PDA

View Full Version : Reworked in the new patch: the Bf-109 €" increased maneuverability!



DIRTY-MAC
01-30-2006, 11:39 AM
Taken from the update text:

Modifications and fixes

There is a large number of small modifications to the entire code of our simulation.
We accumulated user input and fixed lots of big and little things in order to polish our simulation even further. We sincerely thank all of our users who were so helpful in the process!

Flight Model

Reworked the following series:
Bf-109 €" increased maneuverability;
Yak €" decreased sensitivity;
LaGG - corrected weight (approx. 300 kg added).

Increased damping factor for the ball indicator.
Minor changes in reaction of the controls.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

DIRTY-MAC
01-30-2006, 11:39 AM
Taken from the update text:

Modifications and fixes

There is a large number of small modifications to the entire code of our simulation.
We accumulated user input and fixed lots of big and little things in order to polish our simulation even further. We sincerely thank all of our users who were so helpful in the process!

Flight Model

Reworked the following series:
Bf-109 €" increased maneuverability;
Yak €" decreased sensitivity;
LaGG - corrected weight (approx. 300 kg added).

Increased damping factor for the ball indicator.
Minor changes in reaction of the controls.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

Bearcat99
01-30-2006, 11:42 AM
I see the Ponies wont change any..... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Hristo_
01-30-2006, 11:44 AM
Sounds nice. Oleg has just made another step towards realism !

Manuel29
01-30-2006, 11:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">ncreased damping factor for the ball indicator.
Minor changes in reaction of the controls. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think the wobble issue is going to disappear... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Jetbuff
01-30-2006, 11:51 AM
Increased maneuverability for 109 series?! I really hope I am misinterpreting this.

DIRTY-MAC
01-30-2006, 11:56 AM
weres the popcorn!

Jetbuff
01-30-2006, 11:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DIRTY-MAC:
weres the popcorn! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Save it for when the patch comes out. We should see some fireworks then for sure. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

BSS_Goat
01-30-2006, 12:01 PM
Patch? We ain't got no patch. We don't need no patch. I don't have to show you any stinking patch!

RegRag1977
01-30-2006, 12:09 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif Bf109 increased manoeuvrability http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif,

and nothing for Fw190 when it needs to be improved!!!

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

p1ngu666
01-30-2006, 12:14 PM
109 is favoured son of teh luftwaffe in next patch.

new best k4 will not only run away from anything, and outclimb, will outturn stuff too http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Brain32
01-30-2006, 12:19 PM
Increased manouverbility doesen't have to mean turning, not everything is in turning...

JG53Frankyboy
01-30-2006, 12:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Brain32:
Increased manouverbility doesen't have to mean turning, not everything is in turning... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

sure, but the 109s have already good ailerons and rudder - so it must be the elevator http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

we will see.............

SlickStick
01-30-2006, 12:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
109 is favoured son of teh luftwaffe in next patch.

new best k4 will not only run away from anything, and outclimb, will outturn stuff too http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wasn't the one we already had without equal in this game as far as climb?!? I thought we were getting more late-war Allied planes to contend with all of the late-war LW planes already in the sim?!?!

What's the performance difference between the K4 we have and the new C3 one? I hope they give us a +25lb boosted Mk. VIII soon as well. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Kocur_
01-30-2006, 12:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DIRTY-MAC:
Taken from the update text:

Modifications and fixes

There is a large number of small modifications to the entire code of our simulation.
We accumulated user input and fixed lots of big and little things in order to polish our simulation even further. We sincerely thank all of our users who were so helpful in the process!

Flight Model

Reworked the following series:
Bf-109 €" increased maneuverability;
Yak €" decreased sensitivity;
LaGG - corrected weight (approx. 300 kg added).

Increased damping factor for the ball indicator.
Minor changes in reaction of the controls.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Do you write for humour column often? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Jetbuff
01-30-2006, 12:31 PM
Actually, unless the original poster is fabricating it, this was posted on the German forum as well:
http://forums-de.ubi.com/groupee/forums/a/tpc/f/3881041...211059504#2211059504 (http://forums-de.ubi.com/groupee/forums/a/tpc/f/388104122/m/6681098504/r/2211059504#2211059504)

vanjast
01-30-2006, 12:40 PM
So the ME109 will definitely out-manouver the P51 at altitude.
See, that Bud Anderson thread has been a load of .... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

jimDG
01-30-2006, 12:41 PM
Aha, the wobble issue has been adressed http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
That the bf109 is going to get more maneuvarable is surprising - how much more maneuvarable can it get? Better than a Spit? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

StG2_Schlachter
01-30-2006, 12:48 PM
I think the "increased maneuverability" of the 109 is referring to the "frozen" controls at high speeds.

Retrofish
01-30-2006, 12:49 PM
I'm wondering about this bit in the readme:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Unfortunately, the Il-2 / FB / PF code was never intended for a single crewman alternating between firing positions due to online gameplay limitations. In Ju-88 cause we would not be able to prevent the AI from, for example, firing the rear right top gun while the player fired the left gun. Due to these limitations and in order to keep a level playing field, the right top gunner in Ju-88 will always be controlled by AI.
The Ju-88 is no different in controls from other flyable bombers on all other respects. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I may be missing something, but it sounds like the workaround is exactly what they wanted to avoid..

Can someone explain..preferebly with illustrations and/or charts... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

RAF74_Poker
01-30-2006, 12:53 PM
I think the Pacific theatre is about to become more popular. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

SlickStick
01-30-2006, 12:55 PM
There are two-gunner positions at the top rear of a Ju-88, one left, one right. You will only be able to man the left gunner position. The right gunner is always AI.

jds1978
01-30-2006, 01:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Manuel29
Posted Mon January 30 2006 10:45
quote:
ncreased damping factor for the ball indicator.
Minor changes in reaction of the controls.


I think the wobble issue is going to disappear... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

that's how i read that too

Philipscdrw
01-30-2006, 01:11 PM
I wonder if they could have made the top two gun positions as one gun position, and when you move the gun across the centreline you switch to the other gun?

Or, have the two different guns as the 'shift-f1' alternate cockpit positions?

But I know nothing about the Il-2 code, it can't be that simple or they'd have done it like that.

