shab249 Posted March 30, 2017 Author Posted March 30, 2017 https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=135033 Ok so it can carry it Why its not in the game? Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
razo+r Posted March 30, 2017 Posted March 30, 2017 because they didn't make it yet for further infos, read the linked thread...
shab249 Posted March 30, 2017 Author Posted March 30, 2017 because they didn't make it yet for further infos, read the linked thread... ED... the module is from 2014 right? Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
Xxx Posted May 10, 2017 Posted May 10, 2017 I think when Normandy is released and we try taking on a squadron of B-17's, those rockets/20 mm gun pods may be needed! If not, I guess it's up to the FW190's to save the day!:smilewink: However, perhaps a 262 will come along?:D Cheers. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]i7 Haswell @ 4.6Ghz, Z97p, GTX1080, 32GB DDR3, x3SSD, Win7/64, professional. 32" BenQ, TIR 5, Saitek x55 HOTAS. Search User Files for "herky" for my uploaded missions. My flight sim videos on You Tube. https://www.youtube.com/user/David Herky
LeCuvier Posted May 11, 2017 Posted May 11, 2017 this horse has already been beaten to death in other threads. Rockets and gunpods are simply not implemented, and ED has not made any statement as to whether they will ever be. LeCuvier Windows 10 Pro 64Bit | i7-4790 CPU |16 GB RAM|SSD System Disk|SSD Gaming Disk| MSI GTX-1080 Gaming 8 GB| Acer XB270HU | TM Warthog HOTAS | VKB Gladiator Pro | MongoosT-50 | MFG Crosswind Pedals | TrackIR 5
shab249 Posted June 9, 2017 Author Posted June 9, 2017 I think when Normandy is released and we try taking on a squadron of B-17's, those rockets/20 mm gun pods may be needed! If not, I guess it's up to the FW190's to save the day!:smilewink: However, perhaps a 262 will come along?:D Cheers. MAYBE IF ED WOULD READ THAT JUST SAYING WITH NO ANGER Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
LeCuvier Posted June 10, 2017 Posted June 10, 2017 I wonder how much the B-17's will be affected by rocket hits. I exercised the use of rockets (in the FW-90) against a flight of C-130 and I got so close that I couldn't misss. It took a lot of rocket hits to actually destroy the C-130. So I hope that the B-17's have a more realistic damage model than the C-130's. LeCuvier Windows 10 Pro 64Bit | i7-4790 CPU |16 GB RAM|SSD System Disk|SSD Gaming Disk| MSI GTX-1080 Gaming 8 GB| Acer XB270HU | TM Warthog HOTAS | VKB Gladiator Pro | MongoosT-50 | MFG Crosswind Pedals | TrackIR 5
.Tigre. Posted June 13, 2017 Posted June 13, 2017 Who knows if they intend to implement at least the gun pods, in fact is a significant lack... :thumbup:
Belphe Posted July 3, 2017 Posted July 3, 2017 Hi ED! Could you let us know if gun pods are planned for future release? Thank you. Never say never, Baby! [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
.Tigre. Posted July 4, 2017 Posted July 4, 2017 (edited) Hi ED! Could you let us know if gun pods are planned for future release? Thank you. +1....thank you ED :thumbup: :pilotfly: Edited July 4, 2017 by Falcoblu
Reflected Posted July 4, 2017 Posted July 4, 2017 Yes, now that we have bomber formations, it's not only historically missing, but it's really needed for the gameplay. Facebook Instagram YouTube Discord
Kurfürst Posted July 4, 2017 Posted July 4, 2017 Hi ED! Could you let us know if gun pods are planned for future release? Thank you. +2 http://www.kurfurst.org - The Messerschmitt Bf 109 Performance Resource Site Vezérünk a bátorság, Kísérőnk a szerencse! -Motto of the RHAF 101st 'Puma' Home Air Defense Fighter Regiment The Answer to the Ultimate Question of the K-4, the Universe, and Everything: Powerloading 550 HP / ton, 1593 having been made up to 31th March 1945, 314 K-4s were being operated in frontline service on 31 January 1945.
DieHard Posted September 2, 2017 Posted September 2, 2017 this horse has already been beaten to death in other threads. Rockets and gunpods are simply not implemented, and ED has not made any statement as to whether they will ever be. Yes. But their negative attitude affects my future positive attitude's purchase decision concerning their future aircraft. P-51D has them! [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]
razo+r Posted September 2, 2017 Posted September 2, 2017 (edited) Sithspawn said, they are in the works (since two years and more). This leads to my assumption that that statement is just bs... Edited September 2, 2017 by razo+r
LeCuvier Posted October 10, 2017 Posted October 10, 2017 On the website ED claims that "Bf 109 K-4 Kurfürst features a painstakingly reproduced model of the aircraft..." It's about time for ED to make that statement fully true by finally adding the missing Rocket functionality! LeCuvier Windows 10 Pro 64Bit | i7-4790 CPU |16 GB RAM|SSD System Disk|SSD Gaming Disk| MSI GTX-1080 Gaming 8 GB| Acer XB270HU | TM Warthog HOTAS | VKB Gladiator Pro | MongoosT-50 | MFG Crosswind Pedals | TrackIR 5
razo+r Posted October 10, 2017 Posted October 10, 2017 Let's not forget this statement: Detailed modelling the Bf 109 K-4 instruments, weapons, engine, radios, fuel, and electrical systems.
