perfect time to bring bf-109 G6 in to DCS

[noelgallagher]

i'm just wondering that would there be any chance for both ED and flying iron simulation team up

and bring the upcoming 109 g6 for msfs in to DCS in near future?

it looks amazing

 

[GUFA]

On 4/26/2023 at 4:29 AM, noelgallagher said:

 

 

i think there can't be any better time to bring bf-109 g6(the most produced 109).

 

Why go for a Variant, If it has to be a German Plane. then a Ju 88 gives axis air something that competes with the Mozzie. Also the Marianas is around the corner. We at least need 1 Japanese Fighter or ED is going to look really dumb

[noelgallagher]

Just now, GUFA said:

Why go for a Variant, If it has to be a German Plane. then a Ju 88 gives axis air something that competes with the Mozzie. Also the Marianas is around the corner. We at least need 1 Japanese Fighter or ED is going to look really dumb

at least to me k4 is like ummmm not really belong to 109 family 

it rarely sought action in ww2 relative to other 109's 

it feels something like late german wonder weapons or something

ex:me163,ta-152,panther tank G with infra red sensor ETC

i think it's not a good representative of 109 in ww2

[Silver_Dragon]

3 minutes ago, noelgallagher said:

at least to me k4 is like ummmm not really belong to 109 family 

it rarely sought action in ww2 relative to other 109's 

it feels something like late german wonder weapons or something

ex:me163,ta-152,panther tank G with infra red sensor ETC

i think it's not a good representative of 109 in ww2

Bf-190K-4 was part of a old RRG Studios KS... ED dont get anything about them, only rescue the project and put money about them.

[noelgallagher]

1 minute ago, Silver_Dragon said:

Bf-190K-4 was part of a old RRG Studios KS... ED dont get anything about them, only rescue the project and put money about them.

you mean that old ww2 project(kickstarter) for dcs?

Edited April 30, 2023 by noelgallagher

[GUFA]

3 minutes ago, noelgallagher said:

at least to me k4 is like ummmm not really belong to 109 family 

it rarely sought action in ww2 relative to other 109's 

it feels something like late german wonder weapons or something

ex:me163,ta-152,panther tank G with infra red sensor ETC

i think it's not a good representative of 109 in ww2

I get it the Bf-109 developer probably needed to build G-6 but thats water under the bridge now, simply stating my opinion that (A) something in the same weight class to the Mosquito. (2) WW2 Pacific is inbound and WE HAVE NO Japanese combat aircraft, period.  Wonder what everyone's reaction to that will be?

[Ala13_ManOWar]

26 minutes ago, noelgallagher said:

at least to me k4 is like ummmm not really belong to 109 family 

it rarely sought action in ww2 relative to other 109's 

it feels something like late german wonder weapons or something

ex:me163,ta-152,panther tank G with infra red sensor ETC

i think it's not a good representative of 109 in ww2

K4 was kind of "ultimate 109", it's definitely belonging to the family. It started serving about September 1944, that's even before G10 (December) some folks asks for. About 950 were built, not as much as G6 definitely, still a bunch to consider, barely hit Eastern Front IIRC, but it was there on the Western Front. 190D-9 we enjoy in DCS was an even later aircraft to arrive (October, I believe). It was a bad choice from Luthier/RRG and it only shows how they had no idea what they wanted to do, but it's no paperwaffe at all, it was a fighter on it's own, just late to the fight and not in enough numbers, still no 1946 wonder, no.

The problem is, and I believe it might have something to do with the matter, G6 was the most built variant, but it was really lousy compared to what they faced since 43, even early P-51 and P-47s were better aeroplanes, Spit XIV, Tempest, La-5 variants on the Eastern Front… the huge, humongous problem I'd say, is how people asking for a mid 109 variant don't realize how bad it compared by it's time to it's current counterparts and it'll be relatively bad aeroplane. Look Fw190A-8… That's the reality of Luftwaffe by that time. So, personally I'd like to see the G6 of course, either 43 initial variant as well as later ones including G-14 which is basically the same. But people with their (blame other so called sims for that) it's all squared mentality and used to balanced games (43 aeroplanes with 43, 44 with 44, and so on) will greatly complain about how bad an aeroplane it'd be so they'll run to their K4s before it's too late and servers with historical missions start removing them. I'd like to see the G6, but I don't know what sales argument will remain other than historical facts to people with that competitive mentality ever wanting the best aircraft available to fly…

[SebastianR]

ED priorities list:

....