StG2_Schlachter
01-30-2006, 01:14 PM
Why don't they link the guns together. One could get rid of those enemy fighters with to guns at the same time. Rambo style http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

BirdieNum-nums
01-30-2006, 01:24 PM
quote: posted by SlickStick
_______________________________________________
I thought we were getting more late-war Allied planes to contend with all of the late-war LW planes already in the sim?!?!
_______________________________________________

Well then, what do you call the upcoming Tempest, chopped liver??? And the Mossie?? Are those not late war allied fighters? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

Cheers, http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Birdie Num-Nums a.k.a. The Jabberwocky

JG53Frankyboy
01-30-2006, 01:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BirdieNum-nums:
quote: posted by SlickStick
_______________________________________________
I thought we were getting more late-war Allied planes to contend with all of the late-war LW planes already in the sim?!?!
_______________________________________________

Well then, what do you call the upcoming Tempest, chopped liver??? And the Mossie?? Are those not late war allied fighters? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

Cheers, http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Birdie Num-Nums a.k.a. The Jabberwocky </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mosquito FB.MK.VI , from may 1943 on

SlickStick
01-30-2006, 01:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BirdieNum-nums:
quote: posted by SlickStick
_______________________________________________
I thought we were getting more late-war Allied planes to contend with all of the late-war LW planes already in the sim?!?!
_______________________________________________

Well then, what do you call the upcoming Tempest, chopped liver??? And the Mossie?? Are those not late war allied fighters? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

Cheers, http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Birdie Num-Nums a.k.a. The Jabberwocky </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, I do call them late-war. My point was that I thought we were getting the +25lb boost Spitfire, for instance, to give us a true late-war variant of the Mk. IX to contend with current late-war LWs already in-game.

I didn't realize that the LW were lacking in late '44 - early '45 planes. Especially, when you factor in the 1942 109-G2 that is quite the over-achiever these days. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Retrofish
01-30-2006, 01:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SlickStick:
There are two-gunner positions at the top rear of a Ju-88, one left, one right. You will only be able to man the left gunner position. The right gunner is always AI. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The guns could not be fired at the same time because they were operated by one man.

Problem : '..we would not be able to prevent the AI from, for example, firing the rear right top gun while the player fired the left gun.'

Solution: 'Due to these limitations and in order to keep a level playing field, the right top gunner in Ju-88 will always be controlled by AI.'

What is the difference? I may be thick as....
I just don't get it. Sorry. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

JG4_Helofly
01-30-2006, 01:32 PM
Very strange http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

BF 109 had very bad maneuvrability at high speed. But let wait for the patch an we will see what it is.

StG2_Schlachter
01-30-2006, 01:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SlickStick:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BirdieNum-nums:
quote: posted by SlickStick
_______________________________________________
I thought we were getting more late-war Allied planes to contend with all of the late-war LW planes already in the sim?!?!
_______________________________________________

Well then, what do you call the upcoming Tempest, chopped liver??? And the Mossie?? Are those not late war allied fighters? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

Cheers, http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Birdie Num-Nums a.k.a. The Jabberwocky </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, I do call them late-war. My point was that I thought we were getting the +25lb boost Spitfire, for instance, to give us a true late-war variant of the Mk. IX to contend with current late-war LWs already in-game.

I didn't realize that the LW were lacking in late '44 - early '45 planes. Especially, when you factor in the 1942 109-G2 that is quite the over-achiever these days. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You ARE getting the MkIX with 25 lbs. boost. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif

SlickStick
01-30-2006, 01:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Retrofish:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SlickStick:
There are two-gunner positions at the top rear of a Ju-88, one left, one right. You will only be able to man the left gunner position. The right gunner is always AI. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The guns could not be fired at the same time because they were operated by one man.

Problem : '..we would not be able to prevent the AI from, for example, firing the rear right top gun while the player fired the left gun.'

Solution: 'Due to these limitations and in order to keep a level playing field, the right top gunner in Ju-88 will always be controlled by AI.'

What is the difference? I may be thick as....
I just don't get it. Sorry. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As I do not know this to be true or not, as far as one man operating both guns, form their explanation, why would they have to model one as AI, if they indeed had to be switched between by one man? From what they wrote, I took it as there will always be AI in right gun, even if you are shooting left gun?!?

I best let you get an answer from someone who is NOT guessing. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

SlickStick
01-30-2006, 01:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by StG2_Schlachter:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SlickStick:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BirdieNum-nums:
quote: posted by SlickStick
_______________________________________________
I thought we were getting more late-war Allied planes to contend with all of the late-war LW planes already in the sim?!?!
_______________________________________________

Well then, what do you call the upcoming Tempest, chopped liver??? And the Mossie?? Are those not late war allied fighters? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

Cheers, http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Birdie Num-Nums a.k.a. The Jabberwocky </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, I do call them late-war. My point was that I thought we were getting the +25lb boost Spitfire, for instance, to give us a true late-war variant of the Mk. IX to contend with current late-war LWs already in-game.

I didn't realize that the LW were lacking in late '44 - early '45 planes. Especially, when you factor in the 1942 109-G2 that is quite the over-achiever these days. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You ARE getting the MkIX with 25 lbs. boost. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You're not paying attention. Please re-read. The new 109-K4 surprised me is all.

waffen-79
01-30-2006, 01:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
109 is favoured son of teh luftwaffe in next patch.

new best k4 will not only run away from anything, and outclimb, will outturn stuff too http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

AMEN, so far was the Yak-3P '45 and LA-7

Chuck_Older
01-30-2006, 01:40 PM
May I please have everyone's attention?

Thank you

So far I have read that "the wobble" issue is addressed "in the patch"

And that "The 109 will outmanuever a P-51" in the patch

all in this thread. And this is because some impressionable people have read what they want to read into small changes in FM, and increased 109 manueverability

I have even read one member has bought into this idea SO much, that his reply was "the Bud Anderson thread is ****?!"

You folks need to take a breather. Please. This is patch hysteria- AGAIN

These things are NOT proven to be true. They are ASSUMPTIONS

The sky has not fallen, and historically speaking, every time folks here think it has, it has NOT

I will play the odds on this one.

Make up your minds about the update AFTER you SEE IT

That is all

Jetbuff
01-30-2006, 01:42 PM
Why Chuck, you're almost too reasonable to be posting in here! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

WOLFMondo
01-30-2006, 01:43 PM
My assumption is:

Blue whiners got there never existed La-109K4.

Red whiners get there runs on rails La-51D.

