PDA

View Full Version : Presenting the bf 109 Z2



XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 12:36 PM
S! all!

I've been workin on it sice july, in contact with Oleg. We decided to make it from the original FB G6 model, cause the F2/G2 were just experimental a/c, the G6 was planned to be the serial. I'm still workin on it (so its WIP /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif ). It needs a diet too, the poly count is a little high, so it just will be released when it become fine, it will be in a Add on
Hope u like it.

http://www.erichhartmann.hpg.com.br/bf190z/109z18.jpg

http://www.erichhartmann.hpg.com.br/bf190z/109z19.jpg

http://www.erichhartmann.hpg.com.br/bf190z/109z20.jpg

http://www.erichhartmann.hpg.com.br/bf190z/109z21.jpg


-------------------------------------
Luftwaffe Brasil
Força e Honra!

]http://www.erichhartmann.hpg.com.br/newbo.gif (http://www.erichhartmann.hpg.com.br/newbo.gif[/img)

LBR=Hartmann in HL

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 12:36 PM
S! all!

I've been workin on it sice july, in contact with Oleg. We decided to make it from the original FB G6 model, cause the F2/G2 were just experimental a/c, the G6 was planned to be the serial. I'm still workin on it (so its WIP /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif ). It needs a diet too, the poly count is a little high, so it just will be released when it become fine, it will be in a Add on
Hope u like it.

http://www.erichhartmann.hpg.com.br/bf190z/109z18.jpg

http://www.erichhartmann.hpg.com.br/bf190z/109z19.jpg

http://www.erichhartmann.hpg.com.br/bf190z/109z20.jpg

http://www.erichhartmann.hpg.com.br/bf190z/109z21.jpg


-------------------------------------
Luftwaffe Brasil
Força e Honra!

]http://www.erichhartmann.hpg.com.br/newbo.gif (http://www.erichhartmann.hpg.com.br/newbo.gif[/img)

LBR=Hartmann in HL

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 12:39 PM
I didn't know this one! It's like a German F-82 Twin Mustang. I wonder if the F-82 is being modeled, too. It could be interesting to confront them. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

- Dux Corvan -

<center>http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/images/mash_hawkeye.jpg (http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/)</center>

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 01:10 PM
the Bf 109 Z was never build...

++ 88.IAP_Manuc ++

Zayets
08-26-2003, 02:09 PM
True , was never built but there was a prototype which actually took off the ground. Idea came a bit late. There was a link on this forum with the secret weapons of Germany , realy interesting , realy...

Zayets out

http://www.arr.go.ro/iar81c.JPG

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 02:12 PM
Great ... now they've got two radiators to aim for

Looks great, if it's anything to the 109 as the Twin Mustang is to the Mustang it'll be fun.

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 02:14 PM
Was one of the 109s really smaller than the other one?

http://www.erichhartmann.hpg.com.br/bf190z/109z18.jpg


--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 02:28 PM
Hmmm...Sounds very interesting and should be great fun! Thanks for the news!!! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

To be able to fare well,
To avoid the frustration of misfortune,
That, in this world, is happiness.
-Euripides' Electra

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 02:43 PM
A.K.Davis wrote:
- Was one of the 109s really smaller than the other
- one?


No, it's the angle of the pic...

http://www.luftwaffebrasil.kit.net/figuras/lbr_topo.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 02:46 PM
LBR_Barkhorn wrote:
-
- A.K.Davis wrote:
-- Was one of the 109s really smaller than the other
-- one?
-
-
- No, it's the angle of the pic...
-
<img
- src="http://www.luftwaffebrasil.kit.net/figuras/lb
- r_topo.jpg">
-
-
-

S!
Yah he right, thnaks Barkh /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



-------------------------------------
Luftwaffe Brasil
Força e Honra!

LBR=Hartmann in HL

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 02:52 PM
Looks even weirder than the Zwilling. Hope it's as fun to shoot at, as it is to look at.

Great work; keep it up.




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

"I don't know what weapons World War 3 will be fought with, but World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones."
-A. Einstein
"And any leftover assault weapons" -Fallout Fan


I am an Arado whiner. And proud of it.

http://www.vectorsite.net/avar234.html
Not my site. But a good place to start if you want to join the Arado-whining. The Arado needs *you* today!

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 03:26 PM
Hartmann. wrote:
-
- LBR_Barkhorn wrote:
--
-- A.K.Davis wrote:
--- Was one of the 109s really smaller than the other
--- one?
--
--
-- No, it's the angle of the pic...
-
- S!
- Yah he right, thnaks Barkh http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 03:32 PM
If we are getting weird birds, why not the Blohm und Voss Bv 141 reconaissance plane? It's totally asimetrical. I still wonder how it could fly. And it did quite well!

- Dux Corvan -

<center>http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/images/mash_hawkeye.jpg (http://www.bloggerheads.com/mash_quiz/)</center>

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 03:37 PM
Who knows that might be crazy enough to work!/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

"degustibus non disputandum"

<center>http://carguy.w.interia.pl/tracki/sig23d.jpg

<center>"Weder Tod noch Teufel!"</font>[/B]</center> (http://www.jzg23.de>[B]<font)

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 04:06 PM
Did you make it from scratch? If you did why didn't you used the current g6 model from FB we got now?