....

....

....

12561 - bf-109 G6

....

....

Edited April 30, 2023 by SebastianR

[noelgallagher]

1 hour ago, Ala13_ManOWar said:

K4 was kind of "ultimate 109", it's definitely belonging to the family. It started serving about September 1944, that's even before G10 (December) some folks asks for. About 950 were built, not as much as G6 definitely, still a bunch to consider, barely hit Eastern Front IIRC, but it was there on the Western Front. 190D-9 we enjoy in DCS was an even later aircraft to arrive (October, I believe). It was a bad choice from Luthier/RRG and it only shows how they had no idea what they wanted to do, but it's no paperwaffe at all, it was a fighter on it's own, just late to the fight and not in enough numbers, still no 1946 wonder, no.

The problem is, and I believe it might have something to do with the matter, G6 was the most built variant, but it was really lousy compared to what they faced since 43, even early P-51 and P-47s were better aeroplanes, Spit XIV, Tempest, La-5 variants on the Eastern Front… the huge, humongous problem I'd say, is how people asking for a mid 109 variant don't realize how bad it compared by it's time to it's current counterparts and it'll be relatively bad aeroplane. Look Fw190A-8… That's the reality of Luftwaffe by that time. So, personally I'd like to see the G6 of course, either 43 initial variant as well as later ones including G-14 which is basically the same. But people with their (blame other so called sims for that) it's all squared mentality and used to balanced games (43 aeroplanes with 43, 44 with 44, and so on) will greatly complain about how bad an aeroplane it'd be so they'll run to their K4s before it's too late and servers with historical missions start removing them. I'd like to see the G6, but I don't know what sales argument will remain other than historical facts to people with that competitive mentality ever wanting the best aircraft available to fly…

i agree with most of the point you made

maybe i didn't know much about competitive nature of things 

i'm pretty new to DCS 

and i thought people over here cares more about historical accuracy and realism side of things than what planes is best and better and all that war thunder kinda stuff

[Ala13_ManOWar]

2 minutes ago, noelgallagher said:

… and i thought people over here cares more about historical accuracy and realism side of things than what planes is best and better and all that war thunder kinda stuff

Yeah, many people does, not all of them though, and sadly online servers are still online servers so things can happen. ED usually didn't pay much attention to that, balancing stuff and so on, they just make accurate modules. But sales are there and I guess they still need to watch where they put their money into. Sadly K4 was chosen by somebody else with that balancing mentality, and now also 10 years later we still have to cope with it. Not that I don't like K4, it's a beast and a really good module like all others, it just don't matches well the rest of the planeset available. So, let's hope we see sometime sooner than later a G6, but I foresee some people's complaints…

[Rudel_chw]

2 hours ago, noelgallagher said:

and i thought people over here cares more about historical accuracy and realism side of things

my personal perception is that those people are actually a minority … most users care more about the aircraft’s  graphic prettyness, multiplayer balancing, and being able to hang the biggest and baddest missiles on its hardpoints. 

[Silver_Dragon]

the detail has... if put a 1943 February-1943 August G-6, some will required a Griffon Powered Spitfire F Mk XIV and / or a Hawker Tempest / Thypoon. And missing the Me262 by the KS...

[Eclipse]

4 hours ago, Rudel_chw said:

my personal perception is that those people are actually a minority … most users care more about the aircraft’s  graphic prettyness, multiplayer balancing, and being able to hang the biggest and baddest missiles on its hardpoints. 

Most DCS players play single player only. The source for "most play only single player" was ED themselves, though I don't remember the exact context.  In my experience people want accuracy and an authentic exoerience. But then again I wouldn't pay much attention to the users you mentioned, maybe there are more of them than I realize

Having said that, now is a great time for a G6, and sooner would have been better!  I fly with some and have spoken with others that pretty much refuse to buy into DCS WWII until there are more complete "plane sets".  For an obvious example, what is an I-16 going to compete with, a K-4 and D-9?  Not having pairs or sets of opposing aircraft that match each other in terms of their historical service periods is a big put off to many who would otherwise fly DCS WWII. Filling out the modules set to allow authentic matchups for early, mid, and late war scenarios in different theaters should be a very high priority.  Things are coming along very nicely so I hope this is ED's plan! 

[Rudel_chw]

13 minutes ago, Eclipse said:

Not having pairs or sets of opposing aircraft that match each other in terms of their historical service periods is a big put off to many who would otherwise fly DCS WWII.

