PDA

View Full Version : What about one lousy bomb for Friedrichs?



Ugly_Kid
05-16-2005, 02:54 PM
All these years since the first day of original IL-2 Bf-109F was there. Since day one they had no loadout option. Ever since the game has expanded, new planes come, some with loadouts some without them - yet planes coming out of nowhere get a whole family of new loadouts, if not immediately then after some minor whine and moneytalksspeech. Yet it seems to be impossible to take one lousy SC250 and just give it as an option to F? (or gunpods, or a fuel tank)

You fly hundreds of missions in online wars, several maps with Bf-109F (quite rightly, after all it was a major variant) and there's nothing you can hang on it. You are even restricted to fly with F-2 with the devastating MG151/15 to a date of official introduction of F-4, although F-2s were promptly field modded with 20 mm much earlier. And what do you meet during the early years of war...?

Now how does it look like:
1942 a strong year of LW, pushing hard on offensive:
http://people.freenet.de/majamaki/LW_1942.jpg

And VVS, flying obsolete machines and having a hard time against advancing German troops:

http://people.freenet.de/majamaki/VVS_1942.jpg

F without loadout makes Emil the only JaBo option until the introduction of G-2 (and the most rectal admins behind wars still won't enable G-2 to work as JaBo before it historically did http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif which is later than the appearance of G-2 on the front http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif). IMO this really distorts the way the online war is played and I find it pity. There are several things that the people behind wars can influence and compensate but they can't in the end give planes or loadouts. I would be personally much more happy to see representative historical main variants of aircraft types with usable load-outs than gei toys for DF-servers that anyway get banned sooner or later. You don't fly offline campaigns with them and you surely won't see them in online wars. Yet simple issues like representative main variants with representative loadouts would benefit both on and offline campaigns.

Sorry if this comes across as a rant but I see this as a major flaw, which really affects a really active part of players community (campaign and mission generating people for both on- and offline and the very players of these)- I see the oldest, a very active and by far not a small group of clients simply ignored here.

NorrisMcWhirter
05-16-2005, 03:02 PM
Hi,

I agree..it does distort but what do you expect when they can't be bothered to update certain VVS aircraft DMs that feature heavily in the same online wars, too?

It would be nice for FW190 to have a rocket loadout, also..but I don't see it happening.

Ta,
Norris

Atomic_Marten
05-16-2005, 03:15 PM
Frederick could use more loadout options for sure.

Ratsack
05-16-2005, 04:32 PM
I agree.

...and while we're talking about historical loadouts for the Frederick, let's have a drop tank...and the MG151/20E gondolas for the wings, too. And, no, I'm not trolling.

In similar vein, what about drop tanks for the FW190A8, A9 & D9?

Ratsack

Ugly_Kid
05-16-2005, 11:06 PM
I should have been a bit more specific, I noticed. The two stats are takes from loadout history from one LW pilot and one VVS pilot in Chech War. Quite a difference, isn't there?

Yes A-8 and so on, sure but they do not cause such an unrepairable gap into the construction of the missions, particularly in 1941-42 which should be the "strong" years of LW. Yet, you can't push the offensive if there's nothing to throw at them http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. So sure there's a whole world of loadouts missing, but some are essential and some or yet nice to have.

It is quite funny to fly a frustrating intercept with F-2 and blasting all your ammo on enemy bombers, return towards the base and maybe 20 minutes later you're rewarded with kill or not. At the same time tovarich makes one pass on Heinkel bulk, blasts away with the rockets and that was it with them bombers.

I'd appreciate much more to have following than yet another add-on plane (and absolutely priority on the bomb):

Bf-109F-2:
SC-250
Field mod MG151/20 nose cannon
Fuel tank

Bf-109F-4:
SC-250
MG151/20 gunpods
Fuel tank

It isn't even about a new family of weapons or bombs, it is about making existing ordnance available for two old aircraft in inventory since the release of original IL-2. It is beyound my comprehension why all this nonessential stuff gets such an attention and this flaw is simply ignored.

Ratsack
05-17-2005, 01:26 AM
Wasn't there a very common Bf109 load of four light bombs as well? This and the SC250 would be the go for ground pounding Fredericks.

I take your point about these being existing loadout options that only need to be added to the F series. I agree with you.