Reflected Posted October 10, 2017 Posted October 10, 2017 Yes. But their negative attitude affects my future positive attitude's purchase decision concerning their future aircraft. P-51D has them! Exactly. They develop stuff for 3-4 years, release it as a beta, improve it a bit for a year or two then nothing. When you ask they say it's coming...someday. And we're left with a bunch of unfinished, expensive modules. :( Facebook Instagram YouTube Discord
LeCuvier Posted October 10, 2017 Posted October 10, 2017 The root cause of this situation might be that the current licensing approach does not give them enough funding for software maintenance. I have been involved in software development, and I have seen that there is a signficant amount of maintenance cost for every piece of software you roll out. Some software producers now have a licensing scheme where you pay monthly or annual software license fees. I pay € 99 p.a. for our Office 365 home license, and about € 12 p.m. for Adobe Lightroom and Photoshop combined. ED may soon face the choice to go that way - or go belly up. Personally I wouldn't mind a recurring fee if that improved the quality. What do you guys think? LeCuvier Windows 10 Pro 64Bit | i7-4790 CPU |16 GB RAM|SSD System Disk|SSD Gaming Disk| MSI GTX-1080 Gaming 8 GB| Acer XB270HU | TM Warthog HOTAS | VKB Gladiator Pro | MongoosT-50 | MFG Crosswind Pedals | TrackIR 5
WinterH Posted October 10, 2017 Posted October 10, 2017 I would definitely prefer the belly-up route in that case. Wishlist: F-4E Block 53 +, MiG-27K, Su-17M3 or M4, AH-1F or W circa 80s or early 90s, J35 Draken, Kfir C7, Mirage III/V DCS-Dismounts Script
Reflected Posted October 10, 2017 Posted October 10, 2017 I would definitely prefer the belly-up route in that case. Yeah...we're already paying a lot more for modules than in other sims. Thinking about the 100s of dollars I gave ED, and that's just me. I'm not sorry I did so, don't get me wrong. But this should be enough for them to hold up their end of the bargain. It's like a guy comes to you saying he will build you a house for X dollars. You pay him, then after 3 years you still don't have windows, and he would tell you that it's been 3 years, and it's tough for him to pay his contractors, etc... I'm sorry, but who cares? The deal was X dollars = house. Period. And then he would come to you with another offer to build a garage for Y dollars, and he could spend that money on finishing your house, but of course it just fills his time and he has even less resources for the first project. This is the feeling I get. This being said, I'm happy to pay these high prices for DCS modules, as long as my house gets finished. Facebook Instagram YouTube Discord
Mad Dog 7.62 Posted October 10, 2017 Posted October 10, 2017 The root cause of this situation might be that the current licensing approach does not give them enough funding for software maintenance. Some software producers now have a licensing scheme where you pay monthly or annual software license fees. ED may soon face the choice to go that way - or go belly up. Personally I wouldn't mind a recurring fee if that improved the quality. What do you guys think? I think that's crap. Many many of us have supported ED over many years with purchases, from Flanker to Lock On to Flaming Cliffs to multiple DCS modules. If you go buy about any other PC game its going to run you $59-$69, maybe $89 for a special edition. How much does DCS, a couple of terrain packs, and 6 aircraft modules cost? Many times that. I know I personally have purchased some modules more than once just to help support ED and others have as well. There are guys here who have probably spent $1000 on ED products, or more. And ED is very good at milking the $$$ out of their products, i.e. separating the WWII Assets from the Normandy terrain pack. I strongly support ED and they deliver some great products, but timely follow through and communications have been problems here forever. My personal opinion is they need to focus on projects and complete them before starting other projects. There have been too many half-completed modules released that never get to the potential they should because ED or the module designer don't finish them. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Gigabyte GA97XSLI Core i7 4790 @ 4.0 Ghz MSI GTX 1080ti 32 Mb RAM DDR3-2133 512GB SSD for DCS HP Reverb VR HMD Thrustmaster Warthog & MFG Crosswind
ED Team NineLine Posted October 10, 2017 ED Team Posted October 10, 2017 Sithspawn said, they are in the works (since two years and more). This leads to my assumption that that statement is just bs... It's not bs, its true, it was a feature request, its not a high priority, it was never a feature for the original module, it will happen when it happens. Rockets and Gun Pods were generally not widely used or available late in the war anyways. For future reference, I dont bs you guys. Closing this thread as some of you are heading towards a 1.10. Forum Rules • My YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**
ED Team NineLine Posted October 10, 2017 ED Team Posted October 10, 2017 The 109 is complete as is. Rockets and Gun pods were not part of the original module features. So you are mad because you bought a house without a pool, and you expect them to add a pool for free because other houses have pools... Yeah...we're already paying a lot more for modules than in other sims. Thinking about the 100s of dollars I gave ED, and that's just me. I'm not sorry I did so, don't get me wrong. But this should be enough for them to hold up their end of the bargain. It's like a guy comes to you saying he will build you a house for X dollars. You pay him, then after 3 years you still don't have windows, and he would tell you that it's been 3 years, and it's tough for him to pay his contractors, etc... I'm sorry, but who cares? The deal was X dollars = house. Period. And then he would come to you with another offer to build a garage for Y dollars, and he could spend that money on finishing your house, but of course it just fills his time and he has even less resources for the first project. This is the feeling I get. This being said, I'm happy to pay these high prices for DCS modules, as long as my house gets finished. Exactly. They develop stuff for 3-4 years, release it as a beta, improve it a bit for a year or two then nothing. When you ask they say it's coming...someday. And we're left with a bunch of unfinished, expensive modules. :( There is nothing unfinished about the 109, the 190, the P-51... you are getting free updates to these modules, and you are getting mad that you dont get your free updates fast enough. Its quite a warped look you have on what ED is doing. 2 Forum Rules • My YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**
Recommended Posts