 

Not necessarily, or the F-86F and Mig-15bis would see so much more action than they currently do.  I guess it depends on what aspect of DCS is the one that drives each player, on my case I use DCS as a flight simulator, rather than a combat simulator.

 

Learning each aircraft quirks in-depth is what I enjoy, so I purchased the I-16 without having other period assets and have enjoyed it a lot, it gives a nice glimpse onto how was flying aircrafts from the thirties. For enemy aircrafts I used a few Mods, so I could edit some fun missions for the little Polikarpov:

 

 

[Eclipse]

2 hours ago, Rudel_chw said:

 

Not necessarily, or the F-86F and Mig-15bis would see so much more action than they currently do.  I guess it depends on what aspect of DCS is the one that drives each player, on my case I use DCS as a flight simulator, rather than a combat simulator.

I was speaking about those who refuse to try DCS WWII for the reason I mentioned, so yes, necessarily.  And no the Sabre and MiG wouldn't see more action, there are many reasons why that doesn't make sense - Korean War interest VS WWII interest, and the known issues with the AI flight modeling that are known to be significant and cause UFO behavior in the AI MiG, to name just a couple. 

[Mr_sukebe]

13 hours ago, Rudel_chw said:

my personal perception is that those people are actually a minority … most users care more about the aircraft’s  graphic prettyness, multiplayer balancing, and being able to hang the biggest and baddest missiles on its hardpoints. 

not aimed at just yourself, but any statements of “most players…” without empirical evidence is just guesswork.

I’m not saying that it’s not true, rather that we have no idea.

[Silver_Dragon]

6 hours ago, Eclipse said:

I was speaking about those who refuse to try DCS WWII for the reason I mentioned, so yes, necessarily.  And no the Sabre and MiG wouldn't see more action, there are many reasons why that doesn't make sense - Korean War interest VS WWII interest, and the known issues with the AI flight modeling that are known to be significant and cause UFO behavior in the AI MiG, to name just a couple. 

ED has improve the AI on the last years, and now working on the General Flight Model... the problem has no the AI, the problem has know what aircrafts has flying and using them properly.

9 hours ago, Eclipse said:

Most DCS players play single player only. The source for "most play only single player" was ED themselves, though I don't remember the exact context.  In my experience people want accuracy and an authentic exoerience. But then again I wouldn't pay much attention to the users you mentioned, maybe there are more of them than I realize

Having said that, now is a great time for a G6, and sooner would have been better!  I fly with some and have spoken with others that pretty much refuse to buy into DCS WWII until there are more complete "plane sets".  For an obvious example, what is an I-16 going to compete with, a K-4 and D-9?  Not having pairs or sets of opposing aircraft that match each other in terms of their historical service periods is a big put off to many who would otherwise fly DCS WWII. Filling out the modules set to allow authentic matchups for early, mid, and late war scenarios in different theaters should be a very high priority.  Things are coming along very nicely so I hope this is ED's plan! 

Do you think a Bf-190G6 on 44, or a Fw 190 A-0, -1, Bf-109F-2, Ju-87, Mig-3, Yak-1, il-2 on 41 go to change something?, has the same situation of "where are my" Spitfire Mk XII, Mk XIVe, hawker Huricane / Grypoon or Gloster Meteor on 44. ED dont make "Plane Sets" or "Balancing", make realistic aircrafts, no "other game" clones.

Edited May 1, 2023 by Silver_Dragon

[Eclipse]

2 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

ED has improve the AI on the last years, and now working on the General Flight Model... the problem has no the AI, the problem has know what aircrafts has flying and using them properly.

Do you think a Bf-190G6 on 44, or a Fw 190 A-0, -1, Bf-109F-2, Ju-87, Mig-3, Yak-1, il-2 on 41 go to change something?, has the same situation of "where are my" Spitfire Mk XII, Mk XIVe, hawker Huricane / Grypoon or Gloster Meteor on 44. ED dont make "Plane Sets" or "Balancing", make realistic aircrafts, no "other game" clones.

 

I'm aware of the recent improvements and the roadmap for future improvements like the General Flight Model, and I'm very much looking forward to all of it.  Considering that ED develops the Digital COMBAT Simulator, I think it's fair to say that developing modules that would make the combat more authentic would only benefit the sim.  And I am speaking about people who have said the actual words to me "I won't spend the money to go to DCS until they have more planes that "go together" historically", and I've read that same sentiment from others, some who represent some large and well-known groups.  Whether that sentiment I've read more than once from more than one source is still accurate I don't know, but I heard the words with my own ears about 2 weeks ago.  It's a logical point, whether or not you agree.

