PDA

View Full Version : Oleg: catch-all Fw-190 issues/problems/request thread for fans and opponents



XyZspineZyX
12-02-2003, 04:30 AM
It seems that the 190 is more popular than ever (as it should be, great plane that it was), and is probably one of the most frequently flown aircraft online and offline.

However, some small issues persist that hold the 190 back from Forgotten Battle greatness. Here is a list of what I hope to see before Forgotten Battles finishes its life, or at least for the 190's future incarnations in other Maddox products. Please feel free to add to this list, even if you are on "the other side," but ABSOLUTELY NO DISCUSSION OF THE 190 VIEW (there is another thread for this that is quite exhaustive).

#1 issue: Fw-190 damage modelling. For both pilots and opponents, this is a source of endless frustration and cause of many unnecessary arguments. Please, please, don't move on from FB without giving the 190 a real, complex DM. Such a popular and historically important aircraft deserves it!

#2: loadouts. The variety of 190 armament options is outstanding, but falls short in a few areas:

-option for removal of outer cannons to improve performance for air-to-air combat (not just for fighter-bomber variants)

-option to fly later 190s without ventral bomb rack (some did not have, and some had low-drag tank racks).

-MOST IMPORTANT: ability to limit ahistorical use of Sturmjager armament online. In online play, you seldom if ever see A8s and A9s with their standard 4x20mm armament, as everyone just uses the 2x108mm loadout. If Sturmjager A8s and A9s could be separated from standard 190s, hosts could add and remove these specialized aircraft from their servers as needed for historical gameplay.

-option for MG151/20s with more HE and less AP. With synchronization and the high AP content, the armament in the D-9, in particular, feels very weak for even fighter vs. fighter combat.

-release central bomb before wing bombs

#3 muzzle flash. If there is any way to reduce cowling gun muzzle flash, this would help with difficult 190 gunnery immensely. I don't think this is possible, though.

and #4: the A-6. If anyone on the Maddox team is bored, this was a very nice mark of the Anton.../i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

S! to you Mr. Maddox, and S! to all fellow Forgotten Battles butcherbird drivers.

--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg


Message Edited on 12/02/0305:23PM by A.K.Davis

XyZspineZyX
12-02-2003, 04:30 AM
It seems that the 190 is more popular than ever (as it should be, great plane that it was), and is probably one of the most frequently flown aircraft online and offline.

However, some small issues persist that hold the 190 back from Forgotten Battle greatness. Here is a list of what I hope to see before Forgotten Battles finishes its life, or at least for the 190's future incarnations in other Maddox products. Please feel free to add to this list, even if you are on "the other side," but ABSOLUTELY NO DISCUSSION OF THE 190 VIEW (there is another thread for this that is quite exhaustive).

#1 issue: Fw-190 damage modelling. For both pilots and opponents, this is a source of endless frustration and cause of many unnecessary arguments. Please, please, don't move on from FB without giving the 190 a real, complex DM. Such a popular and historically important aircraft deserves it!

#2: loadouts. The variety of 190 armament options is outstanding, but falls short in a few areas:

-option for removal of outer cannons to improve performance for air-to-air combat (not just for fighter-bomber variants)

-option to fly later 190s without ventral bomb rack (some did not have, and some had low-drag tank racks).

-MOST IMPORTANT: ability to limit ahistorical use of Sturmjager armament online. In online play, you seldom if ever see A8s and A9s with their standard 4x20mm armament, as everyone just uses the 2x108mm loadout. If Sturmjager A8s and A9s could be separated from standard 190s, hosts could add and remove these specialized aircraft from their servers as needed for historical gameplay.

-option for MG151/20s with more HE and less AP. With synchronization and the high AP content, the armament in the D-9, in particular, feels very weak for even fighter vs. fighter combat.

-release central bomb before wing bombs

#3 muzzle flash. If there is any way to reduce cowling gun muzzle flash, this would help with difficult 190 gunnery immensely. I don't think this is possible, though.

and #4: the A-6. If anyone on the Maddox team is bored, this was a very nice mark of the Anton.../i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

S! to you Mr. Maddox, and S! to all fellow Forgotten Battles butcherbird drivers.

--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg


Message Edited on 12/02/0305:23PM by A.K.Davis

XyZspineZyX
12-02-2003, 08:05 AM
p.s. just kidding about the A-6. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
12-02-2003, 08:53 AM
BUMP !

http://www.hell-hounds.de/sigs/gotcha.jpg

XyZspineZyX
12-02-2003, 08:58 AM
As a fellow 190 junkie I agree with all of your points 100%. Especially where the need for a complex DM is concerned. It frustrating for those flying with it and against it. This plane is too important and played too large of a part in WWII to have a simplified DM.

I like historical accuracy, so I agree about the 108's being omitted when not appropriate (ie: non-bomber intercept missions, online dogfights, etc.).

I REALLY agree with letting the pilot remove the outter wing cannons (which was done from the A-3 through the A-9) for increased speed/maneuverability and the option to remove ETC-501 rack.

And I think all muzzle flashes are a bit much but I think they are hard-coded into game or something. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif



Excellent list, it pretty much covers what I want as well, but just to add a few wishes (of course excluding the flawed view of the Focke-Wulf):

-Kinda goes under loadouts wish but I would like drop-tanks option. Maybe panzerblitz rocket system as well.

-It will never happen but I want an A-1 or A-2 for '41 servers, that would be bad news for others.

-I would like to see high speed roll reduced, it can be more of a hinderance than an advantage.

-I would like to see "auto" prop pitch work as well as manual.



What I really want is a new engine sound for the 190A /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif but that will have to wait for BoB (or an add-on soon after).


Anyway, well put A.K.


<center>
http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors", by Nicolas Trudgian.

Message Edited on 12/02/0308:01AM by kyrule2

XyZspineZyX
12-02-2003, 09:06 AM
Maybe this is grafix card, maybe not... ??

Does Fw190 A's have the worst yellow gun flash in the cockpit for all FB planes? The whole cockpit inside turns bright yellow when you fire gun, in bright sunny daylight too. Or is this my grafix setup?

XyZspineZyX
12-02-2003, 10:44 AM
Good list!

On the external modeling, I would like to see MK.108 with short tubes as they were in real and a A-8 with a standard canopy.

I would also like a F-9, an easy change, it's just a F-8 with a A-9 engine.

And Panzerfaust of course.

Cheers,

XyZspineZyX
12-02-2003, 02:01 PM
And a couple of other things I'd like to add as well (good list though)

Here's a D9 which CLEARLY has a droptank... that'd be nice.
http://www2.cc22.ne.jp/~harada/fw_190/fw_190_3.jpg


On the side: i also suggest all of you that think the D9 shouldn't be as good up high / comperable to the P-51 at alt., read this link:

http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_other/fw190d.html

All information is taken directly from books and pilot's biographies.

