190 A-6 and Bf 109 G-6 Late

[SAS_Storebror]

20 minutes ago, 9./JG27DefaultFace said:

MW50 provides some (although not as much) performance increase above the rated altitude as well.

 

Correct, albeit that performance increase is negligible and almost solely results from cooling the air in the charger.

Nevertheless, you can use MW-50 up to 8.5km altitude and thereby 700m more than the rated altitude:

 

10 minutes ago, sevenless said:

That particular plane, a G6/AS is listed here as a G6 although we know better.

 

https://www.ww2.dk/oob/bestand/jagd/bstjg1.html

Seems like they don't distinguish the AS on the G-6.

From a quick check, I could find G-14/AS on the lists, but no G-6/AS.

Probably just a result from the massive mess of that time with all those fancy G-6 versions...

 

Mike

Edited June 17, 2020 by SAS_Storebror

[sevenless]

3 minutes ago, SAS_Storebror said:

 

Seems like they don't distinguish the AS on the G-6.

From a quick check, I could find G-14/AS on the lists, but no G-6/AS.

Probably just a result from the massive mess of that time with all those fancy G-6 versions...

 

Mike

 

I think the reason is simple. The G5s and G6s were all retrofitted/converted in field shops (Erla Antwerp or elsewhere), so those were machines originally delivered to the units as G5, G6 or G6/U2 and remained in the books as such. In contrast the G14/AS were delivered as such from the factory. Because of that you only find G14/AS in the unit lists and no G5/AS or G6/AS.

[SAS_Storebror]

226 aircraft however are supposed to have been produced fresh from Messerschmitt as 109G-6/AS, so there should be some of them on the lists.

Anyway... splitting hairs. They've had them at the relevant timeframe, so the argument to have them in BoN is valid.

 

Mike

[sevenless]

Just now, SAS_Storebror said:

They've had them at the relevant timeframe, so the argument to have them in BoN is valid.

 

Mike

 

It is, but it doesn´t work for 4/44, so the G6(late) makes absolutely sense for the game. I hope for a G6/AS - G14/AS collector, not so much because of BoN, but because of BoBP where AS machines made up to close to 50% of the german 109s.

[Raven109]

2 minutes ago, sevenless said:

 

I think the reason is simple. The G5s and G6s were all retrofitted/converted in field shops (Erla Antwerp or elsewhere), so those were machines originally delivered to the units as G5, G6 or G6/U2 and remained in the books as such. In contrast the G14/AS were delivered as such from the factory. Because of that you only find G14/AS in the unit lists and no G5/AS or G6/AS.

 

Yes, this is in line with the idea that the G-14 was supposed to clean up all the mess that the G6 sub-variants have introduced to production and logistics procedures. 

 

For the G6 production, they were reactive (i.e quickly reacting to changes in the field to see what works and what not), and that led to all the issues. For the G-14 they tried to be proactive, and get it together. 

[SAS_Storebror]

Alright @sevenless, fully agree ?

 

Mike

[sevenless]

On 6/15/2020 at 1:36 PM, mattebubben said:

Im just making the point that the Fw-190A6 is still a much better fit for D-Day then the P-38J-25 is...

Since while only a couple of A6s were still around by that time that was still more then the Number of P-38J-25 present at D-Day...

 

All is well, as I said I like the integration of the A6 (though a plane which was faded out from 4/44 onwards) better than dropping the A7 into BoN. I´m looking at it from a point of view of someone who already has BoBP and the A8. Additional benefit for getting the A6 with BoN is for me, that it was introduced 7/43 with JG 51 and JG 54 in the eastern scenario. So it could be also used there for 1943 and of course because it was used in the F3/G3 config on both fronts long into 1945. 

[Raven109]

15 minutes ago, SAS_Storebror said:

226 aircraft however are supposed to have been produced fresh from Messerschmitt as 109G-6/AS, so there should be some of them on the lists.

Anyway... splitting hairs. They've had them at the relevant timeframe, so the argument to have them in BoN is valid.

 

Mike

 

I agree, but as far as I know, the criteria for an a/c to be considered is that it had to be produced in large numbers and and that it had to have significant impact on the AO. This is why I made a point to say that the name of the theater of operations should not decide the aircraft line-up, because that means that we're artificially limiting what can be delivered by an expansion.

