Jump to content

-3 or -5?


Bozon

Recommended Posts

So which variant will it be?

If it’s going to be just one, I prefer the F6F-5 for the ground pounding options. Performance wise they are not that different, so a -5 can stand-in for a -3 variant when needed.

Of course, getting both would be nice too.

“Mosquitoes fly, but flies don’t Mosquito” :pilotfly:

- Geoffrey de Havilland.

 

... well, he could have said it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
3 hours ago, Krupi said:

Hoping for a -3, it will show that have learnt from the mistakes of Normandy.

What do you mean?

“Mosquitoes fly, but flies don’t Mosquito” :pilotfly:

- Geoffrey de Havilland.

 

... well, he could have said it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Krupi said:

Hoping for a -3, it will show that have learnt from the mistakes of Normandy.

Normandy has builded by a 3rd party, and actual WW2 aircrafts coming from a KS pleges and previosly as tesbed by ED.

 

5 hours ago, Cunctator said:

Making a version of the plane that is appropriate for the map we will get.

We go to get Marianas WW2, but the F6F version will build by the available info, no to mach on a time period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

Normandy has builded by a 3rd party, and actual WW2 aircrafts coming from a KS pleges and previosly as tesbed by ED.

 

 

Yes and ED chose not to make an appropriate map. For the planes that we have.

Only the Sptifire,  Mossie and Fw190A8 flew on the maps we have.

The P51D, P47, 109k4, Fw190D9 are are all from a time when combat had moved away from Northern France and southern England. 

 

  • Like 5

i7 13700k @5.2ghz, GTX 3090, 64Gig ram 4800mhz DDR5, M2 drive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

Normandy has builded by a 3rd party, and actual WW2 aircrafts coming from a KS pleges and previosly as tesbed by ED.

I am well aware of this however frankly I am fed up of this excuse, at one point I was quite happy to accept it however now we have moved way beyond the KS (which I was a supporter of). This is a good thing.

Anyway back on topic.

I would rather have the F6F-3 as it was more than a match for the vast majority of IJN and IJA aircraft… the N1K and Ki-84 being the exception to the rule.

In regards to the -5 additional ground pounding ability it seems that the Corsair was used to a greater extent in this role.

of course the best we could hope for is that ED give us both the -3 and -5 making this discussion irrelevant.


Edited by Krupi
  • Like 4

Windows 10 Pro | ASUS RANGER VIII | i5 6600K @ 4.6GHz| MSI RTX 2060 SUPER | 32GB RAM | Corsair H100i | Corsair Carbide 540 | HP Reverb G2 | MFG crosswind Pedals | Custom Spitfire Cockpit

Project IX Cockpit

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Bozon said:

What do you mean?

For example...... I-16, K4, D9 (no one Dora/Kurfurst  pilots had ever seen Normandy from Germany skies even climbing to 45,000 feet high in a CAVOK day) ... even if you want to be exquisite you can put in that bag the D version of the P-51 (introduced in combat months later D-Day). 

 

29 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

no to mach on a time period.

Interesting and disturbing at the same time... The Marianas WW2 map is going to  be the new "Caucasus for everything" as it has been for last 10 years. But having or not a map that properly matches with a model is not a problem at all. The main issue is having a model that doesn't match with its natural opponents, cause this is a Combat Sim... otherwise I dare you twice to tell me what would differenciate hopping on an F6F Dash 3, Dash 5 or Dash X here and in the competence. Tip: the strong accent is in "Combat". 

  • Like 2

A simple Human being's Passion

[YOUTUBE]

[/YOUTUBE]
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Gunfreak said:

Yes and ED chose not to make an appropriate map. For the planes that we have.

Only the Sptifire,  Mossie and Fw190A8 flew on the maps we have.

The P51D, P47, 109k4, Fw190D9 are are all from a time when combat had moved away from Northern France and southern England. 

 

ED dont make nothing, Ugra Media 3rd party build the map after the RRG dead, period, similartly to building now a "Normandy 2.0" map.

P-51D and Fw-190D9 was build by ED previosly to the RRG WW2 KS, K4, Spitfire and P-47 was coming from KS, with was rescue by ED to get honor by the backers. ED build after the Mosquito and missing the M262 from KS.

ED has none problem with RRG dont select a "propper time axis opponets".
 

14 hours ago, OLD CROW said:

Interesting and disturbing at the same time... The Marianas WW2 map is going to  be the new "Caucasus for everything" as it has been for last 10 years. But having or not a map that properly matches with a model is not a problem at all. The main issue is having a model that doesn't match with its natural opponents, cause this is a Combat Sim... otherwise I dare you twice to tell me what would differenciate hopping on an F6F Dash 3, Dash 5 or Dash X here and in the competence. Tip: the strong accent is in "Combat". 

