Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: dirt911 on May 15, 2010, 12:20:52 PM
-
I heard something about a G-10 Gustav wondered if it was a good model for AH,if so i think it would be a nice fit between G-6 and G-14.
-
I heard something about a G-10 Gustav wondered if it was a good model for AH,if so i think it would be a nice fit between G-6 and G-14.
Why? Because 10 is between 6 and 14?
Search (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php?action=search2)
I think (based on Green's work) that I read that the K-4 was a standardization of all the field fixes. So there might be very little difference between a G10 and K4.
wrongway
-
N0,performance.
Check your engine and weight specs.
-
we had the G-10, it became the K-4.
-
They are two sepearte aircraft K-4 is a later model 109. :rolleyes:
-
Bf109G-10 entered service after the Bf109K-4. G-10 is a hodgepodge of fixes for the G series basically. Due to its service entry date it isn't very useful for AH. A Bf109G-6/AS or Bf109G-14/AS would be very nice though.
-
Bf109G-10 entered service after the Bf109K-4. G-10 is a hodgepodge of fixes for the G series basically. Due to its service entry date it isn't very useful for AH. A Bf109G-6/AS or Bf109G-14/AS would be very nice though.
Now that i think about it i would much rather see G-14/AS added.
-
Now that i think about it i would much rather see G-14/AS added.
No changing you mind! :furious
-
+1 on the G-10
-
+1 on the G-10
Why? Its useless to AH.
-
Even the best G10s were about 10mph slower than the K4, and the G10s varied depending on the setup of the plane. Gee, the G14 we already have in-game is only about 20mph slower than a K4. A G10 (the best of the G10s, that is) would only be a handful of MPH faster than the G14 (the more average G10s would only perform as well as the G14 does). And have exactly the same weapons options. Only difference would be above 17k. Again, worse than the K4 we have, it would continue on for higher than the G14 before falling off.
As mentioned so many times by other people, it saw service AFTER the K4, and performed WORSE than the K4. It fills no niche, plugs no holes. The AS models would be much more suitable.
-
No changing you mind! :furious
Aint no rule saying i caint change my mind. :neener: :P :banana:
-
Why? Its useless to AH.
On the same token, you could make some very minor changes to the K4, add a couple skins and bam you got a new plane. Not much effort would have to be put in to add it.
-
On the same token, you could make some very minor changes to the K4, add a couple skins and bam you got a new plane. Not much effort would have to be put in to add it.
My thoughts exactly! I already came across Erich Hartmann's bird:
http://ttp://www.taphilo.com/photo/pictures/Me109-G10.jpg
(http://users.hol.gr/~nowi/luftprof/jg52/me109g10ijg52hartmann-1_1.jpg)
(http://www.michael-reimer.com/CFS2/CFS2_Profiles/ETO_AXIS_Luftwaffe_JG52-Dateien/Messerschmitt_Bf109G-10AS___Usch_Hartmann_400x150.jpg)
-
and uh dirt... sorry to break it to you but there is a rule saying you cant change the topic so, yeah, ya started talking about the G10, now ya want the G14 so, yeah, sorry bud but U R WRONG, WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x :x jk though the G14 would be much nicer
-
More than enough 109 variants already. Japanese planeset seriously needs work.
-
D4Y, A6M, G4M, P1Y, Ki-43, Ki-21 just to name a few
-
What's the difference between a G-14 and a G-14/as.
But -1 on the G-10.
-
Bf109G-6/AS or Bf109G-14/AS are boosted for high altitude work, they can fight up at US bomber offensive altitudes. Currently the only Bf109 that can fight effectively up there is the Bf109K-4, and it is too late in the war for scenario use.
Frankly, they don't need to add a Bf109G-14/AS, just change the current Bf109G-14 in the /AS model.
-
The mid-to-late-43 model of G6 we have doesn't really "fit" in later setups. The G14 as-modeled (16k FTH) fills a fairly big mid-to-late-war hole in the planeset. Simply turning it to an AS model would leave that G6 hole intact.
