Jump to content

Fw190A6 doubts


3./JG15_Kampf
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, CountZero said:

Do-217 was missed chance for BoN as it played some part , later its hard to add them. For He-162 you cant have them in game as you wont be able to make SP missions for them as even with late east front Berlin wont be on map because of game limitations, and they were based west of Berlin as far i know, same for Ta-152Hs, and they cant just force them in DLC like with Ar-234 for BoN, that atleast have bases it operated from in BoBp map. It would be better to go with 6v4  or 7v3 then force 5v5 all the time by ading airplanes that should not be in game just for balance.

 

The Luftwaffe is already going to be stronger than it was historically during the Battle of Normandy. I don't see it as being that much more of a stretch for a He-162 unit to have become operational earlier and East (rather than Northwest) of Berlin. It is all alternate history.

 

The way I look at it - if having a few flashy aircraft draws in more users, it might increase the overall profitability of all modules and increase the likelihood of us someday getting an IAR-81, Pe-3, or an Il-4 etc. I'll also admit to finding the He-162 slightly fascinating. But I totally get your point.

 

P.S. I assume some Do-217 and Ju-188 were still operating in '45 as night bombers and recon aircraft? (There are even reports of attempts to re-purpose Ju-188S recon aircraft as tank killers - although we'll never see that in game). So there is still a possibility of a mid-war Luftwaffe bomber (other than the Me-410 and He-111H16).

 

1 minute ago, =621=Samikatz said:

It would be extremely surprising that there would suddenly be this limitation after Rise of Flight on the old version of the engine had a four engined bomber

 

Yeah, the number of engines isn't the issue so much as the number of gunners in these larger aircraft (we already have a three engined aircraft afterall!) That is why I suspect a Lancaster could actually be modelled successfully - whereas a He-177 couldn't and a B-17 definitely couldn't (larger formations as well as more gunners).

Edited by Avimimus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

pocketshaver
12 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

 

The Luftwaffe is already going to be stronger than it was historically during the Battle of Normandy. I don't see it as being that much more of a stretch for a He-162 unit to have become operational earlier and East (rather than Northwest) of Berlin. It is all alternate history.

 

The way I look at it - if having a few flashy aircraft draws in more users, it might increase the overall profitability of all modules and increase the likelihood of us someday getting an IAR-81, Pe-3, or an Il-4 etc. I'll also admit to finding the He-162 slightly fascinating. But I totally get your point.

 

P.S. I assume some Do-217 and Ju-188 were still operating in '45 as night bombers and recon aircraft? (There are even reports of attempts to re-purpose Ju-188S recon aircraft as tank killers - although we'll never see that in game). So there is still a possibility of a mid-war Luftwaffe bomber (other than the Me-410 and He-111H16).

 

 

Yeah, the number of engines isn't the issue so much as the number of gunners in these larger aircraft (we already have a three engined aircraft afterall!) That is why I suspect a Lancaster could actually be modelled successfully - whereas a He-177 couldn't and a B-17 definitely couldn't (larger formations as well as more gunners).

If the number was kept limited to 4 as is default in rise of flight, it would be limited by the programmers ability to decide what to model and how to have the planes interact with each other. 

 

Meaning, its alot easier to have a a pair of B-25s fly in tandem and cover each other with their limited guns then it is to have B17s do the same

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

And - Yes, Jason has commented on this at least two or three times... he'd love to do daylight raids but it would require more advanced hardware (or a reduction in fidelity).

 

And do you think that you would be able to distinguish between a bomber using "reduced fidelity" engines and "high fidelity" ones when crossing the formation with your fighter? Said that I think this sim is far from having any high fidelity engine simulation, else it would be translated into a much much more complex engine damage system. For me, limiting the planes because of the number of engines seems an incredibly poor excuse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BlitzPig_EL

It's not the engines, for the bloody last time. It's the number of  AI gunner positions that is the limitation.

 

If the Mossie had 4 engines it would not matter a whit, but if it kept it's twin engine layout and had 10 gunner stations it would be a no go.

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

-=PHX=-SuperEtendard
1 hour ago, Gambit21 said:

 

In game, and artificial environment is one thing, real life and actual roles is another. So we're having 2 different conversations here I think.

In the sim, the I16 might better at ducking between houses, barns and trees at 4 meters off the ground, therefore the best aircraft if that's my measuring stick.


I said I was talking about in game, you said "nothing changes really" so after my answer you go back and say the game is much different from real life... so thanks for accepting my point I guess.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:


I said I was talking about in game, you said "nothing changes really" so after my answer you go back and say the game is much different from real life... so thanks for accepting my point I guess.

 

I couid easily create an environment in the game (night intruder) where a P-38 would be completely ahistorical FYI.

 

 

 

 

Edited by Gambit21
Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

It's not the engines, for the bloody last time. It's the number of  AI gunner positions that is the limitation.

 

If the Mossie had 4 engines it would not matter a whit, but if it kept it's twin engine layout and had 10 gunner stations it would be a no go.