 

A good example breaking this rule was the FW in BoS.

[sevenless]

10 minutes ago, Raven109 said:

A good example breaking this rule was the FW in BoS.

 

Absolutely agreed. I also look at the modules not so much from a strict location perspective, but more from a generic timeframe perspective and the 190-A3 was absolutely the correct choice for eastern front autumn 1942 onwards.

Edited June 17, 2020 by sevenless

[II./SG.1-MarkWilhelmsson]

1 hour ago, SAS_Storebror said:

 

Correct, the DB 605 AS engines were using the larger charger from the DB 603 which increased the rated altitude from ~5.8 to ~7.8 kilometers.

In return, the charger would need slightly more power from the engine, so the performance on deck suffers a bit.

GM-1 is nitrous oxide (laughing gas) and as such is effectly above rated altitude only.

This means that most of the time you will probably find little use for GM-1, whereas MW-50 is the exact opposite: More power up to rated altitude.

 

Mike

 

Not so sure about that last part. The past several air to air fights I've experienced on Combat Box were between 6-10k alt. In fact, one of those recent fights was against a P47 at 10k, I had climbed to 11k to attempt this fight. 

[Bremspropeller]

The A-6 is the base-model for the G-3 which was used by ground-attack units at the time.

The A-7's MG131s may as well be a mod...

 

Still wondering whether the Erhöhte Notleistung will be pulled from the "standard" A-8 (and becoma a mod), since it was a late summer '44 addition...

[CountZero]

3 hours ago, =RS=Stix_09 said:

 

I'm not sure I agree. The late bf109 g6 is quite different to the early bf109g6,(Late g6 has more in common with the G14 ) also BON comes with a lot of other planes too, and a new map (for offline play). I would personally rather have the late g6 , and its the reason I did not get the G6 collector plane(when I have all the other collector planes) even if its an iconic plane and the most produced.

 

Multiplayer plane set will depend on server setup and time period, so owning just BOP may limit your options on some servers and missions.

 

BON has some very iconic cool planes. Like the P51 B ( I love that plane) Mosquito,Typhoon, Razorback and Me410.

 

The early G6 is basically a better armed G4. (MG131 and option MK108)

 

Late G6 , some had dif tails and all had MW50/Gm-1 (not sure what options we will get , but I suspect the already modeled MW50)

 

 

 

Thats all great, but starting point of all this was, your axis fighter player who play online, why would you buy BoN then ? i argued that you would not as its better to just buy bobp 109g6 and 190a3 on sales, and you aint gona be missing a thing online and even on bon map ( that you could play online without bon stuff) and missions youll encounter on it online... so then to make it more tempting its better to add as mutch stuff to 109g6 that comes with bon. And just to show that more drastic changes were done i give example of ar234, so why not add as most posible options to 109G6 from Bon to make it worth having, compared to mix of 109g6 and 109g14 you get with other option.

[sevenless]

5 minutes ago, CountZero said:

Thats all great, but starting point of all this was, your axis fighter player who play online, why would you buy BoN then ?

 

If you only look at the 109, there is close to no incentive for that character of MP Player you mentioned if he owns BoBP already and who doesn´t care for the rest which BoN will deliver. However if I were 1CGS I would not care for such geeks, because I have to earn my money with the other 98% of the playerbase.

Edited June 17, 2020 by sevenless

[41Sqn_Skipper]

3 minutes ago, CountZero said:

you aint gona be missing a thing online

 

You will not be able to fly on servers that have G-6Late and A-6 only. So basically the early to mid 44 time.

[SAS_Storebror]

33 minutes ago, II./SG.1-MarkWilhelmsson said:

Not so sure about that last part. The past several air to air fights I've experienced on Combat Box were between 6-10k alt. In fact, one of those recent fights was against a P47 at 10k, I had climbed to 11k to attempt this fight. 

I don't have enough high altitude experience on the 109 ingame to agree or disagree, but at least in reality there's very little benefit from using MW-50 above rated altitude (7.8km for the AS engines we're talking about right now) and absolutely no benefit above 8.5km anymore (see original document for the G-14 which I've posted earlier, which refers to the same AS engine and the use of MW-50 thereof).