A few hours work then /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 04:14 PM
DuxCorvan wrote:
- I didn't know this one! It's like a German F-82 Twin
- Mustang. I wonder if the F-82 is being modeled, too.
- It could be interesting to confront them.


The F-82 mustang was actually modelled after the BF-109Z /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


Anyways, it is a smart plane to start modelling with. You just take the FB 109G6 and join two of them /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye
shall be judged: and with what
measure ye mete, it shall be
measured to you again.

http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/templates/subSilver/images/logo_phpBB.gif (http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/index.php)

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 06:07 PM
Platypus_1.JaVA wrote:

- The F-82 mustang was actually modelled after the
- BF-109Z

Oh, of course it was. All American planes were copies of German designs.

The P-82 was designed in 1943 and first flew in 1944, **right after the Allies over ran the Messerschmitt facilities, confiscated their designs, shipped them back to the US, studied them, and incorporated their designs into the P-82.**

If it wasn't for the German contribution, the P-82B could not have been ordered into production in March 1944.

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/tiger.jpg


Message Edited on 08/26/0309:09PM by SkyChimp

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 06:22 PM
A.K.Davis wrote:
-
-
- The 109 fuselage in the foreground is clearly
- smaller than the one behind it. If it was simply
- angle and foreshortening, then the one behind would
- appear smaller than the one closer to the viewpoint.
-
-
-
---AKD
-
http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg
-

It's called Orthogonal Perspective, a very common view in many 3D modelling programs. Lines DO NOT converge on a distant point they stay parallel.

This the reason the pics look like they do.

Nate

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 06:27 PM
Hartmann,

The referrences to armement I have for the Bf 109Z-2 list the following:

2 X Mk108 30mm
2 X Mk 103 30mm
+ up to 500 Kg bombs

What ever happened to the nose mounted MG131s ??? Were they being blanked-off on the Me 109Z-2 ??

Butch2k ??

Would be fun to fly, but I hope we get the right loadouts with the Z-2, as the loadouts for many of the German A/C still currently need quite a bit of work as of FB v1.1b. I know that Butch2K has forwarded all the require additions to Maddox, but I hope the new planes will get it right out of the box.

BTW, thanks Hartmann for bringing us the BF 109Z-2!

Cheers,

Do217s

XyZspineZyX
08-26-2003, 11:17 PM
S!
The Mg 131s still there. about the armament, Oleg has all info about it, and i hope so we'll get a new Zerstorer.

The Z 2 was modelled using the FB's G6, of course with some modifications, it would be a great plane if it had fought in the war, as happened with the Twin Mustang (as our friend said, is a "copy" from this engineerin marvel).

I think that it will be flyable, so kill some B17s and tanks with him would be really nice.



-------------------------------------
Luftwaffe Brasil
Força e Honra!

LBR=Hartmann in HL

XyZspineZyX
08-27-2003, 06:07 AM
Hartmann. wrote:

- The Z 2 was modelled using the FB's G6, of course
- with some modifications, it would be a great plane
- if it had fought in the war, as happened with the
- Twin Mustang (as our friend said, is a "copy" from
- this engineerin marvel).


This is wrong.

The developement of the P-82 Twin Mustang began in 1943, as did the developement of the Bf-109Z. The contract for 2 XP-82 was awarded in January 1944. These were contemporary, parallel, but completely independent, developements.


Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/corsairs.jpg


Message Edited on 08/27/0309:17AM by SkyChimp

XyZspineZyX
08-27-2003, 06:32 AM
Zayets wrote:
- True , was never built but there was a prototype
- which actually took off the ground.

No, it never flew. IIRC it was destroyed in an air raid before it ever got off the ground.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/corsairs.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-27-2003, 11:13 AM
S!

SkyChimp wrote:
- Hartmann. wrote:
-
-- The Z 2 was modelled using the FB's G6, of course
-- with some modifications, it would be a great plane
-- if it had fought in the war, as happened with the
-- Twin Mustang (as our friend said, is a "copy" from
-- this engineerin marvel).
-
-
- This is wrong.
-
- The developement of the P-82 Twin Mustang began in
- 1943, as did the developement of the Bf-109Z. The
- contract for 2 XP-82 was awarded in January 1944.
- These were contemporary, parallel, but completely
- independent, developements.
-
-
- Regards,
-
- SkyChimp
-
- <img
- src="http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/corsairs.
- jpg">
-
-
- Message Edited on 08/27/03 09:17AM by SkyChimp

Yah but after war there we're some "tech" exchange from Germany to american... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

-------------------------------------
Luftwaffe Brasil
Força e Honra!