And yet another:

http://www.classicaces.com/dora_cfs2.php

You will notice that both have the exact same top speed specifications, and note the fact that the D9 was capable of carrying sizable bombs for Jabo, or a fueselage mounted droptank. And, that it's best performing alt. was indeed over 20k feet.

And again:

"Development of the D-series occupied two whole years, from about April 1942 until May 1944. This led to the definitive production Fw 190D-9, or 'Dora-Nine', in May 1944. The D-9 was fitted with three bomb racks, a low-diving sight and MW-50 injection. Deliveries to the Luftwaffe began in August, the first recipient being III/JG 54 at Oldenburg. From the start it was obvious to the front-line pilots that, even though designer Kurt Tank himself dismissed the 'Dora' as an emergency solution when he visited them, it was actually a superb aircraft and at least a match for the P-51D or any other allied fighter."
-Jg300.com

There is also a considerable amount of information out there to prove that the FW190 A series in particular, had a FAR larger variety of payloads: such as anti-ship bombs, and 800kg. bombs (i think: ballpark on that one). Seeing as i have work early in the morning, this is it for now: however i will post any and all information i find supporting the FW cause.



NOTE: my main purpose here was to defend that the D9 was indeed, a worthy adversary for latewar US a/c

XyZspineZyX
12-02-2003, 02:24 PM
The D-9 shines between 2800 and 5500 meters, and I'm very happy with this as it resembles real world data. The Dora can be competetive up to 7000m but I staying below that when fighting against US planes and 109's.

I would really LOVE to see more D variants. Any of the Jumo 213F equipped will be excellent! And, as brought up earlier, more load out options for the D-9 would be great!

<center>


http://members.chello.se/unni/rote3.JPG



'When it comes to aircombat, I'd rather be lucky than good any day!'

</center>

XyZspineZyX
12-02-2003, 03:15 PM
i wouldnt mind the view fixed /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif
more armaments, but all planes need that tho /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif
and i remmber reading its best to change your joystick settings so u dont snap stall so much. but when i played online i didnt have that problem so not so sure about that /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif


whineingu /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
12-02-2003, 03:30 PM
For armarments; may I reference you all to my thread:

http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=Olegmaddoxreadyroom&id=zttrj

Could use some bumpage; as well as Oleg's comment /i/smilies/16x16_robot-wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
12-02-2003, 04:24 PM
I have read they had toggle switches for the guns so that you could fire just the cowl, or just the wingroot guns, if true this would be great.

Now that B17s are coming the sturmbock variant would be nice. Perhaps if/when DM is redone an uparmoured version could be made.

XyZspineZyX
12-02-2003, 05:48 PM
Can support all ideas here http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Even the Limitation of Mk108 use but it was not limited to Sturmj√¬§ger could be fitted to a Standard A8 too for example. Even Il2fb Database points this out (also it is not correct on much other issues so not that reliable).

But when we are on it to deny uncommon loadouts there are surely some other Planes that need that too then .

So we need a General new difficulty Rule setup using the Idea of Sauron6 with different loadouts there could be a deny key added for any part of equipment.

Regards,
Hyperion




Message Edited on 12/02/0304:49PM by BBB_Hyperion

XyZspineZyX
12-02-2003, 06:18 PM
BBB_Hyperion wrote:
- Can support all ideas here http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
-
- Even the Limitation of Mk108 use but it was not
- limited to Sturmj√¬§ger could be fitted to a Standard
- A8 too for example. Even Il2fb Database points this
- out (also it is not correct on much other issues so
- not that reliable).

I believe the Mk 108s required internal structural changes to the wing that had to be done in the factory (the factory/field kit designations are often misleading). So an A-8 with mk 108s is no longer a "standard A-8."

Fact is, hardly anyone flies standard A-8/A-9s. In fact, I was on the greatergreen server (reputedly the most realistic dedicated server) last night and one of the maps had the Axis side equipped with only K-4s and A-9s vs. La-7s, Yak-3s, Q-10s and Il-2s. Needless to say, everyone on the Axis side was flying A-9s with 2x108s. Not a particularly realistic scenario, although I know the author intended it to be so.

--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
12-02-2003, 06:41 PM
A.K.Davis wrote:
- BBB_Hyperion wrote:
-- Can support all ideas here http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
--
-- Even the Limitation of Mk108 use but it was not
-- limited to Sturmj√¬§ger could be fitted to a Standard
-- A8 too for example. Even Il2fb Database points this
-- out (also it is not correct on much other issues so
-- not that reliable).
-
- I believe the Mk 108s required internal structural
- changes to the wing that had to be done in the
- factory (the factory/field kit designations are
- often misleading). So an A-8 with mk 108s is no
- longer a "standard A-8."
-
I agree but i said it could be fitted (from factory site (special a9 late series)) to non extra amored planes. Sturmj√¬§ger A8 is no Standard A8 .

- Fact is, hardly anyone flies standard A-8/A-9s. In
- fact, I was on the greatergreen server (reputedly
- the most realistic dedicated server) last night and
- one of the maps had the Axis side equipped with only
- K-4s and A-9s vs. La-7s, Yak-3s, Q-10s and Il-2s.
- Needless to say, everyone on the Axis side was
- flying A-9s with 2x108s. Not a particularly
- realistic scenario, although I know the author
- intended it to be so.
-

Agree but you could also take out all mk108 guns and so cut their teeth from all lw planes . The mg151/20 seems rather weak compared to other 20 mm guns and not a suitable B&Z equipment in FB. So i think the mk108 armament can close the gap between non destructive 20 mm for proper B&Z tactics.

I fly normaly at greatergreen groundattack missions but they are still on 1.11 and i dont like to go back to 1.11 .)

Well check some of the russian plane numbers for La7 (3Bx20)
or Yak9T etc and search for encounters where all top types did fly at the same battle .) There is no dynamic coop or online campaign yet that denys some loadouts.

Regards,
Hyperion

XyZspineZyX
12-02-2003, 07:15 PM
BBB_Hyperion wrote:
-
- A.K.Davis wrote:
-- BBB_Hyperion wrote:
--- Can support all ideas here http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
---
--- Even the Limitation of Mk108 use but it was not
--- limited to Sturmj√¬§ger could be fitted to a Standard
--- A8 too for example. Even Il2fb Database points this
--- out (also it is not correct on much other issues so
--- not that reliable).
--
-- I believe the Mk 108s required internal structural
-- changes to the wing that had to be done in the
-- factory (the factory/field kit designations are
-- often misleading). So an A-8 with mk 108s is no
-- longer a "standard A-8."
--
- I agree but i said it could be fitted (from factory
- site (special a9 late series)) to non extra amored
- planes. Sturmj√¬§ger A8 is no Standard A8.

Nonetheless, the changes were still made in the factory, and the 108s were added specifically for bomber intercept (Sturmjager).