The Marianas WW2 has a map surely centred arround 44 on the marianas campaign, with can open to others 3rd parties to expand to others map and get a playground to the F6F and F4-U.

Build a "Natural Opponnent" has always centred on available data, resouces, teams, money, and time, surely by a 3rd party. The only poing actually confirmed about a oponent has the M3 PTO assets pack with coming with IJN/IJA aircrafts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

ED dont make nothing, Ugra Media 3rd party build the map after the RRG dead, period, similartly to building now a "Normandy 2.0" map.

Which is exactly @Gunfreak's point. ED has not (yet) chosen to make a contemporary map. This has nothing to do with Ugra Media and what they do or don't, and what the initial KS campaign was supposed to cover. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Silver_Dragon said:

ED dont make nothing, Ugra Media 3rd party build the map after the RRG dead, period, similartly to building now a "Normandy 2.0" map.

P-51D and Fw-190D9 was build by ED previosly to the RRG WW2 KS, K4, Spitfire and P-47 was coming from KS, with was rescue by ED to get honor by the backers. ED build after the Mosquito and missing the M262 from KS.

ED has none problem with RRG dont select a "propper time axis opponets".
 

The Marianas WW2 has a map surely centred arround 44 on the marianas campaign, with can open to others 3rd parties to expand to others map and get a playground to the F6F and F4-U.

Build a "Natural Opponnent" has always centred on available data, resouces, teams, money, and time, surely by a 3rd party. The only poing actually confirmed about a oponent has the M3 PTO assets pack with coming with IJN/IJA aircrafts.

ED made channel map, they chose to make a map that doesn't fit most of the planes in the game. They choose to make a very very late P47. 

They could have made a market garden/bodenplatte map which is more appropriate for the  planes in the game.

  • Like 2

i7 13700k @5.2ghz, GTX 3090, 64Gig ram 4800mhz DDR5, M2 drive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd by far prefer -5 with more ground pounding options if we only ever get one variant.

Hopefully we can get both though.

But I don't have a lot of faith we'll get both, back when Fw-190A was in dev, devs were saying F and/or G models were also being considered as a future addition, and clearly that fell by the wayside.

  • Like 3

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, OLD CROW said:

For example...... I-16, K4, D9 (no one Dora/Kurfurst  pilots had ever seen Normandy from Germany skies even climbing to 45,000 feet high in a CAVOK day) ... even if you want to be exquisite you can put in that bag the D version of the P-51 (introduced in combat months later D-Day). 

 

Interesting and disturbing at the same time... The Marianas WW2 map is going to  be the new "Caucasus for everything" as it has been for last 10 years. But having or not a map that properly matches with a model is not a problem at all. The main issue is having a model that doesn't match with its natural opponents, cause this is a Combat Sim... otherwise I dare you twice to tell me what would differenciate hopping on an F6F Dash 3, Dash 5 or Dash X here and in the competence. Tip: the strong accent is in "Combat". 

OK, those planes you mentioned were in DCS before the Normandy map. You may argue that Normandy & Channel were not the best choices of maps given the warbirds roster - and I would agree.

The -3 and -5 are so similar that they are akin to the difference between the P-47-D30 and -D40: P-47-D40 has the HVAR rockets and a slightly stronger WEP on water injection. Visually you’d be hard pressed to distinguish them. The F6F-5 had the HVAR rockets, water injection (-3 were retrofitted I believe) and slightly better roll rate due to metal ailerons. Visually you’d be hard pressed to distinguish them (unless you know to look for that small window behind the pilot).

Given that, I don’t mind getting just a -5, with the option to disable water injection and not load HVAR, and I’ll happily treat it as a -3. Screw that useless tiny window.

“Mosquitoes fly, but flies don’t Mosquito” :pilotfly:

- Geoffrey de Havilland.

 

... well, he could have said it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Gunfreak said:

ED made channel map, they chose to make a map that doesn't fit most of the planes in the game. They choose to make a very very late P47. 

They could have made a market garden/bodenplatte map which is more appropriate for the  planes in the game.

Trying to twist the story to fit his point of view. ED made the channel map under the criteria of having something for the WTO (and possibly future planned BoB modules) and you didn't like it because you wanted the bulge (funny that the competition was doing something similar).

We have maps in DCS World that don't fit the historical context of a time period, and even 3rd parties make maps that don't fit a war period (eg South Atlantic). The Marianas map was made for modern air and naval operations and the Marianas WW2 one was made for a PTO environment. You have wondered why no 3rd party has started to make additional maps for WW2 without being Ugra Media? similar to the competition. If someone wants something, I recommend that they create their own 3rd party to build your dreamed maps.

That the F-4U and the F6F can have a map, is the least of it, even if it is not the "correct timing", but at least it has something "realistic" (PTO) to fly.