LBR=Hartmann in HL

XyZspineZyX
08-27-2003, 11:46 AM
Only a zwilling? Why not a Dreilling (triplet) /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
Excellent work, will be fun to shoot down/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

<center>

http://www.moomin.fi/pics/logo.gif </p>
<center>

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Death you die from, me you have to live with/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </p>

XyZspineZyX
08-27-2003, 11:59 AM
in a book about messerschmitt and his work form the german Bernard&Graefe puplishers the armament in the Destroyer configuration is mentioned as 5xMK108 ore 4xMK108&1xMK103.
the painting looks like 2 engine cannons and 3 gondolas.

the fast-bomber had 2xMK108 and 2000kg bombs .


im still astonished that this project will make it in FB !



http://www.jagdgeschwader53.flugzeugwerk.net/diverses/franky.gif

XyZspineZyX
08-27-2003, 02:19 PM
I want a quadrupel Bf109......./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

<center>

http://www.webforum.nu/member/Fornixx/190.JPG</p>
<center>

CWoS Asshat since 2003</p>

XyZspineZyX
08-27-2003, 04:57 PM
Hartmann. wrote:

- Yah but after war there we're some "tech" exchange
- from Germany to american...


Of course there was tech exchange, but not with regards to the P-82. Keep the discussion in context.

The P-82 was designed, developed and in production before the end of the war. There was no German influence in the design of the P-82 at all.



Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/corsairs.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-27-2003, 06:02 PM
SkyChimp wrote:
- Platypus_1.JaVA wrote:
-
-- The F-82 mustang was actually modelled after the
-- BF-109Z
-
- Oh, of course it was. All American planes were
- copies of German designs.
-
- The P-82 was designed in 1943 and first flew in
- 1944, **right after the Allies over ran the
- Messerschmitt facilities, confiscated their designs,
- shipped them back to the US, studied them, and
- incorporated their designs into the P-82.**
-
- If it wasn't for the German contribution, the P-82B
- could not have been ordered into production in March
- 1944.
-

The whole Mustang is actually an europian plane. Designed by a german, who looked closely to the bf-109. So, the F-82 was also inspired by the Germans /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye
shall be judged: and with what
measure ye mete, it shall be
measured to you again.

http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/templates/subSilver/images/logo_phpBB.gif (http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/index.php)

XyZspineZyX
08-27-2003, 06:07 PM
Why is an ac that was only a proto type going to be in an addon ??

Id rather see AC like Corsair,P38 Lightning, Spitfire, Mustang among many others be in the addon over some prototype!!!

<center><FONT COLOR="white">ӚFJ-M œ R D ˜ ӡ[/i]</font>

<center> http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/ah_109_1059752328.jpg </center>

<center><FONT COLOR="white">The "Ace Edge"(c).
With my incremental trim
I am actually able to turn so quickly that, I never turn at all.
In Fact the Planet Earth rotates around the Axis of My PC, thus giving me the optimum turn rate and insuring that you
the bandit are promptly fraged !!!
In memory Of Ray R.I.P.[/i]</font>

XyZspineZyX
08-27-2003, 06:13 PM
ditto. real planes pleez

www.fighterjocks.net (http://www.fighterjocks.net) home of the 11 time Champions Team AFJ. 6 Years Flying http://www.world-data-systems.com/aerofiles/albums/userpics/p47-22.jpg 47|FC=

XyZspineZyX
08-28-2003, 02:03 AM
Platypus_1.JaVA wrote:

- The whole Mustang is actually an europian plane.
- Designed by a german, who looked closely to the
- bf-109. So, the F-82 was also inspired by the
- Germans

No, no. Designed by an AMERICAN of German descent. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif




Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/corsairs.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-28-2003, 05:15 PM
Don't listen to the Nay-sayers. I think the Bf109Z-2 would be a wonderful addition to the game. I just have a few questions regarding the 3d model under way here.

When comparing the model to the pictures I can get of the Bf109Z-2 (see http://www.luft46.com/mess/me109z.html), it seems that the MG131 ports are faired over and that the front part of the fuel tank cover over the starboard cockpit is more curved and swept back than the one in the screenshot. I must admit that the possiblity of the drawings being inaccurate or that there is some distortion in the screenshot could be messing with my perceptions of things. Please share your thoughts on this if it isn't too much of an inconvenience.

Cheers,

Fafnir_6

XyZspineZyX
08-28-2003, 05:38 PM
It is sort of amazingly frustrating the sheer lack of understanding that people display here, reguarding aircraft design. Despite the fact that the 109 and the P-51 are both aircraft that used inline engines, and low mounted wings, they are not identical aircraft.

Their structures are completely different. The streamlining method used for each are radically different: the P-51 used the conical area rule, while the 109, most definetly did not. Even the wing designs are completely different; the P-51 has a laminar flow wing with top/bottem symetry, while the 109's airfoild is conventional non-top/bottem symeteric.

Why is it the LW keep trying to expropriate it? Maybe the 109 isn't good enough for them?

Harry Voyager

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQDLAswcqmIpvWP9dLzZVayPXOmo6IJ16aURujNfs4dDETH84 Q6eIkCbWQemjqF6O8ZfvzlsvUUauJyy9GYnKM6!o3fu!kBnWVh BgMt3q2T3BUQ8yjBBqECLxFaqXVV5U2kWiSIlq1s6VoaVvRqBy Q/Avatar%202%20500x500%20[final).jpg?dc=4675409848259594077

XyZspineZyX
08-28-2003, 07:02 PM
HarryVoyager wrote:
- It is sort of amazingly frustrating the sheer lack
- of understanding that people display here,
- reguarding aircraft design. Despite the fact that
- the 109 and the P-51 are both aircraft that used
- inline engines, and low mounted wings, they are not
- identical aircraft.
-
- Their structures are completely different. The
- streamlining method used for each are radically
- different: the P-51 used the conical area rule,
- while the 109, most definetly did not. Even the
- wing designs are completely different; the P-51 has
- a laminar flow wing with top/bottem symetry, while
- the 109's airfoild is conventional non-top/bottem
- symeteric.
-
- Why is it the LW keep trying to expropriate it?
- Maybe the 109 isn't good enough for them?
-
- Harry Voyager
-
You are completley true.