Mike

[II./SG.1-MarkWilhelmsson]

10 minutes ago, SAS_Storebror said:

I don't have enough high altitude experience on the 109 ingame to agree or disagree, but at least in reality there's very little benefit from using MW-50 above rated altitude (7.8km for the AS engines we're talking about right now) and absolutely no benefit above 8.5km anymore (see original document for the G-14 which I've posted earlier, which refers to the same AS engine and the use of MW-50 thereof).

Mike

 

The fact that MW50 provides minimal, if any, increase in performance at higher altitudes has already been understood as fact. What I have mentioned is my hope for GM1 injection so that those high altitude situations I've recently been experiencing more and more often are on better terms for the 109 lovers. 

[SAS_Storebror]

4 minutes ago, II./SG.1-MarkWilhelmsson said:

What I have mentioned is my hope for GM1 injection so that those high altitude situations I've recently been experiencing more and more often are on better terms for the 109 lovers. 

Okay, sorry for confusion, I thought you were referring to MW-50.

Personally I find that rarely a fight lasts long enough at altitudes above 7.8km, but that of course can be different from player to player.

In reality, the biggest use of GM-1 probably was to initially (and later re-) position yourself for another attack run at heavy american bombers, something we don't have at all.

 

Mike

[9./JG27DefaultFace]

From what I've read, GM-1 was mostly used for high altitude recon aircraft, or interception of enemy high altitude recon aircraft. After april/may 44 most if not all G-6/U2 were converted to MW50 instead of GM-1, and new U2 were produced that way as well. Only a few G-5/U2 were retained.

 

Makes sense if you ask me. MW50 is more useful overall to get to, and to fight at the altitudes they were fighting at at that point, especially with the new AS engines as well.

[Pikestance]

I think some are not really giving the developers much credit here. You honestly think they would develop an aircraft that cannot be differentiated. 

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

4 hours ago, sevenless said:

 

It is, but it doesn´t work for 4/44, so the G6(late) makes absolutely sense for the game. I hope for a G6/AS - G14/AS collector, not so much because of BoN, but because of BoBP where AS machines made up to close to 50% of the german 109s.

I wouldn't like the AS as collector... It's not a hard to make plane, it's the late style cowling with the larger DB 603 supercharger which is already present in the DB 605D engine in the K-4. Having to spend 20 usd for that would leave a bad taste in my mouth imho.

I personally think we should have gotten it as a G-14 modification for BoBP. Since now the G-6 Late is going to be very similar to the G-14 essentially it is a good opportunity to put more work into it and model a plane variant that can be useful for both BoN and BoBP scenarios with the AS & ASM engine. This as a mod or separate plane if skins are an issue, the vanilla DB 605A & 605AM G-6 Late should still be there as the main one, not talking about replacement but as a complement/addition.

The G-6 with AS engines were present in the map sector even if coming from other bases, remember that we got 150 octane for the P-51, bombs for the Tempest, rockets for the Spit Mk IX, extra bomb pylons for the P-38. The Ar 234 we are getting will most likely be the one with full bomb capacity and wheel landing gear (the accurate one for Normandy should be recon only with skids). And IIRC the Ju 88 C-6a came from far away bases outside the map and made only a few sorties. All of the arguments that validate the inclusion of the previously mentioned mods for BoBP planes and some of the main BoN planes validate the inclusion of the ASM engine for the G-6 Late as a separate variant or modification.

So it isn't that the G-6/ASM is some sort of wunderwaffe unicorn with the rest of the BoBP/BoN lineup consisting of extremely common well represented airfield on map accurate planes and modifications... 

And you can't say i'm an Axis only fan or "luftwhiner". I also think that we should have the super hot V-1 chaser boosts for some of the allied planes like 81" for the P-51B/C used by the British (with both V-1650-3 and V-1650-7 engines) and +21 & +25 boost even for the Spit Mk XIV as modifications.

Edited June 17, 2020 by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard

[Raven109]

5 hours ago, 41Sqn_Skipper said:

 

You will not be able to fly on servers that have G-6Late and A-6 only. So basically the early to mid 44 time.

 

The standard G6 was still present in large numbers during 1944. So it would make sense to have it active as well.