*Gets popcorn*

StG2_Schlachter
01-30-2006, 01:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SlickStick:

You're not paying attention. Please re-read. The new 109-K4 surprised me is all. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, noted. Won't happen again http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

@ CO

Agree

@ Jetbuff

100% agree http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Dash_C.
01-30-2006, 01:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Philipscdrw:
I wonder if they could have made the top two gun positions as one gun position, and when you move the gun across the centreline you switch to the other gun? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is how I thought it would be implemented. I wonder if this way was considered or is even feasable...

carguy_
01-30-2006, 01:59 PM
Increased maneuverability???On 109???We don`t need any increases in this dept. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Can`t be true. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

danjama
01-30-2006, 01:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by StG2_Schlachter:
I think the "increased maneuverability" of the 109 is referring to the "frozen" controls at high speeds. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yeah, im guessing alot of people will misinterprit maneuverability here....

Of course i could be the one who is wrong

jds1978
01-30-2006, 02:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">WOLFMondo
Posted Mon January 30 2006 12:43
My assumption is:

Blue whiners got there never existed La-109K4.

Red whiners get there runs on rails La-51D.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

....thats my overall impression...of course thats all speculation...as is the "wobble fix"...we'll know for sure soon enough

WOLFMondo
01-30-2006, 02:05 PM
Could actually mean anything. Probably high speed elevator response, or Oleg is having a laugh with people.

Pinker15
01-30-2006, 02:08 PM
Sorry but as I know 109 was have frozen elevator at high speed and because of that many pilots was helping themselfs by elevator trim to pullout.

StG2_Schlachter
01-30-2006, 02:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pinker15:
Sorry but as I know 109 was have frozen elevator at high speed and because of that many pilots was helping themselfs by elevator trim to pullout. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What about the ailerons?

AFJ_Locust
01-30-2006, 02:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RegRag1977:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif Bf109 increased manoeuvrability http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif,

and nothing for Fw190 when it needs to be improved!!!

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

are u mad ? the FW is a killing machien it needs nothing

Fix the p51 please

WOLFMondo
01-30-2006, 02:30 PM
Take the 190's, BF109's and the P51. On paper theres only one thing wrong and with one of these planes and its nothing to do with the P51 or BF109's. The 190's high speed roll is out for all of them, this is proven.

tigertalon
01-30-2006, 02:32 PM
I hope damn R2800 radiator bug will get fixed!!! It really deprieves P47D of a lot of its potential.

Chuck_Older
01-30-2006, 02:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jetbuff:
Why Chuck, you're almost too reasonable to be posting in here! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

hey, I've got too much of a rep to worry about that http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

fordfan25
01-30-2006, 02:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bearcat99:
I see the Ponies wont change any..... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE> i know. the planes that need fixing get no mentune http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif o well maby one day

danjama
01-30-2006, 02:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fordfan25:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bearcat99:
I see the Ponies wont change any..... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE> i know. the planes that need fixing get no mentune http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif o well maby one day </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

he didnt say it, but my theory is he is being discrete about it so he can get the oatch out, and not worry about the whining of uber ponies

p1ngu666
01-30-2006, 05:12 PM
no point flying a pony B/C/D when new best will pwn it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

we will be flying MKIII, or IX 25lb (possilbly) and b25, cos u can shoot back at the guy http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

ju88 gunner issue is basicaly "fair" as the human ai gunners hardly ever hit a thing.

the mossie isnt a late war aircraft, well it is in some ways, being a vital aircraft till the end, and beyond the war, but may 43 as franky says. a late war mossie with 25lb boost would have speed close to a mk3 mustang, but i bet we get only the 18lbs version, so that the new k4 can catch the mossie.

the la7 and yak3 are only really competative below 3000metres, pretty scary on the deck tho yak3 isnt that quick in top speed. i do better in a 190a5/6 by far.

tempest (depending on the version) isnt terribly late war either, think the series 2 arrived d day is, before the dora, and the k4

the late boosted western allied planes are actully contemporaries to the lw planes already in the game http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif. teh lw not only had problems with numbers of aircraft, but there performance http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

im surprised about the new k4 tbh, as current k4 can certainly hold its own against anything, minium. even if it doesnt have increased turn performance, its roll rate is really rather good for a aircraft with rounded tips, same type of alirons as that famous roller, the hurri, and fabric too, ballooning did happen aprently...

maybe its olegs attempt to shut up the luftwaffles, i dont think he will succeed...

u can never shut up whiners http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

SlickStick
01-30-2006, 05:19 PM
Aren't the Mossie, Spit +25lb and Tempest Mk V modeled in-game all '44 planes? That's considered late-war, no? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Dang, I need to go to HL and get a pre-patch patch...hehehehehehe. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Of course, I would never do such a thing. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Brain32
01-30-2006, 05:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> u can never shut up whiners http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yep, just look how many of them are whining about(against) new 109 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

p1ngu666
01-30-2006, 05:34 PM
i just think itll be like a la7, but at all heights.

u cant outclimb it, thats a deffinate, u almost certainly cant outrun it.

in a turn its certainly potent, in a dive itll be right there.

its more of a problem for the american planes, they will just have the highspeed turn/roll advantage (in theory) and p38 wont have that. spits can turn, so can russian stuff,

pure power will help it in the tnb too, so the luftwaffles may get what they want, to tnb with spits and win, then outperform everything else. they will make dday missions with it and call it historic http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

faustnik
01-30-2006, 05:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:


pure power will help it in the tnb too, so the luftwaffles may get what they want, to tnb with spits and win, then outperform everything else. they will make dday missions with it and call it historic http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Those dern Luftwaffles. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif

EPP_Gibbs
01-30-2006, 07:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
Very strange http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

BF 109 had very bad maneuvrability at high speed. But let wait for the patch an we will see what it is. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you talking about the real ones? If so..yes. They had very bad maeuverability at high speed

EPP_Gibbs
01-30-2006, 07:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by StG2_Schlachter:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pinker15:
Sorry but as I know 109 was have frozen elevator at high speed and because of that many pilots was helping themselfs by elevator trim to pullout. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What about the ailerons? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And the ailerons, yes. Very heavy in a high speed dive.

VW-IceFire
01-30-2006, 07:42 PM
Truth is guys that we have no idea what that actually means. We're students of history and air combat...we know that manueverability is not just one factor (i.e. turn rate). It could mean anything. It could mean that at 150kph it is improved 2 degrees per minute http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Thats improved http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

We'll wait and see what happens first before jumping to conclusions like everyone wants to.