About the F6F I think ED go to implement something similar to "SuperCarrier" on a future to make realistic carrier WW2 operations, but can be a handicap on the "Flatops" by the problems to alternate take off and landing operations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Just to clear things up, the only difference in “ground pounding capability” between the -3 and -5 is the introduction of HVAR on the -5. Apart from that they could both carry the exact same bomb load. Furthermore F6F-5s only carried rockets occasionally, as by that time the F4U-1D was operating off of fleet carriers as the primary fighter-bomber (VBF) type, leaving the A2A role largely to the F6F. If we are only going to get one variant I’d much prefer the -3 as it would be an excellent match for the WWII Marianas map and the lack of water injection would make it a really balanced match for the A6M5 Zeke. The ideal scenario would, however, be the development of both types as the differences are relatively minimal. 


Edited by Cliffhanger31
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/8/2023 at 4:57 PM, Cliffhanger31 said:

Just to clear things up, the only difference in “ground pounding capability” between the -3 and -5 is the introduction of HVAR on the -5. Apart from that they could both carry the exact same bomb load. Furthermore F6F-5s only carried rockets occasionally, as by that time the F4U-1D was operating off of fleet carriers as the primary fighter-bomber (VBF) type, leaving the A2A role largely to the F6F. If we are only going to get one variant I’d much prefer the -3 as it would be an excellent match for the WWII Marianas map and the lack of water injection would make it a really balanced match for the A6M5 Zeke. The ideal scenario would, however, be the development of both types as the differences are relatively minimal. 

 

I agree completely.

However, if ED make the -3 then we’ll have to suffer endless “was the Hellcat really this bad…”  “dude… where’s my water injection…” Threads 🙄


Edited by Mogster
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Mogster said:

I agree completely.

However, if ED make the -3 then we’ll have to suffer endless “was the Hellcat really this bad…”  “dude… where’s my water injection…” Threads 🙄

 

They'll never be happy until we get the -2582 with phaser banks( the -2581 with just phaser cannons isn't good enough)  and quantum torpedoes. How else are we gonna take out a borg cube!

  • Like 5

i7 13700k @5.2ghz, GTX 3090, 64Gig ram 4800mhz DDR5, M2 drive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gunfreak said:

They'll never be happy until we get the -2582 with phaser banks( the -2581 with just phaser cannons isn't good enough)  and quantum torpedoes. How else are we gonna take out a borg cube!

It all depends what kind of planes hellcat would face, if only A-8 then no one will complain but when it would be K-4 or D-9 that change things.

In multi session you can mitigate this by flying with fiends but in single session flying with stupid AI can be enjoying when your foe out run you in every aspect.


Edited by grafspee

System specs: I7 14700KF, Gigabyte Z690 Aorus Elite, 64GB DDR4 3600MHz, Gigabyte RTX 4090,Win 11, 48" OLED LG TV + 42" LG LED monitor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mogster said:

I agree completely.

However, if ED make the -3 then we’ll have to suffer endless “was the Hellcat really this bad…”  “dude… where’s my water injection…” Threads 🙄

 

Maybe, but given that the most likely opponent for the Hellcat and Corsair in the near future will be the A6M5, I think it would be a very balanced scenario similar to the P-51 vs 109-K4 or D9. The -5 Hellcat will have all of the cards over any variant of the Zero so it would be less compelling from a 1v1 perspective.

1 hour ago, grafspee said:

It all depends what kind of planes hellcat would face, if only A-8 then no one will complain but when it would be K-4 or D-9 that change things.

In multi session you can mitigate this by flying with fiends but in single session flying with stupid AI can be enjoying when your foe out run you in every aspect.

 

I definitely don’t think we should take the German aircraft into account when considering the best variant of the Hellcat. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Cliffhanger31 I don't know but i think you are unaware of plane set available  in DCS, german plane is only thing which hellcat will face in DCS, I'm not aware of any Japan plane in development right now.  If we get AI proper counter part then yes but multi session will still suffer.

System specs: I7 14700KF, Gigabyte Z690 Aorus Elite, 64GB DDR4 3600MHz, Gigabyte RTX 4090,Win 11, 48" OLED LG TV + 42" LG LED monitor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, grafspee said:

@Cliffhanger31 I don't know but i think you are unaware of plane set available  in DCS, german plane is only thing which hellcat will face in DCS, I'm not aware of any Japan plane in development right now.  If we get AI proper counter part then yes but multi session will still suffer.

Magnitude 3 has show two IJA/IJN on your Pacific free Asset Pack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Silver_Dragon said:

Magnitude 3 has show two IJA/IJN on your Pacific free Asset Pack

I aware of this, this pacific asset part will be part of  f4u module. But development pace is extremally slow and i would not be surprised if ed hellcat would launch years ahead .

System specs: I7 14700KF, Gigabyte Z690 Aorus Elite, 64GB DDR4 3600MHz, Gigabyte RTX 4090,Win 11, 48" OLED LG TV + 42" LG LED monitor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...