Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: Anaxogoras on February 08, 2008, 03:43:30 PM
-
Let's condense all of these 109 issues into a single thread:
109G-2
1. 140 rpg capacity for the gondolas.
109G-6 should have an option for:
1. Mk 108. According Prien & Rodeike this was common.
2. Gm-1 boost for high altitudes. This was also common.
3. 200 rpg capacity for the spinner MG151.
4. 140 rpg capacity for the gondolas.
I'm willing to forgo MW50 because that would be equivalent to a G-14.
109G-14
1. 200 rpg capacity for the spinner MG151.
2. 140 rpg capacity for the gondolas.
3. ~1000 G-14/AS variants were produced. That's far more than many other aircraft that are included in the AH planeset.
109G-10
Bring it back; the G-10 was not equivalent to the K-4.
Did I miss anything? With these fixes the 109 will dominate the arenas and you won't see any more La-7s or Spitfire XVIs.:rofl
-
So what yer trying to tell us is that you get shot down by La7's and Spixteens?
-
So what yer trying to tell us is that you get shot down by La7's and Spixteens?
That's a beautiful straw-man masherbrum, but let's keep this on topic.
-
Originally posted by Anaxogoras
With these fixes the 109 will dominate the arenas and you won't see any more La-7s or Spitfire XVIs.:rofl
How are all those gun packages going to prevent an La-7 or a Spit 16 from locking onto your 6 ?
-
Wow, I try to write something with content, and the only thing you two notice and misunderstand is the bad joke at the end.:confused: The point was that the above fixes will be pleasing to 109 o'philes but have little impact on others (therefore no reason to object).
But shouldn't historical accuracy be enough?
-
Well it seems like a good idea, im not too good in 109s though, atleast the g-_s im okay at the k-4, kind of wierd. Guess im a better shot in the k-4
-
I spoke with Pyro this afternoon, and the G6/G14 will both receive the 200 round loadouts, 140 round gondola loadouts, and the drag will be slightly reduced or else. If you need anything else, don't hesitate to ask. ;)
-
The scary thing is that all of the negative reactions here are based on ideology instead of evidence.
It's as if when presented with compelling evidence that an aircraft should be like x instead of y, and x is a little better than y, the mob cries out "She's a witch! Burn her! She turned me into a newt!"
What passes for debate here is a circus. I haven't seen one negative response that is based on counterexamples or contradicting historical data.:lol
-
You haven't seen one because you haven't searched for one.
It's old hat for many of us.
G6 has no 30mm because it's the early model (also note early style canopy and early style pilot armor). You say 1000 G14/as is more numerous than any other plane in the game and I just have no reply other than "read more." Then you say the G10 was not the K4, when HTC themselves have stated the G10 WAS based on K4 data, since the day it was introduced. In fact the plane was not removed, it was just renamed to the proper name. I believe the P-47D-40 was once named the P-47D-30. Doesn't mean they took the -30 out, just means they gave it the proper name for what it was.
Like I said, it's all been covered.
P.s. In another thread before you even posted Pyro said he's upping the ammo numbers. We've been asking for them for a while, and that's one improvement I will enjoy.
-
Originally posted by Anaxogoras
I'm willing to forgo MW50 because that would be equivalent to a G-14.
That's very generous of you, thank you oh mighty anaxwhateverthehellyournameis .
-
In another thread before you even posted Pyro said he's upping the ammo numbers.
You didn't take that as a snub? The :noid made it appear as if he's not serious.
As for the K4 vs the G-10, I don't give a hoot if they had the same performance in AH. That's not what counts. What counts is that the actual aircraft did not, nor did they have the same weapon load-outs.
-----------------
That emoticon makes me wonder if that sensation I feel is my leg being pulled
Yes, I think so.
-
Originally posted by Anaxogoras
...As for the K4 vs the G-10, I don't give a hoot if they had the same performance in AH. That's not what counts. What counts is that the actual aircraft did not, nor did they have the same weapon load-outs
I think what he is saying is that AH NEVER had a G-10. They had a miss named K-4 and fixed it by renaming it.
So seeing as we never had a G-10, they can't really bring it back can they:p
-
The Bf109G-6 lacks all of the things you mentioned because it is an early 1943 Bf109G-6, which either lacked those things or only had them extremely rarely in the case of the 30mm gun.
And I'd tell the same thing to a person asking for 120 rounds per gun and +16lbs boost in the Spit Vb, so don't think I am one sided here.