-
-- Fact is, hardly anyone flies standard A-8/A-9s. In
-- fact, I was on the greatergreen server (reputedly
-- the most realistic dedicated server) last night and
-- one of the maps had the Axis side equipped with only
-- K-4s and A-9s vs. La-7s, Yak-3s, Q-10s and Il-2s.
-- Needless to say, everyone on the Axis side was
-- flying A-9s with 2x108s. Not a particularly
-- realistic scenario, although I know the author
-- intended it to be so.
--
-
- Agree but you could also take out all mk108 guns and
- so cut their teeth from all lw planes . The mg151/20
- seems rather weak compared to other 20 mm guns and
- not a suitable B&Z equipment in FB. So i think the
- mk108 armament can close the gap between non
- destructive 20 mm for proper B&Z tactics.

108s were mounted in standard late 109s. K4s w/ 108s were not specialized versions, they were standard.

4x20mm (even if a little weak on HE) + 2x 13mm is still incredibly powerful armament, more than adequate for fighter vs. fighter combat. The addition of the 108s, especially with Oleg's drastic reduction in recoil effects, goes far beyond closing the gap.

-
- I fly normaly at greatergreen groundattack missions
- but they are still on 1.11 and i dont like to go
- back to 1.11 .)
-
- Well check some of the russian plane numbers for La7
- (3Bx20)
- or Yak9T etc and search for encounters where all top
- types did fly at the same battle .) There is no
- dynamic coop or online campaign yet that denys some
- loadouts.

Yak-9T is not a loadout option for the Yak-9. La-7 (3xB-20) is not a loadout option for La-7. They are separate aircraft. If someone wishes to remove these aircraft from a scenario for geographic/date/mission purposes, then it is easy to do so. This is my point exactly. The changes made in some Fw-190 factory/field conversions were so significant they would probably warrant a new mark in another aircraft. In fact, some of the conversions available as loadouts in the game were basically separate marks of the Fw-190 (F-2, for example), and should be made separate selections in the planeset for mission design purposes.

--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
12-02-2003, 07:18 PM
I'm one of the few that prefers to have the 4 MG151/20 arrangement over the MK108's it seems. I agree that its rare to see a FW with non MK108 armament - would be nice to limit some weapon options perhaps...but that adds a new level of complexity that may not have time allowed for it. Oh well.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig.jpg
"Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few." - Winston Churchill

XyZspineZyX
12-02-2003, 07:33 PM
Fillmore wrote:
- I have read they had toggle switches for the guns so
- that you could fire just the cowl, or just the
- wingroot guns, if true this would be great.

Regarding the 190:

"The guns are fired by means of a button on the front of the control column. A small selector switch at the side of the column enables the pilot to select the following alternatives:

1. Cowl machine guns and inboard 151's
2. Outter wing cannons
3. All guns

In addition to this it is possible, by means of cut-out switches which are situated on the starboard side of the cockpit, to fire each pair of guns independently."



I agree that it would be nice to have more control over the 190's guns and it would be accurate. Most likely, I would disable the MG-17's on the A-4 and A-5 and would like to use 131's independently for strafing on later Antons.

<center>
http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors", by Nicolas Trudgian.

XyZspineZyX
12-02-2003, 07:57 PM
Hi ,

as all time Dora flayer have to say about it's "low punch"
guns, ... mg's are of no use ....

some bomb load&external.fuel.tanks would be great /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif



S!

XyZspineZyX
12-02-2003, 11:31 PM
A.K.Davis wrote:
.- 108s were mounted in standard late 109s. K4s w/
- 108s were not specialized versions, they were
- standard.

This is true insofar as the co-axial driveshaft- mounted MK108 is concerned. But not for the underwing gondola MK108s offered for 109s in FB.
They were rejected for series production and played no part in the '109's combat history; they are a fantasy.

I refer you to the latest works of Polish historian Robert Michulec, working from primary sources, re the 109 ('Messerschmitt Me109 Pt 2' AJ Press- English translation):

"Another move toward even more powerful armament for the 109 was the attempt to fit it with two MK108 cannon in underwing pods in a manner similar to the MG 151/20 installation. The proposal was designated U6 (factory mod. 6) and work commenced on it in August 1943 at the Erla factory. After the first stage of research the RLM ordered 20 podded cannon- upgrade kits which were transferred to WNF for assembly in a pre- series batch of machines (20 aircraft).
Photographs of only two aircraft are known.
The undertaking did not prove satisfactory, mainly due to continuous failures of the MK108 cannon in pods and as a result, series production, due to start in January 1944 was abandoned and no series of so- armed planes was built, apart from the pre- production machines intended for tests.
The next attempt to increase the firepower of the Gustav against Fortress formations was to arm 109s with W.Gr21 unguided rocket missiles..."

XyZspineZyX
12-03-2003, 12:18 AM
BerkshireHunt wrote:
- A.K.Davis wrote:
- .- 108s were mounted in standard late 109s. K4s w/
-- 108s were not specialized versions, they were
-- standard.
-
- This is true insofar as the co-axial driveshaft-
- mounted MK108 is concerned. But not for the
- underwing gondola MK108s offered for 109s in FB.
- They were rejected for series production and played
- no part in the '109's combat history; they are a
- fantasy.

Yes and no one uses them in game. Since when did we start talking about 109 gondola cannons?

My point was that 108s (of course firing through propellor hub) were mounted in standard late 109s, not in standard late 190s.

--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
12-03-2003, 12:27 AM
In the mean time I recommend adding a rule to your own missions so that people now which load outs they should or should not use.

s!

:FI:SnoopBaron

http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_07.gif

XyZspineZyX
12-03-2003, 02:09 AM
A.K.Davis wrote:

-
- Yes and no one uses them in game. Since when did we
- start talking about 109 gondola cannons?
-
- My point was that 108s (of course firing through
- propellor hub) were mounted in standard late 109s,
- not in standard late 190s.
-
About Late 190s .)

Mk108 was a cheap to produce weapon and was planned as main armament on all late war fighters and fighter projects . So i doubt that the late war planes were not factory fitted with mk108 at the late war stages . Cause it wouldnt make sense not having as much fighters as possible to intercept bombers or fighters (Multirole). This can be seen on the late A9 series that has no extra amor with the mk108s as standard plane for bomberinterception & fighters.

Seems 2 directions of developement were used for d series.

Fighter
FW190 D11 Standard Armament 2xMg151/20 2x Mk108 .

Fighter
FW 190D-12 1 x MK 108 30mm cannon(propellor hub)
2 x MG151/20E 20mm cannon

Fighter
FW190 D13 Standard Armament 3xMg151/20

High-altitude fighter
Ta152H1 One 30mm, engine-mounted MK 108 cannon with 90 rounds of ammo, two 20mm, wing-mounted MG 151 cannon with 175 rounds per gun .

So all this leads to mk108 as standard loadout on late war fw190 planes as well as bf109.

Regards,
Hyperion

XyZspineZyX
12-03-2003, 04:17 AM
I support what AK Davis posted at the top of this thread.
Esp improving the FWs damage model.