And if the Tempest is modeled right...you can bet she's going to be a solid match for whatever overblown Bf109 they can toss at us http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Grey_Mouser67
01-30-2006, 08:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by EPP_Gibbs:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
Very strange http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

BF 109 had very bad maneuvrability at high speed. But let wait for the patch an we will see what it is. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Are you talking about the real ones? If so..yes. They had very bad maeuverability at high speed </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes...that is true and why most Fw's were considered superior over the Western Front...at high altitude and as speed incresed, the 109's performance decreased relative to its contemporary enemies. Early in the war when speeds and altitudes were lower, it was a great plane. As power was added, it did go faster...faster towards the performance element it did not like or do well in.

By the end of the war, it could fly fast and it could climb which are combat assets, be sure. I think much of the to do lately about Mustangs out turning 109's happened above 20,000 ft and at pretty high speed.

We will soon see what "increased manuverability" means...hopefully it doesn't mean empty servers on Hyperlobby. I know finding a good Pacific Server with people in it is hard...no wonder, I wouldn't want to be flying a Zeke against Corsairs and Lightnings! Hope the Western front doesnt' get ltke that too...it would be a bad thing for all.

Stigler_9_JG52
01-30-2006, 10:39 PM
This is typical of the "information" that says absolutely nothing.

"More maneverable"??? What is that, exactly? Does it climb better? Turn better? Stall at a lower speed? Not lock upso fast in a dive? Any of these could be used for "greater maneuverability" in a variety of situations.

I also notice that when something is changed, there's no delta mentioned. By how much? is always a question.

wayno7777
01-30-2006, 10:44 PM
Patches, I don't need any patches. I never get hit so no need to patch.... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Badsight.
01-30-2006, 11:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by vanjast:
So the ME109 will definitely out-manouver the P51 at altitude.
See, that Bud Anderson thread has been a load of .... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>hahaha ! , man did that make me laugh

Von_Rat
01-31-2006, 12:15 AM
new super spit is gonna get pwned by super duper k4..... i love it.

sorry couldn't help myself.

Pinker15
01-31-2006, 01:16 AM
<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre"> new super spit is gonna get pwned by super duper k4..... i love it.

sorry couldn't help myself. </pre>

If u have problems with spit now when U fly on K4 than new K4 will not help U against new 25lb. spit. I think 109 still will be have no chances in spiral climb after spit. Propably new K4 will be banned on servers as 109 Z is now.

Xiolablu3
01-31-2006, 01:35 AM
I think 109K4 will be good to have as I often see blues getting hammered in 1945 late war EASTERN FRONT maps.

Typically FW190D/109K4 vs Yak3p/La7B20.

(plus its good to counter the yak3p, didnt only 6 make it into service before the end of the war?)


I dont think the new 109K4 should be used in Western front maps as the Western allies dont have any fantasty prop planes like the Yak3p or new 109K4.

Spit 9 at 25+ boost will be good on existing 1944 maps against the 190D and the 'normal' 109K4 (even tho it should really be G10's.)

Kurfurst__
01-31-2006, 01:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I dont think the new 109K4 should be used in Western front maps as the Western allies dont have any fantasty prop planes like the Yak3p or new 109K4. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The 109K-4 at 1,98ata is just as much fantasy as mustang III, Spit +25, or the two 'lates' etc. Just put up with it. The Allies got their high boosted models long ago, so now does the other side as well. Plus the fun thing about your comments that the four 109G-10/K-4 Gruppen that used 1,98ata from March 1945 were actually employed on the Western Front, ie. belonged to LwKdo West and the Reichsverteidigung. JG 27 and JG 53 commonly engaged Tempests, Spitfires etc. in the last months of the war.

Vike
01-31-2006, 01:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by StG2_Schlachter:
I think the "increased maneuverability" of the 109 is referring to the "frozen" controls at high speeds. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe,it would be nice i hope.
Let's wait the patch now... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

p1ngu666
01-31-2006, 02:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I dont think the new 109K4 should be used in Western front maps as the Western allies dont have any fantasty prop planes like the Yak3p or new 109K4. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The 109K-4 at 1,98ata is just as much fantasy as mustang III, Spit +25, or the two 'lates' etc. Just put up with it. The Allies got their high boosted models long ago, so now does the other side as well. Plus the fun thing about your comments that the four 109G-10/K-4 Gruppen that used 1,98ata from March 1945 were actually employed on the Western Front, ie. belonged to LwKdo West and the Reichsverteidigung. JG 27 and JG 53 commonly engaged Tempests, Spitfires etc. in the last months of the war. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

welll yes, but its not quiet true is it?
the doras, and g6as, g14, g10, k4, and maybe a9 are all latewar planes. the allied boosted ones are mearly contemporary to those. and those lw planes have been in the game for so long i cant remmber when they where added... probably in FB?

so thats not REALLY true. could be said its more true teh luftwaffles got worried about facing contemporaries, there is some historical presidence in that however..

its equal if u want to have the "ultimate" version of planes that saw some eto usage.

WOLFMondo
01-31-2006, 02:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
I dont think the new 109K4 should be used in Western front maps as the Western allies dont have any fantasty prop planes like the Yak3p or new 109K4. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The 109K-4 at 1,98ata is just as much fantasy as mustang III, Spit +25, or the two 'lates' etc. Just put up with it. The Allies got their high boosted models long ago, so now does the other side as well. Plus the fun thing about your comments that the four 109G-10/K-4 Gruppen that used 1,98ata from March 1945 were actually employed on the Western Front, ie. belonged to LwKdo West and the Reichsverteidigung. JG 27 and JG 53 commonly engaged Tempests, Spitfires etc. in the last months of the war. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How is the Mustang MkIII and Spitfire IX with 25lbs boost fantasy? Theres all the supporting documentation, squadrons using it and approved for service etc.

Well at least you've admitted the 109 K4 running at 1.98 ata is a fantasy.

Badsight.
01-31-2006, 02:24 AM
about 45 to 65 (depending on who is doing the telling) 109-K4's were operated at 1.98ATA boost levels for a near 3 month period during 1945

Gibbage1
01-31-2006, 02:26 AM
Kurf. We have proof that the Allied boosted aircraft existed, you dont have proof that the 109K4 flew at 1.98ATA. Only asumptions based on nothing more then guesses. Thats the big differance.