I'd also like to see the wing mounted MG151s, too.

I don't know about the retrofit MG151/20 hub gun. If this was available, nobody in their right mind would ever take the MG151/15. It'd be like the situation with the G6 and the Mk108: very few online players ever take the MG151 in preference to the MK108.

Were F2s ever fitted with MGFFs in the hub? I know the F1 was meant to be armed with the MGFF, but I wonder if any ground crews ever fitted the MGFF to the F2 in frustration?

Ratsack

Atomic_Marten
05-17-2005, 01:31 AM
Maybe they were also carried SC50s?(like Emils 4xSC50)

Hungarians used the F4 a lot in Jabo role. In fact I am pretty sure that I have some pic that features Hungarian pilot near to his Bf-109F-4/B loaded with 4xSC50s.(it is more like guess, by the shape of projectile(s)).

ImpStarDuece
05-17-2005, 01:58 AM
I would really like some more bomb loadouts for the Freidrichs.

As a mission builder it would give me WAY more scope in the 1941-42 period. Cross channel pinprick raids, desert war jabo and Barbarossa airfield bombing all immediately come to mind.

Extra fuel would be fine, and a 'kannoboot' would have its uses but a SC250 for the 109F2 and F4 would be fantastic.

On a side note; how about bomb loads for the Hurri IIc? It was stressed for 500lbrs on each wing hardpoint. Would a pair of 250lbrs and a pair of 500lbrs be too much to ask? Again this would really help with the 1941-42 period particularly in Western Europe as well as the Western Desert.

WWMaxGunz
05-17-2005, 02:14 AM
If it was done, it should be loadout in game.

Perhaps 20mm field mod as loadout too, save need for another plane if that is problem.

Would that "fly" in Russian market though?

Ugly_Kid
05-17-2005, 05:06 AM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
I don't know about the retrofit MG151/20 hub gun. If this was available, nobody in their right mind would ever take the MG151/15. It'd be like the situation with the G6 and the Mk108: very few online players ever take the MG151 in preference to the MK108.

That is correct, yet it is much more historical option than the AA rockets repeatedly used by the "opposing force", for instance http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

It is also not unheard of that VVS is not given IL-2s for a mission, since the "historical" interceptor would be F-2! Why? Well because mission makers realize the futility of stopping IL-2s with that pea shooter (not that MG151/20 is that much better). Anyway, the situation leads to a compromise which doesn't necessarily satisfy anybody. So there are pros and cons for everybody, one needs to consider.

Essentially, a loadout restriction option for the said reasons would not be too bad but I wonder whether it will ever take place in FB/AEP/PF series.

Now historically we are tied to certain planetypes without much of an option, however, the loadouts lead to serious limitations in variability of the missions at this particular period.

PF_Coastie
05-17-2005, 05:36 AM
With every change there would be give and take. Any VVS plane that takes rockets to hit bombers will likely be killed as long as the bombers have a proper escort.

Same goes if LW takes gunpods on F-2, F-4. You may get a couple bombers but you will likely be killed.

Its always give and take. More loadout= more likelyhood of death because you have a much slower and sluggish AC.

JG53Frankyboy
05-17-2005, 05:37 AM
some people here are making the mistake to see the game online only as dogfight http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
in COOP modus weapon restriction is working fantastic - great for online wars - as VOW2 will show http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

as in general , the community is complaining about the loadouts (for a lot of planes) since ages . seldom something is changing - just remember how long it took since ONE Hurricane got bombs.
im still have the opinion it would have been better for the game qualitiy if the developpers would have staid completly at the eastern front !
just imagine the manpower and time that was needed for the western/pacific stuff (that i realy like very much !) would have been used to improve the easternfront: planes, maps, DM, FM .....

Ratsack
05-17-2005, 05:51 AM
These load changes should be simple, though, because the 3D and damage models already exist.

Philipscdrw
05-17-2005, 04:11 PM
What if the F4 is used to represent the 'F2 with field-mod 20mm cannon'? Are there any other differences between the F2 and F4?

If there are no differences, then all that is required is for the admins to make the F4 available earlier.

