PDA

View Full Version : Armament fixes for the version 4.09x?



Takamaka
09-05-2007, 12:17 AM
I am sure lot of other fixes like the ones I suggest will come to light here (I dare to suggest it again http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif).

FW-190D9 all versions.
Actually the Dora-9 while sporting MG-131 has as much ammos per machine gun as the Dora-0 that was sporting MG-17. The correct load for the MG-131 shoud be 475 rounds per gun, in the game the Dora-9 comes with 750 rounds per gun. Weight correction should however be negligble (around 50 pounds)... and the total shooting time for MG-131 should then be reduced from 52-53 seconds actually to 32-33 seconds.

Yak-9UT
Weapons should be changed from an exotic and totally inefficient 37mm gun (that as a rate of fire of 1 round per second) to the armament of the second world war:
<UL TYPE=SQUARE>
<LI>Variant 1: 2x B-20S + 1x NS-23
<LI>Variant 2: 2x B-20S + 1x NS-37
<LI>Variant 3: 1x NS-45
<LI>Variant 4: 2x B-20S + 1x B-20M
[/list]
The problem with the actual armament of the Yak-9UT in the game is that most of the shot can be attributed to luck more than anything else, the gun in the game is at least 4 time slower than the one of the NS-37..

Yak-3 VK-107
None of those planes that were produced did in fact had the exotic armament found in the game (armement common however before 44, but by the end of the war all nations were striving to increase the firepower, not to reduce it). 48 of them were produce with 3 B-20s in the same arragement as the Yak-3P, and 3 of them were produced in '46 with only 2 B-20S.


I am quite a dreamer maybe but it does not seems for me very complicated to correct those little mistakes. Only the Yak-3 VK-107 would need a 3-D model correction, while all the other planes would not have to be modified at all 3-D wise. Again I may be mistaken but I think that the several variants for the -9UT should be selectable as other planes (with the drop down list for the armament)...

SUPERAEREO
09-05-2007, 05:12 AM
I would just be happy if fire interrupters were implemented for rear gunners as they were in reality: no turret gunner could EVER have shot parts of his own plane to pieces, save for a massive failure of the disconnecting equipment.

What happens now in IL2 is incorrect and unhistorical.

xTHRUDx
09-05-2007, 11:11 AM
What happens now in IL2 is incorrect and unhistorical.


i can see this thread getting long. Jugs should be able to carry 2 1ks and a 500

JG53Frankyboy
09-05-2007, 11:30 AM
F6F Hellcats
all 6 guns should have 400rpg, not only two of them

P-47
ad the following armament options to all P-47s:
- additional ammo + Droptank
- additional ammo + 1000lb bomb

as a minor wish:
A6M2, A6M2-21, A6M2-N, A6M3, A6M5a
should have 500rpg in their light MGs not 1000.

mcmmielli
09-05-2007, 02:30 PM
Rockets for P-51, YP-80, droptank for ME262A2, YP-80 and MIG 9.
fixes boms and droptanks for all BF109s.

VW-IceFire
09-05-2007, 03:05 PM
Yep...pointed out the Yak armament thing a while ago. No changes were made. I always figured the 37mm was just because they hadn't had time to do that weapon (or any of the others) and the Yak-9UT was a bonus anyways. But now we definitely have these weapons as part of the 1946 package on some of the Russian jets...so...

Here's hoping!

hi_stik
09-05-2007, 04:00 PM
P-40's in the CBI carried parafrags

FM-2's carried 500lb. bombs and HVAR's

on and on

R_Target
09-05-2007, 09:18 PM
Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
F6F Hellcats
all 6 guns should have 400rpg, not only two of them

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif Three years and still not fixed!

DKoor
09-06-2007, 12:31 AM
Either that or better turn & climb rate http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

avimimus
09-11-2007, 09:07 AM
It is apparently very hard to correct ammo loadouts in Il-2. Oleg said that it was indeed a good idea to offer lighter and more realistic bombloads for the Ar-234 but that they most likely would not have time.

stansdds
09-12-2007, 04:03 AM
Corsair I should not have the options of drop tanks or bombs under the fuselage. And why don't we have the F4U-1 for USN/USMC ops? The USMC used them extensively in combat, the British used the Corsair I for training only.

F4U-1A should only have the centerline hardpoint for a single drop tank or bomb.

F4U-1C/D should have the option of a fuel drop tank on the right pylon and a 500 or 1000 pound bomb on the left pylon. Also, the inboard rocket launching stubs need to be moved to the outer wing panel with all the other stubs.

Care to discuss the SBD?

JG53Frankyboy
09-12-2007, 07:45 AM
deleting already existing weaponoptions is a "no go" anymore.

Maddox did it once, with the IAR81s , and that caused proplems with missions/campaigns (didnt start anymore!) that had these old/deleted options in their missions selected............... also a reason why some unrealistic loadouts for the Ju88 ( as example) "survived" the change from AI to flyable plane http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

anyway, amount of ammo for guns can be relativ easy be fixed ( i guess) and was done not seldom and fast in the past...... actually wondering why the Hellcat is still wrong.

DoKtoR_TapeWorM
09-17-2007, 06:09 PM
F4U-D should have AIM 120's... 5 of them.
BVR in IL2 is just to hard with out themhttp://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

oh and anything with a laser, just because their cool.

VW-IceFire
09-17-2007, 07:19 PM
Originally posted by JG53Frankyboy:
deleting already existing weaponoptions is a "no go" anymore.

Maddox did it once, with the IAR81s , and that caused proplems with missions/campaigns (didnt start anymore!) that had these old/deleted options in their missions selected............... also a reason why some unrealistic loadouts for the Ju88 ( as example) "survived" the change from AI to flyable plane http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

anyway, amount of ammo for guns can be relativ easy be fixed ( i guess) and was done not seldom and fast in the past...... actually wondering why the Hellcat is still wrong.
Excellent point. Enough stuff is broken if you try and go back to missions created a long time ago. Actually it is surprising how much works just fine but at this stage of the game certainly nothing should be removed as that would cause a whole set of headaches.