Jump to content
Huntsman

Who is going to buy and fly the G-6?

Recommended Posts

If the G2 has more useable horsepower and is negligibly heavier, why do they feel like two different planes in this sim?

 

Good question.

 

It's only 100kg heavier. I think it's mainly the canopy framing for the pressurized cockpit that makes it feel like a different airframe. Very obstructive and impairs visibility. 

 

Also the broader blade propeller isn't quite as good down low.

Edited by Mcdaddy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A question that I asked elsewhere: why does the nose of the Bf 109 often jerk and wobble,

when I chase after an enemy plane? Always when I try to aim, that bitch starts to pivot.

Or am I doing anything wrong?

 

I fight with 60 - 100 % throttle, and have flaps out by 7%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A question that I asked elsewhere: why does the nose of the Bf 109 often jerk and wobble,

when I chase after an enemy plane? Always when I try to aim, that bitch starts to pivot.

Or am I doing anything wrong?

 

I fight with 60 - 100 % throttle, and have flaps out by 7%.

 

This may have been an issue before the flight model redesign. This is no longer an issue anymore. All BF109s are stable gun platforms. 

Good question.

 

It's only 100kg heavier. I think it's mainly the canopy framing for the pressurized cockpit that makes it feel like a different airframe. Very obstructive and impairs visibility. 

 

Also the broader blade propeller isn't quite as good down low.

 

It's not just that. The G2, and G4 at least for me, are significantly more sluggish in maneuvers. The F4 is much more agile. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A question that I asked elsewhere: why does the nose of the Bf 109 often jerk and wobble,

when I chase after an enemy plane? Always when I try to aim, that bitch starts to pivot.

Or am I doing anything wrong?

 

I fight with 60 - 100 % throttle, and have flaps out by 7%.

 

Yes, much more of an issue before the patch. The team did a nice overhaul of all the FMs, bringing them much closer to reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, much more of an issue before the patch. The team did a nice overhaul of all the FMs, bringing them much closer to reality.

In air turbulence is a thing, especially with such a small and relatively light aircraft. I wouldn't expect a perfect ride in any wind condition, because perfect stillness does not exist outside of a vacuum. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A question that I asked elsewhere: why does the nose of the Bf 109 often jerk and wobble,

when I chase after an enemy plane? Always when I try to aim, that bitch starts to pivot.

Or am I doing anything wrong?

 

I fight with 60 - 100 % throttle, and have flaps out by 7%.

What joystick do you use and where your stabilizer is set to also plays a large role.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A question that I asked elsewhere: why does the nose of the Bf 109 often jerk and wobble,

when I chase after an enemy plane? Always when I try to aim, that bitch starts to pivot.

Or am I doing anything wrong?

 

I fight with 60 - 100 % throttle, and have flaps out by 7%.

 

Also keep in mind, that if you are flying a short distance behind the enemy plane, you are caught up in his prop wash which causes a lot of turbulence.

 

IIRC this is not modeled in MP for netcode reasons, but it is there in SP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This may have been an issue before the flight model redesign. This is no longer an issue anymore. All BF109s are stable gun platforms.

 

I'd never write about a "gone" problem, Sir - it happens NOW.

 

The team did a nice overhaul of all the FMs, bringing them much closer to reality.

 

Well, closer isn't yet THERE then, I guess. This feels really strange, not only to me.

A friend of mine in Florida is a real pilot (Cessna) and he said, that jerking shouldn't appear at such speeds,

as the accelerated aircraft would be more stable than a very slow flying one.

 

In air turbulence is a thing, especially with such a small and relatively light aircraft.

 

The strange thing is, it doesn't always happen in mid-air-situations where you'd rather expect it.

When I fly rather constantly towards another aircraft, it shouldn't appear IMHO.

 

What joystick do you use and where your stabilizer is set to also plays a large role.

 

The stick is a THRUSTMASTER T.16.000; it has a very high resolution matrix.

So high actually, that I had to follow a video tutorial advice, and change the response curves drastically.

Do you think this high resolution might be a problem still?

 

My stabilizer combat setting is 75 - 80% on the Bf 109. Is there a better suggestion for throttles 60 - 100 % ?

 

Also keep in mind, that if you are flying a short distance behind the enemy plane, you are caught up in his prop wash which causes a lot of turbulence.

 

Yes, I know that - but the wobbling also appears sometimes, when I am flying towards the enemy plane head-on.

Edited by Wolfram-Harms

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wolfram, the resolution is fine. Dampening the output will often lead to overcorrection on the player's part. I know from experience that my x55 and warthog extension-less sticks produced such trouble, compared to the vpc stick with extension. A joystick with an extension will eliminate that issue right away.