JG53Frankyboy
05-17-2005, 04:49 PM
well, the F4 is faster because its engine, BD601E instead of DB601N, has more power

Ugly_Kid
05-18-2005, 03:08 AM
Yes, this step for "compensation" is practically never done. It is also interesting that we have MG151/15 in the game, it's a nice weapon but it's not much of a use for several tasks one could historically perform with F-2. The lack of bomb is actually the one thing that's most missing.

Of course there is plenty of other things you could do, but I consider it more "nice to have", bombs and guns are the biggest problem.
RZ65 for instance, would be nice to have but would require much more work than SC250, i.e:

http://people.freenet.de/majamaki/RZ65.jpg

WWMaxGunz
05-18-2005, 03:10 AM
Hehehe, give them the worst G6.
Well, some balance that way. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Atomic_Marten
05-18-2005, 03:31 AM
Originally posted by PF_Coastie:
With every change there would be give and take. Any VVS plane that takes rockets to hit bombers will likely be killed as long as the bombers have a proper escort.

Same goes if LW takes gunpods on F-2, F-4. You may get a couple bombers but you will likely be killed.

Its always give and take. More loadout= more likelyhood of death because you have a much slower and sluggish AC.

That is all true but, if organised bunch of people (rare sight online) decide to intercept bombers, than there will be bomber interceptors (with gondollas) and *their* escort (without pods) in that group. Just like in real life. Soo.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Kurfurst__
05-18-2005, 05:06 AM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
I agree.

...and while we're talking about historical loadouts for the Frederick, let's have a drop tank...and the MG151/20E gondolas for the wings, too. And, no, I'm not trolling.Ratsack

The 109F did not mount 151/20 gondolas to my knowladge, only subsequent 109Gs did.

Of the Friedrichs, only the 109F-4/R1 version was prepeared to mount gondola weapons, the others could not. The gondolas had MG 151/15 guns, unlike of the 109G. Also, all 109Gs were factory-prepeared for the gondolae cannons.

Also, no Bf 109 mounted the MG 151/20E version of the weapon. The 'E' stood for electrically primed version of the MG 151, and was used in the FW 190 to faciliate syncronization. The Bf 109 cannons did not fire through the propellor blades, so they could use the MG 151/20, normal version, with percussion primed ammo.

Keep in mind that the MG 151/15 and /20 are the same weapon, and with changing some components, like barrel and breech, they could be converted into each other.. the /20 version was even shorter barreled I think... so the field mod of F-2s seems likely/possible.

Ratsack
05-18-2005, 07:58 AM
Never heard of a MG151/15 gondola weapon, only the 20 mm. I'm not saying you're wrong, but it does seem counter intuitive to go to the trouble of puting a dirty great gondola under the wing, only to mount a 15 mm gun. You'd almost expect them to put a MGFF or MGFFM in there by preference. Do you have a reference for the gondola 151/15?

Ratsack

Ugly_Kid
05-18-2005, 10:49 AM
Originally posted by PF_Coastie:
With every change there would be give and take. Any VVS plane that takes rockets to hit bombers will likely be killed as long as the bombers have a proper escort.


Except that without rockets Mig-3ud clock 505 km/h on SL - with rockets 477 km/h AND again 505 km/h after firing them.

This is BTW list originating from butch2k (so F-4 had gondolas):

Bf 109F-2
Cowling weapons: 2x MG-17 (500 rpg)
Engine mounted weapon: MG-151 (200 rounds)
Options:
- R1 : 1x SC250
- R1 : 1x SD250
- R1 : 1x AB250-1
- R2 : 4x SC50
- R2 : 4x SD50
- R2 : 4x SD70
- R2 : 4x AB24t SD2 (48x SD2 bombs in total, different from the R4 system)
- R3 : 1x Type D droptank
- R4 : 96x SD2 (4x 24 SD2 bombs = 96)

Bf 109F-4
Cowling weapons: 2x MG-17 (500 rpg)
Engine mounted weapon: MG-151/20 (200 rounds)
Options:
- /R1 : 2x MG151/20 Gondolas (135rpg) (most probably /R1 was used to distinguish aircraft which could actually use the Rüstsatz VII : the MG151/20 gondolas, from aircraft which couldn€t)
- R1 : 1x SC250
- R1 : 1x SD250
- R1 : 1x AB250-1
- R2 : 4x SC50
- R2 : 4x SD50
- R2 : 4x SD70
- R2 : 4x AB24t SD2 (48x SD2 bombs in total, different from the R4 system)
- R3 : 1x Type D droptank
- R4 : 96x SD2 (4x 24 SD2 bombs = 96)