Badsight.
01-31-2006, 02:29 AM
actually gibbage - he himself has posted the order for the 1.98ATA boost level to be used operationally - besides that order , real operational reports are few & far between . considering the time its not surprising (march 1945)

Kurfurst__
01-31-2006, 02:31 AM
G-14 and G-6/AS appeared very early 1944 already, just like Merlin Mustangs, for example.

They were not just contemporaries. The Allied boosted planes we have added lately were the boosted, by no means 100% service standard versions of the 'basic' models. The Mustang III +25, spitIX +25's use for example is limited to 2 Squadrons of each (that's less than a 100 aircraft total) from spring to automn 1944 (when the boost was reverted to normal), and were chiefly used for V-1 busting. now how much standard is that, I mean, in mid-1944, about forty MkIX operating at +25 lbs vs what, 900 other MkIXs in service at the same time operating at +18 which is what we have in the game? The MkIX DID use +25 lbs in more meaningful numbers in the TAF, but that wasn't until 1945, ie. the same period as 1.98ata 109Ks appeared.And mind you, that's the ETO, it seems none of the Allied planes in Italy ever used high boost.

So what's the complaining? We have G-6/AS and G-14 for early-mid 1944 (and later) scenarious facing P-51D and +18 lbs Spitfire IX, which is PERFECTLY historical ratings and matchup. The allies even get the high boosted MkIII,p38,p47 out of which god knows how many actually saw service.

And we will have Tempests, +25lbs Spits, and hopefully XIVs soon which is just what the 2nd TAF in w europe had in 1945, save we don't have loads of Typhoos for it, vs. the LW can field G-14, G-6/AS, G-10, K-4, and K-4 high boost, A-9s and D-9s. You shouldn't ask for historical ratio of available planes, since then 90% of the time you'd fly a 2nd TAF +25lbs SpitIX or a Typhoon, whereas the other side would fly 25% K-4, 40% G-10 and G-6/AS, and 35% the G-14 etc.

It's just perfectly sensible and accurate, THESE were the forces that faced each other. The hardwere is correct, sorry, we can't simulate 1200+ plane allied formations and 100-hour LW rookies too, so it's gonna be tougher than it was back then.

Gibbage1
01-31-2006, 02:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight.:
actually gibbage - he himself has posted the order for the 1.98ATA boost level to be used operationally - besides that order , real operational reports are few & far between . considering the time its not surprising (march 1945) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How many aircraft were able to fallow that order? How much C3 fuel was available at the airfields that had K4's? How many pilots were left? These were VERY dire times for the Luftwafee. Comunications were broke, supply lines smashed. Take for instance the Me-262. Something like 2000 Me-262's were available, but due to many factors, no more then 200 were flyable at any given time. So there are 40-60 K4's in these 2-3 months, and enough fuel to last 2 weeks. How many of those 40-60 aircraft #1, have the modification, #2, have the fuel, #3, have pilots, and #4 were even serviceable?

Kurfurst__
01-31-2006, 02:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
How is the Mustang MkIII and Spitfire IX with 25lbs boost fantasy? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How is the Bf 109G-10 and K-4 with 1,98ata boost fantasy?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
Theres all the supporting documentation, squadrons using it and approved for service etc. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just like for the 1,98ata 109K-4 and G-10.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Well at least you've admitted the 109 K4 running at 1.98 ata is a fantasy. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I did? I thought I was being sarcastic.

WOLFMondo
01-31-2006, 02:35 AM
Luftwaffe records were meticulously kept badsight, even up until the last days, these guys were anal about there record keeping. I'm all for new planes if they actually existed.

stathem
01-31-2006, 02:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Luftwaffe records were meticulously kept badsight, even up until the last days, these guys were anal about there record keeping. I'm all for new planes if they actually existed. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Aye. If the RAF had been as anal we might now be looking at Clostermann's 3000hp Tempest.

Bartolomeo_ita
01-31-2006, 02:43 AM
109 was a good turn fighter, but il2 isn't real, so keep 109 as is! if u want to change something, do it with 190 -.-

Kurfurst__
01-31-2006, 02:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gibbage1:
How many aircraft were able to fallow that order? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

How many Spit IXs were converted to +25 lbs for example?
Wait, this never a concern, right?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">How much C3 fuel was available at the airfields that had K4's? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

April 22 1945 Luftwaffenkommando West reported the following fuel stocks on airfields in Bavaria:

B-4 = 350,000 liters
C-3 = 284,000 liters

That relates for JG 53, JG 27's supplies are not yet know.
As for the modification for 1.98ata, it required a screwdriver to set the boost regulator, and that's it.

How much 150 fuel was available at the airfields that had MkIX's?
Wait, this never a concern, right?


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">So there are 40-60 K4's in these 2-3 months, and enough fuel to last 2 weeks. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting claims, care to post a source?

Last I checked there were around 300+ 109Ks in the LW at that time, and 142 in those units (four Gruppe of JG 27 and 53) that were cleared for 1.98ata, about 50-60% of that was servicable at a time (this is for april 9th). At the minimum, we know II/JG 11's (that's a fighter wing for you) aircraft were using 1.98ata from February for operational testing, AND we supplied with C-3 as per the doc of 19th March 1945.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">How many of those 40-60 aircraft
#1, have the modification,
#2, have the fuel,
#3, have pilots, and
#4 were even serviceable? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Care to answer these questions for
P-38L late
P-47D late
Mustang III +25
Spitfire IX +25

Oh, wait, you don't say you just ASSUMED everything was OK, there was no technical troubles, all were modified and ASSUMED to be flying en masse? The standars seems to be very different.

Last I checked, there were a total of about 40 +25 lbs Mustang IIIs in service, and like, 2 YP-80s, so you shouldn't complain about numbers.

VVS-Manuc
01-31-2006, 02:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by p1ngu666:
109 is favoured son of teh luftwaffe in next patch.

new best k4 will not only run away from anything, and outclimb, will outturn stuff too http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
OMG..the sky is falling ...the end is near http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

carguy_
01-31-2006, 03:16 AM
Yeah,that`s a classic reaction.Allies get `44 P47,Mustang III,P38 fantasy late,boosted Spit so it`s ok.

