Author Topic: No kills from gvs in fighter mode??? (Read 1348 times)

Karnak · « **Reply #15 on:** December 09, 2005, 04:42:09 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Zuum
OK! Let´s make this clear!

Why doesn´t K-4 have an option for wing cannon gondolas? The change of G-10 to K-4 was a FLOP! K-4 without gondolas is not a substitute for G-10 with gondolas.

Most likely because people kept whining for the Bf109K-4 when it was already in the game. It doesn't have the gun pods because the Bf109K-4 never/rarely used them in combat.

Quote

G-14 was so late model in service that it should not have been created in this arena.

It is earlier than either the Bf109K-4 or Bf109G-10 so I don't know what you're on about.

Quote

And...last but not least, why did HTC pluck the 30mm Rheinmetall out of G-6???[/b]

The Bf109G-6 is now setup like a 1943 Bf109G-6, of which a very, very small number had the 30mm. The Bf109G-14 is the next step up and it is really just a Bf109G-6 with MW50 and all the gun options.

Note that the Spitfire Mk V was also reduced in performance and lost half of it's cannon ammo to turn it into a 1941 Spit Vb.

You misunderstand bombing. It is not altitude dependant. What needs to happen is for the bomb to travel through 500ft of air. It doesn't matter which way it is going while it does that though. If a fighter is flying at 300mph level and drops a bomb at 170ft of altitude the bomb will travel quite long ways through the air. It doesn't fall 170 straight down from the fighter, it arcs from it's starting point as it has 300mph of energy on it.

Zuum · « **Reply #16 on:** December 09, 2005, 04:51:42 PM »

>
Most likely because people kept whining for the Bf109K-4 when it was already in the game. It doesn't have the gun pods because the Bf109K-4 never/rarely used them in combat.
>

Why didn´t HTC just leave the G-10 be there, just as another choice? There are lots of mods with allied fighters(especially P-38). For example, new versions of P-38 or P-47 have not cancelled other versions. They are still there. HTC should have the same policy with all the planes. It´s not the question of few Mb file transfer or other things...

Keep the balance!

Zuum · « **Reply #17 on:** December 09, 2005, 04:56:41 PM »

Ok, Karnak and others!
to all of You.
It´s about the bedtime here...in Finland!
Time is 1 am
Suffering a little flu, drinking schnaps and feeling great!

THX and have great flights!

AKFokerFoder+ · « **Reply #18 on:** December 09, 2005, 05:45:35 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Karnak
The Bf109G-6 is now setup like a 1943 Bf109G-6, of which a very, very small number had the 30mm. The Bf109G-14 is the next step up and it is really just a Bf109G-6 with MW50 and all the gun options.

The G14 sure doesn't feel like the old 109G6 to me. I flew the F4 more than the G6, but I was moving to more and more G6 sorties before the last patch.

Now I probably don't know what I'm talking about, but to me the G14 feels sluggish and heavy compared to the old G6.

And as for the K4, all I can say is the G10 seemed a lot more responsive, expecially in acceleration, and it doesn't seem to climb, but that could be the acceleration.

Also, the 109s seem to suffer the effects of compression more quickly than they did.

In short, to me the new 109s are iron pigs.

OOZ662 · « **Reply #19 on:** December 09, 2005, 05:54:15 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Zuum
For example, new versions of P-38 or P-47 have not cancelled other versions.

You said it yourself. New versions didn't. It's an old version redone to AHII graphics and renamed.

Karnak · « **Reply #20 on:** December 09, 2005, 06:01:56 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKFokerFoder+
The G14 sure doesn't feel like the old 109G6 to me. I flew the F4 more than the G6, but I was moving to more and more G6 sorties before the last patch.

Now I probably don't know what I'm talking about, but to me the G14 feels sluggish and heavy compared to the old G6.

And as for the K4, all I can say is the G10 seemed a lot more responsive, expecially in acceleration, and it doesn't seem to climb, but that could be the acceleration.

Also, the 109s seem to suffer the effects of compression more quickly than they did.

In short, to me the new 109s are iron pigs.

All of which, other than the Bf109G-14 which we can't compare anything to, is psychosomatic if what HiTech told us is true.

So, either you are feeling a difference that isn't there or HiTech changed something and doesn't know it. I lean towards the first as when the Fw190s were redone the same claims were made about it and it likewise had not been changed.

The Bf109G-14 feels better then the old Bf109G-6 to me, but I am hardly anything like a Bf109 expert.

AKFokerFoder+ · « **Reply #21 on:** December 09, 2005, 06:29:17 PM »

I flew in another flight Sim called "Flying Circus"

The designers of that game (really fun but very arcadish) made the FM of the Sopwith Camel identical to that of the Fokker Triplane. Yet I could do things in the Camel that I couldn't in the Tripe. There was a couple of subtle moves that would make that Camel dance, yet didn't work in the Tripe.

Now I have no reason the doubt that HT didn't deliberately change the FM. But that doesn't mean the FM didn't change. We have some coding problems with stutters etc, that may well have adversly affected the newer planes FMs especially the 109s. I flew them a lot, and now, well, I have gone back to the 190A8, the Dora, and the Spit16. I even flew the LA7 last night. I just may switch to that monster

And the old 190A8 seemed to handle differently than the new one, not as nimble (as if you could use the word nimble for any AH 190) and the Dora changed a lot.

Grits · « **Reply #22 on:** December 09, 2005, 10:25:57 PM »

I think the M8's armor is much tougher than the Tigers after the last patch, and I think the 262 is slower than a C-47. I feel it so it must be so.

Zuum · « **Reply #23 on:** December 10, 2005, 03:22:09 PM »

OK! Back to business;-)

Karnak, You said:

>All of which, other than the Bf109G-14 which we can't compare anything to, is psychosomatic if what HiTech told us is true.