But...


It is a well known fact that (at least) one of the P-51 design team, was from German origin. The engine that made the Mustang great, was british. The early version mustangs where infamous because they looked alot like the BF-109's. They often faced friendly fire. This resemblance almost dissapeared with the introduction of the 'bubble' canopy.

When pointing something out about the P-51 mustang, I always refer to the following excelent article (wich you undoubtedly allready know)

http://www.flightjournal.com/plane_profiles/p-51_mustang/p-51_mustang_history.asp

BTW, I was trolling a bit. We Europeans like it to troll americans, just face it. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye
shall be judged: and with what
measure ye mete, it shall be
measured to you again.

http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/templates/subSilver/images/logo_phpBB.gif (http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/index.php)

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 12:02 AM
Yes, but you don't forget, there is a certain faction on these boards who genuinely beleive that *everything* was developed by Germany first, that everything else is but a pale immitation of German brilliance, and they are more than willing to everyone that constantly, and repeatedly, until they are blue in the face.

It's sort of like hearing UFO jokes after dealing with a group of real live tinfoil hats. Jokes aren't always as funny immediatly after dealing with the real thing.

Harry Voyager

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQDLAswcqmIpvWP9dLzZVayPXOmo6IJ16aURujNfs4dDETH84 Q6eIkCbWQemjqF6O8ZfvzlsvUUauJyy9GYnKM6!o3fu!kBnWVh BgMt3q2T3BUQ8yjBBqECLxFaqXVV5U2kWiSIlq1s6VoaVvRqBy Q/Avatar%202%20500x500%20[final).jpg?dc=4675409848259594077

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 01:53 AM
It will truely be a downfall in IL2's reign if an aircraft that absoluetly no flight data was ever obtained on is included in the game. Every other aircraft has some flight data that was available to code the FM with.

But the Z2 never flew, its prototype was damaged on the ground by the relentless strategic air campaign at which point the project was essentially scrubbed because time was quickly running out for the 3rd Reich.

http://www.redspar.com/redrogue/CraggerUbisig.jpg

About after 30 minutes I puked all over my airplane. I said to myself "Man, you made a big mistake." -Charles 'Chuck' Yeager, regards his first flight

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 02:06 AM
I bet the starboard view in that thing is...somewhat limited... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 02:29 AM
I wanna me-262Z...........

<img src="http://unicraft.20m.com/novo/me262z.jpg" border="0" alt="Uber Jets forever. imagine bomber busting in this!!"

MD_FuryFighter

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 02:30 AM
I wanna me-262Z...........

http://unicraft.20m.com/novo/me262z.jpg

MD_FuryFighter

sorry, can this second message be deleted??? please do if it can.....






Message Edited on 08/29/0301:31AM by MD_FuryFighter

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 02:58 AM
Fafnir_6 wrote:
- Don't listen to the Nay-sayers. I think the
- Bf109Z-2 would be a wonderful addition to the game.
- I just have a few questions regarding the 3d model
- under way here.
-
- When comparing the model to the pictures I can get
- of the Bf109Z-2 (see <a
- href="http://www.luft46.com/mess/me109z.html),"
- target=_blank>http://www.luft46.com/mess/me109z.ht
- ml),</a> it seems that the MG131 ports are faired
- over and that the front part of the fuel tank cover
- over the starboard cockpit is more curved and swept
- back than the one in the screenshot. I must admit
- that the possiblity of the drawings being inaccurate
- or that there is some distortion in the screenshot
- could be messing with my perceptions of things.
- Please share your thoughts on this if it isn't too
- much of an inconvenience.
-
- Cheers,
-
- Fafnir_6
-


S!
Of course its not a incovenience, intelligent questions requieres intelligent answers /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

I've been analyzin my drawings (oleg's), and also note that the one u showed us is the Z1, a prototype from the Bf 109 F4, so it has some changes. Also noticed about the starboard cokpit, i think its alright, im gonna check again later. I just would like to remember that it is WIP, so any bugs or anything u noticed is a great addition to this plane becoma historically accurate.

hope solved ur question =]



-------------------------------------
Luftwaffe Brasil
Força e Honra!

LBR=Hartmann in HL

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 03:13 AM
Ketalar wrote:
- I bet the starboard view in that thing is...somewhat
- limited...

Yes, but with 5 X 30mm cannons (including a Mk 103), who cares about vision........you could possibly be legally blind and still obliterate the target with that much fire power......heheheheh /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Actually, this was kind of a fun posting only..so please no flames...

I do agree with Ketalar about starboard vision.....