:FI:Up-N-at'em

http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_02.gif

XyZspineZyX
12-03-2003, 04:33 AM
BBB_Hyperion wrote:
-
- A.K.Davis wrote:
-
--
-- Yes and no one uses them in game. Since when did we
-- start talking about 109 gondola cannons?
--
-- My point was that 108s (of course firing through
-- propellor hub) were mounted in standard late 109s,
-- not in standard late 190s.
--
- About Late 190s .)
-
- Mk108 was a cheap to produce weapon and was planned
- as main armament on all late war fighters and
- fighter projects . So i doubt that the late war
- planes were not factory fitted with mk108 at the
- late war stages . Cause it wouldnt make sense not
- having as much fighters as possible to intercept
- bombers or fighters (Multirole). This can be seen on
- the late A9 series that has no extra amor with the
- mk108s as standard plane for bomberinterception &
- fighters.
-
- Seems 2 directions of developement were used for d
- series.
-
- Fighter
- FW190 D11 Standard Armament 2xMg151/20 2x Mk108 .
-
- Fighter
- FW 190D-12 1 x MK 108 30mm cannon(propellor hub)
- 2 x MG151/20E 20mm cannon
-
- Fighter
- FW190 D13 Standard Armament 3xMg151/20
-
- High-altitude fighter
- Ta152H1 One 30mm, engine-mounted MK 108 cannon with
- 90 rounds of ammo, two 20mm, wing-mounted MG 151
- cannon with 175 rounds per gun .
-
- So all this leads to mk108 as standard loadout on
- late war fw190 planes as well as bf109.
-
- Regards,
- Hyperion

Factory standard A-8s and A-9s had 4xMG151/20 as their armament. If you have any evidence that the base specifications for A-8s and A-9s changed, please present it. If the D-12 armament was offered as a loadout for the D-9, I would object on the same grounds. It should be a separate aircraft in the planeset because it came out of the factory a separate aircraft.

http://image.pbase.com/u19/carbonfreeze/upload/21964404.fw190datachart.jpg


MG151/20 was considered the preferred weapon for fighter vs. fighter combat, Mk 108s for bomber intercept. He-162 was originally planned to carry 2xmk108s, but was switched to 2xMG151/20 because it's role was expected to be fighter, not bomber, interception.

--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
12-03-2003, 04:42 AM
And frankly, the mk108 wing cannons issue is trivial and would either be a nice addition for mission design purposes or simply something to consider for future products.

--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
12-03-2003, 05:15 AM
Good thread you started here, A.K. - good to see someone fighting for the FW-190 family /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Just one point though /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

A.K.Davis wrote:
- MG151/20 was considered the preferred weapon for
- fighter vs. fighter combat, Mk 108s for bomber
- intercept. He-162 was originally planned to carry
- 2xmk108s, but was switched to 2xMG151/20 because
- it's role was expected to be fighter, not bomber,
- interception.

While it is correct to state the MG 151/20 was the better anti fighter weapon, it's selection for the He-162 A2 was not based on this quality.

The RLM wanted MK-108's on the 162, but the design team under Karl Schwarzler found that only 50 rounds per gun were possible for this gun, where 120 rpg was possible for the MG 151/20. The first two prototypes , V1 and V2 carried the 20mm and 30mm weapons respectively. The firing trials showed that vibration was unacceptable with the MK-108's, and the MG-151/20 was settled upon instead.

Work was underway to fit MK-108's to the 162 on the A3 version which had a restressed front fuselage, but this never reached production.


"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Gunther Rall

http://campus.fortunecity.com/electrical/25/phishfood.jpg


http://campus.fortunecity.com/electrical/25/phishfoodname.gif


Have you had YOURS today?

XyZspineZyX
12-03-2003, 06:20 AM
NegativeGee wrote:
- Good thread you started here, A.K. - good to see
- someone fighting for the FW-190 family /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
-
- Just one point though /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif
-
- A.K.Davis wrote:
-- MG151/20 was considered the preferred weapon for
-- fighter vs. fighter combat, Mk 108s for bomber
-- intercept. He-162 was originally planned to carry
-- 2xmk108s, but was switched to 2xMG151/20 because
-- it's role was expected to be fighter, not bomber,
-- interception.
-
- While it is correct to state the MG 151/20 was the
- better anti fighter weapon, it's selection for the
- He-162 A2 was not based on this quality.
-
- The RLM wanted MK-108's on the 162, but the design
- team under Karl Schwarzler found that only 50 rounds
- per gun were possible for this gun, where 120 rpg
- was possible for the MG 151/20. The first two
- prototypes , V1 and V2 carried the 20mm and 30mm
- weapons respectively. The firing trials showed that
- vibration was unacceptable with the MK-108's, and
- the MG-151/20 was settled upon instead.
-
- Work was underway to fit MK-108's to the 162 on the
- A3 version which had a restressed front fuselage,
- but this never reached production.

Wouldn't doubt it. I don't have the best source for He-162. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
12-03-2003, 07:03 AM
holy crap how can someone whine for one plane. this crap pi$$es me off the 190 is great and definatly the A series is the best planes in the game its great the way it is flying it, you guys just want to get hit a bunch of times becuase your use to it in previous patches with the super damage model, learn to deal with it the way it is and oleg took the time to correct the damage model of the 190 from previous patch give him some credit, he hears from all the people who were mad the 190 takes almost all your ammo to down now it takes a quarter of your ammo

there are many planes weaker then the 190s in the sim and ones that are stronger which shouldnt be, perhaps you should be talking about the planes taking more hits then the 190 and getting thier damage model corrected lagg3 yak in the wing area.

The 190a9 is so great if flown correctly nothing can contend with it, I suggest you talk to redwulfs, jg27 and wuafs to learn the plane ak davis





<center>http://www.geocities.com/leadspittersig/LS1.txt
Good dogfighters bring ammo home, Great ones don't. (c) Leadspitter
<a HREF="http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&authoridfilter=:Leadspitter:&comefrom=top5&ts=1068087655"> LeadSpitters Skins
</center>

<center>http://www.geocities.com/leadspittersig/LS1.txt
Good dogfighters bring ammo home, Great ones don't. (c) Leadspitter
<a HREF="http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&authoridfilter=:Leadspitter:&comefrom=top5&ts=1068087655"> LeadSpitters Skins
</center>

XyZspineZyX
12-03-2003, 07:15 AM
LeadSpitter_ wrote:
- holy crap how can someone whine for one plane. this
- crap pi$$es me off the 190 is great and definatly
- the A series is the best planes in the game its
- great the way it is flying it, you guys just want to
- get hit a bunch of times becuase your use to it in
- previous patches with the super damage model, learn
- to deal with it the way it is and oleg took the time
- to correct the damage model of the 190 from previous
- patch give him some credit, he hears from all the
- people who were mad the 190 takes almost all your
- ammo to down now it takes a quarter of your ammo
-
- there are many planes weaker then the 190s in the
- sim and ones that are stronger which shouldnt be,
- perhaps you should be talking about the planes
- taking more hits then the 190 and getting thier
- damage model corrected lagg3 yak in the wing area.
-
- The 190a9 is so great if flown correctly nothing can
- contend with it, I suggest you talk to redwulfs,
- jg27 and wuafs to learn the plane ak davis

Holy crap! How can someone not read threads before they post in them?

