G14.

 

I don't think this in itself is enough, but add the extra loadouts that the K4 doesnt have like the option for cannons in the wings and I think you have a module that is arguably better then the 109K4.

 

But will any developer try this when they can make a completely new aircraft instead?

Edited January 22, 2019 by Snapage

The workaround of not providing MW50 for the 109s sound like a plan.

What about 190s? For say May 44, would they have MW50?

AFAIK the Fw 190A-8 series that represent the most modern variant in the Luftwaffe OOB at the time were not equipped with MW50.

 

They had the Erhöhte Notleistung which seems to mimic the WEP settings of the Allied types, allowing higher manifold pressure for limited periods provided that a higher octane C3 fuel is used.

IIRC it was tested in late 43, but abandoned in favor of the Erhöhte Notleistung system you mentioned. (They discovered cracks in the engine somewhere, can't remember exactly where but I think thats part of why they gave up on it).

 

I believe the 801D/Q series used on the A-8 ran only on C3 as well. No B4 for late 190s.