perfect time to bring bf-109 G6 in to DCS

[Eclipse]

1 hour ago, Silver_Dragon said:

Eclipse, read someone about ED module develop...
-Black Shark was based on ED technology demostrador maked to Kamov and aproval to release a comercial version.
-A-10C coming from Air Nacional Guarda USA Desktop trainer builder by ED and aproval to release a comercial versión, first the A-10C as the follow A-10C 2.
-CA coming from Desktop JTAC UK Army trainer before aproval them to a comercial versión.
-P-51D take years by YoYo main ED chief programer, before thinking on build a module as a testbed to make a pistón aircraft into DCS enviroment.
And web can follow... Build a module on ED enviroment take years and dont make magicaly by today wake Up, open a book and start developing... Need get planned, form teams a get resourses, money and planning, and actually ED has your resources centred on others projects on modern, DCS core, and WW2 (finish mosquito, F6F, Me262, and future BoB projects), working on paralel.

We can only wait to ED or others 3rd Party take note, and expect someone make a Bf-109G-6 someday in the future.

Enviado desde mi CPH2197 mediante Tapatalk
 

I know how development works, thanks. I'm done with this pointless argument.

Have a nice day

[Art-J]

On 5/1/2023 at 4:08 PM, 71st_AH Rob said:

The problem then becomes, we have a Spitfire Mk.IXc in early 1943 configuration. A Mk.IX that would have flown over a Germany map would some small but significant improvements, in fact one that flew over France from April 1944 would have at least had a Gyro Mk II gun sight, but a Spit as old and tired as ours would have been relegated to a support role by then. Or sent on Leand Lease to the USSR. 

That's a bit too harsh opinion.

I could partially agree about the gunsight, although retrofit was not as common as you make it to be - I saw photos of post invasion Polish Air Force Mk IX Spits, operating over continent still with old reflector sights.

Mechanically, however, DCS Spit is referenced after MH434, well, not only that one, but for the most part. That was an August '43 airframe, flying in frontline units until March '44. True, it still has an oldschoold rudder and wobble pump, but it also has 66 engine, electric booster pump, fuel cutoff lever, bigger carb intake and wheels - typical '44 improvements still making it a "workhorse" configuration viable for mid-44.

I agree we would need more than that for accurate late '44 / into '45 scenarios, however.

[DD_Fenrir]

On 5/4/2023 at 9:51 AM, Art-J said:

That's a bit too harsh opinion.

I could partially agree about the gunsight, although retrofit was not as common as you make it to be - I saw photos of post invasion Polish Air Force Mk IX Spits, operating over continent still with old reflector sights.

Mechanically, however, DCS Spit is referenced after MH434, well, not only that one, but for the most part. That was an August '43 airframe, flying in frontline units until March '44. True, it still has an oldschoold rudder and wobble pump, but it also has 66 engine, electric booster pump, fuel cutoff lever, bigger carb intake and wheels - typical '44 improvements still making it a "workhorse" configuration viable for mid-44.

I agree we would need more than that for accurate late '44 / into '45 scenarios, however.

Absolutely this.

The "but we've got an 1943 Spitfire, it's not fair" is male bovine excrement and irrelevant. The truth is the LFMk IX running 18lb and with the 2x20mm + 4x .303" armament was the most numerous variant in operation over France in the spring summer and autumn of 1944.

Would I like an option for GGS equipped version? Meh. Not fussed, I don't find them beneficial personally, but they were historically available at time of the invasion.

Would I like to see an option with the 'e' armament (2x 20mm + 2x .50cal)? Absolutely. 3 squadrons equipped as such were flying on with 2nd TAF over the invasion area on D-Day and thereafter.

Would I like to see the broad chord rudder? Right now not particularly. It only becomes commonplace with the arrival of the MkXVI (that's '16' btw, not '14') in early 1945.

Would I like to see the a +25lb version (150 octane fuel)? Right now, no. This argument has been done to death.

At the time of D-Day 2 out of 39 Spitfire IX squadrons were using it. A smidge over 5%. Even as the Normandy campaign continues, those squadrons that are  converted are all dedicated to Air Defence Great Britain and concerning themselves with the V-1 defence operations. As a Jagdwaffe pilot over Normandy, your percentage chance of encountering a Spitfire LF.IXc operating at +25lb boost is negligible.