-
What are the respective service dates for the Bf109G-14 and Bf109G-14/AS?
-
More than enough 109 variants already. Japanese planeset seriously needs work.
And the arscheklownen koms - er, I mean Soviet set, and the Italian one as well.
-
AH used to have the Bf109G-10. we used to fly it regularly on bomber intercept missions. When the game morphed to AHII, (IIRC) they changed it to the Bf109K-4. There's not that much difference between the two. They use the same engine, same guns and the G-10 had a 20mm nose cannon option as well. I don't remember if it could carry gondola or not but I seem to think that it could (in the game).
-
AH used to have the Bf109G-10. we used to fly it regularly on bomber intercept missions. When the game morphed to AHII, (IIRC) they changed it to the Bf109K-4. There's not that much difference between the two. They use the same engine, same guns and the G-10 had a 20mm nose cannon option as well. I don't remember if it could carry gondola or not but I seem to think that it could (in the game).
AH never had the Bf109G-10. It had a Bf109K-4 that was called a Bf109G-10 so that the developers could give it 20mm and gondola options.
-
AH never had the Bf109G-10. It had a Bf109K-4 that was called a Bf109G-10 so that the developers could give it 20mm and gondola options.
Huh? Like I said, the G-10 and the K-4 were not that different. Same engine, pretty much same gun package.... Where'd you get the idea that the G-10 was really a K-4 in disguise? I'd like to see pyro or dale confirm that one.
-
AH never had the Bf109G-10. It had a Bf109K-4 that was called a Bf109G-10 so that the developers could give it 20mm and gondola options.
That's exactly what I'd like - the option to dump the 30mil for the 20's on the K-4.
-
Bf109G-10s had more drag than the K-4s due to the older G shape. Typical max speed for a G-10 was ~425mph compared to the K-4's ~450mph. AH's old "Bf109G-10" did 452mph, not 424mph.
That's exactly what I'd like - the option to dump the 30mil for the 20's on the K-4.
Not appropriate on Bf109K-4 performance.
-
What are the respective service dates for the Bf109G-14 and Bf109G-14/AS?
Good question. I'd have to go look it up.
The flip-side is that if the G14/AS enters the fight later than needed to fill the gap, we can just give ourselves the G6/AS. Those started showing up before the G14/AS did, and essentially they're the same thing but one has MW50 and one does not. Both/either would be a major improvement over the G6 and G14 currently at above 16k.
EDIT: I am guessing here, but I think the G14/AS was around as early as the G14 was. That'd be mid-1944? (guessing)
-
EDIT: I am guessing here, but I think the G14/AS was around as early as the G14 was. That'd be mid-1944? (guessing)
This is correct... mid-late Summer '44 for both the G-14 and G-14/AS.
Rather than a G-14/AS, I'd like to see a G-5/AS or G-6/AS, for both a high altitude Gustav, and for the sake of having a representation of the late G-5/6 line, with Erla Haube canopy, tall tail, and MK108.
-
So, basically a K-4 with the 20 mil option, why not? Because we have to many 109's already? Maybe i have a biased opinion because I'm a big fan of the 109, but in my honest opinion it doesn't hurt the game if we have add a slightly different 109 then what we have already.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like the G-10 only needs a small modification to that of the 109K. That looks far less work compared to building new planes from scratch (D4Y, A6M, G4M, P1Y, Ki-43, Ki-21 as previously been mentioned).
In other words: Make a small adjustment to the bubbles on the nose, give it a 20 mil option and a slightly worse engine and your done!
My 20 cents.
-
Mus51,
It would require a lot of flight model work too. It is not just a K-4 with 20mm options.
-
Bf109G-10 entered service after the Bf109K-4. G-10 is a hodgepodge of fixes for the G series basically. Due to its service entry date it isn't very useful for AH. A Bf109G-6/AS or Bf109G-14/AS would be very nice though.
Considering the number produced and the similar workload as with the P-47M, it is a significant variant which would bring that least loadout options that aren't available with the K-4.
Why? Its useless to AH.
Pretty silly comment. Not a single WWII/WWI plane would be "useless" in AH.