LW gets ONE FRIGGIN BOOSTED AIRPLANE so it`s obvious Oleg is biased in favor of LW http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Maybe somebody forgot just how many new flyables allies get.LW still lacks a counter to IL2,doesn`t have ground attack weapons on early planes,Me110C is never to be seen. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

F0_Dark_P
01-31-2006, 03:17 AM
the 109 was a agile fighter that is a fact, but it is way to esy to land, it should be one of the hardest fighters to land but i think it is the most easy plane to put back to the ground http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif but other then that i dont think it needs anything reworked that i kan think of now, it is ok, but the plane that really needs some fixes are the 190 couse that E-Blead is just ridiculous

Xiolablu3
01-31-2006, 03:17 AM
Kurfurst is missing my point.

The Spit mk9 is a 1942 design! The +25 boost Spit is welcomed because it enables the Western Allies to have at least a little closer parity to the very late and few 109K4/190D's (1000 of each) which dominate the maps when it should be 190A and 109G10/G6

The fact is that its still a 1942 plane trying to fight 1945 planes.

The Spit 9 with +25 boost would still have a hard time against a normal 190D9 and 109K4 I am sure, never mind the new boosted 109K4.

I am talking about good balanced fun maps, when one side isnt totally owning the other. We dont have a Spit 14 of which as many if not MORE (thanks to the destruction on the ground) saw more sorties than 109K4 or 190D9.

I am sure that most people would like a Spit Mk14 but we have to make do with the +25 boost mk9. We have ALL the LW late war planes of which some only a few existed. The Mustang III is a old plane with a bigger engine thas all.

For good map building the new 109K4 will be welcome on the Eastern front, but maybe not on the West as the Western Allies do not have their full compliment of VERY late war planes.
Depending on how good the Tempest is, we may have acheived good 1944 balance, though.

In the end this needs to be a fun game to play, especially online, and the maps where one side is totally dominated are no fun. Everyone switches to the side with the best planes and therefore the side with the worse planes even has less players too.

I know we all like historical accuracy, but gameplay must be taken onto account too, otherwise the game will die. In the end regardless of what planes we have, its up to the map makers to make the difference and make good maps with realistic, but fun to play planesets.

(You LW only guys want historical accuracy only? OK we will have the next 1945 map with the Allies airstarting at 4000m and 300 planes, and the LW taking off on an AF with their new 109K4 and 190D 1945 with 20 planes for the whole map. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif)

Hristo_
01-31-2006, 03:22 AM
109 should be easy to land until touchdown, as this mostly has to do with wingloading and stall characteristics.

Only when it touched the ground, narrow and weak udnercarriage in combination with rough airstrips caused accidents.

I'd say it has a lot more to do with groundmodelling than flight modelling.

Fw 190 was known as easier to land than Bf 109. I think we all agree this has hardly anything to do with relative stall characteristics of both planes.

Genie-
01-31-2006, 03:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">new best k4 will not only run away from anything, and outclimb, will outturn stuff too http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yeah.. just like spit!

Xiolablu3
01-31-2006, 03:31 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Genie-:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">new best k4 will not only run away from anything, and outclimb, will outturn stuff too http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yeah.. just like spit! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Since when could a Spit outrun ANY late war German plane?

Capt.LoneRanger
01-31-2006, 03:39 AM
Xiolablu3 wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Since when could a Spit outrun ANY late war German plane? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You didn't play much lately?


Flying all sides, all planes, I'm with carguy_ in this. There were many allied planes added with the last patches, that served little, if at all in WW2, but nevertheless get included in realistic OnlineServer-Missions. When at least the ammo-bug for 20/30mm guns für German a/c was fixed, the big whine began.
Now Allies get the Mossie, the Tempest and uber-Spit with booster, blue get another K4 with engine of 10min lifespan, and another round of red-whining begins.

Sorry, I'm not even a fan of LW-planes, but this is ridiculous. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Pinker15
01-31-2006, 03:41 AM
High powered 109 what we have here are the same fantasy like I185 M71 because great handling characteristic at extremally low speeds. At low speed U can add and next reduce power without risc of wingdrop and stall. Im sure for that even more powerfull K4 with its small wings will be the same. For example I.A.R plane with much less powerfull engine has much more P factor than K4. It will be new UFO's king. Thats true 109 was not easy to land and takeoff and it was because of powerfull engine.

FluffyDucks
01-31-2006, 03:43 AM
And so it begins..... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

EPP_Gibbs
01-31-2006, 03:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Hristo_:
109 should be easy to land until touchdown </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hristo, that just sounds so funny. Highlighted just for the sake of humour. I know what you mean though.

I would have been even better if you said "the 109 is easy to land..until you land" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

It wasn't just the undercarriage. It was that, plus the effect of powerful engine torque on a small and overloaded airframe. Any carelessness with the throttle could put the 109 on its back either on landing or takeoff. I've never managed to do that in the sim, no matter how careless.

The wide track undercarriage of the FW190 was designed to overcome that exact problem. The ME 109 undercart was so narrow because the legs were attached to the fuselage and not the wings. Firstly because then the wings could be removed more quickly easily, and secondly, they weren't strong enough anyway to support the weight of the aircraft. Wing weakness was a flaw the 109 had from the start.

Capt.LoneRanger
01-31-2006, 03:48 AM
Really, Pinker15?

That opens up whole new theories. Until now I didn't realise a powerfull engine complicated landing? Most people reduce power when going down?

SnailRunner
01-31-2006, 03:59 AM
How many here have actualy flown the new patch??? either there is a "leaked" thingy out there or people just have an urge to feed of a forum war´. We doent know anything other than words, we have no idea what we are talking about, none of us have flown the patch.....red whiners. blue whiners....im a purple whiner...and i actualy like the P-51 as it is http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

EPP_Gibbs
01-31-2006, 04:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
Really, Pinker15?

That opens up whole new theories. Until now I didn't realise a powerfull engine complicated landing? Most people reduce power when going down? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's right. The complications happen if you don't get it right, or something unexpected happens. If you need to dial in more power suddenly near the ground at very low speed in an an aircraft like the 109, it is likely to bite back and the torque will spin the plane into the ground if you are hamfisted with it.

Kurfurst__
01-31-2006, 04:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Kurfurst is missing my point.

