Jump to content

DCS: Me 262 Discussion


NineLine

Recommended Posts

43 minutes ago, Zius said:

So please guys, stop complaining and finding excuses why ED should first develop XYZ before the Me-262.

 

Simply accept that Me-262 would be an extremely interesting aircraft in it's own right.

 

 

 

Er... No.

 

I want chronologically relevant and historically authentic opponents and maps for my DCS experience thanks.

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, DD_Fenrir said:

 

 

Er... No.

 

I want chronologically relevant and historically authentic opponents and maps for my DCS experience thanks.

 

 

That would be a first for DCS then... 😆

 

Seriously, did you look at the rest of my post?

 

All these so-called "orphan" modules work perfectly fine. For example, I don't think there is one map in DCS where the Viggen actually flew once, let alone fought, but the Viggen is still a great module and can be flown to great effect on all the maps (yes, including the WW2 maps).

 

DCS as whole is not about recreating a specific historical event or situation, it's a sandbox where you can create your own missions in a way that you like it, with any amount of historical accuracy (or lack thereof) as you like it. If you want a simulator that recreates a specific time and place in history, I think you'd be better off somewhere else, as it is not the core philosophy of DCS as far as I understand it.

  • Like 7

Modules: Bf 109, C-101, CE-II, F-5, Gazelle, Huey, Ka-50, Mi-8, MiG-15, MiG-19, MiG-21, Albatros, Viggen, Mirage 2000, Hornet, Yak-52, FC3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Zius said:

 

That would be a first for DCS then... 😆

 

Seriously, did you look at the rest of my post?

 

All these so-called "orphan" modules work perfectly fine. For example, I don't think there is one map in DCS where the Viggen actually flew once, let alone fought, but the Viggen is still a great module and can be flown to great effect on all the maps (yes, including the WW2 maps). 

 

DCS as whole is not about recreating a specific historical event or situation, it's a sandbox where you can create your own missions in a way that you like it, with any amount of historical accuracy (or lack thereof) as you like it.

 

 I was there 8 years ago bashing about in the P-51D with no cogent era appropriate targets or air opponents.

 

I was there when the F-86 and MiG-15 came and then... nothing, no '50s era ground assets, no map no B-29 to escort or intercept.

 

Without these the sandbox is a pretty place and superficially absorbing but as soon as the "ooh shiny!! effect is gone and your skills in the aircraft are procedurally adept, one is left hankering for a deeper experience. I find that in trying to replicate the historical combat experiences of the brave men & women who were obliged to fly and fight in these aircraft, to gain a tiny fraction of understanding of what they went through. 

 

DCS is a combat simulator. To simulate one has to have a model, a real world example, for which to strive for your simulation to emulate. If you produce historical units for that simulation surely you should strive to emulate the circumstances in which those units were employed?

 

If DCS WW2 wasn't a thing yet and the Me 262 had been released into the DCS modern era environment alone, facing off against F-86s, MiG-15s at best and at worst late Cold War MiGs and teen series fighters, I bet my mortgage the vast majority of you erstwhile 262 jocks would be screaming for WW2 era opposition within days if not weeks.

 

42 minutes ago, Zius said:

If you want a simulator that recreates a specific time and place in history, I think you'd be better off somewhere else, as it is not the core philosophy of DCS as far as I understand it.

 

That's bloody arrogant. Who the hell are you to dictate to me where and how to find my enjoyment? Last time I checked I pay the same as you and I have every right as a current and future customer to voice my opinion on what I'd like to see for the future.

 

If anything, your argument makes more sense if it's turned back on you; if you want to fly an Me 262 so bad and you don't care about a cohesive combat environment why don't you go get X-plane/MSFS/Prepar3d and fly it there.

  • Like 9
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DD_Fenrir said:

If DCS WW2 wasn't a thing yet and the Me 262 had been released into the DCS modern era environment alone, facing off against F-86s, MiG-15s at best and at worst late Cold War MiGs and teen series fighters, I bet my mortgage the vast majority of you erstwhile 262 jocks would be screaming for WW2 era opposition within days if not weeks.

 

That was the situation when the very first DCS warbird P-51D was released. 

 

And back then people flew in a blue P-51D vs. red P-51D. Perfect game balance btw...