 

Why a gunner station would be a problem? Do you know ArmA, ArmA2, ArmA3? OFP? If so you should have seen there quite fluid missions where you might face actually hundreds of enemy AI armed units in a single battlefield (each one counting as minimun as a gunner station). No idea why it should take so much CPU, not even firing all of them at the very same time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mandoble said:

 

Why a gunner station would be a problem? Do you know ArmA, ArmA2, ArmA3? OFP? If so you should have seen there quite fluid missions where you might face actually hundreds of enemy AI armed units in a single battlefield (each one counting as minimun as a gunner station). No idea why it should take so much CPU, not even firing all of them at the very same time.

Comparing a flight sim to Arma is not a great comparison.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BlitzPig_EL

We used to play ArmA a lot, I am quite familiar with it.  Has nothing to do with our discussion.  Apples and oranges.  

 

The issue is the numbers of AI that this long in the tooth game engine can handle, and still process 150km draw distance, fm and dm calculations for dozens of aircraft, weapons ballistic calculations, wind, sea state on maps with bodies of water, not to mention ground units and their movements, etc.  And the fact that Arma's maps are the size of postage stamps in comparison to the maps in the Great Battles Series.

 

Air combat simulation is a different world entirely.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

NightFighter

As someone who loves night fighters (username gives a clue), I am someone who flies the Bf110 as a fighter ... in multiplayer ... alone. The rear gunner and his "1st target, engaging" callout have saved my ass so many times I would like to put a rear gunner in every single plane in the sim. If the Mossie's navigator is given the same ability to call out fighters, he will be worth his weight in gold, IMO. 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Irishratticus72
21 minutes ago, NightFighter said:

As someone who loves night fighters (username gives a clue), I am someone who flies the Bf110 as a fighter ... in multiplayer ... alone. The rear gunner and his "1st target, engaging" callout have saved my ass so many times I would like to put a rear gunner in every single plane in the sim. If the Mossie's navigator is given the same ability to call out fighters, he will be worth his weight in gold, IMO. 

 

Gold, you say. 🧐

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

We used to play ArmA a lot, I am quite familiar with it.  Has nothing to do with our discussion.  Apples and oranges.  

 

The issue is the numbers of AI that this long in the tooth game engine can handle, and still process 150km draw distance, fm and dm calculations for dozens of aircraft, weapons ballistic calculations, wind, sea state on maps with bodies of water, not to mention ground units and their movements, etc.  And the fact that Arma's maps are the size of postage stamps in comparison to the maps in the Great Battles Series.

 

Air combat simulation is a different world entirely.

Believe it or not, from a CPU load point of view map size means nothing, active map density is what counts. The number of active AI units this sim handles at the same time is absolutely ridiculous compared with the number of units ArmA series can handle. Still cannot see how the number of gunners can really have any representative impact. AI for a gunner must be 1000 times simpler than AI for a pilot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mandoble said:

Believe it or not, from a CPU load point of view map size means nothing, active map density is what counts. The number of active AI units this sim handles at the same time is absolutely ridiculous compared with the number of units ArmA series can handle. Still cannot see how the number of gunners can really have any representative impact. AI for a gunner must be 1000 times simpler than AI for a pilot.

 

With respect, you have very little grasp of what you’re trying to talk about.

 

Go place 12 aircraft on the Veluki map, and 12 aircraft on the Rhineland map. Then run some time acceleration/performance tests on both and get back to us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

 

With respect, you have very little grasp of what you’re trying to talk about.

 

Go place 12 aircraft on the Veluki map, and 12 aircraft on the Rhineland map. Then run some time acceleration/performance tests on both and get back to us.

 

I'm not saying that this is not happening, what I say is that I cannot see a justification for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Mandoble said:

 

I'm not saying that this is not happening, what I say is that I cannot see a justification for that.

 

OK - well we’re in territory here where things become difficult to quantify. Unless you’re; 

 

 A. A coder.

 B. Have access to the code.

 

 

All we can do is test and measure, and measuring becomes tricky with all of the variables. Not the place to wind down that path however.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Avimimus said:

 

Yeah, the number of engines isn't the issue so much as the number of gunners in these larger aircraft (we already have a three engined aircraft afterall!) That is why I suspect a Lancaster could actually be modelled successfully - whereas a He-177 couldn't and a B-17 definitely couldn't (larger formations as well as more gunners).

 

In that case, I don't see what the problem is with the He-177. It only has a crew of six.

 

Flights of He-177s could always be limited to 4 or 6 planes. Problem solved?

Edited by oc2209
Link to comment
Share on other sites

-=PHX=-SuperEtendard
1 hour ago, Gambit21 said:

 

I couid easily create an environment in the game (night intruder) where a P-38 would be completely ahistorical FYI.

 


Yet it would not fare any worse than the daylight designed FB Mk VI...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, oc2209 said:

Do we have the F-8 with the low altitude boost though? I mean this one (from Wikipedia):

 

Yes

11 hours ago, II./JG77_Manu* said:

For me it's not only the A6, but also the G6 late, Ju-88 and P-47 Razorback that are preventing me from buying that expansion. All those 4 aircraft are close to be copycats of already existing aircraft. So far with each new module we always had very new, unique aircraft being included, or at least upgrades of existing ones (like A5 over A3). For me there is no sense to fly the A6 or the G6 late, when the A8 and G-14 have been around during Normandy already. Same goes for the razorback. 

 

I'd like the Mossie, 410, Typhoon and Arado since they really bring something new to the table but not for the pricepoint of a whole new module. So Normandy ended up being the first module not pre-ordered by myself, I'd rather wait for at least a 50% (or rather a 66%) off. 

 

I know the arguments of people like "not everyone owns every module and they still have to get their 190s and 109s" but I don't know if this has to be a must. The number of people going for Normandy but not owning Bodenplatte is probably minimal. I think Normandy really missed the opportunity to flesh out the Western front aircraft, like the Do-217 and He-177 already mentioned by @oc2209 a flyable B-25 or the Hellcat (which was used closer to the Normandy / Belgium, then the A3 to Stalingrad).

 

I also don't get the arguments of complexity - BoS and BoM both had 2 multi-crew bombers each, 3 of them had to be build up from scratch (He-111, Ju-88, Pe-2). In the next  expansion (Kuban) we got one new bomber from scratch (A20) and that's it. Since Bodenplatte we don't get any new multi-crew bombers what so ever (not counting the Arado since it has only the pilot position to model). This is a clear decline in my opinion compared to the start of the franchise. We are still paying more then for an AAA game, can't be too much to expect at least 2 new complex modules for that pricepoint. 

 

If you think those first few planes you talk about are mostly copies of existing aircraft, then I invite you to find Jason's replies to people who said the same thing about the G-6 Late when it was released.

 

As for the argument about most people already owning a module, thus no need to model a 190 and 109:

 

-It would be absolutely ludicrous to not model at least one type or another, simply because those two planes were everywhere the Luftwaffe fought. It would be like releasing an RAF module and not including a Spitfire. 

 

-You would be amazed at the number of people who still don't realize that there's a sequel to the original IL2. As I've mentioned here before, I worked the 1CGS booth with Hooves and Jason at the last flight sim convention in Vegas, and I was astounded at the number of people who'd never heard of BOS before. So, how do you market the game to people like that? In part, by including the 2 most recognizable planes of the Axis in whatever you decide to build. 

Edited by LukeFF
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

III/JG53Frankyboy

i would like to see bombsight „versions“ of the Mosquito and the P-38.

And a 20mm canon modification for the Ju88A ( so no bombsight here 🤪 ). Such a 20mm Ju88A with its bombload would be much superiour over the comming Ju88C - unless it will get underwing bombracks.....

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

JV44HeinzBar
On 2/22/2021 at 7:00 AM, Yogiflight said:

The difference in agility between the A5 and A6 with removed wing guns might have to do with the modified wing constriction of the A6, which was neccessary for fitting of the Mg151/20 and later 30mm guns in or under the wing. The wings were stiffened for the additional weight and the larger recoil of the new guns. This means additional weight of the wing itself and maybe also a different responsiveness to maneuvers.

 

S!,

The A-6 wing was designed to fight weight creep in addition to adding strength.

It seems that this discussion was hi-jacked by bug lovers & wish lists ;)

 

07.jpg

 

Edited by JV44HeinzBar
wrong image
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Irishratticus72
51 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

 

Yes

 

If you think those first few planes you talk about are mostly copies of existing aircraft, then I invite you to find Jason's replies to people who said the same thing about the G-6 Late when it was released.

 

As for the argument about most people already owning a module, thus no need to model a 190 and 109:

 

-It would be absolutely ludicrous to not model at least one type or another, simply because those two planes were everywhere the Luftwaffe fought. It would be like releasing an RAF module and not including a Spitfire. 

 

-You would be amazed at the number of people who still don't realize that there's a sequel to the original IL2. As I've mentioned here before, I worked the 1CGS booth with Hooves and Jason at the last flight sim convention in Vegas, and I was astounded at the number of people who'd never heard of BOS before. So, how do you market the game to people like that? In part, by including the 2 most recognizable planes of the Axis in whatever you decide to build. 

I mean, if sex is off the table, then sure, you could go that route. I guess. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, oc2209 said:

In that case, I don't see what the problem is with the He-177. It only has a crew of six.

 

Flights of He-177s could always be limited to 4 or 6 planes. Problem solved?

 

Six gunners still puts it above every other bomber in the sim (many have two gunners, the He-111H6 is the only one with up to five)! But if the flight size was kept small it does sound more feasible than a B-17 (the same goes for the British bombers as they generally operated in smaller formations and had fewer gunners).  Still though - it is a four engine bomber with two or three times the number of gunners that most other bombers in the sim have. But I won't tell you that you can't dream :)

 

55 minutes ago, III/JG53Frankyboy said:

i would like to see bombsight „versions“ of the Mosquito and the P-38.

And a 20mm canon modification for the Ju88A ( so no bombsight here 🤪 ). Such a 20mm Ju88A with its bombload would be much superiour over the comming Ju88C - unless it will get underwing bombracks.....

 

As I understand it - most of those were naval variants... whereas the Ju-88C was also used for attacking trains in the East (and intruder work)... so I'd probably prefer the Ju-88C for that reason (more use in more scenarios)

 

37 minutes ago, JV44HeinzBar said:

It seems that this discussion was hi-jacked by bug lovers & wish lists ;)

 

Sorry! 😄

 

I find the Fw-190A6 load-outs give an interesting sense of increasing desperation to it... It is almost like the A6 was intended as an improvement, but clearly wasn't enough of one... and the A8 (with its more standardised load-outs, bomb control systems, etc.) has a sense of being back in denial about the situation. So, I think it might be one of my favourite Fw-190 variants. Something which surprised me.

Edited by Avimimus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

sevenless
58 minutes ago, III/JG53Frankyboy said:

i would like to see bombsight „versions“ of the Mosquito

 

Absolutely! Cookies...;-)

 

image.png.3e3834a9400b314f2376698a7c11b9e9.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PatrickAWlson
56 minutes ago, JV44HeinzBar said:

 

S!,

The A-6 wing was designed to fight weight creep in addition to adding strength.

 

 

Thanks for posting.  They reduced weight by 1000 lbs from the A5 and installed better guns.  That is impressive.  

Edited by PatrickAWlson
Link to comment
Share on other sites

JV44HeinzBar
5 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

Thanks for posting.  They reduced weight by 1000 lbs from the A5 and installed better guns.  That is impressive.  

 

No problem. I'm just trying to help out. I assume that the "loaded weight" means full fuel, oil, ammunition, guns, etc. 

 

I feel that the developers missed the mark on the A-6 agility and load outs. Unfortunately, I don't feel that the A-6 is big improvement over the A-5 other than the guns & bomb load out. Just some examples that I've found:

  • We're still missing the WB 151/20 on the A-6 of which at least 60 sets made it to III/JG11 December, 1943 on the western front. ( Creek & Smith Focke-Wulf 190 Vol 1 )
  • The company LZA, out of Sagan - Kapper Poland, produced G-3/R1 to combat bombing raids, as well as, ground attack. No auto pilot or additional armor(Skupiewski Fw190 a/f/g/s)
  • About the G-3/R3, there were some 20 aircraft that used the R3 set (mk103) on the Eastern Front. I think Arado produced the 20 planes?( Swanborough & Green Focke-Wulf 190)
  • Of course the previous post about the loaded weight: A3 = 3800kg; A6 = 3901kg; A5 = 4200kg (Pentland & Shennan Focke-Wulf fw190 described)

You would think that the A-6 would be closer in agility to the A-3 since it's closer in weight than the A-5. Unfortunately, the A-6 in Normandy is nearly identical in performance & agility. The only thing it's got over the A-5 series is a slightly better bomb load out w/ 2 extra 151/20s. 

 

Again, I'm not saying this a complete failure, I'm just saying that there's room for improvement. 

HB

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Avimimus said:

 

Six gunners still puts it above every other bomber in the sim (many have two gunners, the He-111H6 is the only one with up to five)! But if the flight size was kept small it does sound more feasible than a B-17 (the same goes for the British bombers as they generally operated in smaller formations and had fewer gunners).

 

Okay, sorry for derailing again (Legal disclaimer: the 190A-6 is a valid and valuable addition to the IL-2 series), but just to put this one particular discussion to bed:

 

Technically the He-177 has a pilot, a navigator/co-pilot/occasional nose-gun operator (I'm guessing?), a gunner in the gondola beneath the cockpit, two gunners operating two separate dorsal turrets, and a tail gunner.

 

Therefore, at most, only 5 positions can be firing at any one time. There are 6 armed positions (front gondola, rear gondola, upper nose, 2 turrets, tail), only one of those with a two-gun turret. The rest are all single guns. I differentiate between single and double guns because I would assume sim calculations are taxed more by two bullet streams instead of one. So six distinct gun barrels can be firing at any one time; as the gondola gunner can't shoot forward and backward simultaneously.

 

The B-25 has 5 total crew, 3 of them gunners, with 5 distinct defensive guns that can fire at any one time.

 

Anyway, long story short, I did a test with 8 Bf-110s with belly 20mm packs, versus 8 B-25s. And yes, it turned into stop-motion animation. But that was a lot of firepower going on.

 

8 B-25s are shooting as many as 40 bullet streams with 24 active gunners. A flight of 6 He-177s would be shooting 36 streams with 30 gunners. A flight of 4, 24 streams with 20 gunners; I think the sim can handle this load. If we want to be really safe, maybe even consider 3-plane flights as a maximum. Forcing smaller flights for certain aircraft is, in my opinion, a small price to pay for getting some heavier bombers. I realize we're still not going to get true American heavies. But even a limited selection of half-assed heavies would be nice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-=PHX=-SuperEtendard
31 minutes ago, JV44HeinzBar said:

 

No problem. I'm just trying to help out. I assume that the "loaded weight" means full fuel, oil, ammunition, guns, etc. 

 

I feel that the developers missed the mark on the A-6 agility and load outs. Unfortunately, I don't feel that the A-6 is big improvement over the A-5 other than the guns & bomb load out. Just some examples that I've found:

  • We're still missing the WB 151/20 on the A-6 of which at least 60 sets made it to III/JG11 December, 1943 on the western front. ( Creek & Smith Focke-Wulf 190 Vol 1 )
  • The company LZA, out of Sagan - Kapper Poland, produced G-3/R1 to combat bombing raids, as well as, ground attack. No auto pilot or additional armor(Skupiewski Fw190 a/f/g/s)
  • About the G-3/R3, there were some 20 aircraft that used the R3 set (mk103) on the Eastern Front. I think Arado produced the 20 planes?( Swanborough & Green Focke-Wulf 190)
  • Of course the previous post about the loaded weight: A3 = 3800kg; A6 = 3901kg; A5 = 4200kg (Pentland & Shennan Focke-Wulf fw190 described)

You would think that the A-6 would be closer in agility to the A-3 since it's closer in weight than the A-5. Unfortunately, the A-6 in Normandy is nearly identical in performance & agility. The only thing it's got over the A-5 series is a slightly better bomb load out w/ 2 extra 151/20s. 

 

Again, I'm not saying this a complete failure, I'm just saying that there's room for improvement. 

HB


About the weights you listed, that's comparing a Fw 190 A-3 without outer cannons, a Fw 190 A-6 without them as well, and the Fw 190 A-5 with outer cannons and maybe even a bomb pylon and drop tank, because that's way too high.

These are the weights listed in game with comparable configurations:

only two wing guns:

A-3:  3855 Kg,  A-5: 3926 Kg;  A-6: 3990 Kg.

with all four wing cannons:

A-3: 4000 Kg,  A-5: 4057 Kg,  A-6: 4140 Kg.

Also the G-3 modification doesn't add extra armor, it adds the pylons and removes the outer 20mm and cowling machine guns and their ammo, ending in a net weight reduction (and quite considerable at that)

unknown.png

A Fw 190 G-3 without bombs ends up weighting 3989 Kg.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JG4_Widukind

The FW190 G3/R5

 

belongs to the Jabo / Rei family

Jabo = fighter-bomber

Rei = reach

As has been correctly said, it only has the standard armament and is on range and bomb load. It is not to be confused with the F version, these are attack aircraft. I have now tested the A6 extensively and am disappointed with it The agility of the aircraft, even if you want to make it as light as possible and fly as a fighter Dropping circuits of the bombs that make no sense at all. There is also no reaction to bugs at all - you keep yourself silent.

 

Google translation

Edited by JG4_Widukind
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

II./JG77_Manu*
13 hours ago, LukeFF said:

As for the argument about most people already owning a module, thus no need to model a 190 and 109:

 

-It would be absolutely ludicrous to not model at least one type or another, simply because those two planes were everywhere the Luftwaffe fought. It would be like releasing an RAF module and not including a Spitfire. 

 

-You would be amazed at the number of people who still don't realize that there's a sequel to the original IL2. As I've mentioned here before, I worked the 1CGS booth with Hooves and Jason at the last flight sim convention in Vegas, and I was astounded at the number of people who'd never heard of BOS before. So, how do you market the game to people like that? In part, by including the 2 most recognizable planes of the Axis in whatever you decide to build. 

 

Thing is, you can't keep up that plan forever. We are still missing at least a 1944 and a late 1944/1945 scenario on the eastern front, and several possible earlier Western front modules from Battle of France to the channel battles between 1940 and 1943. So would you just follow the path and also include the G10, G14/AS, 190-A9, 190-A7 and all the earlier 109s and 190s? Don't you think this makes the modules a lot less interesting for the seasoned players? 

 

I think it is much better to include German modules we haven't seen at all before, which there are quite a few significant ones around: Do-(2)17, He-219, Hs-123, Ju-188, Fw-189, He-177. At least for me, this would make further modules a lot more interesting. 

Edited by II./JG77_Manu*
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, PatrickAWlson said:

 

Thanks for posting.  They reduced weight by 1000 lbs from the A5 and installed better guns.  That is impressive.  

 

Not quite unfortunately. The A-6s loaded weight with 4 cannons was 100kg higher than the A-5s with 4 cannons.

See here for reference:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/190a5-performancetable.jpg

Edited by Karaya
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, JV44HeinzBar said:

About the G-3/R3, there were some 20 aircraft that used the R3 set (mk103) on the Eastern Front. I think Arado produced the 20 planes?( Swanborough & Green Focke-Wulf 190)

 

Until there are actual photos, reports, and/or aircraft serial numbers attesting to that, I don't believe such a variant ever existed. That source you cite was published in 1976, which wasn't exactly a great time for accurate, detailed information on Luftwaffe aircraft. After all, sources from that time also claimed that Fw 190s fought at Stalingrad.

 

59 minutes ago, II./JG77_Manu* said:

So would you just follow the path and also include the G10, G14/AS, 190-A9, 190-A7 and all the earlier 109s and 190s?

 

Well, what other un-modeled 190s and 109s could they possibly add? All those types existed and flew in relevant numbers. Add those types, and you have pretty much the entire line of 190s and 109s modeled.

 

59 minutes ago, II./JG77_Manu* said:

Don't you think this makes the modules a lot less interesting for the seasoned players? 

 

Not at all - and by the way, what exactly do you mean by "seasoned players"? Because, if it is what I think it is - multiplayer gamers - well, then that group is always going to be the most vocal and demanding, with many (not all, to be fair) of them always wanting more and rarely satisfied with the status quo. But, MP gamers are hardly the majority of the people who play this game.

Edited by LukeFF
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, II./JG77_Manu* said:

 

Thing is, you can't keep up that plan forever. We are still missing at least a 1944 and a late 1944/1945 scenario on the eastern front, and several possible earlier Western front modules from Battle of France to the channel battles between 1940 and 1943. So would you just follow the path and also include the G10, G14/AS, 190-A9, 190-A7 and all the earlier 109s and 190s? Don't you think this makes the modules a lot less interesting for the seasoned players? 

 

I think it is much better to include German modules we haven't seen at all before, which there are quite a few significant ones around: Do-(2)17, He-219, Hs-123, Ju-188, Fw-189, He-177. At least for me, this would make further modules a lot more interesting. 

 

Please don't take this wrong but this is an argument that keeps coming up and to be perfectly frank, it is not a good one.  As has been pointed out many (many) times, not everyone purchases every module.  So someone buying new to BoX buys Battle of Normandy but finds no Fw190 or Bf109 included because the planes in other modules are out of period.  Or do they just say, sure here's a 109G6 and Fw190A5 from 1943 and put up with the complaints of "this is not accurate".

 

So let's say they create a Battle of Fance, or a Battle of Britain, or even just a 1941 module.  They decide to use your suggestion and add nothing but new planes and no variants.

 

Battle of Britain would consist of the Boulton Paul Defiant, Blenheim, maybe a Do17.  Unfortunatley Manu has decreed that no sub-versions of existing planes should be made.  So no Spitfire, Hurricane, Bf109, Bf110, Ju 88, Ju 87 or He 111 because later versions have already been done and none of them took part in BoB (though some Ju 88 A-4s did partake during the very late stages.

 

Can you imagine the looks you would get if you tried to sell a BoB sim with absolutely none of the iconic planes flyable?

Personally I think the way they are doing new or more obscure planes is perfeclty good.  We get some of the more obscure types added with the mainstream types.

 

Can we model that aircraft to a decent fidelity?

Is it going to hlep sell our new sim?

What are the mainstream types we simply have to add for this module to be historically accurate?

 

Once they have most of the above catered for they can look at more obscure planes as "bonus" additions.  So for Normandy we get an Arado AR234, Me 410 and one of the most exciting Mosquito types in the FB variant.  None of those would be planes we see in every WWII sim released.  So I think the devs are stuck between a rock and a hard place so to speak and unfortunately there are many vocal types who think each module should meet only their specific needs.

Edited by ICDP
  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

II./JG77_Manu*
2 hours ago, ICDP said:

 

Please don't take this wrong but this is an argument that keeps coming up and to be perfectly frank, it is not a good one.  As has been pointed out many (many) times, not everyone purchases every module.  So someone buying new to BoX buys Battle of Normandy but finds no Fw190 or Bf109 included because the planes in other modules are out of period.  Or do they just say, sure here's a 109G6 and Fw190A5 from 1943 and put up with the complaints of "this is not accurate".

 

So let's say they create a Battle of Fance, or a Battle of Britain, or even just a 1941 module.  They decide to use your suggestion and add nothing but new planes and no variants.

 

Battle of Britain would consist of the Boulton Paul Defiant, Blenheim, maybe a Do17.  Unfortunatley Manu has decreed that no sub-versions of existing planes should be made.  So no Spitfire, Hurricane, Bf109, Bf110, Ju 88, Ju 87 or He 111 because later versions have already been done and none of them took part in BoB (though some Ju 88 A-4s did partake during the very late stages.

 

Can you imagine the looks you would get if you tried to sell a BoB sim with absolutely none of the iconic planes flyable?

Personally I think the way they are doing new or more obscure planes is perfeclty good.  We get some of the more obscure types added with the mainstream types.

 

Can we model that aircraft to a decent fidelity?

Is it going to hlep sell our new sim?

What are the mainstream types we simply have to add for this module to be historically accurate?

 

Once they have most of the above catered for they can look at more obscure planes as "bonus" additions.  So for Normandy we get an Arado AR234, Me 410 and one of the most exciting Mosquito types in the FB variant.  None of those would be planes we see in every WWII sim released.  So I think the devs are stuck between a rock and a hard place so to speak and unfortunately there are many vocal types who think each module should meet only their specific needs.

 

Seems like you, as well as the people upvoting your post, didn't really read my posts thoroughly.

 

I am not at all against modeling submodels, quite the opposite. I think up until BoBp, every sub model made sense - bar the G4, which is a copycat of the G2.

But with Normandy we entered a territory, where certain submodels just don't make too much sense. By the time of Normandy, Germany already fielded already quite a number of 190 A8s and 109 G14s. The Allies already fielded the P47 with bubble canopy.

 

So modelling the "lesser" models is a waste for the majority (not everyone apparently!) of players, compared to modelling actual missing designs, because at multiplayer they will always use the more modern fighter anyway and at singleplayer it might add a small tad of realism when you are flying a 100% historical G6-late instead of a G6 or a G14 in the respective squadron that used it, but it would add a whole lot more realism to make aircraft available that were there and are not modelled by the franchise at all.

 

Just not having any bombers or bigger recon aircraft in the whole western scenario really takes away a lot of realism and authenticity. At the same time it renders a lot of available aircraft useless or at least takes away their historical roles, or at least part of. Having proper bombers at high alt would actually make aircraft like the P47 and the Dora useful in their (high alt) fighter rolls. It would also give heavy fighters, such as the Ju88-C, Me-410, 190 Sturmjäger an actual purpose (no idea why they are even in game, they will be rarely used in the current meta). It would also give the Mosquito some purpose as a heavy fighter, night fighter or nightbomber recon/marker aircraft, instead of just being a defenceless low alt fighter-bomber not even carrying a decent bombload it will be. 

 

The way it is, in multiplayer it's pretty much all Spit, Tempest and Mustang against late 109s, with the odd A8 (or even less used P-38) being used to bomb stuff. In single player, while possible to use the other aircraft, you are doing the same kind of repetitive mission again and again. Due to the lack of bomber and recon aircraft there is just zero variation. The Normandy aircraft are really not adding any value to that meta, bar maybe the Arado, the Typhoon and the Spit Mk14. 

Edited by II./JG77_Manu*
Link to comment
Share on other sites

JG4_Widukind

 

2 hours ago, ICDP said:

 

Please don't take this wrong but this is an argument that keeps coming up and to be perfectly frank, it is not a good one.  As has been pointed out many (many) times, not everyone purchases every module.  So someone buying new to BoX buys Battle of Normandy but finds no Fw190 or Bf109 included because the planes in other modules are out of period.  Or do they just say, sure here's a 109G6 and Fw190A5 from 1943 and put up with the complaints of "this is not accurate".

 

So let's say they create a Battle of Fance, or a Battle of Britain, or even just a 1941 module.  They decide to use your suggestion and add nothing but new planes and no variants.

 

Battle of Britain would consist of the Boulton Paul Defiant, Blenheim, maybe a Do17.  Unfortunatley Manu has decreed that no sub-versions of existing planes should be made.  So no Spitfire, Hurricane, Bf109, Bf110, Ju 88, Ju 87 or He 111 because later versions have already been done and none of them took part in BoB (though some Ju 88 A-4s did partake during the very late stages.

 

Can you imagine the looks you would get if you tried to sell a BoB sim with absolutely none of the iconic planes flyable?

Personally I think the way they are doing new or more obscure planes is perfeclty good.  We get some of the more obscure types added with the mainstream types.

 

Can we model that aircraft to a decent fidelity?

Is it going to hlep sell our new sim?

What are the mainstream types we simply have to add for this module to be historically accurate?

 

Once they have most of the above catered for they can look at more obscure planes as "bonus" additions.  So for Normandy we get an Arado AR234, Me 410 and one of the most exciting Mosquito types in the FB variant.  None of those would be planes we see in every WWII sim released.  So I think the devs are stuck between a rock and a hard place so to speak and unfortunately there are many vocal types who think each module should meet only their specific needs.

But I'm upset because the things (bomb drop, drop sequence) are not in order, and rightly so! This has already been programmed and works (see FW190 A5) What are the testers actually testing? I know that you get your specifications, but such things should not happen. In addition, the aircraft FW190 A6 flies as sluggishly as a stone :), even with expanded armament (we say stone about the 109 G6 because it reacts just as sluggishly) It was done better with the FW190 A5. I would like us to have a better game, through quality and not through quantity, and I would also like to contribute to it. I am for the game and not against it.

Actually, you just have to communicate sensibly and disregard the other viewpoint, but unfortunately there are also many trolls in the forums who make it impossible to have a reasonable conversation. A little feedback from those responsible wouldn't be bad.

Edited by JG4_Widukind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, II./JG77_Manu* said:

 

Seems like you, as well as the people upvoting your post, didn't really read my posts thoroughly.

 

I am not at all against modeling submodels, quite the opposite. I think up until BoBp, every sub model made sense - bar the G4, which is a copycat of the G2.

But with Normandy we entered a territory, where certain submodels just don't make too much sense. By the time of Normandy, Germany already fielded already quite a number of 190 A8s and 109 G14s. The Allies already fielded the P47 with bubble canopy.

 

So modelling the "lesser" models is a waste for the majority (not everyone apparently!) of players, compared to modelling actual missing designs, because at multiplayer they will always use the more modern fighter anyway and at singleplayer it might add a small tad of realism when you are flying a 100% historical G6-late instead of a G6 or a G14 in the respective squadron that used it, but it would add a whole lot more realism to make aircraft available that were there and are not modelled by the franchise at all.

 

Just not having any bombers or bigger recon aircraft in the whole western scenario really takes away a lot of realism and authenticity. At the same time it renders a lot of available aircraft useless or at least takes away their historical roles, or at least part of. Having proper bombers at high alt would actually make aircraft like the P47 and the Dora useful in their (high alt) fighter rolls. It would also give heavy fighters, such as the Ju88-C, Me-410, 190 Sturmjäger an actual purpose (no idea why they are even in game, they will be rarely used in the current meta). It would also give the Mosquito some purpose as a heavy fighter, night fighter or nightbomber recon/marker aircraft, instead of just being a defenceless low alt fighter-bomber not even carrying a decent bombload it will be. 

 

The way it is, in multiplayer it's pretty much all Spit, Tempest and Mustang against late 109s, with the odd A8 (or even less used P-38) being used to bomb stuff. In single player, while possible to use the other aircraft, you are doing the same kind of repetitive mission again and again. Due to the lack of bomber and recon aircraft there is just zero variation. The Normandy aircraft are really not adding any value to that meta, bar maybe the Arado, the Typhoon and the Spit Mk14. 

 

Your problem is as I mentioned in my earlier post, purely thinking about your needs and preferences.  You want a bigger variety and state the devs need to diversify, yet contradict yourself by saying your are OK with the AR234, Sptfire XIX and Typhoon.  Yet we already have two versions of the Spitfire and a Tempest, so why didn't the devs just leave those out?  Or is that OK because you personally find those planes interesting (but not more 190s or 109s it seems)?

 

What about those looking forward to the Me410, or the Mosquito, or a Bf109G that fits into the Normandy period?  The G14 didn't arrive until Aug - Sep 1944 and the earlier G6 is a 1943 version.

 

You are showing exactly what I described, you want the devs to focus on a variety that YOU personally want.  Rather than what is realsitically achievable given a small team and budget.

Edited by ICDP
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bremspropeller
16 hours ago, JV44HeinzBar said:

The A-6 wing was designed to fight weight creep in addition to adding strength.

 

Unfortunately, there seems to be no original sources that back this claim up.

It would be great to find an original Focke-Wulf document sating that, but so far there hasn't been anyone to pull it up.

 

It's highly likely the "reducing weight" was just a side-effect (if true at all) and the actual work concentrated on just diversifying and simplifying weapon-loadouts and a general drive towards greater manufacturing-standardisation. The A-8 and it's F-8 and G-8 brethren were a similar strive.

 

Edited by Bremspropeller
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

 

Unfortunately, there seems to be no original sources that back this claim up.

It would be great to find an original Focke-Wulf document sating that, but so far there hasn't been anyone to pull it up.

 

It's highly likely the "reducing weight" was just a side-effect (if true at all) and the actual work concentrated on just diversifying and simplifying weapon-loadouts and a general drive towards greater manufacturing-standardisation. The A-8 and it's F-8 and G-8 brethren were a similar strive.

 

 

I agree with this point.  I have read many people state the A6 wing was designed to reduce weight but that doesn't add up when we look at the actual weight difference between an A5 and an A6.

Edited by ICDP
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, II./JG77_Manu* said:

I think it is much better to include German modules we haven't seen at all before, which there are quite a few significant ones around: Do-(2)17, He-219, Hs-123, Ju-188, Fw-189, He-177. At least for me, this would make further modules a lot more interesting. 

 

Yeah, I'm in this same camp as well... Obviously there are objections to the He-219 (would require modelling radars / night combat) and the He-177 (already debated)...

 

But generally speaking, providing aircraft or roles (e.g. recon) which we haven't experienced in past sims is great for attracting players who have been flying sims for >20 years.  They are also good for completing the historical plane-set (e.g. Hs-123 appeared in all of our current Eastern European modules). On the other hand, new players might be more attracted by a Go-229 or BvP-215 (I know I was attracted to sims by such aircraft as a kid).

 

I think BoN does a good job of this by offering planes like the Ju-88C, while also offering flashy high performance aircraft (Spit XIV, Arado Ar-234). It provides aircraft for all sides of the market. Honestly, I'd love to see a module that gave us an IAR-81 and a He-162, or a module that gave us a Fw-189 and a Ta-152C, or one that gave us an Il-4 and an Il-10... it would be a good compromise for developing a greater variety of historical aircraft (without losing the market that is only interested in the fastest and flashiest).

 

20 minutes ago, ICDP said:

I agree with this point.  I have read many people state the A6 wing was designed to reduce weight but that doesn't add up when we look at the actual weight difference between an A5 and an A6.

 

Isn't it that the wing had a greater strength to weight ratio, and this helped compensate for the fact that other parts of the aircraft were increasing in weight? That is what I've been assuming anyway (could be wrong).

Edited by Avimimus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

 

Isn't it that the wing had a greater strength to weight ratio, and this helped compensate for the fact that other parts of the aircraft were increasing in weight? That is what I've been assuming anyway (could be wrong).

 

I think ther emay be some element of truth to that but I doub't it was the main reason for the change.  In order to improve the weapon variety they had to change the wing design (internal spar removed if I recall) and they also strenghted the wing in the process.

Link to comment
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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...