My book says that at mid 1941 all flying units rapidly equipped their F-2s with MG151/20 (hub).
It's also said that first F-1 (if not all) were equipped with MG/FF (hub) - this also haunts on F-3 so perhaps (but just perhaps) there might have been F-2 with MG/FF too (this is just speculation from my side). My source says that MG151/20 pods were installed in F-4, a series of 240 aircraft were foreseen but practically only few photos exist so the actual figure might have been lower. Here anyway a picture:

http://people.freenet.de/majamaki/mg15120inf4.jpg

Atomic_Marten
05-18-2005, 04:08 PM
Hm. I guess that these gondollas can be removed from aircraft if necessary (F4/R1)? And installed on other F4 (without them)?
Is that ever been done in WW2?

LuckyBoy1
05-18-2005, 04:18 PM
Now Ivan, before you delete this, look at the bottom of the comments because it is in fact a serious post trying to make an affermaitve arguement for the guy who started this thread.

See, here's the way I see it. Now that IL-2 skins is almost up and running, I want to again urge that the game will never be complete without a Volkswagen Beatle bomb loadout option.

See, they got this evil clown skin... or they used to at least over at IL-2 skins... and if you fly like the HE-111 using that skin, when you bail out of ther plane, all these clowns come running out and that amuses a simple mind like mine!

So, here's how the bomb loadout works. When you drop the load, a Volkswagen Beatle comes falling out of the bomb bay doors... just think of all the skins you can make for the Bug alone!... the Volkswagen Beatle falls to earth and on impact, instead of exploding, 30 clowns come piling out of the car.

Still, I need your imput here because I'm not sure how to model fuse delay on this one! Has to be at least as reasonable a request as the rest of this nonsense they whine for!

We can't even get the bomb loadout for the P-47 correct and that's been a known problem forever. I actually and seriously join you in feeling that we should fix what we've got before proceeding with new planes. How 'bout some rockets for the P-51? Many of the German planes have waited as well and I support that being fixed as much or more than I do fixing the U.S, crates that are dear to my heart.

Kurfurst__
05-18-2005, 04:47 PM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
Never heard of a MG151/15 gondola weapon, only the 20 mm. I'm not saying you're wrong, but it does seem counter intuitive to go to the trouble of puting a dirty great gondola under the wing, only to mount a 15 mm gun. You'd almost expect them to put a MGFF or MGFFM in there by preference. Do you have a reference for the gondola 151/15?

Ratsack


Hmmm, I looked it up and it`s quite controversial. Radinger/Otto`s 109FGK notes trials with /20 gondolas, but Page 22 it also notes some problems with jamming during the development trials with 15mm version...

OTOH Prien/Rodeike`s 109 FGK tells on Page 28 that the 109F-4/R1s gondola weapons were Mg 151/15 type...

But overall, considering by the F-4 the 20mm was already ready, maybe it was used in the end, the guns were convertible after all.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif

UGLY KID,

keep in mind that the F-4/R1 just had the _option_ to mount gondolas, it was not neccesarily had to be on photos. It was an optional equipment, not permanent, so how the number of photos of F-4s with gunpods don`t tell much.

WWMaxGunz
05-18-2005, 09:41 PM
Luckyboy, 109F was around way before P-47 and P-47 has loadouts so if one should wait
until the other is done, it should be P-47, not 109F.

I am sure that CFS3 can do your stupid clown car. It is just the sim for that.
The 1% group can surely model the car and clowns to their accustomed precision.

Willey
05-18-2005, 10:02 PM
Bump http://www.ubisoft.de/smileys/3.gif

We need historical loadouts http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Stuff for the 190D and 109F especially, but also corrected loadouts for the other 109s (no 500kgs! except K), 190s, 111 etc.

Ugly_Kid
05-19-2005, 05:14 AM
Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
keep in mind that the F-4/R1 just had the _option_ to mount gondolas, it was not neccesarily had to be on photos. It was an optional equipment, not permanent, so how the number of photos of F-4s with gunpods don`t tell much.