Should a West Wall map covering Belgium/Holland and the German Frontier in 1944-45 ever be forthcoming then I will change that opinion.

The problem is, and had always been, that WE HAVE GERMAN FIGHTER AIRCRFAT MODELS THAT DO NOT BELONG WITH THE MAPS WE HAVE BEEN PROVIDED.

This is why DCS needs a Bf 100G-6/14, and why DCS should seriously consider a West Wall map as a prototypical home for the Kurfurst and the Dora.

These arguments all evaporate with these two developments. 

 

 

 

Edited May 5, 2023 by DD_Fenrir

[Gunfreak]

1 hour ago, Art-J said:

That's a bit too harsh opinion.

I could partially agree about the gunsight, although retrofit was not as common as you make it to be - I saw photos of post invasion Polish Air Force Mk IX Spits, operating over continent still with old reflector sights.

Mechanically, however, DCS Spit is referenced after MH434, well, not only that one, but for the most part. That was an August '43 airframe, flying in frontline units until March '44. True, it still has an oldschoold rudder and wobble pump, but it also has 66 engine, electric booster pump, fuel cutoff lever, bigger carb intake and wheels - typical '44 improvements still making it a "workhorse" configuration viable for mid-44.

I agree we would need more than that for accurate late '44 / into '45 scenarios, however.

I think the none commonwealth squadrons got the newest planes last.
The two Norwegian Spitfire squadrons flew Mk Vs after the IX had become common among the native British squadrons, so I'm sure the Norwegian Spitfires IXs that flew in 45 still had the old sight. So probably true for Polish units too.
 

[DD_Fenrir]

17 minutes ago, Gunfreak said:

I think the none commonwealth squadrons got the newest planes last.
The two Norwegian Spitfire squadrons flew Mk Vs after the IX had become common among the native British squadrons, so I'm sure the Norwegian Spitfires IXs that flew in 45 still had the old sight. So probably true for Polish units too.
 

Not so much...

Norwegian Spitfire Foundation Announce Restoration of Spitfire Mk.IX PL258 (warbirdsnews.com)

[YoYo]

Something is on the corner! I hope Me-262 finally! 

 

[Gunfreak]

44 minutes ago, DD_Fenrir said:

Not so much...

Norwegian Spitfire Foundation Announce Restoration of Spitfire Mk.IX PL258 (warbirdsnews.com)

It says nothing about any gunsight there. 

[DD_Fenrir]

3 hours ago, Gunfreak said:

It says nothing about any gunsight there. 

The picture.

Of a MkIX.

Of 331 squadron (Norwegian)

Post D-Day.

With a GGS.

 

Edited May 4, 2023 by DD_Fenrir

[DD_Fenrir]

Also @Gunfreak, 332 Sqn (Norwegian) were flying F.Mk.IXs in mid 1943.

There were British (64 Sqn, 130 Sqn, 234 Sqn, 501 Sqn & 611 Sqn), Canadian (402 Sqn), French (345 Sqn), Belgian (350 Sqn) & Polish (303 Sqn) squadrons still flying LF.V Spitfires on D-Day.

Truth is that most Spitfire squadrons in 1943 rotated in and out of 10, 11 & the south-eastern part of 12 Group (those most likely to see operations  over France); typically the Mk.IXs stayed in the Group at the airbase, with the outgoing squadron leaving them behind for the new incumbents to use whilst they would find a host of Mk.Vs to fly during their rest from ops.

Even in early 44 there were not enough IXs on strength to equip all of the Spitfire units and still have a useful reserve for replacements and spares. 

This meant that when the biggest possible forces needed to be marshalled for Overlord, some units were moved towards the operational area still obliged to utilise the Mk.Vs they had been given.

Even then, don't forget that the LF.Vc version was a potent low level fighter and that two days after D-Day a 142 Wing formation encountered a flight of 6x Bf 109s over the Orne river and were able to destroy 2, claim a third as probable and damage a fourth. Not exactly a useless machine....

However, by August/September of 1944, there's no more Mk.Vs on frontline operations.

To suggest that the RAF palmed off it's second rate airframes onto their foreign Allies whilst keeping the good one's for themselves is plain inaccurate and reflects an unfair assumption of some kind of institutionalised xenophobia within the RAF command ranks of the time.

