Excited about the Bf109 G4 but....

[=FEW=ayamoth89]

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/25105-20b-thoughts/?view=findpost&p=386562

 

 

Also, I don't work for 1CGS.   

 

Yes, sorry. I ment, change some mods then!

[sinned]

Please... can we get along?

[CF-105]

Please... can we get along?

 

[LLv24_Zami]

In case you haven`t noticed, Han said this about differences between G2 and G4 in questions thread:

 

changes:

- 1.42 ATA awailable

- not retracting tail landing gear

- larger main gear wheels with another shape of gear bays

- another kind of radio station (FuG 16Z)

[=EXPEND=Tripwire]

1.42 ATA !

 

Well now I'm excited for the G4! - along with the following -

 

 

 

 

Hi guys. Any news/eta on this as per DD120: 9. Correct 'jumpy' behavior of Bf 109 F4, G2 and F2 to resemble E7 behavior and check other planes;

it will be in 2.004. Look for DD 131.

[Matt]

Actually, i think Han might've meant the new gear modelling with "jumpy behaviour", atleast in his todays' response. Not sure if that's also what he meant in DD120.

[Jade_Monkey]

Yes, i think people meant the flight fodel and he responded with ground modeling?

[=EXPEND=Tripwire]

Actually, i think Han might've meant the new gear modelling with "jumpy behaviour", atleast in his todays' response. Not sure if that's also what he meant in DD120.

That's disappointing then. Surely that's not what DD120 meant!?!

[Asgar]

In case you haven`t noticed, Han said this about differences between G2 and G4 in questions thread:

 

changes:

- 1.42 ATA awailable

- not retracting tail landing gear

- larger main gear wheels with another shape of gear bays

- another kind of radio station (FuG 16Z)

Isn't is great. We can't get the G-6 because it was too late (June '43) but the 1.42 ata engine setting for the G-4 is fine even thought the RLM only cleared it in October '43

[216th_Jordan]

Isn't is great. We can't get the G-6 because it was too late (June '43) but the 1.42 ata engine setting for the G-4 is fine even thought the RLM only cleared it in October '43

 

I guess they just made a mistake, so don't worry, I'm pretty sure they will put 1.3 ata when they find out

[LLv24_Zami]

I thought that 1.42 ata would be good news but apparently not 

[SAG]

I thought that 1.42 ata would be good news but apparently not 

 

some people are just there to complain 

[Voidhunger]

 two variants will be excellent one with locked ata and the second with the 1.42 ata

[Jade_Monkey]

I thought that 1.42 ata would be good news but apparently not

Terrible news. Why more power when you could have the same engine as we aready do and a good excuse to complain for at least for another year?

/s

[Luger1969]

In case you haven`t noticed, Han said this about differences between G2 and G4 in questions thread:

 

changes:

- 1.42 ATA awailable

- not retracting tail landing gear

- larger main gear wheels with another shape of gear bays

- another kind of radio station (FuG 16Z)

 

Great new plus this 1: (see questions for devs

 

Chandalier1969, on 25 Aug 2016 - 22:46, said:

Hi guys. Any news/eta on this as per DD120: 9. Correct 'jumpy' behavior of Bf 109 F4, G2 and F2 to resemble E7 behavior and check other planes;

it will be in 2.004. Look for DD 131.

[tailwheel]

Well, I'm not surprised that people who are mainly flying LW are pushing for different planes, cause let's be honest here, the Germans don't get exciting new toys in BoK. The G-4 is basically a G-2, the Heinkel 111 is...well...a Heinkel. The 110 G6 is a 110 with slighty more interesting loadouts, the 109 A-5 with it's more aerodynamically put engine might fix the FW problem this game has and finally the collector plane HS 129 B-2 will most likely be an interesting but borderline useless death trap in the kind of airwar we engage in in this Sim. With the Spit, the Airacobra and the A-20B the VVS is simply much more interesting in terms of lineup, so I get the sentiment. Without the collector plane, there is basically no truly fresh gameplay experience for the LW, which is probably the biggest issue I got with BoK. But I do not think there will be any changes for the lineup at this point, so it's probably an exercise in futility to talk about this. Maybe we get to spend more money for something that's actually interesting on the LW side before the Pacific hits.

I know it wasn't really a fighter aircraft, but as I was opening the initial press release, I was hoping for a Fw 189 in the lineup. That would have been cool. And I know it's a death trap but soviet SB bombers would have been interesting as well. But neither is well suited for scrappy mix-em-up operations. Still, if you want to flesh out some of the ancillary missions, these may have been interesting aircraft.

Edited September 24, 2016 by Tailwheelbrownbear

[Brano]

Terrible news. Why more power when you could have the same engine as we aready do and a good excuse to complain for at least for another year?