Like I said a number of F-4/R1 was foreseen. Sure it was optional. The same one could said about G-6 that it was an option, some of them were delivered but quite a few pilots had the gun pods removed per personal preference.

So this should also answer Atomic_Marten's question, yes, they could be assembled and removed on the field (jettisoning during flight was unfortunately not possible http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif).

Vipez-
05-19-2005, 08:06 AM
Originally posted by Ugly_Kid:



This is BTW list originating from butch2k (so F-4 had gondolas):

Bf 109F-2
Cowling weapons: 2x MG-17 (500 rpg)
Engine mounted weapon: MG-151 (200 rounds)
Options:
- R1 : 1x SC250
- R1 : 1x SD250
- R1 : 1x AB250-1
- R2 : 4x SC50
- R2 : 4x SD50
- R2 : 4x SD70
- R2 : 4x AB24t SD2 (48x SD2 bombs in total, different from the R4 system)
- R3 : 1x Type D droptank
- R4 : 96x SD2 (4x 24 SD2 bombs = 96)

Bf 109F-4
Cowling weapons: 2x MG-17 (500 rpg)
Engine mounted weapon: MG-151/20 (200 rounds)
Options:
- /R1 : 2x MG151/20 Gondolas (135rpg) (most probably /R1 was used to distinguish aircraft which could actually use the Rüstsatz VII : the MG151/20 gondolas, from aircraft which couldn€t)
- R1 : 1x SC250
- R1 : 1x SD250
- R1 : 1x AB250-1
- R2 : 4x SC50
- R2 : 4x SD50
- R2 : 4x SD70
- R2 : 4x AB24t SD2 (48x SD2 bombs in total, different from the R4 system)
- R3 : 1x Type D droptank
- R4 : 96x SD2 (4x 24 SD2 bombs = 96)


http://people.freenet.de/majamaki/mg15120inf4.jpg

Let's see, some of us have been whining about this (some would say even asking in polite way, like Ugly http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ) 109F with these loadouts since first IL-2 came out.. and to this date it has not happened. So it seems Oleg is not going to implement any new loadouts for "veteran" birds, like the 109F.. But surely, deleting 500 kg bomb from 109G, adding 4x SC-70 option to 109s, drop tank / bomb to 190D, and 109F with bombs have and will be perhaps the most important loadout the axis side have been missing in the game.. Along with Heinkel H-2 with 8X SC-250 (man, i wish we had this one )

Though, it will give some satisfaction to get powerfull MG151/20 after patch 4.0, flying 109F will be a joy then.. in two weeks http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

carguy_
05-19-2005, 08:46 AM
In CW planesets are historical(lets agree on this) but loadouts are certainly not taken into 'historical' account.The result is F2 with assignment ofintercept of Pe2/Pe8 bombers to which LW can not react accordingly.The irony is that the only pure bomber which LW is able to down is the Sturmovik.Emils are never assigned to attack pe2/Pe8 formations.

I do however know that if Emils were switched with 250kg bomb Friedrichs there would be no chance for VVS.

Having an F4 solves most gun problems but no gunpods/bombs loadouts is rather silly.

As for MG151/15 I value it more than MG151/20 because the damage from close range done by those two weapons is pretty close but the great amount of cannon ammo in F2 lets pilots literally spray and pray at fighter targets.

JG53Frankyboy
05-19-2005, 09:35 AM
F2 and F4 have same canon ammo amount.
MG151/15 has better balistic

Ratsack
05-19-2005, 09:38 PM
The extra loadouts would make the F series into the killer it was.

Ratsack

Ugly_Kid
05-20-2005, 02:45 AM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
The extra loadouts would make the F series into the killer it was.

Ratsack

Yeah, it's sort of funny. Quite a few veterans consider F as "the" 109 just as some consider D as "the" FW. What can we hang on them ... nada?

BlackStar2000
05-24-2005, 12:14 PM
Ugly_Kid

Have u send all these info to Oleg, cause this is realy a shame havem those 109 Striped of the correct loudouts, discuss stuff here helps a lot but i dont think it would bring a solution to the matter, indeed its no absurd have the 109Fs loudout corrected.