What the Bf109 lineup needs is only a Bf109G-6/AS or Bf109G-14/AS. Get that and it is done. Canopy framing could be looked at too.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
The Bf109G-6 lacks all of the things you mentioned because it is an early 1943 Bf109G-6, which either lacked those things or only had them extremely rarely in the case of the 30mm gun.
'Cept the 200 rd hub option.
-
Originally posted by Motherland
'Cept the 200 rd hub option.
Right, but that is being fixed so it isn't really missing.
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Right, but that is being fixed so it isn't really missing.
True.
Even I have something to look forward to in the next update! :aok
-
Originally posted by Motherland
True.
Even I have something to look forward to in the next update! :aok
That makes too of us, bro :aok !
-
If we get 200 rpg in the next version I will shut up for a long time about Bf109 fixes. You have my word on it.
On the other hand, do you all really believe that the gondolas are going to create less drag?
-
Originally posted by Anaxogoras
On the other hand, do you all really believe that the gondolas are going to create less drag?
I have never known Pyro to say something was going to be changed, when it wasn't, except for that one time when he was just kidding. :noid
-
One thing I just remembered about the 109k is that reducing rpm has no effect on fuel burn. In the other 109s, reducing rpm does affect GPH.
-
The bf 109 lineup right now is good as is.
I kinda wish they kept the 109G-10. It's basically an overboosted 109G-6 for hi alt, while the 109G-14 is an overboosted 109G-6 for low-med alt.
-
Originally posted by mg1942
The bf 109 lineup right now is good as is.
I kinda wish they kept the 109G-10. It's basically an overboosted 109G-6 for hi alt, while the 109G-14 is an overboosted 109G-6 for low-med alt.
109g-14/AS is the overboosted g-6 for high alt. 109g-10 is a k-4 with higher drag, so it's 15mph slower. The lineup is fine for MA play now, but for scenarios and CT there is a huge gap in the high altitude 109s from the 1943 109g-6 until the late 1944 109k-4.
-
You say 1000 G14/as is more numerous than any other plane in the game
He didn't say that. ;)
He said:
3. ~1000 G-14/AS variants were produced. That's far more than many other aircraft that are included in the AH planeset.
That is true. Some of the aircraft that are included in the plane set were produced in far fewer numbers than 1000. ;)
-
Originally posted by Elfie
That is true. Some of the aircraft that are included in the plane set were produced in far fewer numbers than 1000. ;)
Yup. And quite a few that were produced in larger numbers than 1000 are not yet in the game as well.
~11,000 Wellingtons
~5,900 Ki-43s
~2,500 G4Ms "Betty"
-
Originally posted by Karnak
Yup. And quite a few that were produced in larger numbers than 1000 are not yet in the game as well.
~11,000 Wellingtons
~5,900 Ki-43s
~2,500 G4Ms "Betty"
Yes, it goes both ways. My response though was for the person who didn't read a post very closely and then told that person to do some reading. I thought that was funny. :D
-
all this whining makes me ashamed to be associated with you crybabies as a 109 dweeb. :mad:
gonna have to go back to the p38 because they know when they whine 500 lbs gets added to their lightnings :D
-
Bleh, the GM-1 boost wouldn't be too fun to be fitted to our current G6. Maybe a separate G6/AS would be nice, but having the GM-1 would add unnecessary weight to the current G6.
We also can't really have it as an optional fit in the hangar if that's what you're thinking. It's pretty random... it's an internal accessory not really a weapons/ord/fuel accessory.
Most of the fights are down low anyway, so I don't like the idea of adding GM-1 as a standard to the G6.
-
Originally posted by SgtPappy
Bleh, the GM-1 boost wouldn't be too fun to be fitted to our current G6. Maybe a separate G6/AS would be nice, but having the GM-1 would add unnecessary weight to the current G6.
We also can't really have it as an optional fit in the hangar if that's what you're thinking. It's pretty random... it's an internal accessory not really a weapons/ord/fuel accessory.
Most of the fights are down low anyway, so I don't like the idea of adding GM-1 as a standard to the G6.
I agree with SgtPappy. I'd much rather have a g-6/AS than a 109 with GM-1. Too much weight with no benefit until you're 1000m above rated altitude (so 26k in a 109g-6). The one plane we have with GM-1 I'd rather didn't. I think the GM-1 only exacerbates the CoG issues that our Ta152 seems to have, and doesn't boost performance until around 38000ft!