 

-------------

 

Regarding the performance discussion (using the DB605A engine as the base - i.e the powerplant for the G2/4/6):

DB605AM (G-14) much better than the A up to 5500m, better above 5500m; 

DB605AS (no MW50; G-6/AS, G-14/AS) marginally better than the A at altitudes between 2500-5000m, similar up to 6000m, better than the A up to 8000m and beyond;

DB605ASM (AS+MW50; G14/ASM) - a combination of the benefits of the AS and AM engines: much better than the A up to 8000m; better above 8000m and beyond; 

DB605A + GM1 - better high altitude performance than the A, however I don't remember seeing any performance curves; some books say that the gain in power compared to its weight was not that much; AS should be much better at higher altitudes;

 

_________

 

2 hours ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

I wouldn't like the AS as collector...

 

I would also like to have it as part of the main game, for the same reasons that you've listed. The 3D model is already (mostly) there.

Edited June 17, 2020 by Raven109

[CUJO_1970]

3 hours ago, 9./JG27DefaultFace said:

From what I've read, GM-1 was mostly used for high altitude recon aircraft, or interception of enemy high altitude recon aircraft. After april/may 44 most if not all G-6/U2 were converted to MW50 instead of GM-1, and new U2 were produced that way as well. Only a few G-5/U2 were retained.

 

Makes sense if you ask me. MW50 is more useful overall to get to, and to fight at the altitudes they were fighting at at that point, especially with the new AS engines as well.

AFAIK GM-1 was only used with odd-number 109 like G-5. Odd number 109 are for specialist roles like high alt recon or high alt interceptor and were built in comparatively smaller numbers. So G5 is really a G6 but for a specialist role.

 

In warfare though I think a lot of these fighters ended up doing normal duty - that was certainly true for G6/AS, and G14/AS was the second most common 109 used in Bodenplatte so they were used for low altitude work as well.

[CUJO_1970]

4 hours ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

I wouldn't like the AS as collector... It's not a hard to make plane, it's the late style cowling with the larger DB 603 supercharger which is already present in the DB 605D engine in the K-4. Having to spend 20 usd for that would leave a bad taste in my mouth imho.

I personally think we should have gotten it as a G-14 modification for BoBP. Since now the G-6 Late is going to be very similar to the G-14 essentially it is a good opportunity to put more work into it and model a plane variant that can be useful for both BoN and BoBP scenarios with the AS & ASM engine. This as a mod or separate plane if skins are an issue, the vanilla DB 605A & 605AM G-6 Late should still be there as the main one, not talking about replacement but as a complement/addition.

The G-6 with AS engines were present in the map sector even if coming from other bases, remember that we got 150 octane for the P-51, bombs for the Tempest, rockets for the Spit Mk IX, extra bomb pylons for the P-38. The Ar 234 we are getting will most likely be the one with full bomb capacity and wheel landing gear (the accurate one for Normandy should be recon only with skids). And IIRC the Ju 88 C-6a came from far away bases outside the map and made only a few sorties. All of the arguments that validate the inclusion of the previously mentioned mods for BoBP planes and some of the main BoN planes validate the inclusion of the ASM engine for the G-6 Late as a separate variant or modification.

So it isn't that the G-6/ASM is some sort of wunderwaffe unicorn with the rest of the BoBP/BoN lineup consisting of extremely common well represented airfield on map accurate planes and modifications... 

And you can't say i'm an Axis only fan or "luftwhiner". I also think that we should have the super hot V-1 chaser boosts for some of the allied planes like 81" for the P-51B/C used by the British (with both V-1650-3 and V-1650-7 engines) and +21 & +25 boost even for the Spit Mk XIV as modifications.

Agree completely. This post just ended the thread. 

 

As in /thread.

[9./JG27DefaultFace]

1 hour ago, CUJO_1970 said:

AFAIK GM-1 was only used with odd-number 109 like G-5. Odd number 109 are for specialist roles like high alt recon or high alt interceptor and were built in comparatively smaller numbers. So G5 is really a G6 but for a specialist role.

 

In warfare though I think a lot of these fighters ended up doing normal duty - that was certainly true for G6/AS, and G14/AS was the second most common 109 used in Bodenplatte so they were used for low altitude work as well.