So, either you are feeling a difference that isn't there or HiTech changed something and doesn't know it. I lean towards the first as when the Fw190s were redone the same claims were made about it and it likewise had not been changed.

The Bf109G-14 feels better then the old Bf109G-6 to me, but I am hardly anything like a Bf109 expert.<

I could say...and not only me but all other finnish squad members, too!
There has happened a BIG weakening with 109s.

Was there a true need for throwing the G-10 away? NO!
G-10 is an excellent high altitude interceptor with good climb rate, speed, good armament and still good capability and fair agility to survive at low altitudes. Other words would say: a real pilot´s plane which demands skill!

Why dont I see any delightful comments about "new" 109s...? Why dont I hear any song of joy for the new G14s or K4s?

WBW

Karnak · « **Reply #24 on:** December 10, 2005, 03:52:44 PM »

Zuum,

The point is that the Bf109K-4 is not new. It is exactly the same as the old Bf109G-10, minus the 20mm options.

Personally I would have liked the to have kept the Bf109G-10 and simply reduced it's performance from Bf109K-4 levels to the proper Bf109G-10 levels, say about 425mph top speed. I can understand why they did not do so however given that both the Bf109G-10 and Bf109K-4 entered service in Oct., 1944.

Why people think the agility of v2.06's Bf109K-4 is different than that of v2.05's Bf109G-10 I can't say, but given there was no flight model change, just the gun change, I would have to guess it is imagined.

Zuum · « **Reply #25 on:** December 10, 2005, 04:40:29 PM »

Karnak,
I really appreciate Your efforts and patience with this discussion! A big Salute to You!
With the new K-4(or...old G-10), the lack of wing gondolas is an essential point. The role of that model is a bit unclear...G-10 was a hi-alt interceptor with a pretty good climb rate and pretty good armament. But, K-4 is suffering the lack of real firepower against hi-alt bombers. 1x30mm only isn´t enough to kill 30k bombers.
So...If You got direct or hidden ways to influence this matter, please do that!:)
WE 109-FANS ARE EAGER!!!:D

P.S. BTW, my favourite model is still G-2. The most universal climb rate, speed, agility and armament in a same package

Karnak · « **Reply #26 on:** December 10, 2005, 05:08:29 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Zuum
So...If You got direct or hidden ways to influence this matter, please do that!:)

Nope, sorry, don't have any.

Honestly, I wouldn't mind the 20mm gondolas being an option on the Bf109K-4, but I doubt we'll see that happen.

What I am more interested in is seeing the Bf109G-14 get boosted to it's proper performance (about 415mph at 16,400ft compared to the current 397mph at 16,400ft) and all Bf109s getting improved flaps. I am a bit disappointed that v2.06 Patch 2 addressing those two things hasn't been released yet. I would really like to learn to fight in the Bf109G-14, but I am waiting until it is in it's final form.

AKFokerFoder+ · « **Reply #27 on:** December 10, 2005, 05:19:35 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Karnak

Why people think the agility of v2.06's Bf109K-4 is different than that of v2.05's Bf109G-10 I can't say, but given there was no flight model change, just the gun change, I would have to guess it is imagined.

Certainly the extra large bars blocking the forward views aren't imagined. A pilot has the ability to move his head slightly to look around the bars quickly. Like you do in an automobile. You do it without even thinking.

Never having been in the cockpit of a109 I can't say for sure they are modeled correctly. But for a flight simulation, there are usually some minor concessions given for the fact that we can't do on a flat screen monitor what we can do in real life. I have been in the cockpit of many airplanes, and none seemed to be as restrictive in the forward view (with the bars) as AH.

But I can make this prophecy:

HT will change the FM and views on the LA7 or perk it.

Why?

Because every time I settle for a ride, HT does something to make that ride hard to get.

I flew the C Hog; Result, FM porked, C Hog perked

I then flew the Pony D; result? ENY restrictions

I then flew the 190A8; result? FM porked, views porked, icons now displayed so they don't know you are a Dora, and fly you down for the gang bang

I then flew the 109F4; result? views porked, gondies taken away, now turns like a G6.

I also liked the G6 and was starting to fly it; result? views porked, 30mm taken away. It seems to be heavy and sluggish even without the gondies.

So now I am going to fly the Spit16 and the LA7.

You watch, HT will pork the views, pork the FM, take the hispanos from the Spit16, the 3 gun option from the LA7, and... and...

(just kidding guys)

Zuum · « **Reply #28 on:** December 10, 2005, 05:23:01 PM »

You´re right! Speed means continuous life, especially at high altitudes.
Again, time will take a proxy kill of me...1.22 am here
Bedtime, says my wife;-)

to every participants
Have a good night!

gatt · « **Reply #29 on:** December 10, 2005, 05:31:39 PM »

Zuum,

honestly, and Karnak knows how much I care .... the 30mm is enuff to down a bomber at 30K ... or 5K. The real fact is that hunting with the 30mm makes all buff hunting different. With the G-10 with pods you could do high speed curving attacks, fire at 350-400yds, climb, reposition and attack again, many times.

With the 30mm you have to fire from 200-250yds, with no or minimum deflection, not at high speeds. Use the same old good tactics and you'll probably warp into the bomber or hit nothing. Use the *new* tactic and pray that the buff pilots is sleeping or buzy.

Eventually you'll learn to work with the 30mm and no pods. The K-4 is superb, as good as the G-10 (IMO) as far as speed, acceleration and climb are concerned. However, your k/d, k/s and hit ratio will be lower. A lot of efforts for less results. Thats what all our squad is getting from the new LW plane set. Why did they pull out the G-10? Theres no good answer. Afaik, a G-10 with the pods was possible, a K-4 with pods probably not.