 

Edited May 5, 2023 by DD_Fenrir

[Gunfreak]

14 minutes ago, DD_Fenrir said:

Also @Gunfreak, 332 Sqn (Norwegian) were flying F.Mk.IXs in mid 1943.

There were British (66 Sqn, 501 Sqn), French (345 Sqn) & (IIRC) a couple of Polish squadrons still flying LF.V Spitfires on D-Day.

Truth is that most Spitfire squadrons in 1943 rotated in and out of 10, 11 & the south-eastern part of 12 Group (those most likely to see operations  over France); typically the Mk.IXs stayed in the Group at the airbase, with the outgoing squadron leaving them behind for the new incumbents to use whilst they would find a host of Mk.Vs to fly during their rest from ops.

Even in early 44 there were not enough IXs on strength to equip all of the Spitfire units and still have a useful reserve for replacements and spares. 

This meant that when the biggest possible forces needed to be marshalled for Overlord, some units were moved towards the operational area still obliged to utilise the Mk.Vs they had been given.

Even then, don't forget that the LF.Vc version was a potent low level fighter and that two days after D-Day a 142 Wing formation encountered a flight of 6x Bf 109s over the Orne river and were able to destroy 2, claim a third as probable and damage a fourth. Not exactly a useless machine....

However, by August/September of 1944, there's no more Mk.Vs on frontline operations.

To suggest that the RAF palmed off it's second rate airframes onto their foreign Allies whilst keeping the good one's for themselves is plain inaccurate and reflects an unfair assumption of some kind of institutionalised xenophobia within the RAF command ranks of the time.

 

 

Thank you for the correction. 

[KoN]

Axis side has little or no ground attack options . 

Axis needs ground pounder. ME-410 .  

[Gunfreak]

15 hours ago, KoN said:

Axis side has little or no ground attack options . 

Axis needs ground pounder. ME-410 .  

ED says it's planning on adding one of the Fw190F modeles, which are ground attack planes. 

[KoN]

3 hours ago, Gunfreak said:

ED says it's planning on adding one of the Fw190F modeles, which are ground attack planes. 

I wonder if they are going to add the F mods to the A8 . ATA increase and Weapons .

I don't see the point of making an complete F model , when we already have a underpowered A8 that needs attention and needs updating . 

If they Do , I don't think it will sell . ??

Now if they bring a whole new ball game too change WWII then that will sell . B17 , Me410 . 

Edited May 30, 2023 by KoN

[Art-J]

Expectations need to be managed. In old newsletters they planned to develop and release F-8 by the end of 2019, but we can see how it panned out. At some point later the relevant hints were removed from the store page of the A-8 and F was said to be "planned but long ways off". Nowadays, I'd say it seems to be in the same place as Me-262, ie. not cancelled, but not being actively developed either.

[NineLine]

I would say the F-8 is more than where the 262, but yes we are not actively developing right now that I am aware of. The G variant of the 109 is similar. We have a desire but no activity currently. 

The 262 is a tough one, I am first in line to try a Me-262 done to the quality and level of DCS. Every day and all day I could be into it. That said the same issue is that it might not be as fun as other games make it if it's done to that level given all factors surrounding the 262. 

[Art-J]

Understood. Thanks for the info.

[greco.bernardi]

....Better than words

[Skewgear]

On 5/4/2023 at 1:45 PM, DD_Fenrir said:

Also @Gunfreak, 332 Sqn (Norwegian) were flying F.Mk.IXs in mid 1943.

There were British (64 Sqn, 130 Sqn, 234 Sqn, 501 Sqn & 611 Sqn), Canadian (402 Sqn), French (345 Sqn), Belgian (350 Sqn) & Polish (303 Sqn) squadrons still flying LF.V Spitfires on D-Day.

Truth is that most Spitfire squadrons in 1943 rotated in and out of 10, 11 & the south-eastern part of 12 Group (those most likely to see operations  over France); typically the Mk.IXs stayed in the Group at the airbase, with the outgoing squadron leaving them behind for the new incumbents to use whilst they would find a host of Mk.Vs to fly during their rest from ops.

Even in early 44 there were not enough IXs on strength to equip all of the Spitfire units and still have a useful reserve for replacements and spares. 

This meant that when the biggest possible forces needed to be marshalled for Overlord, some units were moved towards the operational area still obliged to utilise the Mk.Vs they had been given.