Cheers,

Do 217P

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 03:56 AM
S!

Ah yes of course \=]

but, as he said, 5 x 30mm, even if u r blind u kill sombody! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif


do217s wrote:
-
- Ketalar wrote:
-- I bet the starboard view in that thing is...somewhat
-- limited...
-
- Yes, but with 5 X 30mm cannons (including a Mk 103),
- who cares about vision........you could possibly be
- legally blind and still obliterate the target with
- that much fire power......heheheheh /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
-
- Actually, this was kind of a fun posting only..so
- please no flames...
-
- I do agree with Ketalar about starboard vision.....
-
- Cheers,
-
- Do 217P
-
-



-------------------------------------
Luftwaffe Brasil
Força e Honra!

LBR=Hartmann in HL

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 06:48 AM
Cragger wrote:
- It will truely be a downfall in IL2's reign if an
- aircraft that absoluetly no flight data was ever
- obtained on is included in the game. Every other
- aircraft has some flight data that was available to
- code the FM with.
-
- But the Z2 never flew, its prototype was damaged on
- the ground by the relentless strategic air campaign
- at which point the project was essentially scrubbed
- because time was quickly running out for the 3rd
- Reich.


I agree to this extent, the FM for this aircraft will have to be developed using speculative, calculated, data. Since this aircraft never flew, every aspect of its performance and flight characterisitics will be a "best guess" on the part of Oleg.

Inclusion of a plane that existed in a single prototype which never flew does sap some realism out of this sim.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/corsairs.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 06:59 AM
Look at all the arguing over the performance of planes that were widely used. Should be interesting, tho would be nice for Oleg to post an explanation of how they arrive at a flight model, onc it's all done.

http://www.warbirdalley.com/images/polikarpov.jpg


"Anytime you have an opportunity to make things better and you don't, then you are wasting your time on this earth." -Roberto Clemente

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 07:13 AM
Well, they could include it as a stationary ground model. It did actually get cbombed out of existance after all, so that should be historically accurate.

Harry Voyager

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQDLAswcqmIpvWP9dLzZVayPXOmo6IJ16aURujNfs4dDETH84 Q6eIkCbWQemjqF6O8ZfvzlsvUUauJyy9GYnKM6!o3fu!kBnWVh BgMt3q2T3BUQ8yjBBqECLxFaqXVV5U2kWiSIlq1s6VoaVvRqBy Q/Avatar%202%20500x500%20[final).jpg?dc=4675409848259594077

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 07:29 AM
HarryVoyager wrote:
- Well, they could include it as a stationary ground
- model. It did actually get cbombed out of existance
- after all, so that should be historically accurate.
-
- Harry Voyager

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif





Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/corsairs.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 12:28 PM
HarryVoyager wrote:
- Well, they could include it as a stationary ground
- model. It did actually get cbombed out of existance
- after all, so that should be historically accurate.
-
- Harry Voyager
-
- <img
- src="http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQDLAswcqmIpvW
- P9dLzZVayPXOmo6IJ16aURujNfs4dDETH84Q6eIkCbWQemjqF6
- O8ZfvzlsvUUauJyy9GYnKM6!o3fu!kBnWVhBgMt3q2T3BUQ8yj
- BBqECLxFaqXVV5U2kWiSIlq1s6VoaVvRqByQ/Avatar%202%20
- 500x500%20(final).jpg?dc=4675409848259594077">


S!
lol yep, than everybody can hit it in ground, like it happen /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

-------------------------------------
Luftwaffe Brasil
Força e Honra!

LBR=Hartmann in HL

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 07:49 PM
HarryVoyager wrote:
- Yes, but you don't forget, there is a certain
- faction on these boards who genuinely beleive that
- *everything* was developed by Germany first, that
- everything else is but a pale immitation of German
- brilliance, and they are more than willing to
- everyone that constantly, and repeatedly, until they
- are blue in the face.
-
- It's sort of like hearing UFO jokes after dealing
- with a group of real live tinfoil hats. Jokes
- aren't always as funny immediatly after dealing with
- the real thing.
-
- Harry Voyager
-

Yeah okay, let's look to the other american fighter. The P-47. That one was designed by a russian /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye
shall be judged: and with what
measure ye mete, it shall be
measured to you again.

http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/templates/subSilver/images/logo_phpBB.gif (http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/index.php)

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 07:53 PM
Platypus_1.JaVA wrote:

- Yeah okay, let's look to the other american fighter.
- The P-47. That one was designed by a russian

No, an American of Russian descent! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/corsairs.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 07:55 PM
SkyChimp wrote:
-
- Platypus_1.JaVA wrote:
-
-- Yeah okay, let's look to the other american fighter.
-- The P-47. That one was designed by a russian
-
- No, an American of Russian descent! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
-
-
-
-
- Regards,
-
- SkyChimp
-

Yeah right, if he didn't design anything, he would be just a Russian, damit it. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye
shall be judged: and with what
measure ye mete, it shall be
measured to you again.

http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/templates/subSilver/images/logo_phpBB.gif (http://acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/index.php)

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 10:12 PM
Platypus_1.JaVA wrote:
-
-
- Yeah right, if he didn't design anything, he would
- be just a Russian, damit it. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
-

Well, considering how the Soviets were adamant that he wasn't a Russian, why can't we keep him? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

For reference: If i recall correctly, Seversky was a White Russian, i.e. a Tzarist, and would probably would have been up for execution had he entered the Soviet Union during WWII. They didn't what him, so we are more than happy to keep him as one of ours.

Harry Voyager

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQDLAswcqmIpvWP9dLzZVayPXOmo6IJ16aURujNfs4dDETH84 Q6eIkCbWQemjqF6O8ZfvzlsvUUauJyy9GYnKM6!o3fu!kBnWVh BgMt3q2T3BUQ8yjBBqECLxFaqXVV5U2kWiSIlq1s6VoaVvRqBy Q/Avatar%202%20500x500%20[final).jpg?dc=4675409848259594077

Message Edited on 08/29/0304:14PM by HarryVoyager

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 11:00 PM
Hmmm, well, even though we can't use any real flight data for the 109Z-2, can't we atleast do some math to get the answer? I mean, isn't it just like a pair of G-6's?

Also, wouldn't the 262Z be slower? It has all the weight and drag of the extra airframe but with only one extra engine...

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 11:34 PM
VOL_Jon wrote:
- Hmmm, well, even though we can't use any real flight
- data for the 109Z-2, can't we atleast do some math
- to get the answer? I mean, isn't it just like a
- pair of G-6's?
-
- Also, wouldn't the 262Z be slower? It has all the
- weight and drag of the extra airframe but with only
- one extra engine...
-
-

If we stuck a G-6 inside a modern day wind tunnel with modern day airflow sensors, full range motion capture, vortex indicators and the like then yes you could a good amount of data to have bell, lockheed, boeing, airbus, etc. build a CAD model from and run dynamic flight tests with...

As for a game developer using 1940's flight data, extrapalating therotical flight data becomes considerably more guess work.


http://www.redspar.com/redrogue/CraggerUbisig.jpg

About after 30 minutes I puked all over my airplane. I said to myself "Man, you made a big mistake." -Charles 'Chuck' Yeager, regards his first flight

XyZspineZyX
08-29-2003, 11:55 PM
There are people hust saying that the 109Z never came into action, so, it cannot be in the add-on, etc... But, these people don't remember that the P-80, one of the most expected planes in the add-on (especially for me), was not entered in combat in the WWII. BTW, in my mind, all projects that has beeing developed for the add-on must be considered, due to the fame of the plane and to the hard work of his designer.

http://www.luftwaffebrasil.kit.net/figuras/lbr_topo.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-30-2003, 01:25 AM
Agreed. If you decide you hate this plane then reomve it from your server and don't get any single player missions r campaigns with it.

Hartmann is willing to devote time and energy into this project and since the FM will be largely speculative, it will remove much of the burden of tweaking the plane to fit with all the full real planes out there. Oleg is obviously interested in making it and I am damn well interested in flying it. It'll be the first plane I fly when the addon is out.

Cheers,

Fafnir_6

XyZspineZyX
08-30-2003, 01:33 AM
neat, wouldent it have counter rotating props, if not then it would be a nightmere to fly. i wanna see the 2 seated 109 (one in front of the other) someday

XyZspineZyX
08-30-2003, 01:47 AM
The difference between the 109Z and the P-80 is that there is extensive documentation of the P-80's flying characteristics, through the entire range of flying conditions.

It was the US's second jet fighter and one of our first aircraft to reach compressability in level flight, so we really tested the daylights out of it.

Harry Voyager

http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0YQDLAswcqmIpvWP9dLzZVayPXOmo6IJ16aURujNfs4dDETH84 Q6eIkCbWQemjqF6O8ZfvzlsvUUauJyy9GYnKM6!o3fu!kBnWVh BgMt3q2T3BUQ8yjBBqECLxFaqXVV5U2kWiSIlq1s6VoaVvRqBy Q/Avatar%202%20500x500%20[final).jpg?dc=4675409848259594077

XyZspineZyX
08-30-2003, 01:54 AM
HarryVoyager wrote:
- The difference between the 109Z and the P-80 is that
- there is extensive documentation of the P-80's
- flying characteristics, through the entire range of
- flying conditions.
-
- It was the US's second jet fighter and one of our
- first aircraft to reach compressability in level
- flight, so we really tested the daylights out of it.
-
- Harry Voyager


And it existed, in service, before the end of the war. That's the difference.




Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/corsairs.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-30-2003, 02:12 AM
As it stands, with no disrespect to the modellers, the P-80 is just as much a fishy add-on for a WW2 sim as the Bf109 Zwilling. "Existence" rarely means anything.

If we're getting non-production aircraft and planes that entered in the last days of war, never to see combat.. then there's no reason to step away from all the other "what-if" planes, is there?

Why not the Bf109K-6 or the K-14, which never was produced? How about the late war plane P-51H, which speed puts the Ta152H to shame? Why do we bother with the D models of the P-47 when we can just add the M? Or, why are we getting the crap plane Zero, instead of the Nakajima Kikka or the J7W1 Shinden?

..

Granted, this is all personal preference. So, in my personal opinion, no grounds for protest, but I still don't like it.

Never thought this sim would turn out to be "The Secret Weapons of the Forgotten Battles"



-----------
Due to pressure from the moderators, the sig returns to..

"It's the machine, not the man." - Materialist, and proud of it!

Message Edited on 08/30/0310:13AM by kweassa

XyZspineZyX
08-30-2003, 02:21 AM
kweassa wrote:
- As it stands, with no disrespect to the modellers,
- the P-80 is just as much a fishy add-on for a WW2
- sim as the Bf109 Zwilling. "Existence" rarely means
- anything.
-
- If we're getting non-production aircraft and planes
- that entered in the last days of war, never to see
- combat.. then there's no reason to step away from
- all the other "what-if" planes, is there?
-
-
- Why not the Bf109K-6 or the K-14, which never was
- produced? How about the late war plane P-51H, which
- speed puts the Ta152H to shame? Why do we bother
- with the D models of the P-47 when we can just add
- the M? Or, why are we getting the crap plane Zero,
- instead of the Nakajima Kikka or the J7W1 Shinden?
-
-
- ..
-
-
- Granted, this is all personal preference. So, in my
- personal opinion, no grounds for protest, but I
- still don't like it.
-
-
- Never thought this sim would turn out to be "The
- Secret Weapons of the Forgotten Battles"
-
- "It's the machine, not the man." - Materialist, and
- proud of it!
-
- Message Edited on 08/30/03 10:13AM by kweassa


Big difference in using something that has thousands and thousands of documents on flight data than something that has oh at best primitive wind tunnel tests.

The P-80 is part of Project 46, which is a theoretical 'what-if' the war continued on until 46 and beyond. Basially its 1946-whatever airccraft that where produced but never fought each other, actually fighting each other in a ww2 theme.



http://www.redspar.com/redrogue/CraggerUbisig.jpg

About after 30 minutes I puked all over my airplane. I said to myself "Man, you made a big mistake." -Charles 'Chuck' Yeager, regards his first flight

XyZspineZyX
08-30-2003, 02:27 AM
SkyChimp wrote:
-
- HarryVoyager wrote:
-- The difference between the 109Z and the P-80 is that
-- there is extensive documentation of the P-80's
-- flying characteristics, through the entire range of
-- flying conditions.
--
-- It was the US's second jet fighter and one of our
-- first aircraft to reach compressability in level
-- flight, so we really tested the daylights out of it.
--
-- Harry Voyager
-
-
- And it existed, in service, before the end of the
- war. That's the difference.
-
-
-
-
-
- Regards,
-
- SkyChimp
-

This is a WWII game, ok? So, why do you expect so happy a plane who first saw combat in Korea War (the P-80), and disdains the other planes? If someone decide to make the Gruman XP-50 Skyrocket, you will disdain it too?

If you don't like the plane, easy, don't use it... there's nothing saying "use this plane, use this plane...". But, in every case, respect the projects and his modelers!!

You can say "But, you are just expecting the p-80 too!!!" Ok, i am, but i expect the oportunitie to fly every plane that i can, be the P-80, be the 109Z, or some other!!! It's my point of view. Please, respect it.


Thanks.

Fhr. Barkhorn, I gruppen aus JG52 "Luftwaffe Brasil"

LBR=Barkhorn in HL.

http://www.luftwaffebrasil.kit.net/figuras/lbr_topo.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-30-2003, 02:38 AM
LBR_Barkhorn wrote:

- This is a WWII game, ok?
-
- So, why do you expect so
- happy a plane who first saw combat in Korea War (the
- P-80), and disdains the other planes? If someone
- decide to make the Gruman XP-50 Skyrocket, you will
- disdain it too?
-
-
- If you don't like the plane, easy, don't use it...
- there's nothing saying "use this plane, use this
- plane...". But, in every case, respect the projects
- and his modelers!!
-
-
-
- You can say "But, you are just expecting the p-80
- too!!!" Ok, i am, but i expect the oportunitie to
- fly every plane that i can, be the P-80, be the
- 109Z, or some other!!! It's my point of view.
- Please, respect it.


I do respect your point of view, but please do likewise.

My issue is the inclusion of a plane that never flew, and whos flight model has to be guessed at.

It's one thing to include a plane that actually existed and flew and the data on which is available. It's entirely another to include one that never flew or existed only on paper, the perfomance data for which is entirely speculative.

Include the Do-335. Include the Go-229, it flew - once. Include the Ta-152C, even though it never saw combat. They all flew, yet were inconsequnetial in the war effort. But they did fly, the Bf-109Z did not.

Regards,

SkyChimp

http://members.cox.net/rowlandparks/corsairs.jpg

XyZspineZyX
08-30-2003, 07:19 AM
Message Edited on 08/29/0310:21PM by jj8325

XyZspineZyX
08-30-2003, 07:38 AM
Oh god please tell me this whole thread is just a bad dream.


/Petter_Gul
CO, Flygflottilj 16
#1 Swedish Virtual Squadron
http://www.f16vs.tk
_________________________

"Slider.... You Stink..."

XyZspineZyX
08-30-2003, 07:58 AM
No, no big difference as the boundaries of this sim are set on not only the 'realism' factor, but also the 'era'.

Whether it is an imaginary plane that only exists on paper, or an actual plane that had no considerable, much less worthy combat experience within WWII, does not matter at all.

I admit, of the two categories, if we try to make 'sense' of it, the "fictional" planes are worse than the "ahistorical" ones.

Again, the line has to be drawn somewhere, and certain available choices of planes always influence the sim in aspect of gameplay in a profound manner - more than you would like to think so. When a choice is given, due to the fact that some choices went over the "line", it quickly becomes a very serious part of the game in general.

One might say "then just ban it from servers INDIVIDUALLY", but everyone knows very well how multiplayer sessions work in these sort of games. People do not step away from choices, even if it means the core and heart of the aura of the simulation, is vastly warped to the max - ie. the only way of preventing such things happening, is if the developing staff sets a firm and harsh standards on what is acceptable and not. Unfortunately, those standards are pretty weak in FB.

What started out as a few, special, handful of "bonus" planes for new patches/add-ons, have quickly developed into a "what-if Scenario". People are taking for granted already, that they will get to fly planes that has never seen combat in WWII, some, not even fully produced.

The boundaries of history are fragile, and easily broken in games. Just how much that hurts gameplay, I can pretty much guarantee. I've seen sims that walk the way of the dodo when 3rd party developers have provided a community with inappropriate choices "just for fun". Despite the good intentions, the "just for fun" bonuses, are always, quickly and very efficiently exploited by the community.

What I can guarantee, is finding a good, enjoyable session in multi player rooms, are going to become drastically harder, unless you are prepared to face hordes of people in super-planes and fantasy-planes, and up and fly one if you wish to survive.

Limits and restrictions, general agenda of gameplay is something that has to be set by the developers on a SYSTEMATICAL basis. Throwing in dangerous toys and expecting the fun-loving community to limit their use wisely on an INDIVIDUAL basis, never, ever works.


-----------
Due to pressure from the moderators, the sig returns to..

"It's the machine, not the man." - Materialist, and proud of it!

Message Edited on 08/30/0304:00PM by kweassa

XyZspineZyX
08-30-2003, 08:25 AM
kweassa im with you ,,,,,,can yall imagine the dissent here when planes that have only hypothetical fm are included against planes that have years of known use? this sim has grown further then we earlier guys have imagined.( i think)....i dont know thats good ... may be we have become spoiled and we wonder why oleg /team cant get done what we want ..look at ms they cant get it rightwith x? more help then he has what am i saying ?we all expect more in one sim than may be delerviable ....perhaps its time for a split in where we want this sim to go... soon it apears that fw190 will be able to fight a6m..that sounds fun, hell i might like it! but is it right?... S!

http://mudmovers.com/Sims/IL2/images/wallpaper/me262sharkt.jpg
U.S. infantry 84-91

XyZspineZyX
08-30-2003, 08:43 AM
BTW Hartmann. ...you did a nice job on your model S! to bad we /me have lost site of your model.. to argue over this other stuff when a guy / you is just being proud of what you did is to bad.. keep it going

http://mudmovers.com/Sims/IL2/images/wallpaper/me262sharkt.jpg
U.S. infantry 84-91

XyZspineZyX
08-30-2003, 09:08 AM
I hate this! I really hate this, being a fan of all the 109's I was looking forward to this! But Skychimp makes a good point! As do's Kweassa, with so many allied planes coming out, I was afraid the balance of power would shift, and I still think it will! We'll be hard pressed to find a server not sporting dozens P-38, P-51's and the P-80 witch I think is a stretch! GLOSTER METEOR would be the better choice, good or bad it was there! But the 109z2 never flew, O how I wish it did! We can speculate on FM, crunch the numbers as Oleg has with all planes in FB, but there's no hard data! You say the P-47's roll rates porked and you can back it up, but who's to say what the roll rate of 109z2 was! Leaves us with nothing to whine about cuss you cant back it up!

<img src="http://www.world-data-systems.com/aerofiles/albums/userpics/D13-Hamm109 copy.jpg"

XyZspineZyX
08-30-2003, 10:04 AM
I too, very well understand the "I hate this" comment. Same with me.

3rd party developers like Gibbage, and this fellow with the Zwilling, is no doubt trying their best to contribute to this community. Trying to convince people on a certain agenda, without denouncing a certain person's work, is often very hard and touchy.

The best alternative, would be not discontinue what has been going on so far. I would just hope that after the announced work is done, the 1C crew themselves come forth to set a specified guideline on future help from 3rd party developers so such inconvenience would not occur. I guess we should gladly accept what the enthusiastic modellers have offered us so far.

..

Just for fun of discussion, in my preference, I would set the guidlines on:

* planes that have seen actual combat sorties against enemy equipment(not counting local test/patrol sorties)
* planes that are finalized, and produced in official factory construction
* planes that were part of specific combat units, minimum single 'flight'(4 planes) strength
* planes that entered service before Aug 15th, 1945
* prototypes, field-modifications, experimental armament are prohibited



-----------
Due to pressure from the moderators, the sig returns to..

"It's the machine, not the man." - Materialist, and proud of it!