Ugly_Kid
05-24-2005, 03:36 PM
I am sure that Oleg is aware that you could hang something on Friedrichs http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. He just probably doesn't know what kind of harm he is doing not giving it little attention. Quite a few most active online players (and the ones you don't see here whining, who rather consentrate really on playing and enjoying the game) play online wars and are confrontated with this dilemma (and feel ignored). Same goes very probably also for the offline players and all people (voluntary ones) making campaigns and missions for the others. So in this respect a public discussion has more to it, I think. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

LBR_Rommel
05-24-2005, 09:39 PM
S!

I Understand u, right now LBR are on CW and we know how these loudouts it is important to inflict damage on the enemy, but a thing is little bit odd in this situation, first these planes is no new stuff, i think those were modelled since IL2, and im not sure, but russian planes have a good variety of loudouts, what is no sin, while Germans have poor options of loudouts, none, why not fix it?

Some of the devs can say something about it?

I think here we have enough material to make these changes

<O|

BlackStar2000
05-25-2005, 06:38 AM
What about a new Add-on "Forgotten Weapons"
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Ugly_Kid
05-25-2005, 07:37 AM
Originally posted by BlackStar2000:
What about a new Add-on "Forgotten Weapons"
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Would be sort of variation to the weapons that barely existed or worked and aircraft that barely flew. Getting a very normal standard loadout on a very standard normal aircraft would be somewhat refreshing change. Noone would even have to come up with the "evidence" that at least one of these left the factory http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Perhaps you can't publish an impressive development update screenie out of it and that's all what counts. Look we hung SC250 on F-2 and all our newly obtained air-quakers disappointed from CFS3 go just "yawn". Hang a 305 mm Obuhov on a TB-3, gunpod from Millenium Falcon or put a flamethrower on I-185 now that's something, that's kind of "cool" like a speaking frog.

Ratsack
05-27-2005, 07:03 AM
!!BUMP!!

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifBombs and gondolas for the Friederich, please. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


Ratsack

WWMaxGunz
05-27-2005, 10:17 AM
For sure most all of the artwork and models exist?
Only need mount points on the 109F's?

Ratsack
05-30-2005, 01:14 AM
Bump again.

Not asking for changes to flight models, or changes to damage models; just the addition of historical loadouts for a key German type, where the 3D models already exist.


I can€t believe more of you guys aren€t hanging from the rafters for this.

WWMaxGunz
05-30-2005, 08:15 AM
If you haven't noticed before, there is a development cycle for fixes and changes.
Oleg has also been through two serious accidents and severe trauma.
Shouting won't help, hounding won't either.
But staying and waiting for notice might if it ain't loud.
This ain't the time to pull the screaming baby act but then it never is.

BlackStar2000
05-30-2005, 08:16 AM
Bunch of noobs dont know how much fun is to fly F2/4.

Shame on u Oleg, Forgotten Weapons its a Ugly spot on this game history.

Ratsack
05-31-2005, 01:17 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
blah blah
This ain't the time to pull the screaming baby act but then it never is.

Nobody is screaming. I merely comment that this is an obvious and relatively easy fix to implement, and that I'm surprised there are not more people in favour of it. Imagine if a fraction of the effort wasted in the 'leading edge slats' type of threads were expended bringing something useful - like this - to Oleg's attention.

Pull your head in, Max.

Ratsack

JG53Frankyboy
05-31-2005, 02:14 AM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
blah blah
This ain't the time to pull the screaming baby act but then it never is.

Nobody is screaming. I merely comment that this is an obvious and relatively easy fix to implement, and that I'm surprised there are not more people in favour of it. Imagine if a fraction of the effort wasted in the 'leading edge slats' type of threads were expended bringing something useful - like this - to Oleg's attention.

Pull your head in, Max.

Ratsack </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

well, propably after 3 1/2 years some people gave up http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
im not able anymore to count all the topics here in ORR about the loadouts - for a lot of planes

Jg300_Kostek
05-31-2005, 07:17 AM
Well let's say this:
If VVS can have in '41 Lagg3s4 with 23mm cannon, when it was very rare (cannon not a plane) and was FM i think, then OKL can have 109f2 with FM mg151/20.