--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
12-03-2003, 07:19 AM
LeadSpitter_ wrote:
- holy crap how can someone whine for one plane.

Sorry LS, but posted on these message boards, that was really funny /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Don't you think that as one of only two LW fighter types there is a good case for representing the FW-190 to the fullest?


"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Gunther Rall

http://campus.fortunecity.com/electrical/25/phishfood.jpg


http://campus.fortunecity.com/electrical/25/phishfoodname.gif


Have you had YOURS today?

XyZspineZyX
12-03-2003, 08:16 AM
Classic misguided hostility from Leadspitter. Im glad this thread "pi$$es you off", it just shows how ignorant and intolerable you are. To say it one more time so you can understand (even though you missed it the first 70 times), we want a complex DM for the 190 even if it makes it weaker overall. The inconsistencies are the problem.

LS wrote:

"you guys just want to get hit a bunch of times becuase your use to it in previous patches with the super damage model, learn to deal with it the way it is and oleg took the time to correct the damage model of the 190 from previous patch give him some credit, he hears from all the people who were mad the 190 takes almost all your ammo to down now it takes a quarter of your ammo."

Man, you are way off on this one. Has anyone here said that they want the 190 to be tougher? Or that it should take more punishment? No, we asked for a complex DM. Have you gotten it yet or does nothing sink in at all before you go off like a spoiled 3-year old? And no, Oleg didn't correct the DM, it is simplified so he just lessened the overall values of the plane. It still takes an insane amount of punishment in the main fuesalage, yet a wing can be severed from 600m with 2 machine gun rounds. Is this a fixed DM in your opinion? I agree that it is better than the flying tank it was before (and yes I posted this several times that it was too tough) but it still needs alot of work. We are not stamping our feet in anger or making demands, we are asking for a more correct DM for one of the game's more important planes.

You are right about two things, the Lagg does need the DM fixed as has been mentioned several times along with the 190. And yes, the 190A is great fun to fly, thanks. Nobody said it wasn't.

The 190A-9 is great but I wouldn't say nothing can contend with it. But again, nobody said it wasn't great either. I don't know where you come up with this stuff.

So don't tell A.K. to learn the plane, you should learn to read through a thread and understand it's purpose before coming into a perfectly good thread and slinging your Bull-sh1t around like a angry child. Your hostility and ignorance is what pi$$es me off. Don't you notice the fact that you are the only person in this thread with an attitude? We were discussing the frequency and installation of the Mk.108 and the fact that maybe it should be removed/reserved for certain situations for more historical accuracy (but I guess we are whining again right, looking for some advantage or cheat?) and along you come to try and **** it up. Like I said, classic Leadspitter.

<center>
http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors", by Nicolas Trudgian.

XyZspineZyX
12-03-2003, 08:27 AM
LeadSpitter_ wrote:
-
- /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif
-

Sick'em LeadSpitter! /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

<p align="center">http://forums.ubi.com/i/icons/Symbols/symbol-us-flag.gif </br></br><font size="1" color="white"><u>RealKill</u></font></p><font size="1" color="#4A535C">

XyZspineZyX
12-03-2003, 10:32 AM
kcicmir wrote:
- Hi ,
-
- as all time Dora flayer have to say about it's "low
- punch"
- guns, ... mg's are of no use ....
-
- some bomb load&external.fuel.tanks would be great
- /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
-
-
-
- S!


I'd have to again agree with this train of thinking. I find the 20mm FAR more effective, and better suited for BnZ'ing, especially in a FW. This is precisely the reason I have no problems with, and infact enjoy the D9. It's rounds are far higher velocity than the Mk108's, and pack a very considerable punch against other figthers. Countless times have i ripped an opponents wing, in a 90 degree deflection while they were banking hard at me. If you find the 20mm ineffective, i doubt you are using them properly.

XyZspineZyX
12-03-2003, 10:36 AM
WUAF_Mj_Hero wrote:

-I'd have to again agree with this train of thinking.


Eh, i meant to say disagree, as is rather evident in my post.

XyZspineZyX
12-03-2003, 03:14 PM
the 190a9 is the best plane in the game already same with the 109k4, i certainly dont want to see the 190 taking lots of hits in the wings and tail again, theres a reason why all planes have weaker wings and you should thank oleg for fixing the dm of the 190,


enough of this wahhh i got shot in the wing and it came off, learn how to fly you shouldnt be getting hit in the wings anyway but with a lucky shot the way the 190s roll and how manueverable they are.

The 190a series is the only luft plane that can stay on the tail of a yak3 for a good ammount of time, if oleg makes the 190 stronger every server is going to be like 1.11 again

190a9
190a9
190a9
190a9
190a9
190a9
190a9
190a9
190a9



<center>http://www.geocities.com/leadspittersig/LS1.txt
Good dogfighters bring ammo home, Great ones don't. (c) Leadspitter
<a HREF="http://www.il2skins.com/?action=list&authoridfilter=:Leadspitter:&comefrom=top5&ts=1068087655"> LeadSpitters Skins
</center>

XyZspineZyX
12-03-2003, 03:37 PM
It is better than every server being

Ki84
Ki84
Ki84
Ki84
Ki84
Ki84
Ki84
Ki84
Ki84
Ki84
Ki84
Ki84
Ki84
Ki84
Ki84
Ki84
Ki84


isn't it?

Or, if we follow your anologies on some of the planes of your interest, it might as well become a

P-51D
P-51D
P-51D
P-51D
P-51D
P-51D
P-51D
P-51D
P-51D
P-51D
P-51D
P-51D
P-51D
P-51D
P-51D
P-51D
P-51D
P-51D
P-51D
P-51D
P-51D

fest.


That being said, your argument is a weak. People choose the planes they like, whether it is because the plane is good or if its because they like that specific type.

If something is wrong, people ask it to be fixed.

Whether it is wrong or not, takes up much of the time for debate. However, once that process is finished, or reaches a certain consensus, is there any way we can say "fek, let them suffer" ?

Some issues, including the complex DM issues, need fixing. So people ask them to be fixed. Is that so hard to understand?




-----------
Due to pressure from the moderators, the sig returns to..

"It's the machine, not the man." - Materialist, and proud of it!

XyZspineZyX
12-03-2003, 04:47 PM
WUAF_Mj_Hero wrote:
- velocity than the Mk108's, and pack a very
- considerable punch against other figthers. Countless
- times have i ripped an opponents wing, in a 90
- degree deflection while they were banking hard at

it seems that a hit in the wing spar at positive or negative G's seems to be mre effective than with 1 g .... i observed this in the originall IL2 and in FB. Deflection shooting at hard turning aircrafts let's them loose wings with very few hits into the wing.

However, with cockpit/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif n/ext/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif ff it is absolutely impossible to do a 90deg deflection shot in an FW (and probabaly any other plane).