More than enough 109 variants already. Japanese planeset seriously needs work.
Japanese planeset just like the Soviet planeset seriously needs work. That work load however isn't really comparable with adding one new 109 which practically doesn't need any additional 3D-work. 109 fought from the beginning almost to the end and is the most produced fighter of the war. It is only natural that there is several variants.
Frankly, they don't need to add a Bf109G-14/AS, just change the current Bf109G-14 in the /AS model.
Heh, that would need more 3D-work than adding the G-10. :)
Not appropriate on Bf109K-4 performance.
Incorrect. There were K-4s produced with the MG151/20.
It would require a lot of flight model work too. It is not just a K-4 with 20mm options.
Not anymore flight model work than P-47M.
-
No, the G10 (if modeled correctly) would need a new flight model. What you flew before was never (NEVER) representative of what a G10 could pull off in real life. It was a K4 always in flght envelope. The G10 would have different climb charts, weights, acclerations, level speeds, milpower speeds, etc.
It's not just a matter of slapping the K4 flight data onto a new plane and tweaking the weights. That's what they did with the P-47N flight model to make the P-47M. It doesn't apply to the G10, IMO.
As an aside: Last time this debate came up a long while back, I believe somebody posted info that almost no K-4s flew with 20mm hub guns.
-
No, the G10 (if modeled correctly) would need a new flight model. What you flew before was never (NEVER) representative of what a G10 could pull off in real life. It was a K4 always in flght envelope. The G10 would have different climb charts, weights, acclerations, level speeds, milpower speeds, etc.
It's not just a matter of slapping the K4 flight data onto a new plane and tweaking the weights. That's what they did with the P-47N flight model to make the P-47M. It doesn't apply to the G10, IMO.
What exactly did I say? Did I say it wouldn't need a new flight model?
I said that it wouldn't need any more work than P-47M. There are G-10s that had the same engine as the K-4 we have now. But I say it now, if the same engine is used, it is a matter of getting the weight and drag correct.
Why would the 47M be based on FM of the N when it is flight model-wise basically a D-40 with more power? N has a different wing.
As an aside: Last time this debate came up a long while back, I believe somebody posted info that almost no K-4s flew with 20mm hub guns.
I haven't seen a specific mention on the numbers produced with the 20mm cannon as there's a good probability that such numbers don't exist at all. But when considering rocket/1000lbs armed P-51D and 37mm armed Il-2 already in the game, I don't see a problem. And, if the 20mm isn't added to the K-4 it is a good incentive to have a G-10. It has been wished many times and it's relatively easy to produce (like the P-47M). It was mass produced and definately saw loads of action.
-
The 47M in-game was specifically made from the 47N flight model. That's not debatable. They listed the wing tanks and had the fuel loading tables from the 47N for a while, until those bugs were removed. They used the 47N because it already had that horsepower (exactly the same engine, same output) and all the power curves were already modeled. They then (I infer) changed the wing area and reduced the weight.
Fact of the matter is that 109G-10s had a number of engines. The best of the best, the most polished, refined, and optomistic of examples had the same engine that the 109K4 has in-game. Even with that they still could not match its performance. The others, more representative models, would have significantly lower engine power, requiring their own power curves and their own flight model calculations (climbs, accelerations, fuel consumption, prop thrust, torque, and all that fun stuff that goes into creating a flight model from scratch).
So, no it's not the same as the P-47M example. Unless you want a 109K4 clone with G10 weapons (oh, wait, that's the entire point of this repetitive never-ending G10 request subject anyways, isn't it?)
-
The 47M in-game was specifically made from the 47N flight model. That's not debatable. They listed the wing tanks and had the fuel loading tables from the 47N for a while, until those bugs were removed. They used the 47N because it already had that horsepower (exactly the same engine, same output) and all the power curves were already modeled. They then (I infer) changed the wing area and reduced the weight.
Could well be, I just find it odd. Maybe it is easier change the other parameters instead of the engine. Doesn't really change my point in anyway though.