-
Who ever said the 109G-6AS...Thank you.
I avidly and sincerly want one of those planes. Especially
with the /U4 option to take the Mk.108 in the spinner.
I fly this plane in IL2 amost exclusively when available as
I do not like the 109G-6 early very much in conparison to
the Bf.109F-4 or the Bf.109G-2. I will have to say though, that
in IL2 anyway I prefer the Bf.109G-10 to the Bf.109K-4 as
it's performance and handleing in my PERCEPTION are better.
That is unless we are talking about the Bf.109K-4C3, then I prefer
this mount.
But yes, 109G-6AS/U4! I likes it very much.
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
I have never known Pyro to say something was going to be changed, when it wasn't, except for that one time when he was just kidding. :noid
You are, no doubt, referring to his explanation the perked ordnance system -- when he said there would be a per round charge on everything bigger than a 303, with perk refunds for unused rounds awarded on landing. Of course, he said if perks ran low then players would have to fly the Hurri I and Spit I, but that's the price of progress....
What was even funnier was the very high proportion of people who A) Didn't get the joke, and then B) got mad at him and whined about how HTC reps shouldn't go pulling people's legs about such serious matters.
-
The 109G and K windshield vertical frames should be reduced by 1/3 to provide a wider view due to RL refraction of light in thick armoured glass.
thread id 165351 (http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=165351&pagenumber=2)
thread id 167723 (http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=167723&pagenumber=2)
-
Originally posted by Simaril
You are, no doubt, referring to his explanation the perked ordnance system -- when he said there would be a per round charge on everything bigger than a 303, with perk refunds for unused rounds awarded on landing. Of course, he said if perks ran low then players would have to fly the Hurri I and Spit I, but that's the price of progress....
What was even funnier was the very high proportion of people who A) Didn't get the joke, and then B) got mad at him and whined about how HTC reps shouldn't go pulling people's legs about such serious matters.
That made me giggle. I do think Pyro's serious this time though. Kinda. :noid
I wouldn't be opposed to a G6/AS, not at all, but I wouldn't hold my breath on that one.
-
Originally posted by Citabria
all this whining makes me ashamed to be associated with you crybabies as a 109 dweeb. :mad:
gonna have to go back to the p38 because they know when they whine 500 lbs gets added to their lightnings :D
That was 600 pounds :)
Took me a while to get used to my P38G all over again:aok
Think about the 109 line up as is.
109-E4
109F4
109G2
109G6
109G-14
109K4
Is there another line up fleshed out as well in AH? Spitfires are about it.
Spit I
Spit Vb
SpitIX
SpitVIII
Spit XIV
SpitXVI
I sure wouldn't complain about either line up. There will always be a variant that won't make the cut.
-
Originally posted by Anaxogoras
But shouldn't historical accuracy be enough?
I'm all for historical accuracy.
How about our F6F-5, which is 5 mph slower using WEP than Navy tests show for MIL power? F6F-5 should manage 406-409 mph at 21.6k. It does 386 mph. See tests here (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/ptr-1111.pdf) and here. (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f6f/f6f-5-72731.pdf)
How about the Ki-61 with its turn radius being greater than that of the P-47D-11? It should be very close to that of the FM-2. See test here. (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/japan/Tony-I.pdf)
How about our F4Us, with their rock solid stability right up to max AoA at stall speed? Add a turn radius smaller than fighters with substantially lower wing loadings.
P-38s have some issues, as do the P-51s...
I'm all for adding missing variants of existing types, but before HTC spends time and treasure on those, I'd like to see existing aircraft receive adjustments to their flight models where needed. Likewise, I'd like to see missing types, which saw combat in great numbers added to the plane set. In that regard, the P-39D and P-39Q are most welcomed. However, there's still many important aircraft missing. Inasmuch as these take a great deal of time and effort to add, I'd rather not dilute those efforts with additional variants of types already well represented.
I think the issue of adding aircraft and or variants requires players to look at the bigger picture.
Of course, that's only my opinion.. ;)
My regards,
Widewing
-
Originally posted by BlauK
The 109G and K windshield vertical frames should be reduced by 1/3 to provide a wider view due to RL refraction of light in thick armoured glass.
thread id 165351 (http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=165351&pagenumber=2)
thread id 167723 (http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=167723&pagenumber=2)
Very interesting. Thanks.
That would be a nice change.