 

You are right that you can demand and play the way you want it. No question about it.

 

But Zius is also right that DCS is about the aircraft first, environment and opposition comes second. Often enough you complained about the lack of correct representation in the DCS maps. And that is perfectly legt. But the reality of DCS is still far away from timeperiod and location correct representation in these aspects.

 

1 hour ago, DD_Fenrir said:

If you produce historical units for that simulation surely you should strive to emulate the circumstances in which those units were employed?

When did the A-10 fly combat missions in the Caucasus, Strait of Hormus, Normandy, Channel or Mariannas area? Syria is the first of the maps that represents a correct area of operations for the A-10, though I'm not sure the A-10 we have is the period correct version.

And this applies for the majority of the modules.

Your request for time and place correct aircraft and opposition is good, but obviously that is not ED's priority.

 

p.s

2 hours ago, DD_Fenrir said:

I find that in trying to replicate the historical combat experiences of the brave men & women who were obliged to fly and fight in these aircraft, to gain a tiny fraction of understanding of what they went through. 

A computer game will give you wrong impressions about the realities of war.

 

p.p.s.

If ED starts the PTO the outlook for more period correct assets for the ETO will get even worse. We are still waiting for the C-47 for example.

And if even the other sim's developers with presumably less detailed FMs are hesitant to create a PTO because the database is thin, how should that work out for DCS?

  • Like 6

Eagle Dynamics, ceterum censeo: dare nobis ME CCLXII!

Spoiler

PC Specs: Ryzen 9 5900X, EVGA RTX 3080 FTW3 ULTRA GAMING, 64GB RAM 3600Mhz, Samsung SSD 970 EVO Plus 1TB, HP Reverb (G1)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, iFoxRomeo said:

 

 

And if even the other sim's developers with presumably less detailed FMs are hesitant to create a PTO because the database is thin, how should that work out for DCS?


I agree about historic documents, the PTO (and Eastern Front) is well known for its lack of historical records. However ED aren’t trying to prepare packs containing several planes for £20. For the P47 they were prepared to perform new wind tunnel work to generate their own data. It’s a different level of simulation and a new way of generating FM.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi all, 

 

please keep the discussion civil, and remember the rules here

 

thanks

  • Like 3

smallCATPILOT.PNG.04bbece1b27ff1b2c193b174ec410fc0.PNG

Forum rules - DCS Crashing? Try this first - Cleanup and Repair - Discord BIGNEWY#8703 - Youtube - Patch Status

Windows 10 Pro x64, NVIDIA MSI RTX 3090, Intel® i9-10900K 3.70GHz, 5.30GHz Turbo, Corsair Hydro Series H150i Pro, 32GB DDR @3000, ASUS ROG Strix Z490-F Gaming, HP Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

+1 @Zius, and I would add the point you make does in a round about way emphasize something I have been touting for awhile,... the importance of assets. Historically accurate maps are very important, but without the planes and assets from the time period being simulated the map remains empty. Going the other way around though, if you have the planes and assets, you can always improvise with another map to recreate a battle scenario. So as a nod to the Dev's, don't feel obligated to bring a 1945 Germany map before you bring the Me-262:cheer3nc:

 

I am really looking forward to the WWII version of the Marianas, and hope we see Germany/Eastern Front/Africa...and, and, and as future additions, but what I am really hoping we see even sooner are more infantry/land/sea/air assets.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, DD_Fenrir said:

 

 

Er... No.

 

I want chronologically relevant and historically authentic opponents and maps for my DCS experience thanks.

 


I don't blame you, and that's in fact why I am almost 100% invested in WWII modules at the moment.

 

I haven't decided on the entry point yet for the jet set, but it will probably be the F18/F14/Persian Gulf when I'm ready to combine with the SC I already own.

 

But going back to the Me-262, it is right at home in the WWII theme. Could we use a late war Germany map, sure but it isn't an absolute requirement. The discussion was about ED's development of the 262, which is attached to circumstances that predate several of the WWII modules currently in-game. 

 

like someone else has already pointed out, DCS is a sandbox where you can create/recreate what you want. If they delivered the 262 tomorrow, and you don't see it fitting in just yet, then the obvious solution is to wait it out. But I get your point though.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the right map for the Me-262 really that important compared to having the right opponents? It's main task as a fighter was to attack large, heavily escorted bomber formations high above Europe.  We have the B-17 and a late war P-51 for that, the Mk108, R4M and W.Gr 21 rockets, thus we could already built a number of authentic feeling missions for Me-262. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Cunctator said:

Is the right map for the Me-262 really that important compared to having the right opponents? It's main task as a fighter was to attack large, heavily escorted bomber formations high above Europe.  We have the B-17 and a late war P-51 for that, the Mk108, R4M and W.Gr 21 rockets, thus we could already built a number of authentic feeling missions for Me-262. 

 

Re:  "It's main task as a fighter ... "

 

It had more than just a fighter role... for example reconnaissance and ground-attack. It is often assumed that it is a fighter as, with 75+ years of hindsight, it is viewed as being best as a fighter. Many will criticise the Luftwaffe doctrine of requiring all aircraft to be used in a multirole capability (hence bombs on 109s, 190s and, of in this case, the 262).

 

Nevertheless, it had other roles and its front-line deployment during the Normandy campaign was in a bomber wing (KG51), not a fighter group. So, for an "authentic feeling mission", this would also include these non-fighter missions too. As other have pointed out, simulating the aircraft in all its operational uses — as well as possible operational uses— is a factor in the inclusion of any module within DCS. The holistic view of the aircraft, whether bomber, fighter, photo-recon, airshow star, experimental test-plane or any other facet of this revolutionary design should be borne in mind. And "the right opponents" should include the ground assets, targets, terrain, logistics and weather that all proved adversarial to the 262, in addition to the Allied airforces that flew despite it.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, DD_Fenrir said:

That's bloody arrogant. Who the hell are you to dictate to me where and how to find my enjoyment? Last time I checked I pay the same as you and I have every right as a current and future customer to voice my opinion on what I'd like to see for the future.

 

If anything, your argument makes more sense if it's turned back on you; if you want to fly an Me 262 so bad and you don't care about a cohesive combat environment why don't you go get X-plane/MSFS/Prepar3d and fly it there.

 

You are right about the first bit and I apologise if I was too harsh.

 

As for the second bit, those sims that you mention are not DCS. In DCS you can create a mission with the maps and assets available, which may make sense historically speaking, in some way. For example, you can substitute assets which are not available for a certain scenario with other assets which are "reasonably close". This deep experience that you are (rightfully) looking for can exist on some level, but it's not perfect yet. Not for any aircraft module we have, in fact. Although I do think that for WW2 and "modern" (90's?) setting, it does exist to a significant level.

 

So I maintain that the situation for the Me-262 to create a more or less historical mission is already way, way better than for most other modules that we already have.

 

And I believe (fear?) that for many modules, this situation will not improve and that this is inherent to the nature of DCS.

 

But I also think it's perfectly fine to have for example a Viggen Red Flag campaign, even though this never happened IRL. I am really happy that we can fly the Viggen at all because I love the aircraft. As opposed to not having the Viggen due to lack of Baltic / Sweden map...

 

The situation for the Me-262 with regards to maps and assets is 10x better than for the Viggen even though I realise that there is some room for improvement.

  • Like 5

Modules: Bf 109, C-101, CE-II, F-5, Gazelle, Huey, Ka-50, Mi-8, MiG-15, MiG-19, MiG-21, Albatros, Viggen, Mirage 2000, Hornet, Yak-52, FC3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/21/2021 at 10:10 PM, Zius said:

 

Sorry, but that's hardly a fair comparison.

 

The Me262 is just one module, and, given that nearly all the technology is already available in DCS (jet engine, aluminium structure, hydraulic system, electrical system, etc.), it seems not even a very complicated module.

 

WW2 Carrier Ops on the other hand, needs at least one module, a new map, a new working carrier, completely new asset pack including aircraft, naval vessels, hopefully also commercial and traditional vessels, ground units etc. etc. All in all, it's a huge amount of work.

 

Of all modules that seem to be in the pipeline, the Me262 is the one which interests me the most.

 


The 262 isn’t just another jet. I’ve no doubt you could model the 262 with some vague approximation of its systems, engine performance and importantly weakness, but you’d be making most of it up.

 

I’d imagine modelling the Jumo 004s accurately would be a very difficult task.

3 hours ago, Koriel said:

+1 @Zius

 

What is the status of the Schwalbe? Haven't heard anything about it recently, and still have 2 WW2 licenses waiting..

 

On 4/2/2021 at 7:46 PM, NineLine said:

I know you are a fan, never questioned that. 

Yes I did, at the time that was the info I had, but things can change. 

 

I don't have an official statement concerning the next WWII module, but the impression I am getting is it will be something to support the new WWII version of Marianas. 

Also understand that when I say the 262 is being researched or when it was that is, 10 other aircraft could be getting research as well. There is research, there is turning that research into useable data, there is actually building the FM, etc etc. We could also say the next aircraft is X and be working on Y and Z quietly. 

I have been doing research and searching for a couple of aircraft for a couple years now on and off. Nothing that has been announced or shared, so don't think we are in capable of multitasking. Many factors will determine the next aircraft or when the 262 will be done.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

+1 Fenrir   

 

I see the arm chair experts are informing us again of where we should and should'nt be flying if our tastes don't agree with their's.....why is it that when these people can't argue a valid point,or our views don't agree with their's they have to get all personal ?

 

This just shows how shallow the individual is IMHO,I would also suggest the individual needs to work on their overblown ego too,and stop labouring under the misapprehension that they are some how important.....they are most definitely not.

 

Whilst I appreciate this individual has their own view on how things should be within DCS,as we all have......to actually inform another member they should look elsewhere for their enjoyment is just bloody arrogant to put it mildly 👎

 

I am posting this message as I am totally fed up with this kind of attitude we regularly witness on this forum.....if this upsets the moderator I apologise.

  • Like 3

Chillblast Fusion Cirrus 2 FS Pc/Intel Core i7-7700K Kaby Lake CPU/Gigabyte Nvidia GTX 1070 G1 8GB/Seagate 2TB FireCuda SSHD/16GB DDR4 2133MHz Memory/Asus STRIX Z270F Gaming Motherboard/Corsair Hydro Series H80i GT Liquid Cooler/TM Warthog with Sahaj 15cm Extension/MFG Crosswind V2 Pedals/Saitek Cessna Trim Wheel & Throttle Quadrants/TrackiR4/Windows 10 Home/Sense of humour,I find it comes in handy !

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, BeoWolf_57 said:

Well, that does not alleviate the problem of those of us who bought the WWII Backers Rewards package long before it was ever started are still owed the Me-262, how long exactly does one have to wait for content that was bought and paid for?.  I'm sure if the shoe was on the other foot, they would be demanding money from the end user if we had a product that had not been paid for.  If it's not going to be built, pay us back for products undelivered.  I believe that was around 2014 I purchased it. Deliver what you promised, or give us a module of our choice as a refund on money already spent. 

 

I have not bought another premium package since.  No F/A-18, Harrier, Super Carrier... etc... etc...... I just have a real hard time trusting folks who do not deliver what was promised, AND PAID FOR.....Seven Year Ago..............and then delivering content that is not finished, is another huge faux pas............i.e.      Faux pas definition, a slip or blunder in etiquette, manners, or conduct; an embarrassing social blunder or indiscretion.

 

Cheers

352nd_Hoss

aka.  BeoWolf

 

 

I was a backer as well. And I have to defend ED here. Let me tell you why.

 

We (the backers) backed a Kickstarer campaign. Let me quote Kickstarter here:

image.png

We supported a campaign with all it's implied risks. The campaign failed. Eagle Dynamics made a very appreciated good will effort to provide the backers with it's promised content in so far as Eagle was taking their own WW2 plan. I don't think they were obligated to do anything for us as this whole Kickstarter campaign was completely ot of control of ED and they have recived none of the funds we all provided the campain with.

 

Still I ended up paying and losing $81 to this kickstarter campaign and ED has provided me with 4 Aircraft licenses AND the Normandy map AND the WW2 Assets pack. The total value far exceeding what I paid for the failed kickstarter. So I'm happy.

 

The Kickstarter promised us a 262. We all know that the modules that are being developed by Eagle are build to a very high standard. I don't even know that ED can code the 262 up to it's usual standard.

 

TL:DR

Be glad that ED honors the pledges in so far as ED can, they are under no obligations to do anything at all.

 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Koriel said:

Eagle Dynamics made a very appreciated good will effort to provide the backers with it's promised content in so far as Eagle was taking their own WW2 plan. I don't think they were obligated to do anything for us

True. ED was not obliged to take over the KS campaign. But they did take over the campaign. And the 262 was and is part of it. Check your bakers page. If you still have a module available. There you will see the 262.

If ED decides to NOT make the 262 then they should simply position themselves. But as it is now, they don't say they're doing it, but they are also not saying that they are not doing it.

So what's the status and are they going to keep their promise, or are they not? And "planned" is a hollow phrase. Everything is eventually planned if you run out of popular modules at some point in the future.

 

2 hours ago, Koriel said:

We all know that the modules that are being developed by Eagle are build to a very high standard. I don't even know that ED can code the 262 up to it's usual standard.

The company that made the F/A-18C and F-16C should not be able to make the "simple" 262? Really? DCS is a game, a very sophisticated one, but still a game for entertainment. It is not rocket-science level, is it?

(Yes Nineline, ED developers are not cookie cutters, and that's why I'm very confident, that the 262 is far from being the hardest task for them. A jet without the quirks of a high power prop, yet a simple aircraft without complicated avionics, so actually the Jet Team of ED could make the 262 and not the WWII team)

I like DCS, and most of my PC-playtime goes to DCS. But there are enough areas that show me that it is still a pc-game.

 

The US had their 262s, the Russians hat their 262s as well. I wonder why ED doesn't ask ZAGI for data about the 262.

There is probably way more data for the 262 than for a P-47 out there, as the allies captured some 262 after the war to thoroughly examine it. Remember the CFD stuff for the P-47? ED does CTD for the missiles as they won't get the data from the manufacturers for obvious reasons. Not possible for the 262?

 

The F/A-18 was made modular, so that it's components could be adjusted to represent a F-16. The same seems to apply now for the Hind and Apache.

Now what prevents ED from taking the modules - engine, wings, airframe - making the adjustments necessary to get a 262? The avionics don't really differ from a K4. Heck even the Mk108 is already available in game. The story of the "prone-to-catch-fire" engines is exaggerated, because it was a totally new technology, and pilots where not used to it. How many radial engines got destroyed till pilots got used to their specific handling?

The Yak-15 used a RD-10 engine which was a copy of the Jumo 004. It was used for prop to jet pilot conversion training, so that the pilots got to learn how to handle a jet engine. Again, ZAGI comes into my mind?

 

What prevents ED from making educated guesses in those parts that are not available by data, like they do it for all the modules we have now? E.g. there is not a single flyable K4 or D9 available, but yet ED made them both, even without CFD. How many F-86 or MiG-15 did they have access to when they made them?

 

I think it's the best PC sim we can get for money for a home PC, but please don't blow up ED's "usual standard" to rocket-science. It's a great piece of software, but we should keep our expectations on the ground considering what is possible on a PC regarding time-money-pc_performance.

 

Fox

  • Like 6

Eagle Dynamics, ceterum censeo: dare nobis ME CCLXII!

Spoiler

PC Specs: Ryzen 9 5900X, EVGA RTX 3080 FTW3 ULTRA GAMING, 64GB RAM 3600Mhz, Samsung SSD 970 EVO Plus 1TB, HP Reverb (G1)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/29/2021 at 1:51 PM, Mogster said:


The 262 isn’t just another jet. I’ve no doubt you could model the 262 with some vague approximation of its systems, engine performance and importantly weakness, but you’d be making most of it up.

 

I’d imagine modelling the Jumo 004s accurately would be a very difficult task.

 

 

 

That is fair, but on the other hand there are several surviving airframes, a couple of flying replica's (with modern engines) and a great deal of research done immediately post-war.

I'm not ED nor another dev but I would suggest that we have other aircraft in DCS for which there is less (much less) publically available information. My guess that the devs of those aircraft have also made reasonable assumptions about some aspects and I guess that is not fully avoidable for a lot of aircraft in DCS.

 

On 8/29/2021 at 5:48 PM, Basco1 said:

+1 Fenrir   

 

I see the arm chair experts are informing us again of where we should and should'nt be flying if our tastes don't agree with their's.....why is it that when these people can't argue a valid point,or our views don't agree with their's they have to get all personal ?

 

This just shows how shallow the individual is IMHO,I would also suggest the individual needs to work on their overblown ego too,and stop labouring under the misapprehension that they are some how important.....they are most definitely not.

 

Whilst I appreciate this individual has their own view on how things should be within DCS,as we all have......to actually inform another member they should look elsewhere for their enjoyment is just bloody arrogant to put it mildly 👎

 

I am posting this message as I am totally fed up with this kind of attitude we regularly witness on this forum.....if this upsets the moderator I apologise.

 

I apologized for my little outburst already, it was indeed uncalled for.

 

My point was that DCS is, by it's very nature, a sandbox into which modules are "dropped" with or without the proper context. This, indeed, in contrast to other sims which do aim to portray a certain historical theatre with all historical assets. Wishing to have a *fully* accurate situation for a certain point in time, before work on a certain aircraft module can start is not how DCS has always operated. If people want to call for more fleshed out historical scenarios then that's fine but in that case there are a lot of existing modules in a (much) worse place than the existing WW2 modules or the Me262.

  • Like 2

Modules: Bf 109, C-101, CE-II, F-5, Gazelle, Huey, Ka-50, Mi-8, MiG-15, MiG-19, MiG-21, Albatros, Viggen, Mirage 2000, Hornet, Yak-52, FC3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Offline players also exist, and they like to recreate historical and also make fictional missions. People forget this is a game(sandbox), it may be complex in terms of physics and with a highly rigorous study about each aircraft, but it exists to entertain people, I am pretty much sure lot of people including me would buy Me 262 because it is a very iconic aircraft and would be a very fun historical piece of engineering to play with,  hunting those bombers trying to carpet bomb german territory sounds fun to me. I hope we can see in the future this dream come true.


Edited by Aesirhunter
  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On 9/5/2021 at 6:04 AM, Aesirhunter said:

Offline players also exist, and they like to recreate historical and also make fictional missions. People forget this is a game(sandbox), it may be complex in terms of physics and with a highly rigorous study about each aircraft, but it exists to entertain people, I am pretty much sure lot of people including me would buy Me 262 because it is a very iconic aircraft and would be a very fun historical piece of engineering to play with,  hunting those bombers trying to carpet bomb german territory sounds fun to me. I hope we can see in the future this dream come true.

 

 

I'm in this group here. I only play single player for a whole range of reasons but mainly it's that my connection where I live sucks, I play stable where there really isn't any meaningful multiplayer and I find the comms a bit of a drag to get set up.

 

I think the WW2 content for this game is great if you consider each module by itself but it really doesn't mesh together very well. There just isn't any cohesion to the WW2 content. I bought a couple of the single player campaigns and they're pretty good but there's not enough of them. If I want to really enjoy the Mosquito or P-47 I've got to buy the channel map. So I've bought Normandy which I get little use out of, I bought the assets pack because for some reason it didn't come with the map, I bought a few aircraft and in terms of hours of gameplay for money spent it hasn't stacked up. If I could go back and not buy them, I would.

 

I have stopped buying the WW2 content even though I really want to get into it. It's just because I get a short period of enjoyment from flying them and then quickly find there's not much more to do with them unless I spend hours in the mission editor and I just don't have time for that. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I am not against the Me262 and clearly there has been an issue here over and above the aircraft not being modelled.  But as an issue through out DCS not just WW2 there is a lack of real period opponents for multiplayer.  If and that is a big IF the Me 262 enters the game then the Tempest would be a nice to have to face it.  Of course this being a high grade simulator we could answer the great question.  Let is add in the Gloster Meteor MkIII.  These were deployed to Belgium in early 1945 but did not meet the Me262 in action.  The Meteor III was slightly slower than the Me262 at optimum height and had only 4 x 20mm canon.  However, it could climb much higher, had more reliable engines, that were easier to use.  The rates of turn, climb rate and dive rates were very similar. 

 

I think a general expansion of the WW2 part of the game would be awesome.  Maps, planes etc but let us all see what the future holds.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...