Fact of the matter is that 109G-10s had a number of engines. The best of the best, the most polished, refined, and optomistic of examples had the same engine that the 109K4 has in-game. Even with that they still could not match its performance. The others, more representative models, would have significantly lower engine power, requiring their own power curves and their own flight model calculations (climbs, accelerations, fuel consumption, prop thrust, torque, and all that fun stuff that goes into creating a flight model from scratch).
So, no it's not the same as the P-47M example. Unless you want a 109K4 clone with G10 weapons (oh, wait, that's the entire point of this repetitive never-ending G10 request subject anyways, isn't it?)
"most optimistic" geeze...
Krusty, your blah blah blahing isn't enough for me to dig hard data to this thread, just not worth it knowing you.
It is exactly like the P-47M. Ie. recycling already done 3D-model for a new variant with slightly different performance ie. flight model. You know just as little about the procedure Pyro goes through with the FMs as I. I'm not gonna start arguing with you how much less or more time the G-10 flight model would take compared to the P-47Ms model. That would be just stupid...exactly as stupid as it is to argue that there would be significant difference there actually.
..................
Wheater or not Pyro sees modelling the G-10 worthwhile is one thing. That's up to Pyro. But saying that it would be useless and comparing the workload to totally new aircraft is just BS.
-
:eek: I have started something for sure now.
-
Well, it wouldn't be exactly like the P-47M. The P-47M is a hot rod compared to the other P-47s. The Bf109G-10 would be a downgrade compared to the Bf109K-4.
-
:uhoh
:bolt:
-
:uhoh
:bolt:
:huh :noid
-
Well, it wouldn't be exactly like the P-47M.
It should be quite clear what I meant.
The P-47M is a hot rod compared to the other P-47s. The Bf109G-10 would be a downgrade compared to the Bf109K-4.
In terms of speed it would be downgrade. In terms of climbrate it would be practically identical compared to the K-4. The most common reason why people are asking the G-10 seems to be a want for a latewar 109 with a 20mm fuselage cannon that has better high alt performance than our current G-14. Considering that around 2600 G-10s were made and the fact that it wouldn't be very rescource intensive addition I don't find it at all an unreasonable request. Considering that not everybody has mastered the use of the MK108 cannon but still like to fly 109s, I'm sure it would see very good amount of use compared to the time it would take to implement. Therefore I see it as "a cost effective" addition, much like the P-47M was.
Also, G-14/AS and G-10 with 605AS engine are practically same planes anyway.
-
I would prefer a G14/AS and a G6/AS, esp for the scenarios.
My understanding is that there were 3 engines used...
1) DB 605 A(M) - 1435 PS(non-wep), 1800 PS(wep)
2) DB 605 AS(M) - 1800 PS(wep)
3) DB 605 ASC - 2000 PS(wep)
The difference being the fuel octane they used. The AS(M) used B4 and the ASC used C3.
Now the K4 did not have any of the stated engines above, it had either
1)DB 605 DB - 1850PS (non-wep)
2)DB 605 DC - 2000 PS (non-wep)
and again the 605DB was for B4 fuel and the DB 605 DC had C3 fuel.
Now, which engines are modeled today in the G14 & K4. The difference between the a G14 with the DB 605A(M)n and a G14 with the DB 605 ASC could be a noticeable performance impact considering the 200PS difference in engine output. Also, the ASC being a 'high alt' version, should also improve its high alt performance.
-
I would prefer a G14/AS and a G6/AS, esp for the scenarios.
This.
-
If AS was just a different engine option why not just have it as a option selection in the hanger for the planes we have now?
-
If AS was just a different engine option why not just have it as a option selection in the hanger for the planes we have now?
Loadout options aren't capable of doing that sort of stuff, different power curves or added armor.
-
Give them a G - 10, But to keep the balance I wants a Spit XII !! :aok
-
Give them a G - 10, But to keep the balance I wants a Spit XII !! :aok
Brilliant :aok
-
ohhhhhhhhhh me want a Ki-44 Ki-43 Ki-21 Ki-45 Ki-102 :D