/s

Having the best performing fighter within the game and still complaining about it is a trademark of some LW jockeys. Nothing new to see here,just move along :D

[Dutchvdm]

In case you haven`t noticed, Han said this about differences between G2 and G4 in questions thread:

 

changes:

- 1.42 ATA awailable

- not retracting tail landing gear

- larger main gear wheels with another shape of gear bays

- another kind of radio station (FuG 16Z)

This will probably mean that the 110 G2 isn't going to have the restrictions.

 

Good to hear.

 

Grt M

[Asgar]

Having the best performing fighter within the game and still complaining about it is a trademark of some LW jockeys. Nothing new to see here,just move along :D

[Edited]. I never even talked about performance. I don't care about performance. I want to play this game for years to come and even though I will buy the PTO stuff I probably won't play it a lot. I'm gonna stick with playing the Russian front and I think it's stupid to add another identical 109 with the argument of "historical accuracy" and then making the historical correct plane un-historical by giving it the wrong engine settings. It just shows that they don't care as much about accuracy. They simply went the easy way and introduced a 109 that only noticeable difference in the are the bigger wheels and it's a bit faster. So I guess we pay full price for a copy past 109 that has a development time of one week

 

You are treading on some thin ground there.. Please do not put words in dve team's mouths.

Edited September 24, 2016 by Bearcat

[Lusekofte]

Stop being stupid. I never even talked about performance. I don't care about performance. I want to play this game for years to come and even though I will buy the PTO stuff I probably won't play it a lot. I'm gonna stick with playing the Russian front and I think it's stupid to add another identical 109 with the argument of "historical accuracy" and then making the historical correct plane un-historical by giving it the wrong engine settings. It just shows that they don't care as much about accuracy. They simply went the easy way and introduced a 109 that only noticeable difference in the are the bigger wheels and it's a bit faster. So I guess we pay full price for a copy past 109 that has a development time of one week

 

 

I actually  agree with you when it comes to faulty logic in the planning, but it is surely better just letting it pass. And for the remarks about luft whiners , Asgar is not one of them, he make very often on the spot remarks valid to make, he also bring a lot of interesting facts. Aaaand the luft whining claims start get old and used places they really do not belong, and add a great deal to the bad atmosphere 

[Custard]

Surely a 1.42ata field mod is the solution? With mission makers and server operators deciding what is appropriate for their scenario?

[II./JG77_Manu*]

Having the best performing fighter within the game and still complaining about it is a trademark of some LW jockeys. Nothing new to see here,just move along :D

 

People like you just don't get it. Probably living in a world where everywhere everything gets exploited, and everyone tries selfishly to get the best performance (or whatever suits him best) possible.

At least i can't explain it in any other way - people completely lacking the understanding for wishes and drive for historical accuracy. Some people apparently don't get this concept.

Always believing that anyone who argues about FMs only wants to get "easy mode", "best performance for himself" tells a lot about themselves however.

[Gambit21]

Not so much

[dingdingchavez]

Reminds me of this debacle:

 

I love the G6, and hopefully they'll add it later on as DLC. But if you want realism then the skies should be full of G2/4s.

Edited September 24, 2016 by dingdingchavez

[Gambit21]

Yep. If the Devs decide for their own reasons to add yet another 109 before PTO then so be it, but the more the Luftmafia whines, the more I get attached to

seeing that not happen. Too many other interesting aircraft to model. 

[Brano]

People like you just don't get it. Probably living in a world where everywhere everything gets exploited, and everyone tries selfishly to get the best performance (or whatever suits him best) possible.

At least i can't explain it in any other way - people completely lacking the understanding for wishes and drive for historical accuracy. Some people apparently don't get this concept.

Always believing that anyone who argues about FMs only wants to get "easy mode", "best performance for himself" tells a lot about themselves however.

As I wrote before. Nothing new to see here,moving along...

[Skoop]

HEY!!!!!!! How 'bout them Dodgers?????

 

That'll give some of you something different to argue about for a change.

 

Love the Dodgers and Vin Scully.  Hope they go all the way.

[6./ZG26_Gielow]

Considering this is the historic accuracy matters thread, I just bought this shirt and later on I realized that was a French P39. Did the French had P39s??

 

Because if not, I am not using that shirt.

 

Edited September 27, 2016 by 6./ZG26_Gielow

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

Did the French had P39s??

 

Yes they did   fighting for the allies as the Free French in the mid-late war, in the Med and Normandy if i'm correct.

 

 

 

[unreasonable]

Yes they did - Free French in the MTO, which we could have had but are not getting because the team is not familiar with the equipment.

 

Aaargh - simultaneous triple answers! No doubt someone can tell you which squadron that is from the black horse (I think) tail marking.

 

Wiki says  "Mediterranean, Italy and Southern France." but not Normandy.

Edited September 27, 2016 by unreasonable

[ShamrockOneFive]

I've been watching this video to get me excited about the G-4.

 

 

I love that paint scheme. Definitely requesting it!

[Max_Damage]

G6 is only appropriate for Kursk. and then it will probably be quite a bad plane lol it is a 1943 G6 without any sort of mw50. it is probably a crappier bf109 of the game

 

1.42 also was locked during Kuban so it should be the same.

 

Is A5 appropriate really for the timeline?

Edited September 27, 2016 by Max_Damage

[707shap_Srbin]

 

 

So I guess we pay full price for a copy past 109 that has a development time of one week

3 month minimum, even with the case of G2 > G4.

 

Please, think before You write something, especially if You know nothing about subject.

 

Cheers, Pzb. 

[Asgar]

3 month minimum, even with the case of G2 > G4.

 

Please, think before You write something, especially if You know nothing about subject.

 

Cheers, Pzb.

yeh yeh i know, you're the only one who knows anything about anything except literary figures that is

[707shap_Srbin]

No.

I just know many Il-2 BoS/M/K developers personally  for many years, and met them lots of time iRL.

 

And I know, how hard is to make Flight Model in this particular simulator. Even in case of such minor differences, as with G-2 > G-4.

 

That is why, I am asking You to stop write such a b#llshit. Same about G-6 on Ostfront in Spring '43, same about MK108 on Bf110G-2 in 1943, same about Me410 on Eastern front, same about.... Should I continue? Just If You are not sure in any subject, just dont speculate. Thats all.

Edited September 27, 2016 by I./ZG1_Panzerbar

[Brano]

Is A5 appropriate really for the timeline?

Of course it is. II./SchlG 1. had 54 Fw-190A5 by April 1943 just in time to participate in battle.

[Asgar]

No.

I just know many Il-2 BoS/M/K developers personally for many years, and met them lots of time iRL.

 

And I know, how hard is to make Flight Model in this particular simulator. Even in case of such minor differences, as with G-2 > G-4.

 

That is why, I am asking You to stop write such a b#llshit. Same about G-6 on Ostfront in Spring '43, same about MK108 on Bf110G-2 in 1943, same about Me410 on Eastern front, same about.... Should I continue? Just If You are not sure in any subject, just dont speculate. Thats all.

Nice putting words I my mouth there.

I never said the G-6 was there in spring. I said it was over Kuban Period. And since the G-4 we get will have 1.42 ata means the BOK timeline has to extent all the way to at least October which is the time RLM cleared the use of 1.42ata. That means the G-6 would be the better choice.

 

I said I like the Me 410 and it would be nice to add the Hungarian 210 which have the same extended tail as the 410 and those were used at the eastern front. (Btw, that discussion was about what planes we would like to see in the game not Kuban or some other specific theatre)

 

MK 108 on 110 G-2? All I said was that they used it, I never stated a date. The planes they add are not just for a single use purpose they're there to be used in any fitting theatre and the 110 was capable of carrying the MK 108. That's the reason why our Ju-87 has the BK 3,7 ( and I know you will show me that they used the BK at the same time as BoS in some obscure test which only proves my point, they were never used that configuration over Stalingrad yet we have it in BoS)

Edited September 27, 2016 by 6./ZG26_Asgar

[6./ZG26_Gielow]

Guys let's talk seriously.

 

The point is simple.

 

Or we get all mods for BoK planes now (no matter the battle time line), or Devs will never come back to give us those mods later.

 

And let server mission designers balance the historical factor. The stuka 3.7 cannons is the best example.

Edited September 27, 2016 by 6./ZG26_Gielow

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

Or we get all mods for BoK planes now (no matter the battle time line), or Devs will never come back to give us those mods later.

 

Yes. Probably devs line of thinking was:

 

* Historical/Relevant Bf-109 of the campaign: G4

 

* Give 1.42 ata so the plane can be portrayed in later scenarios, surely as a mod (I hope) so mission designers will choose to respect (or not) hist accuracy at their will.

Edited September 27, 2016 by -=PLR=-SuperEtendard

[Asgar]

Yes. Probably devs line of thinking was:

 

* Historical/Relevant Bf-109 of the campaign: G4

 

* Give 1.42 ata so the plane can be portrayed in later scenarios, surely as a mod (I hope) so mission designers will choose to respect (or not) hist accuracy at their will.

Shouldn't the G-2 have a 1.42ata mod as well in that case?