Even then, don't forget that the LF.Vc version was a potent low level fighter and that two days after D-Day a 142 Wing formation encountered a flight of 6x Bf 109s over the Orne river and were able to destroy 2, claim a third as probable and damage a fourth. Not exactly a useless machine....

However, by August/September of 1944, there's no more Mk.Vs on frontline operations.

To suggest that the RAF palmed off it's second rate airframes onto their foreign Allies whilst keeping the good one's for themselves is plain inaccurate and reflects an unfair assumption of some kind of institutionalised xenophobia within the RAF command ranks of the time.

 

 

Oddly enough 501 Sqn was flying a Mk.VB Spitfire in August 1944 that started its service life as a Mk.Ia in 1940. One of the unit's flight commanders scored a kill in that machine in June 44 as well.

84 Group had a surprisingly small holding of Mk.IX airframes as attrition replacements for 2nd Tactical Air Force in Normandy; iirc it was scaled for something in the order of half a dozen airframes and pilots held at Ford for immediate despatch and something like two dozen at Cranfield. Sqn ORBs vary as to what exact type of aircraft they had at a given moment in time (B, C, C with 50-cal guns) and many units themselves seemed a bit sketchy. I suspect a lot of IXCs were recorded in non-technical documentation like ORBs and combat reports as IXBs simply because pilots were used to cannon armed aircraft meaning B variants (IB and VB).

---

Edit to add: 84 Group in fact held 3 spare airframes and pilots *per squadron*. Significantly more than I thought when I posted above!

A 453 Sqn pilot's logbook records something very interesting: his unit was apparently flying IXEs and IXBs at the same time. See 4th image from the end. https://www.rustyleith.com/log-book#gallery_2-7

Edited August 29, 2023 by Skewgear

[Rex]

I know this post is kind of old, and I super-agree with you in theory ... we need more ways to stay competitive against those pompous limeys and their over-fed, loud-mouthed, un-disciplined friends,  but I love the Kurfurst.  It's one time I'm glad they "bent" history a little bit

 

Besides, it doesn't really matter what the Brits and their fair-weather friends fly, their pilots can't fly worth a damn anyway.  I mean, it's hard trying to maneuver at 5Gs while reading a Playboy magazine and shoving a hot dog down your throat.  Give 'em all the cool new planes they want ... it'll just be more for us to shoot down.

 

 

 

P.S. Fine, I admit it, I'm going to own every one of those Allied planes myself.  Just don't tell the fellas back at the German thing in Germany where we hang out with fellow Germans.

Edited August 28, 2023 by Rex

[Trooper117]

Bloody sausage noshers... flying around with their bloody great crosses on their planes.

Pssst (next time you are over Blighty, drop off a crate of Bratwurst will you)  Donkeyshun!

[Willoughby888]

Almost a year on since this post was started are we any nearer to getting the G6? As I fly mostly multiplayer, I can’t say I’m thrilled at the prospect of owning and flying a machine that is basically outclassed in most respects by its Allied contemporaries as produced by DCS. I get that, for historical accuracy purists, it makes sense to have a set of a/c that is nearer those that fought in 1944. But, in terms of entertainment, it gets pretty dull and pointless when any combat encounter is inevitably uphill. We already have a server where most K4s are partially disabled to try to mimic the G6. The main drawback of this setup is that it’s not clear to new players (or even many established ones) that ‘historical accuracy’ is code for significant performance disadvantage when flying Axis. The principle fighter set as produced by DCS - Spitfire, P51 and 109 - are pretty well balanced albeit with different strengths and weaknesses. I, like many I’m sure, assumed this would be a feature of WW2 servers. It becomes frustrating and disappointing when it eventually becomes apparent that your airframe is basically outclassed and that, despite this being the defining feature of the server, it is never been made explicit. So, introduction of an actual G6 would be really helpful. It would give the historical purists the plane set nearer those actually used and everyone will be clear that flying a G6 means your’e at a performance disadvantage. If that floats your boat, great, otherwise you will be able to make the choice at the outset to invest time, money and effort elsewhere. G6? Yep, bring it on!

[_Hoss]

I'd rather see the P-38, any of the late models, they can be used on the Mariana's too.