Odd numbers were pressurised cockpits for high altitude work. While of course that tends to be a good combination with GM-1, what I've read suggests that they were definitely not the only aircraft to recieve it necessarily.

[sevenless]

5 hours ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

I wouldn't like the AS as collector... It's not a hard to make plane, it's the late style cowling with the larger DB 603 supercharger which is already present in the DB 605D engine in the K-4. Having to spend 20 usd for that would leave a bad taste in my mouth imho.

 

If they would do that, I would be the last to object. But be realistic here. They sold us the Yak-9 and Yak-9T as two different collector planes. How likely do you think it is that they give us one late G6 plane which features all 109 variants from 4/44-10/44 and which combines all necessary 3D models of AS and non-AS G6 planes including all the engine variations?

 

AS/ASM will need a seperate 3D model from late G6, all else would really surprise me.

[41Sqn_Skipper]

2 hours ago, Raven109 said:

DB605AS (no MW50; G-6/AS, G-14/AS) marginally better than the A at altitudes between 2500-5000m, similar up to 6000m, better than the A up to 8000m and beyond;

 

This is not true. The AS engine has higher FTH due to the "larger" supercharger and has as a direct result of that lower engine power.

[9./JG27DefaultFace]

[Raven109]

You cannot overboost the DB605A beyond 1.42 ATA below FTH without blowing up the engine without using MW50/C3.

 

DB605A power at SL: 1475PS

DB605AS power at SL: 1435PS (the difference is probably because the engine needs to spin a larger compressor)

 

 

Edited June 17, 2020 by Raven109

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

30 minutes ago, sevenless said:

 

If they would do that, I would be the last to object. But be realistic here. They sold us the Yak-9 and Yak-9T as two different collector planes. How likely do you think it is that they give us one late G6 plane which features all 109 variants from 4/44-10/44 and which combines all necessary 3D models of AS and non-AS G6 planes including all the engine variations?

 

AS/ASM will need a seperate 3D model from late G6, all else would really surprise me.

I don't think they should make all of the variants, just make a regular late G-6 and a AS one, and MW 50 option that can be combined for each. I would give up GM-1 for AS for example, and I can live with one type of tail only,

 

Spoiler

 

Edited June 17, 2020 by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard

[sevenless]

Just now, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

I don't think they should make all of the variants, just make a regular late G-6 and a AS one, and MW 50 option that can be combined for each. I would give up GM-1 for AS for example, and I can live with one type of tail only,

 

I could live with that too, but I think that would be still 2 different 3D-Models. Because of that I have my doubts, that this will happen. However, we will have to wait and see and keep our fingers crossed for an AS plane, this way or the other.

[-=PHX=-SuperEtendard]

1 minute ago, sevenless said:

 

I could live with that too, but I think that would be still 2 different 3D-Models. Because of that I have my doubts, that this will happen. However, we will have to wait and see and keep our fingers crossed for an AS plane, this way or the other.

Yeah, on the good side they have the G-6, G-14 and K-4 3D models available so while not copy paste it would be easier than start from scratch.

[Bremspropeller]

There's way too little talk about the Fw 190A-6 in this thread.

 

All I'm hering about is the same old friggin Bf One-Oh-NEIN! NEIN! NEIN!

[sevenless]

1 hour ago, Bremspropeller said:

There's way too little talk about the Fw 190A-6 in this thread.

 

All I'm hering about is the same old friggin Bf One-Oh-NEIN! NEIN! NEIN!

 

I guess people are fine with that choice. Basically it is A7 or A6? IMHO A6 is the better one for folks who already have the A8. Even better would be if they manage to squeeze the MG131s and the bulged upper gun cowling in as a selectable variation of the 3D-model. But as for the G6/AS I have my doubts that they can do that. Let´s see and wait.

Edited June 17, 2020 by sevenless

[flagdjmetcher]

On 6/14/2020 at 3:19 AM, Raven109 said:

Ok, the fact that current attrition rates are intentional or not, it doesn't matter. I think that if someone makes a game where it takes you an hour to get to the target, another hour to get back, and have no contact for days, will just not have many sales. And sales are what keeps these niche products alive. I'm talking about the big picture, not the small one where only the minority's needs are covered. So, whether the attrition rates are intentional or not it doesn't matter, all it matters is that it leads to sales.