JG53Frankyboy
05-31-2005, 08:09 AM
Originally posted by Jg300_Kostek:
Well let's say this:
If VVS can have in '41 Lagg3s4 with 23mm cannon, when it was very rare (cannon not a plane) and was FM i think, then OKL can have 109f2 with FM mg151/20.

i would check this rant again http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

BlackStar2000
05-31-2005, 08:20 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
If you haven't noticed before, there is a development cycle for fixes and changes.
Oleg has also been through two serious accidents and severe trauma.
Shouting won't help, hounding won't either.
But staying and waiting for notice might if it ain't loud.
This ain't the time to pull the screaming baby act but then it never is.

Wow Hold your horses fanboy

Nobody here said it was for tomorrow, or forget life and give F series loud out, this can easy be scheduled for some of those "Cycle of changes", but if dev team notice ppl request will be good enough for us to expect some change, but this is so old, a basic mistake, forgot or skip F series loadouts, then, more easy should be fix it.

Right now this makes alot of diference for those who play campaing online, offline or CW.

Ugly_Kid
05-31-2005, 10:33 AM
Originally posted by BlackStar2000:
Right now this makes alot of diference for those who play campaing online, offline or CW.

Exactly, and the really sad part is that it is really an active community that suffers and also usually less vocal one - the online war simmers actually play and enjoy the game instead of dragging on G-2 stall discussions for eight pages only to discover own ignorance. At least, I've noticed more historical approach to the tactics and flying as I see on DF servers. When I started participating more actively I started bothering less about this or that small inconsistency but one bloody bomb would make a bit of a difference. Particularly once you've flown through some 4 or 5 wars with Friedrich and always suffered from this handicap.

WWMaxGunz
05-31-2005, 10:51 AM
Originally posted by Ratsack:
I can€t believe more of you guys aren€t hanging from the rafters for this.

BlackStar2000
05-31-2005, 12:12 PM
Plz WWMaxGunz leave, u dont have nothing to add, and if it is a attempt to show apreciation to Oleg u found the wrong way.

USAF_pilot
06-01-2005, 07:11 AM
Oleg wake up and give us the bomb rack + bombs for the Freidrich along with the pods.
IT is LONG overdue on your part and its a far more useful and important change than adding some new clouds.

JG5_UnKle
06-01-2005, 02:33 PM
Historical loadouts get my vote http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Ratsack
06-04-2005, 09:18 PM
Why don't we set up a poll?

WWMaxGunz
06-05-2005, 01:59 AM
I would like to see the loadout of bombs for the 109F's and believe it is a hole in the
sim as being historic based on evidence presented here.

Also the field upgrade of cannon to 151/20's.

I just have seen that making lots of noise at especially a busy time for 1C is counter to
later appearance of change. What does have good chance or working is reason and data only.
Ugly Kid and others work by this approach, the peanut gallery does not. IE, you want not
any change, act like a spoiled crying brat. And yes, that obviously needs to be stated.

Pressure will not help, it will only hurt. Reason is the way.

Ratsack
06-05-2005, 03:23 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
I would like to see the loadout of bombs for the 109F's and believe it is a hole in the
sim as being historic based on evidence presented here.

Also the field upgrade of cannon to 151/20's.

I just have seen that making lots of noise at especially a busy time for 1C is counter to
later appearance of change. What does have good chance or working is reason and data only.
Ugly Kid and others work by this approach, the peanut gallery does not. IE, you want not
any change, act like a spoiled crying brat. And yes, that obviously needs to be stated.

Pressure will not help, it will only hurt. Reason is the way.

Metaphysics now, Max? But you can't reach truth by an act of pure reason, mate. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif


If you have nothing to add, please, feel free to p1ss off, Max. Go and do something useless with your life, like adding another couple of pages to your leading edge slats thread. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Ratsack

Ratsack
06-05-2005, 03:39 AM
€¦and while it€s obvious that you€d rather expend endless reams of verbiage on a dead issue like definitions of states of flight in the low-speed envelope of a plane using a flight model that€s about to be flushed€¦well, I€d rather discuss something more useful, and would like to know who else is interested. If you€re not, you and your rivet-counting friends can go and pollute a different thread.

Cheers,
Ratsack

WWMaxGunz
06-05-2005, 04:48 AM
You tell me I have nothing to add in posts like that?

Ratsack
06-10-2005, 09:24 PM
Now the 4.0 idiocy is over, how about this good idea for the next iteration?

ratsack