[Skewgear]

On 4/21/2024 at 8:08 AM, Willoughby888 said:

Almost a year on since this post was started are we any nearer to getting the G6? As I fly mostly multiplayer, I can’t say I’m thrilled at the prospect of owning and flying a machine that is basically outclassed in most respects by its Allied contemporaries as produced by DCS. I get that, for historical accuracy purists, it makes sense to have a set of a/c that is nearer those that fought in 1944. But, in terms of entertainment, it gets pretty dull and pointless when any combat encounter is inevitably uphill. We already have a server where most K4s are partially disabled to try to mimic the G6. The main drawback of this setup is that it’s not clear to new players (or even many established ones) that ‘historical accuracy’ is code for significant performance disadvantage when flying Axis. The principle fighter set as produced by DCS - Spitfire, P51 and 109 - are pretty well balanced albeit with different strengths and weaknesses. I, like many I’m sure, assumed this would be a feature of WW2 servers. It becomes frustrating and disappointing when it eventually becomes apparent that your airframe is basically outclassed and that, despite this being the defining feature of the server, it is never been made explicit. So, introduction of an actual G6 would be really helpful. It would give the historical purists the plane set nearer those actually used and everyone will be clear that flying a G6 means your’e at a performance disadvantage. If that floats your boat, great, otherwise you will be able to make the choice at the outset to invest time, money and effort elsewhere. G6? Yep, bring it on!

Despite all the whinging and moaning we see about this, we never get similar from owners of the Spitfire (second slowest in the DCS WW2 plane set), P-47 (great up high, great ground pounder, pretty poor elsewhere) or Mosquito (slowest of the DCS WW2 plane set, hopeless against single seaters).

Me109 players who have convinced themselves that they can't fly  multiplayer combat sorties without their beloved MW50 are not worth listening to. Man up or shut up - and learn to fight.

[Qcumber]

1 minute ago, Skewgear said:

Me109 players who have convinced themselves that they can't fly  multiplayer combat sorties without their beloved MW50 are not worth listening to. Man up or shut up - and learn to fight.

It's more about having a version of the 109 which was produced in the most numbers. Many consider the g6 (and sub variants) to be the definitive 109.

There are plenty of discussions about the other warbirds and wish lists for variations.

[Rex]

On 4/22/2024 at 10:45 AM, Skewgear said:

Despite all the whinging and moaning we see about this, we never get similar from owners of the Spitfire (second slowest in the DCS WW2 plane set), P-47 (great up high, great ground pounder, pretty poor elsewhere) or Mosquito (slowest of the DCS WW2 plane set, hopeless against single seaters).

Me109 players who have convinced themselves that they can't fly  multiplayer combat sorties without their beloved MW50 are not worth listening to. Man up or shut up - and learn to fight.

I think it has more to do with always being significantly outnumbered  on MP servers.  I fly the 109 and cannot remember the last time I fought 1 vs 1, it’s usually me vs 2 or 3,  and we need all the HP we can just to survive.  Then you always have some Douche screaming “coward! He’s running away! Man up and fight fair and square ’  Because in real life all Luftwaffe pilots gladly participated in 3 vs 1 fights

If Red ever gets numbers, Blue disconnects en-massse.  You oh-so-brave uber-fighters who need travel pods just to hold your testes only get mouthy when you have numbers.

“No thanks, I don’t want 400 extra HP, I’m a real man!”

I guess real manly fighters in your world are mentally challenged.

Real men argue that his opponents should give up benefits to make it easier for the real man to win.  As if you’d willingly do the same.  Hey, you want us to refuse to re-arm too? Is more than half a tank of fuel unmanly?  How about we only fight with flare guns?  I bet real men could fight with nothing but their flares.

‘Not self-serving at all. Should we all ask our opponent’s advice on how to configure our airplanes?  I mean, it’s always the other guy that has too much power, right?  You ever hear anyone say ‘dammit, I have too much power and it’s unfair to my opponents”?

If you can’t win in the current Spit, and win often, with or without your opponent using MW50, the problem is you, not us feminine 109 pilots.  There’s two dozen Spit guys out there that make minced meat out of every 109 that has the misfortune of crossing their path.

Don’t ask me how I know.

Count me as one who will ALWAYS  take an Mw50 plane if one is available, and hate it if I have to fly one without.  Main reason is I fly with it 99% of the time, and have little experience without it, so I end up blowing up my engine.  There are only so many hours ins day, I don’t get to fly full time like a real pilot, and I simply lack the requisite time to brassily my testicles to your clearly-high  standards.

Edited April 28, 2024 by Rex