 

Well...they did make that game, or pretty close to.  It's called career mode.  I just flew an airfield relocation mission (no contact), then a long-distance bomber escort mission (no contact), then a no-fly day, then a ground attack escort mission where we got annihilated and lost all of the squadron's rookie pilots.  Fun was had, and at no point was anyone thinking about k/d ratios, balance, or making their "ace in a flight" videos.  IIRC SP numbers are way higher than MP numbers, although I don't know the breakdown between career, scripted, and qmb.  So in terms of sales, I would guess that MP players who prioritize "balance" are very much the minority.

 

Don't get me wrong, I want you guys to have an awesome MP experience, and I enjoy watching the expert videos as much as anyone, but I don't really see that the perception of a particular planeset as unbalanced is going to materially affect sales.

 

Sales aside, I also don't really get why it matters even in the MP niche, for two reasons. 

I constantly hear that pilot skill is the main factor, and that being in the right position with good SA is critical.  OK, so if you come across an enemy with the same energy, neutral positioning, you're both aware of each other and you have equal skill - sure, at that point which G6 you're in might matter.  But how often does that really happen?

My other question is: can't server admins tweak the planeset as much as they like?  Surely the tools for chasing balance are already there.  Are there really hardcore yet impoverished MP aces out there who are disadvantaged by not being able to afford to buy (e.g.) a G14?

 

On 6/14/2020 at 7:09 AM, esk_pedja said:

 

I was talking about summer 1944 onwards... not 1943/1944. 

From February 1944 the neck of Luftwaffe was broken... Just see what resistance Luftwaffe could pose above D-Day activities.

Regarding the Mustang and Jug formations, it is well known that in a period I mentioned originally - they often returned with a full ammo load, as they met no resistance, so they end up in strifes of airfields, trains, lighthouses,...etc. on the flight back.

How many Luftwaffe fighters could afford to fly hundreds of miles deep behind allied lines ? Do you estimate that they would turn back alive ? They would certainly have far bigger problems than "cold channel waters"...

 

This is true overall,  but theatre superiority doesn't translate into consistent local superiority.  Clostermann has some hair-raising accounts of running into 30-40 strong formations of late-model fighters and having his super-duper Tempest squadron getting torn a new one.  It's not so hard to imagine a late-war map with a dozen Tempests and a dozen Typhoons on the Allied side, and on the Axis side 40 D9s and K4s and as many German AA as the game engine can stand.  So if you jump on MP and get overwhelmed by lots of well-flown late model LW planes - well, it didn't happen to every Allied pilot every day, but it's not unrealistic.

[MattS]

13 hours ago, Bremspropeller said:

There's way too little talk about the Fw 190A-6 in this thread.

 

All I'm hering about is the same old friggin Bf One-Oh-NEIN! NEIN! NEIN!

 

Haha. It is funny how the 109 is the darling of the sim community when you consider how good the FW190 is and how well (in 2020) the IL-2 BOX FW190 is modeled. Such beautifully smooth controls, stability and speed. I like the way the 109 turns and climbs like a homesick angel but the 190 is just so much better at conducting high speed attacks. It does require a little more practice and skill at positioning the head to keep eyes on the target around the heavy windscreen framing but the great view to the side and rear is fair compensation.

 

Interestingly when I read about Hartmann's tactics...loiter at mid-altitude, find people who are distracted, sneak up behind them at high speed, hit them hard at point-blank range, and race away to reset...I wonder if he would have found himself better served by the Focke-Wulf than the 109G.

10 hours ago, flagdjmetcher said:

Well...they did make that game, or pretty close to.  It's called career mode.  I just flew an airfield relocation mission (no contact), then a long-distance bomber escort mission (no contact), then a no-fly day, then a ground attack escort mission where we got annihilated and lost all of the squadron's rookie pilots.  Fun was had, and at no point was anyone thinking about k/d ratios, balance, or making their "ace in a flight" videos.  IIRC SP numbers are way higher than MP numbers, although I don't know the breakdown between career, scripted, and qmb.  So in terms of sales, I would guess that MP players who prioritize "balance" are very much the minority.