Greetings from Spliffster of
The Butcher Bird Brotherhood

Home of the FW Squad:
http://il2.wunderlin.net

XyZspineZyX
12-03-2003, 06:10 PM
LeadSpitter_ wrote:
- the 190a9 is the best plane in the game already same
- with the 109k4, i certainly dont want to see the 190
- taking lots of hits in the wings and tail again,
- theres a reason why all planes have weaker wings and
- you should thank oleg for fixing the dm of the 190,
-
-
- enough of this wahhh i got shot in the wing and it
- came off, learn how to fly you shouldnt be getting
- hit in the wings anyway but with a lucky shot the
- way the 190s roll and how manueverable they are.
-
- The 190a series is the only luft plane that can stay
- on the tail of a yak3 for a good ammount of time, if
- oleg makes the 190 stronger every server is going to
- be like 1.11 again
-

My god, maybe he actually can't read. I can't think of any other explanation for this psychobabble.

Leadspitter, who are you addressing in your posts?

--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
12-03-2003, 11:07 PM
Apparently Leadspitter is in his own world, and what a sad place that must be. Secondly, you don't know sh1t about how anyone flies, and I do quite well online and off thanks. And finally, take that 190 out of your sig because you obviously don't want a more accurate representation of it. Oleg admitted awhile ago that the Lagg, I-16, and 190 all have less complex damage models (see simplified).

And I don't know why the hell you keep talking about the 190A-9. Are you lost? Confused? This thread has nothing to do about the performance of the A-9, we are actually recommending that the 108's be used for bomber intercept only type of missions (omitted from online dogfights) and you think we are saying it sucks. Lear to f***ing read man.

<center>
http://www.brooksart.com/Icewarriors.jpg

"Ice Warriors", by Nicolas Trudgian.

XyZspineZyX
12-04-2003, 02:37 AM
BUMB for the FW-190 A-6 ! I would really like to see this variant, it kinda surprised me to not see it on the plane list, when FB came out.. and it would be really simple to add in the game!



____________________________________



<center>http://koti.mbnet.fi/vipez/sig3.jpg </center>

XyZspineZyX
12-04-2003, 06:45 AM
kyrule2 wrote:
--Kinda goes under loadouts wish but I would like drop-tanks option. Maybe panzerblitz rocket system as well.

Forgot to tell you, Oleg said that they might add Panzerblitz II system to the F-8 for the add-on. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
12-05-2003, 08:43 AM
just a little post-patch bump

--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

XyZspineZyX
12-05-2003, 10:30 AM
Personally I'd gladly give up a plane from the upcoming PayAddon (like Me 163 /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif ) for the chance to get a complex DM for the 190 series. As it is now one of the two main Axis fighters is pretty useless because of its "Origami DM" /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

---------------------------
http://home.t-online.de/home/340045970094-0001/lwskins_banner_gross.jpg (http://www.lwskins.de.vu)
Historical Skins for Luftwaffe-Fighters

XyZspineZyX
12-05-2003, 02:27 PM
csThor wrote:
- Personally I'd gladly give up a plane from the
- upcoming PayAddon (like Me 163) for the chance to get a
- complex DM for the 190 series. As it is now one of
- the two main Axis fighters is pretty useless because
- of its "Origami DM"

I agree. I really would like to see a new DM for the 190s. And that's from someone flying them most of the time. It seems that whenever I get shot down it's because I got a wing that goes off. I don't remember being shot down in any other way lately. It's really getting ridiculous. Once in a while I'd like to have my engine shot, or radiator or tail or something. Just not always the darn wing popping off.

Really a complete DM is a must, both for the people who fly the 190, and for people who fly against it. So I don't understand Leadspitter's remark there.

Also I'd really like the D9 to have drop tanks and bomb carrying ability. I can't figure why those were left out when it's clear they would be realistic.

Of course... a D11, D12 and D13 would be great /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Nic

The first official D12 whiner!

XyZspineZyX
12-06-2003, 02:17 AM
A.K.Davis wrote:
- It seems that the 190 is more popular than ever (as
- it should be, great plane that it was), and is
- probably one of the most frequently flown aircraft
- online and offline.
-
- However, some small issues persist that hold the 190
- back from Forgotten Battle greatness. Here is a
- list of what I hope to see before Forgotten Battles
- finishes its life, or at least for the 190's future
- incarnations in other Maddox products. Please feel
- free to add to this list, even if you are on "the
- other side," but ABSOLUTELY NO DISCUSSION OF THE 190
- VIEW (there is another thread for this that is quite
- exhaustive).
-
- #1 issue: Fw-190 damage modelling. For both pilots
- and opponents, this is a source of endless
- frustration and cause of many unnecessary arguments.
- Please, please, don't move on from FB without
- giving the 190 a real, complex DM. Such a popular
- and historically important aircraft deserves it!
-
-
- #2: loadouts. The variety of 190 armament options
- is outstanding, but falls short in a few areas:
-
--option for removal of outer cannons to improve performance for air-to-air combat (not just for fighter-bomber variants)
-
--option to fly later 190s without ventral bomb rack (some did not have, and some had low-drag tank racks).
-
--MOST IMPORTANT: ability to limit ahistorical use of Sturmjager armament online. In online play, you seldom if ever see A8s and A9s with their standard 4x20mm armament, as everyone just uses the 2x108mm loadout. If Sturmjager A8s and A9s could be separated from standard 190s, hosts could add and remove these specialized aircraft from their servers as needed for historical gameplay.
-
--option for MG151/20s with more HE and less AP. With synchronization and the high AP content, the armament in the D-9, in particular, feels very weak for even fighter vs. fighter combat.
-
--release central bomb before wing bombs
-
- #3 muzzle flash. If there is any way to reduce
- cowling gun muzzle flash, this would help with
- difficult 190 gunnery immensely. I don't think this
- is possible, though.
-
- and #4: the A-6. If anyone on the Maddox team is
- bored, this was a very nice mark of the Anton.../i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
-
- S! to you Mr. Maddox, and S! to all fellow Forgotten
- Battles butcherbird drivers.
-
---AKD

Bump
Nice post. Please "fix" the Focke-Wulf Oleg.

Russian aircraft require skill to fly.
German aircraft require ten times that skill, and one hundred times the patience!

WUAF_CO_CRBNFRZ on HyperLobby

XyZspineZyX
12-06-2003, 04:13 AM
BBB_Spliffster wrote:
-
- WUAF_Mj_Hero wrote:
-- velocity than the Mk108's, and pack a very
-- considerable punch against other figthers. Countless
-- times have i ripped an opponents wing, in a 90
-- degree deflection while they were banking hard at
-
- it seems that a hit in the wing spar at positive or
- negative G's seems to be mre effective than with 1 g
- .... i observed this in the originall IL2 and in FB.
- Deflection shooting at hard turning aircrafts let's
- them loose wings with very few hits into the wing.

Just so we're absolutely clear: I do not, ever EVER fly without cockpit... so to say that a 90 degree deflection in a FW is impossible, means to me that you either haven't flown it much, or just don't know what you're doing.

XyZspineZyX
12-06-2003, 04:57 AM
A complex DM would be nice. I think that the option to drop outer cannons would be good. A droptank for the 190F-8 would be welcome as well.

Please, Oleg, see if you can make a way for pilots to make thier own armerment loadouts. Give them an way to select the rack, then choose what to put on from a list of weapons that could be attached.

As for limiting the use of the MK-108 cannons, no, many of the VVS aircraft like IL-2's and some others really need to be killed with 108's

XyZspineZyX
12-06-2003, 06:32 AM
VOL_Jon wrote:
- A complex DM would be nice. I think that the option
- to drop outer cannons would be good. A droptank for
- the 190F-8 would be welcome as well.
-
- Please, Oleg, see if you can make a way for pilots
- to make thier own armerment loadouts. Give them an
- way to select the rack, then choose what to put on
- from a list of weapons that could be attached.
-
- As for limiting the use of the MK-108 cannons, no,
- many of the VVS aircraft like IL-2's and some others
- really need to be killed with 108's
-
-

Yes, but for realism's sake, wouldn't it be better to make do with what the pilots on the Eastern Front actually had? Il-2s didn't have a reputation for being difficult to shoot down for nothing. And frankly, if you can't take down an Il-2 with 4x20mm, then you need to work on your gunnery.

But, yes, you need 2xmk108s to make shooting down an Il-2 incredibly easy. The question is should it be so easy?

--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

CARBONFREEZE
12-24-2003, 07:12 PM
Bump

Russian aircraft require skill to fly.
German aircraft require ten times that skill, and one hundred times the patience!

WUAF_CO_CRBNFRZ on HyperLobby

WUAF_Badsight
12-24-2003, 08:59 PM
ok i see issues here for teh FW190s

1) only 2 main LW fighters in FB & the FW had some options in RL that they dont in FB

2) Mk108 cannon overuse online (but what if i want to hunt bombers in my A9 in a DF room ?)

3) FW dogfighting ability lowered by always having :
.....1) outer wing gun option
.....2) bomb rack option

4) DM isnt as well developed as most other planes

now the real point i see it is this :

THERE ARE ONLY 2 MAIN LW FIGHTERS

so everyone would agree its fair that they are well developed


personally my opinion of the FW-190 is poor , in the interest of gameplay id personally like the FW cockpits to be given the best foward view they possibly had instead of the way it is now

foward visiom is the most important in FB because we use monitors

it isnt the best DFer in FB so lets give it a clear gunsite at least

VW-IceFire
12-24-2003, 09:32 PM
The FW190 being my primary Luftwaffe fighter and my primary adversary most of the rest of the time as a P-51, a P-47, or a Yak-9U I really want to see the FW190 DM get a complex component to it. Virtually all other fighters now have it and the FW190 is one of those prime fighters of the time so its only fair to have that issue fixed.

The notion that the complex DM makes an already excellent plane better is rediculous. I just want to see the same level of damage complexity on this plane as on any other even if that means that its actually overall a weaker aircraft. This is coming from both a guy who is shooting them down as well as someone flying it. I don't like it when I score an easy kill on a FW190 as where a Bf 109 may not have gone down so completely because of damage modeling.

The flight model is excellent, the weapons work just fine (I use 4xMG151/20 believe it or not), and the views I can live with (shooting blind I'm getting decently good at)...just want it measured on the same level as everything else. The same was said of LaGG pilots and I believe it now also has a complex model too.

- IceFire
http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig.jpg

A.K.Davis
12-25-2003, 07:56 PM
Hey, I almost forgot this thread. One other thing I'd like to see someday:

-tailplane respond to trim instead of elevators.

-did I mention before new default skins for A4/A5? Those bright green ones are terrible. And also replace default F8 skin for German nationality with a German skin instead of Hungarian. The Hungarian skin should only be used as default if Hungary is selected as nationality (as with USSR/U.S. P-47s).

--AKD

http://www.flyingpug.com/pugline2.jpg

JG14_Josf
12-25-2003, 08:06 PM
How about looking into the landing configuration glide slope?

The FW190s glide better than the 109s.

Can that be right?

WUAF_Badsight
12-25-2003, 08:28 PM
yes with the motor off they start retaining their E

LMAO

FW190fan
12-25-2003, 10:01 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by A.K.Davis:

-tailplane respond to trim instead of elevators.
--------------------------------------------

Yes indeed.

The FW190 had a tailplane incidence motor that moved the entire tailplane instead of just the elevators.

Probably one of the most overlooked aspects of the 190 series.


http://www.luftwaffepics.com/LCBW4/FW190-G2-33s_small.jpg

LeadSpitter_
12-26-2003, 05:29 AM
190As are the top scoring planes in FB, The one problem that I notice is the me262s are beating the 190d off the ground and out running them immediatly, in fb, so its more like the 262s have to cover the 190ds taking off then vise versa how it should be.

http://www.geocities.com/leadspittersig/LSIG.txt
VIEW MY PAINTSCHEMES HERE (http://www.il2skins.com/?planeidfilter=all&planefamilyfilter=all&screenshotfilter=allskins&countryidfilter=all&authoridfilter=%3ALeadspitter%3A&historicalidfilter=all&Submit=+++Apply+filters++&action=list&ts=1072257400)

JG14_Josf
12-26-2003, 06:34 AM
Since this is a request thread I think it is important to communicate that understanding.

I tried to edit my earlier post but the 30 minute time limit has expired.

The landing configuration glide slope is a minor issue somewhat less of an issue than modeling engine torque or P factor or whatever makes these planes difficult to take-off, land and hang on their props during slow speed maneuvering.

I would just be a nice finishing touch to an already great simulator to have these things ironed out.

Hanni8
12-26-2003, 03:38 PM
Agree 100 %

The outer wing armament was always a modification, the standard armament being 2 machineguns in the nose (MG18 or MG131 from A-7 onwards), and 2 MG151/20 in the wingroot. Everything else was a fieldmodification.

Hanni8
12-26-2003, 03:42 PM
Fw190_Fan:

All german fighters moved the tailplane instead of the elevators. True for the Bf 109, FW 190 and Me 262. However i think this is only an aesthetic issue when looking from outside on the plane.

CARBONFREEZE
12-27-2003, 06:54 PM
Bump

Would be nice to get ALL of these =)

Plus a real G series and A-1/2/3/6/7 D-11/13 =)

http://www.pbase.com/image/21964403.jpg

Russian aircraft require skill to fly.
German aircraft require ten times that skill, and one hundred times the patience!

WUAF_CO_CRBNFRZ on HyperLobby

p1ngu666
12-27-2003, 08:20 PM
omg i dont belive u wanna make the 190 tougher and more power.



fooled u http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
i agree wid whats here, and thats a damn nice loadout piccy http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

CARBONFREEZE
12-28-2003, 02:20 AM
bump

WUAF_LTG_BULL in formation:

http://www.pbase.com/image/23910507.jpg

Russian aircraft require skill to fly.
German aircraft require ten times that skill, and one hundred times the patience!

WUAF_CO_CRBNFRZ on HyperLobby

Bremspropeller
12-28-2003, 02:59 PM
A big bump for the A-6 series and for the loadout options !

The JG1 190's got their MG17 taken off cause they were useless against bombers - nice loadout option heh ?

Another thing: the Dora got the ETC 504 bombrack and carried (at least) 250 kg bombs ot fuel tanks (the one made of steel, not the one made of aluminium). http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif



http://www.cwissig.com/CONCEPTS/FW-190%20Blue%20Pencil.jpg
"Once upon the time..there was an aircraft that ruled the skies of Europe..."
http://www.virtual-jabog32.de
http://www.jg68.de.vu

roachclip
12-28-2003, 04:48 PM
Yes it would be nice if there was more armament options available for the Fw family. An enhanced DM would be nice.


CARBONFREEZE, not all the weapons shown in your diagram were actual combat options for the 190. The MK103s(/R3) and the torpedo were test configurations only.

CARBONFREEZE
12-29-2003, 04:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by roachclip:
CARBONFREEZE, not all the weapons shown in your diagram were actual combat options for the 190. The MK103s(/R3) and the torpedo were test configurations only.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes I am aware of this =)

But it WOULD be nice to have these, don't you think? =)

Russian aircraft require skill to fly.
German aircraft require ten times that skill, and one hundred times the patience!

WUAF_CO_CRBNFRZ on HyperLobby

roachclip
12-29-2003, 04:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CARBONFREEZE:
Yes I am aware of this =)

But it WOULD be nice to have these, don't you think? =)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Was not really directed to you, but many would think all were used.

No, I would only like to see weapons that were used operationally. Don't want FB turning into an arcade game.http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Willey
12-29-2003, 03:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by A.K.Davis:
#2: loadouts. The variety of 190 armament options is outstanding, but falls short in a few areas:

-option for removal of outer cannons to improve performance for air-to-air combat (not just for fighter-bomber variants)

-option to fly later 190s without ventral bomb rack (some did not have, and some had low-drag tank racks).

-MOST IMPORTANT: ability to limit ahistorical use of Sturmjager armament online. In online play, you seldom if ever see A8s and A9s with their standard 4x20mm armament, as everyone just uses the 2x108mm loadout. If Sturmjager A8s and A9s could be separated from standard 190s, hosts could add and remove these specialized aircraft from their servers as needed for historical gameplay.

-option for MG151/20s with more HE and less AP. With synchronization and the high AP content, the armament in the D-9, in particular, feels very weak for even fighter vs. fighter combat.

-release central bomb before wing bombs<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I might add some:

-option to remove cowling guns, especially in the A-9.

-SC500s... why no SD/AB etc?? Pls let us select at least all 3 types of bombs that are ingame. That also applies to every other german plane.

-DROP TANKS??? The main reason why they kept those ETCs (which were removable in short time)

-Rockets, rockets, rockets. Let's say PB II for F-8 and R4M for Doras

-250kg bombs and tanks for Doras http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif



BTW I just did a bigger post about engine power and speeds of the ingame FW models:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=74010929&r=43810159#43810159

I just add it here, because it's right ONtopic

Willey
12-29-2003, 04:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by CARBONFREEZE:
Bump

Would be nice to get _ALL_ of these =)

http://www.pbase.com/image/21964403.jpg<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can't see 'em... pic's down http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif. Someone saved it?

SKULLS_LZ
12-30-2003, 10:27 AM
I vote "yes" to the requests to update the FW-190 (DM, weapons). Please Oleg, FB is 98% complete, it would be a shame to leave it that way. Please give the 190, the most important German single-seat AC, the attention it deserves.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ask me about my "Free Wing Removal" program. Offer valid while my ammo supplies last.

JG7_Rall
01-01-2004, 12:50 AM
Another bump! Out of all the outstanding requests here, the complex DM is the best IMO! I hope Oleg sees this.

VMF-214_HaVoK
01-01-2004, 05:53 AM
It would be nice if the host had the ability to restrict armorment such as wing pods, extra ammo, rockets, ect. Shouldnt the host or map and/or mission created have ability to set a scenario as he or she so chooses? Besides Im kinda anxious to see who is willing to still fly FWs or BFGs without the Mks and who pretends to be loyal to a particular aircraft. With or without them the FW still has the best firepower in the game IMO.
=S=

IVJG51_Swine
01-02-2004, 09:26 AM
All I can say is that over the past two weeks I have conducted some tests in regards to the damage model on the 190. I have let myself get shot down ten times online. 9 out of those 10 my destruction resulted from one of my wings being shot off. 4 times they were quick 1 or 2 second bursts from .50 calibers. Another was from an IL-2 tailgunner who fired one burst at my aircraft resulting in the wing popping off. Last night I flew around in a K-4 and was hit in the wing. I had four huge holes in the wing but it was still intact and I was capable of crash landing. This is ridiculous. Sorry but its getting frustrating dealing with these drastic changes in these aircraft from one patch to the next. With that being said, I think this patch is getting FB really close to completion, however, lets get the damage models fixed on the FW 190.
A loyal IL-2 fan,
Swine

IVJG51_Swine
01-02-2004, 09:33 AM
All I can say is that over the past two weeks I have conducted some tests in regards to the damage model on the 190. I have witnessed 10 190 kills in the past couple of weeks. 9 out of those 10 the destruction of the aircraft resulted from one of the wings being shot off. 4 times they were quick 1 or 2 second bursts from .50 calibers. Another was from an IL-2 tailgunner who fired one burst at the 190 resulting in the wing popping off. Last night I flew around in a K-4 and was hit in the wing. I had four huge holes in the wing but it was still intact and I was capable of crash landing. This is ridiculous. With that being said, I think this patch is getting FB really close to completion, however, lets get the damage model fixed on the FW 190(complex damage model would be nice).
A loyal IL-2 fan,
Swine

CARBONFREEZE
01-03-2004, 03:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VMF-214_HaVoK:
It would be nice if the host had the ability to restrict armorment such as wing pods, extra ammo, rockets, ect. Shouldnt the host or map and/or mission created have ability to set a scenario as he or she so chooses? Besides Im kinda anxious to see who is willing to still fly FWs or BFGs without the Mks and who pretends to be loyal to a particular aircraft. With or without them the FW still has the best firepower in the game IMO.
=S=<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes that would be nice loadouts able to be restricted by host as far as certain squadrons and what they flew (sturmblok or nachtjabo or whatever). I have seen alot more Fw190 flyers now that the Fw190 is "uber." I can remeber back in the "day" when only 3 people flew it online.. lol.

Russian aircraft require skill to fly.
German aircraft require ten times that skill, and one hundred times the patience!

WUAF_CO_CRBNFRZ on HyperLobby

IVJG51_Swine
01-03-2004, 09:59 AM
oops..sorry for the double post