The Spit mk9 is a 1942 design! The +25 boost Spit is welcomed because it enables the Western Allies to have at least a little closer parity to the very late and few 109K4/190D's (1000 of each) which dominate the maps when it should be 190A and 109G10/G6

The fact is that its still a 1942 plane trying to fight 1945 planes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

First of all the MkIX Merlin 66/70 we have is an 1943-1944 variant with a more powerful engine, trust me, you dont want to see the 1942 MkIx with the Merlin 61. The +25lbs we get was not introduced into real service until 1945. Now as for the 'very late and few' 109K/190D, about 3500 of these two were produced, which is just as much as many MkIXLFs we have were produced. you simply fight the historical adverserious of the MkIX.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The Spit 9 with +25 boost would still have a hard time against a normal 190D9 and 109K4 I am sure, never mind the new boosted 109K4. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Disagree. The +25 Spit will about as much power as the new 109K, and weights similiar, ie. very good climb, power to weight ration and acceleration. It will be a climb and turn monkey, but slower than the 109 with its greater drag. The only difference is that the 109K can keep its performance better to altitude, whereas the +25 Spit falls off quickly above 3000 meter, like Soviet planes. Not that it would be important for our purposes.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I am talking about good balanced fun maps, when one side isnt totally owning the other. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think with having practically all the highest boosted allied props, Lightnings, Thunderbolts, Spitfires Corsairs and Tempest, with the exception of the XIV, you shouldn't complain.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">We dont have a Spit 14 of which as many if not MORE (thanks to the destruction on the ground) saw more sorties than 109K4 or 190D9. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just for the historical record, there were about ~320 109K in service at the period we are speaking of, and only 120 SpitXIVs, these are for actual strenght reports from nov1944 and jan 1945. Doras amounted around 200-250. As for why the XIV is not yet in, it's simply a question of modelling/production, no balance or bias. It's not ready yet.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">We have ALL the LW late war planes of which some only a few existed. The Mustang III is a old plane with a bigger engine thas all.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually we have dozens of Allied late war planes, FAR more than we have for the LW...
And btw what's a 109K4 other than "an old plane with a bigger engine"? It has 150 HP extra. The IXLF +25 you getting has +300 HP extra. The Mustang III, what, a whole TWO squadrons for 24 planes being around? "Few"?


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">For good map building the new 109K4 will be welcome on the Eastern front, but maybe not on the West as the Western Allies do not have their full compliment of VERY late war planes... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Like Spit +25, Tempest, Mustang III, P-47D and P-38L late are not very late war planes running at the absolute MAXIMUM powers these planes EVER had?


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Depending on how good the Tempest is, we may have acheived good 1944 balance, though.

In the end this needs to be a fun game to play, especially online, and the maps where one side is totally dominated are no fun. Everyone switches to the side with the best planes and therefore the side with the worse planes even has less players too.I know we all like historical accuracy, but gameplay must be taken onto account too, otherwise the game will die. In the end regardless of what planes we have, its up to the map makers to make the difference and make good maps with realistic, but fun to play planesets. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't agree that either side would be totally dominated because of planes. Let's face it, 109K isn't the best turner, and will be slower than the Mustang III, Tempest or La-7. The Tempest has insane firepower, too. So what's the problem? The new 109K is by no means a dominating type, but it IS a very high performance late war piston engined fighter with an exceptionally wide fight envelope. People who fly it stupid will be easily shot down like monkeys, the same is true for Tempest pilots who will try to fly it like a Spit, whereas they should fly it very much like a 190.

Of course Blue has the advantage of many many years of sole 109 or 190 experience.

Pinker15
01-31-2006, 04:08 AM
<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre"> Really, Pinker15?

That opens up whole new theories. Until now I didn't realise a powerfull engine complicated landing? Most people reduce power when going down?</pre>

Yes it is problem on powerfull planes with high wingloading because U cant freely reduce or add power. Many pilots died because they realize that they comming too low and next added power at low speed, fliped out and smashed into ground. Besides that U can here do touchdown at lower speed that it was possible in real because no stall and wingdrop 109 characteristic. That we can see wingcontrails its not stall until we have full controll and no wing drop, so please dont tell me that 109 can stall because I can jerk stick at full deflection without any consequences of that.

luftluuver
01-31-2006, 04:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Take for instance the Me-262. Something like 2000 Me-262's were available, but due to many factors, no more then 200 were flyable at any given time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Gibbage,

lets get the facts straight. There was 1433 Me262s built, NOT 2000, of which just 936 were delivered to the LW. The other 497 were destroyed before delivery.

Kurfurst seems to have forgotten the Butch2k said the C3 decal did not always indicate a 1.98ata K-4. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif A photo of another K-4 of JG3 taken at the same time of his posted photo has a B4 decal, so not all of JG3 had C3 K-4s.

He has yet to produce any documentation for the quantity of C3 at bases for which the K-4 had been cleared for 1.98.

Now II./JG11 was a test unit, which had numerous problems when testing 1.98. By Kurfurst logic this testing done in early '45 had the whole Gruppe supplied with K-4s. On Jan 1 1945 this Gruppe had only 11 K-4s, <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">a staffel</span>, with the G-14 being the major type 'onhand'.

He has yet to produce any documents showing how many K-4s were in the 4 Gruppen <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">'cleared'</span> for 1.98. This only shows 109s, no model number, http://www.ww2.dk/articles/elflr1.html

Was there K-4s using 1.98? Be sure, but to use Kurfurst's own words, only 'penny pocket' numbers.

Kurfurst logic:

'cleared' = 'used' for the LW
'cleared' = 'not used' for the Allies

Xiolablu3
01-31-2006, 04:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:
Xiolablu3 wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Since when could a Spit outrun ANY late war German plane? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You didn't play much lately? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes I play a lot and always the contemporary 109 or 190 can outrun the Spitfire. If I am wrong in this then please correct me with the models of each where the 109 is slower than the Spit. I always thought the 109's were faster and I can always catch a Spitfire in a prolonged run.

Kurfurst__
01-31-2006, 04:29 AM
Yaaaawn.

Xiolablu3
01-31-2006, 04:37 AM
Kurfurst, I dont want to get into an argument about this,I cant be bothered to split your post up and reply to little bits at a time, I dont have the time to waste.

I like flying both sides and have outlined MY experience online and what I think could be done to make a fun/balanced game.

The fact is there were very few 109K4's at the new boost, there may have been very few Mk9's at 25+ too but then Allies are missing the SPit 14 so this kind of makes up for it.

I would in fact very much like the Spit 9 1942 with the 61 merlin, I dont all fly 1944 map servers all the time. It would be fantastic to have a FEW 1942 Spit 9's to fight those FW190A's in the channel '42 maps. (I know there were mostly MkV's so I am not suggesting a whole map of Mk9's in 1942)

I am not whining, they were just my thoughts, you shouldnt think I am attacking your LW planes all the time just because I vent my opinions, I fly both sides, whoever is most short of players.