 

Don't get me wrong, I want you guys to have an awesome MP experience, and I enjoy watching the expert videos as much as anyone, but I don't really see that the perception of a particular planeset as unbalanced is going to materially affect sales.

 

Sales aside, I also don't really get why it matters even in the MP niche, for two reasons. 

I constantly hear that pilot skill is the main factor, and that being in the right position with good SA is critical.  OK, so if you come across an enemy with the same energy, neutral positioning, you're both aware of each other and you have equal skill - sure, at that point which G6 you're in might matter.  But how often does that really happen?

My other question is: can't server admins tweak the planeset as much as they like?  Surely the tools for chasing balance are already there.  Are there really hardcore yet impoverished MP aces out there who are disadvantaged by not being able to afford to buy (e.g.) a G14?

 

This is true overall,  but theatre superiority doesn't translate into consistent local superiority.  Clostermann has some hair-raising accounts of running into 30-40 strong formations of late-model fighters and having his super-duper Tempest squadron getting torn a new one.  It's not so hard to imagine a late-war map with a dozen Tempests and a dozen Typhoons on the Allied side, and on the Axis side 40 D9s and K4s and as many German AA as the game engine can stand.  So if you jump on MP and get overwhelmed by lots of well-flown late model LW planes - well, it didn't happen to every Allied pilot every day, but it's not unrealistic.

 

I just read Clostermann's book...that and others make me wonder about how the Allies managed their human and materiel resources in WW2. Definitely the way a rich man fights a war, LOL.

[Bremspropeller]

It shows how a simulation struggles to bring across the "real deal" of flying. Like hoping your engine doesn't blow 50miles off-coast or above unlandable terrain. It can't simulate relative peace of mind (or the lack thereof) when operating aircraft. A lot of sentiments by pilots are traceable to perceptions of safety, ease of operation or reliability. If you can't bother to throw away an airplane (or pilot) and just click on "fly again", then all of that goes right out of the window.

 

That makes for a slightly skewed picture. If you'd put the amouint of airplanes depicted in this game in front of a cadet (or say 100 cadets) and gave him/ them the opportunity to freely chose which crate to fly, the choices would generally be different.

 

Hartmann's tactics would probably have worked well or at least reasonably well in most, if not all fighters.

It's kind of an early, pre-solved OODA-loop.

[Pikestance]

I am confused. I am not supposed to care. I could fly the G6 CP or the G14. They can't seem to make up their mind on which yet, but we do not even know what the developer's will do. But, wait, forgot all of that, the 190 is "better." Fly that! 

 

 

[Geleitzug]

1 hour ago, Bremspropeller said:

It shows how a simulation struggles to bring across the "real deal" of flying. Like hoping your engine doesn't blow 50miles off-coast or above unlandable terrain. It can't simulate relative peace of mind (or the lack thereof) when operating aircraft. A lot of sentiments by pilots are traceable to perceptions of safety, ease of operation or reliability. If you can't bother to throw away an airplane (or pilot) and just click on "fly again", then all of that goes right out of the window.

 

That's a problem they tried to minimize on servers like e.g. TAW where you get paused for longer times (up to 24h) in case your pilot gets killed, just in order to avoid that people waste "their lifes"... Although on such servers one typically act with more care and consideration about the appropriate manouvers and whether you get in a combat or not, it still can not bring a split of the psychic stress the real pilots had encountered in every second of their combat flights...

Edited June 18, 2020 by Geleitzug

[Kurfurst]

On 6/17/2020 at 11:26 AM, 41Sqn_Skipper said:

 

I like that realistic view. Not sure if the FM is detailed enough so that a different rudder would cause a noticable difference (is it even noticable in reality for the pilot?). 

 

As I understand the 109s with the tall vertical stabilizer and rudder (besides it presumably being lighter at high speed due to the Flettner) were also cleared for higher diving speeds, i.e. qual to that of the 109K (Vne=850 kph as opposed to Vne=750 kph). So that may be a noticable difference.

[MattS]

43 minutes ago, [=PzG=]-FlyinPinkPanther said:

I am confused. I am not supposed to care. I could fly the G6 CP or the G14. They can't seem to make up their mind on which yet, but we do not even know what the developer's will do. But, wait, forgot all of that, the 190 is "better." Fly that! 

 

 

 

Well you've certainly got one part of this right ?