 

The stabilizer can be kept at 1 to the nose (the indicator is in the cockpit, to your left hip), I am sorry that I can't tell you which percentage that is. I recommend you take a look there, and try to play around with the stabilizer setting before dampening your input /output relation on the stick. Shifting the cog further to the back makes the aircraft more twitchy. Good luck!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like turbulence is in the mission/map. That will cause your nose to bounce around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright, thanks, guys - I will experiment a bit more.

Does anyone know, if it is possible to attach an extension to the THRUSTMASTER T.16.000 without breaking it?

I'm not one of the "soldering aces", you know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alright, thanks, guys - I will experiment a bit more.

Does anyone know, if it is possible to attach an extension to the THRUSTMASTER T.16.000 without breaking it?

I'm not one of the "soldering aces", you know?

 

Might be worth posting that in the IL2 hardware forum section, usually guys that frequent that section may have tried or know of others that have.

Edited by =TBAS=Tripwire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right, Tripwire, I got carried away with that - this thread was about the G-6, wasn't it? Sorry for that.

Thanks for the tip!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Answering the question.

 

Yes i bought it and i will fly it and i have a second one :o:  NO, the second one is the new Tamiya 1/48 Bf 109G-6.

 

First, it had its place in history and second i will support the team where i can. They all doing a great job and i have the chance to fly one of those iconic ac.

Edited by Yankee_One

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Promised myself not to buy another 109 also with Bodenp coming. But my hype train left the station...it is an important variant...plus i get the Gerd Barkhorn skin etc. So i bought last week. Will i fly it yes. I am current on vvs fighters because of the variaty is so good and getting better 39/7b/fn but will definitely also give this 1 sticktime.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Well, closer isn't yet THERE then, I guess. This feels really strange, not only to me. A friend of mine in Florida is a real pilot (Cessna) and he said, that jerking shouldn't appear at such speeds, as the accelerated aircraft would be more stable than a very slow flying one.
 

 

I personally agree. The previous issue was two-fold: far too much rudder authority in all flight regimes  and the classic "wobble" as G (aft stick inputs) is released. Both issues have been fixed for the most part, but it seems that the fix was just to tone down the previous issues, rather than revamp the FMs. I'm sure much more work went into it than that, but that's the impression from an average user like me. 

 

With that said, the FMs do a great job of replicating accelerated stalls -- a huge improvement over IL2 '46. 

 

Anyway, whereas the old FM made me not want to play the game (it was absurd), the new one is totally playable and not at all a show-stopper. 

 

Anyway, back to the G6...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I nearly got Subnautica today in the steam sale. But then I thought 'Jack, don't be an idiot' and pre-ordered the g6 and la-5fn. Can't wait to get my hands on these beauties and the yak7. Kuban is gonna kick ass!!

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They should have included the G-6 with the Battle of Kuban pack because the G-4 is a field mod of the G-2. Currently I think 20 dollars for the G-6 is a waste of money.

 

No offence

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They should have included the G-6 with the Battle of Kuban pack because the G-4 is a field mod of the G-2. Currently I think 20 dollars for the G-6 is a waste of money.

 

No offence

u2Quv3t.png

 

Nah its cool, your opinion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

the G-4 is a field mod of the G-2

 

Eh, no it wasn't.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By this time in France/Low Countries, only 3 FGs used P-38s in the WTO. By the end of the war it was only one, the other fighter groups converted to P-51 and P-47 in 1945. P-38 was certainly a rare sight over Western Europe in this period of the war

I think you guys are underestimating the numbers of that plane. Need I remind you that an American Fighter Group (FG) is a way bigger organisation than British Squadron (Sq). From what I remember, there were 125 airplanes in a single FG and 12 planes in a single British Sq. That would totall 375 planes (Number for P-51's in 372th FG) in the theater. I wonder were there any more units for example in Itally that used P-38? Or maybe French Squadrons using it?

 

That is still more than Fw190D9 were produced from introduction date to November (366 planes).

 

So if P-38L is a unicorn, then so is Fw190D9.

Edited by =LD=Solty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right there was a lot of P-38 with very different tasks, of course it's not a fighter or an able fighter to fight the LW but it was used for reco , close air support and some bombers escort.

 

They had quite a lot of p38 and at war when you have a lot of material you don't drop it because it's not top notch anymore, you just use it differently.

 

Hurricanes were still used in 44 while they weren't as multipurpose as the lightning (yes they also got butchered but they were used, P38 made it through the war).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you guys are underestimating the numbers of that plane. Need I remind you that an American Fighter Group (FG) is a way bigger organisation than British Squadron (Sq). From what I remember, there were 125 airplanes in a single FG and 12 planes in a single British Sq. That would totall 375 planes (Number for P-51's in 372th FG) in the theater. I wonder were there any more units for example in Itally that used P-38? Or maybe French Squadrons using it?

 

That is still more than Fw190D9 were produced from introduction date to November (366 planes).

 

So if P-38L is a unicorn, then so is Fw190D9.

 

Comparing USAAF FGs with RAF Squadrons is not appropriate.

 

In WW2 at the BoBd 9th US Air Force consisted of 10 Fighter Groups each of 3 Squadrons (plus a PR squadron equipped with F-5 Lightnings, PR version of the P-38).  (Groups could be grouped into Wings for administrative purposes - not sure if they were in this case).

 

The RAF equivalent of a FG was a Wing, typically of 3-5 squadrons. Wings could be grouped into Groups :)  just to avoid confusion.

 

Squadron strengths varied by type and role, but I think as a general rule USAAF Squadrons were larger, so a typical single seater FG had about 120 aircraft on strength, ie about 40 per squadron, compared to about 30 including reserves for an RAF fighter squadron, but how many of these would typically fly in operations at any given time versus acting as spares I do not know.

 

Anyone have a good establishment OOB for either USAAF or RAF?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So if P-38L is a unicorn, then so is Fw190D9.

 

False.

 

There wasn't a single P-38L serving in combat in the entire 8th AF during Bodenplatte and there very likely wasn't a single P-38 of any variant that had any involvement in the Battle of Bodenplatte whatsoever, as no airfield with P-38 was ever attacked during Bodenplatte.

 

In contrast, the Luftwaffe had ~238 FW190D-9 on hand on the eve of the battle, with the numbers growing after that.

 

So, at least as far the Battle of Bodenplatte is concerned, the P-38L is in fact a unicorn.

 

Probably some overlook these facts in their diligent efforts to make sure no additional features are added to 109G-6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

False.

 

There wasn't a single P-38L serving in combat in the entire 8th AF during Bodenplatte and there very likely wasn't a single P-38 of any variant that had any involvement in the Battle of Bodenplatte whatsoever, as no airfield with P-38 was ever attacked during Bodenplatte.

 

In contrast, the Luftwaffe had ~238 FW190D-9 on hand on the eve of the battle, with the numbers growing after that.

 

So, at least as far the Battle of Bodenplatte is concerned, the P-38L is in fact a unicorn.

 

Probably some overlook these facts in their diligent efforts to make sure no additional features are added to 109G-6

 

Even if what you're saying is correct - and I have no idea either way - I certainly hope, that BoBP will focus on more than just that single day of operations on January 1st. Otherwise the scope of BoBP will be even more limited than the proposed Midway title and essentially offer no lasting value for the SP crowd.

 

I have confidence however, that the title will cover at least 2-3 months of operations with Op. Bodenplatte as its centerpiece.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And its never too late to whine about 109, some people almost reach a decade of experience in that regard. 

 

Don't be so humble. You and Solty have at least 15 years of experience in that regard, and its difficult to say if its hilarious, or just sad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did all this begun with the p38 ?

 

Just be pragmatic: it's a really cool plane to have in any case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely. I do not see whats the problem with it, sure its ill fitting for the scenario, but given that the Devs probably modeled it already for the Pacific, along with the B-25, why waste all the hard work spent creating it by not including it...? Why waste an asset that is there already?

 

I mean, we just get an additional plane that is fun to fly and fun the fly against. Not to mention it looks very cool. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it was actually already done - which I very much doubt, since the team have not even finished modeling the BoK planes - I would agree, why not.  But if not, a Typhoon would have been much better - not only was it a mainstay of tactical air from Normandy on, it is ground attack, which the plane set needs.  

 

edit: I will buy the G-6 :)

Edited by unreasonable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the OT, I've collected my pennies and have just bought my brand new G-6. Last month was the La-5FN. :D

 

If all goes well, March is BOBp purchase time! 

 

Also, on the discussion of G-2 flight characteristics, I feel I'm performing better in it than in the F-4 on SP since I've stick to vertical maneuvers against LaGG-3/La-5. It feels more powerful/consistent across the altitudes and more responsive to rudder inputs on hammerheads. But my favorite one is the 190 and keeping the tactic of speed at 450+ kph minimum. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Probably some overlook these facts in their diligent efforts to make sure no additional features are added to 109G-6

Just go over to the P39L thread to see how some people are selective. Already the plane is expected to perform like the N/Q type and to have all the modifications Russians provided, without any proof of being "standardized" across the theater of operations.

 

Hilarious isn`t it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the time of Bodenplatte, 9th AF was still operating 3 groups of P-38s. The problem with the P38 in the ETO is that it was a "second best" aircraft. It was originally tasked with long range escort duties in the 8th AF, but it was found that P51s were better suited, so all through 1944 8th AF P-38 groups were converting to P-51s and P-38s were sent to 9th AF. However, at 9th AF, it was still "second best" since the P47 with its air-cooled engine was better suited to ground attack. The P-38, with its water cooled engines, was more susceptible to damage from ground fire.

 

But yes, there were still many in operational use in 44-45.

 

p.s. _ I purchased the G-6 as soon as it was available, it is important to support the Devs.

Edited by Sgt_Joch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just go over to the P39L thread to see how some people are selective. Already the plane is expected to perform like the N/Q type and to have all the modifications Russians provided, without any proof of being "standardized" across the theater of operations.

 

Hilarious isn`t it?

There was one (1) instance of someone infering performance figures from the P-39Q (which is obviously BS)

 

All other discussions of possible modifications was followed by the caveat, that they should only be implemented, if they could be shown to have been in service VVS within the timeframe of BoK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But yes, there were still many in operational use in 44-45.

 

If I remember right, the "Lightning" in Europe was used for reconaissance duties, with cameras in the belly and/or nose?

 

Wouldn't that be a great addition to an air combat sim? Reconaissance tasks?

Maybe they could build it so, that tank columns or trucks or ships would show on the maps, once a recon craft has flown over them?

Edited by Wolfram-Harms

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the time of Bodenplatte, 9th AF was still operating 3 groups of P-38s. The problem with the P38 in the ETO is that it was a "second best" aircraft. It was originally tasked with long range escort duties in the 8th AF, but it was found that P51s were better suited, so all through 1944 8th AF P-38 groups were converting to P-51s and P-38s were sent to 9th AF. However, at 9th AF, it was still "second best" since the P47 with its air-cooled engine was better suited to ground attack. The P-38, with its water cooled engines, was more susceptible to damage from ground fire.

 

But yes, there were still many in operational use in 44-45.

 

p.s. _ I purchased the G-6 as soon as it was available, it is important to support the Devs.

 

I suppose "many" is relative - 257 aircraft in ETO, out of about 4,000 fighters, according to the USAAF statistics summary, and not operated from any of the airfields likely to be on our map.  It probably qualifies as the least representative plane from the tactical war setting in any of the BoX series so far. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't that be a great addition to an air combat sim? Reconaissance tasks?

That would indeed be cool. The whole recon topic in general has not really been dealt with in flight sims, and the P-38 in particular would be a cool aircraft to model for some less main stream tasks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would indeed be cool. The whole recon topic in general has not really been dealt with in flight sims, and the P-38 in particular would be a cool aircraft to model for some less main stream tasks.

 

I agree. But we need an increase in the view distance to get those high altitude pictures. Low altitude side shots would also be good.  Need to be able to see the pictures when we get back to base.  

 

Also some of the PR colour schemes are terrific - I love pink Spitfires.

Edited by unreasonable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I remember right, the "Lightning" in Europe was used for reconaissance duties, with cameras in the belly and/or nose?

 

Wouldn't that be a great addition to an air combat sim? Reconaissance tasks?

Maybe they could build it so, that tank columns or trucks or ships would show on the maps, once a recon craft has flown over them?

Maybe but I think that it would'nt be that easy to implement and wouldn't be much gratifying in a combat sim.

 

Maybe if the plane can perform other primary duties it could be a minor add but to fly a dedicated reco plane wouldn't be that fun, just like piloting a heavy bomber since you don't do much for a considerable amount of time.

 

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure it could be nice to play with friends in one bomber and face a bunch of fw and flak like you could be thrilled with a storch trying to avoid the ennemy fire.

 

Just saying that it would take a lot of time and resources that the devs need to do other things more or considered by the majority as more important, like a pacific theater.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do not worry, Eicio, the developers will not take any notice of any if this. We are just fantasizing to pass the time while we wait for the next big release.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was one (1) instance of someone infering performance figures from the P-39Q (which is obviously BS)

 

All other discussions of possible modifications was followed by the caveat, that they should only be implemented, if they could be shown to have been in service VVS within the timeframe of BoK.

So in my defence I was responding to a question on wing loading and I clearly stated the data was from the wiki AND noted it was from a Q model. Wing loading would have been similar to the Q as a point of reference. Before I get dog piled for that - I know armaments changed on the wings and total plane weight changed - the P39 got heavier in later models. Infer from that what you will but I wouldn't call it "BS".

 

von Luck

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...