Kurfurst__
01-31-2006, 04:46 AM
Great and NP. I just dont see things so dark for the WAllied side. Trouble is rathr with the pilots imho, too many expect of them that simply turning will win all battles, and few know energy/vertical tactics. It's neglected because the good turn rate of red fighters allows people to score some kills, even if he gets shot down the next second.

I'd be all for historical planeset servers, ie. if the number of types would be limited per availibility... much more interesting imho than all this lates vs lates vs verylates vs whatifs. Bad trend imho. You barely ever saw a 109F-2 vs. a Lagg3, unless in an online war...

joeap
01-31-2006, 04:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Kurfurst__:
Great and NP. I just dont see things so dark for the WAllied side. Trouble is rathr with the pilots imho, too many expect of them that simply turning will win all battles, and few know energy/vertical tactics. It's neglected because the good turn rate of red fighters allows people to score some kills, even if he gets shot down the next second.

I'd be all for historical planeset servers, ie. if the number of types would be limited per availibility... much more interesting imho than all this lates vs lates vs verylates vs whatifs. Bad trend imho. You barely ever saw a 109F-2 vs. a Lagg3, unless in an online war... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My gosh....agree 100%

Looking forward to the Mossie, Tempest, K4 and Ju-88!!! (Especially the Mossie and Ju-88). http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Xiolablu3
01-31-2006, 04:51 AM
Yes, it would be great if we could limit certain planes and drip feed them into the map so that they arent all used up straight away.

How UKdedicted does it is to base the Me262 or limited planes at far away bases from the front so that it takes a long time for them to get into battle. This way the map is never swamped with the limited types because its often better to get into battle quick with a slightly worse type than too take so long getting to the front in your Me262 or whatever.

It works very well and means we can have Me262 and other 'so called uber planes' on the maps. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Pirschjaeger
01-31-2006, 04:55 AM
Have you guyz flown EasternHotshots' server? They were always accurate with their planesets.

Fritz

VVS-Manuc
01-31-2006, 04:55 AM
Where did you all get the new patch because you know everything about the performance of the new planes ?

VVS-Manuc
01-31-2006, 04:56 AM
Oleg made a big mistake when he decided to model Luftwaffe aircraft build after 1939 ! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

ImpStarDuece
01-31-2006, 05:16 AM
Ok, Spit +25lbs should be a 1944 bird.

They were tested throughly around October 1943- January 1944.

Service testing and apprival for +25lbs rating in combat was around March 1944, with entry in May, just in time to catch the V1 menace. Off the top of my head, Nos 1 and 165 Squadrons out of Detling, Kent were the first to start running the +25lbs boost levels in early May, not sure about others. They were responsible for about 60 V1 kills between them before they switched back to regular duties around mid August.

Mid November the ADGB was using around 2000 tons of 150 grade fuel a month for operations, but was vascilating about switching to 130 grade because of some supply concerns. However, USAAF reports make it clear that RAF and 2TAF fighter squadrons operating from the Continent were using 150 grade fuel. The RAF seems to have completely made the switch in January 1945, but was gradually phasing in the +25lbs boost level throughout the second half of 1944.

As for performance, a +25lbs Spitfire IX should be ~25 mph faster for around a 5-6,000 foot band at the lowered full throttle heights that the +25 lbs rating (4,000 feet and 15,000 feet) allowed, and anywhere from 5-15 mph faster between those heights. The engine produces about 400 hp more in Moderate Supercharger (low alt) and about 300 hp more in Full Supercharger (medium-high alt) at +25 lbs boost.

RAF tests showed

358 mph @ sea-level (+23 mph)
360 mph @ 500 feet (+22 mph)
363 mph @ 1,000 feet (+23 mph)
366 mph @ 1,500 feet(+23 mph)
368 mph @ 2,000 feet (+23 mph)
371 mph @ 2,500 feet (+22 mph)
373 mph @ 3,000 feet (+23 mph)
376 mph @ 3,500 feet (+23 mph)
379 mph @ 4,000 feet (+23 mph)

So, a +25 lbs Spit IX is a whole 7% faster on the deck than a regular +18lbs Spit IX http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Its hardly the uberwaffe that some people are afeared of.

As for the K4, the evidence seems that it was indeed cleared for 1.98 ATA at the beginning of March, 1945. I'm unaware of how many aircraft were converted but its fair to say that some numbers were indeed run at the higher boost levels. The increase adds around 180 hp to the DB 605 max output at sea-level and about 270 hp at rated alt of around 16,000 feet.

stathem
01-31-2006, 05:21 AM
I hope it's remembered that the +25lb Spitfire reverted to manual change of the supercharger ratios.

Hristo_
01-31-2006, 05:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stathem:
I hope it's remembered that the +25lb Spitfire reverted to manual change of the supercharger ratios. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yup, hoping Oleg remembers it.

RegRag1977
01-31-2006, 05:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AFJ_Locust:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RegRag1977:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif Bf109 increased manoeuvrability http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif,

and nothing for Fw190 when it needs to be improved!!!

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

are u mad ? the FW is a killing machien it needs nothing

Fix the p51 please </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gifI think Both are undermodelled!!! P51 may need to be fixed too! ( though i don't know much about it...).
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gifOn the CWOS forum there's a lot of people with data and knowledge that can proove that FW190A is undermodelled http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif. Maybe there is a P51 forum like that... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

p1ngu666
01-31-2006, 08:06 AM
well the g6 and g6late are slower than IX/VIII

the late g series also are slower, but only at high alts 5000-6000+ metres, k4 better at all alts in speed, and too 6000 in climb..

the F series is quicker and climbs better than a Vb

we rarely sim the periods where allies had the advantage, eg how many vb vs 190a4 df/coops have u played, compaired to a4 against IX? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

btw, g series where in very limited alcholism pre summer 44, to try and catch mossies (without much success)

teh g6as kurfy mentions, would be a g6 with a as engine without mw50, a higher critical alt 109, which was handy.

the biggest problem with new k4 will be gameplay wise, be like going against la7 right down on the deck, but instead its at nearly ever alt.

the most performant usaaf plane, the p51d, will be outclimbed, out turned,and outspeeded. its pretty hard todo anything about that. thats why g6late vs IX/VIII is really rare, cos IX/VIII is all round better, not much fun..

new k4 best for luftdominance fantasies, but not for gameplay http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif