Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

128 Excellent

About SCG_Sinerox

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Location
    My Bf-109 F4

Recent Profile Visitors

803 profile views
  1. Ok, so a bit to unpack here. G6 late with mw50,erla haube, and larger tail was produced... I don't think I ever refuted that. I did say " It was a fairly simple modification (the erla haube, and mw50 that is) as it was done in the field to already existing G6's." This is true as to the 109 G6. Erla haube is as difficult as replacing the canopy, and the mw50 would require the AM version of the DB 605 instead of the DB 605 A which the regular G6 used. Then you would need to install a MW-50 tank and connect it up to the supercharger intake as it would spray mw50 into the intake. Pretty easy system to set up. (For someone I consider an expert on the system 12:57 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PA70pN6zPM). I don't personally have any sources, so remain skeptical of my claim sure. But I'd like to redirect you to where this topic was discussed heavily with many many sources given. Many people point out as I would tend to agree that 109 G6 were converted to 109 G6 late. Hell G2 were converted to G4s (Different but you get my point). Even Greg in the video I post mentions it was a relatively simple conversation and many aircraft were converted to later models with MW50. 700~ G6 AS were made. For some context thats enough to equip 3 and a half Jagdgeschwaders at full strength with G6 AS. Skipper table that he posted from Wikipedia even shows that G6 were converted to AS And thank god!!! someone understands why the G6 late is basically a G14...
  2. The majority of G6 Lates did not have the taller tail unit (Depended each factory, as each factory had differences. Erla made a slightly different 109 to Regensburg, suppose it could be a mod I guess). It was a fairly simple modification (the erla haube, and mw50 that is) as it was done in the field to already existing G6's. They didn't have to produce an entirely different G6... if that was the case it the late G6 would've had a new variant name. How do earlier 1944 allied aircraft have better performance then late 1944 ones? Especially once 150 oct comes in. It's not like the 1941-42 situation for German where they had to implement the lack luster G2 after the F4... Also the "whining" for a AS/ASM engine is the fact that they were present in large enough numbers to constitute representation in the game. Not to mention, its a modification for the G6/14 in game to give it better high alt performance against its allied adversaries who enjoy much much better high alt performance. It's not like were talking a huge mod, its essentially an different engine on the same airframe. The "average performance" of the 605 in 1943 is now quite a disadvantage by mid 44 and its not too insane to ask for a simple engine upgrade that was historically used, and in numbers. I should mention I'm not arguing against similar mods for allied aircraft either. I fly both sides and value competitive aircraft on each side.
  3. Are we seriously frowning at me for pointing out the game is selling a modification for the 109 that is already in the game? My bad for pointing totally legitimate complaints and ruining your BoN experience. I see you were enjoying gushing about the latest expansion.
  4. That way Lukey you could still get BoN and the G6 "late". In place of the 109 in the base package of BoN they could add... anyone know? oh yea... a g6as Your probably right, but there are much smaller things internet forums have been fought over about then complaining about a product being sold which is already in the game at the expense of the consumer.
  5. Problem lies in how they've done this. Had they released G6 alone with Normandy it would'nt be a problem. But now we're stuck with either making the G6 a prem plane (which it already is, but for BON which is a bit weird) or making it a base plane that your expected to pay for basically an mw50 mod and erla haube. Also who says I'm against adding a 109? Ask anyone who knows me and they will tell you I love the 109 and honestly I'd like every 109 produced in numbers in the game. But your basically paying for a mod for a plane we already have. Instead they could've added a 109 G6 with AS? That would actually be something much different then what we have in the game right now. And wouldn't just be a simple mod for the 109 Again... A G6AS would do fine...
  6. Super excited for the G6 late. Its like nothing else in the game and we really need it. I mean, its not like they could've made it a mod for the 109 g6 in game already... instead I get to essentially spend 10 dollers on a plane pretty much already in the game. I'm SUPER excited!!! Maybe next they'll give us 109 G-6/U4 as a premium plane for 20$ too!
  7. +1 for native proper zoom for VR users. Even as a monitor user I can appreciate your struggle right now.
  8. Exactly, We actually want opposition so we don't roll the map over.
  9. That would be assuming all other variables are the same. The American playerbase is roughly half the number of European players. You can see this for yourself by looking at the total number of players on multiplayer at eu prime time and na prime time. Or just goto steam charts to get a idea of the steam communitity(which I realise isn't the entire community but it gives a rough idea). The point in all of this? Well since the EU playerbase has many more people then the NA it has a larger buffer of people that can be turned off before TAW starts feeling negative effects. Because the NA population is much smaller and the TAW NA population even smaller, this or any rule that prevents people from coming to taw has a much bigger impact on the NA side of things.
  10. Your right. BUT if you would take two seconds to read our concerns... we are worried about the fact that TAW during American time zones is much less popular then CB and WOL, thats the only thing we are comparing... just numbers. We then correlate that to some of the rules in place and how that is driving down numbers. Heres the thing Chimango... what good are all the rules... if no one flies the server?? EU TAW has seen lower numbers in the past then ever before. Their are many many variables involved, and you pointed out one of them, I'm sure some of the people not flying due to the map being "won". But your ignoring other potential variables. I'm not going to say TAWs gonna completely die. My agenda is clear, I want to see strong numbers in American times, and you should want to too. No one is asking for anything absurd here.
  11. Gonna clarify something for ya Chimango. Good old Wulfe here? He's Canadian, so back off with the American insults to him please. Feel free to throw them at me through even through I'm probably the least likely American to find flying in an American plane if you catch my drift. Also it would seem we both agree that the regulations or atleast the idea of them are good. They kept TAW competitive and sought to keep quality gameplay to TAW where other servers have lost it. I don't think anyone here really wants to see all of the rules gone, and you yourself pointed that some loosening of the rules could be beneficial. We just want to help increase numbers during American (I am well aware of the number of Brazilians and other Americans that fly, hell half of my staffel inside SCG is made up of Canadians and Brazilians.) time zones. But alas I'd rather fly against people with less regulation and more people, but obviously I would still want rules in place to keep quality at higher standards then CB or WOL. Ideally I would appreciate regulations and high amounts of players but it simply isn't happening. Some reforming of the rules is needed to keep American (How dare you think I was talking about USA players only!) players flying. I concerned for TAW and for the American playerbase as a whole in fact. Americans seemingly were never as interested in TAW as casual flying in the first place which is of concern for me for the longevity of competitive servers like TAW.
  • Create New...