[motoadve]

20 minutes ago, Eclipse said:

I'm aware of the recent improvements and the roadmap for future improvements like the General Flight Model, and I'm very much looking forward to all of it.  Considering that ED develops the Digital COMBAT Simulator, I think it's fair to say that developing modules that would make the combat more authentic would only benefit the sim.  And I am speaking about people who have said the actual words to me "I won't spend the money to go to DCS until they have more planes that "go together" historically", and I've read that same sentiment from others, some who represent some large and well-known groups.  Whether that sentiment I've read more than once from more than one source is still accurate I don't know, but I heard the words with my own ears about 2 weeks ago.  It's a logical point, whether or not you agree.

The problem are not the planes, they are Historically matched up, problem are the maps, if we would have had a Germany map then all of this will be Historical (except Il16 and maybe if you want to be a purist adding boost to the 190A8).

I am all about making it more realistic historically, a G6 is needed for Normandy and Channel map, which by the way are amazing.

 

[71st_AH Rob]

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. 

A better interim solution than a Germany map would be to extend the Channel map to the North and East to the Ruhr Valley (yes, that is Germany).  Then the B-17, current P-51 any 47 could escort them to realistic targets where they would be intercepted by D-9 and K-4.  The A-8 could be based in Belgium and the Spitfires and Mosquito could raid the coastal area.  The i-16 and La-7 would of course still be left out.

A map dedicated to recreating the summer of 1944 as UGRA intends this map to be, deserves and needs an appropriate plane set,which is not a K-4 without MW50 pretending to be a G-6.

Edited May 1, 2023 by 71st_AH Rob

[noelgallagher]

2 hours ago, 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. 

A better interim solution than a Germany map would be to extend the Channel map to the North and East to the Ruhr Valley (yes, that is Germany).  Then the B-17, current P-51 any 47 could escort them to realistic targets where they would be intercepted by D-9 and K-4.  The A-8 could be based in Belgium and the Spitfires and Mosquito could raid the coastal area.  The i-16 and La-7 would of course still be left out.

A map dedicated to recreating the summer of 1944 as UGRA intends this map to be, deserves and needs an appropriate plane set,which is not a K-4 without MW50 pretending to be a G-6.

 

well said

[Silver_Dragon]

2 hours ago, 71st_AH Rob said:

A map dedicated to recreating the summer of 1944 as UGRA intends this map to be, deserves and needs an appropriate plane set,which is not a K-4 without MW50 pretending to be a G-6.

A map builder by 3rd party, with only was a map planned by a product by other company outside ED, with nevel planned a realistic planeset of aircrafts. That require more 3rd parties make more WW2 maps.

3 hours ago, motoadve said:

The problem are not the planes, they are Historically matched up, problem are the maps, if we would have had a Germany map then all of this will be Historical (except Il16 and maybe if you want to be a purist adding boost to the 190A8).

I am all about making it more realistic historically, a G6 is needed for Normandy and Channel map, which by the way are amazing.

 

But you need search a 3rd party with make a G-6, no expected others resolve a problem build by others.

3 hours ago, Eclipse said:

I'm aware of the recent improvements and the roadmap for future improvements like the General Flight Model, and I'm very much looking forward to all of it.  Considering that ED develops the Digital COMBAT Simulator, I think it's fair to say that developing modules that would make the combat more authentic would only benefit the sim.  And I am speaking about people who have said the actual words to me "I won't spend the money to go to DCS until they have more planes that "go together" historically", and I've read that same sentiment from others, some who represent some large and well-known groups.  Whether that sentiment I've read more than once from more than one source is still accurate I don't know, but I heard the words with my own ears about 2 weeks ago.  It's a logical point, whether or not you agree.

ED has developing a Digital Combat Simulator, but you dont understand the WW2 has not planned initialy by ED and you cant force to ED to resolve a problem builder by others, more with ED has your own plans.

Edited May 1, 2023 by Silver_Dragon

[Gunfreak]

1 hour ago, Silver_Dragon said:

 

ED has developing a Digital Combat Simulator, but you dont understand the WW2 has not planned initialy by ED and you cant force to ED to resolve a problem builder by others, more with ED has your own plans.

 

Yes, you can if ED is serious about WW2, this excuse is getting really really old.

[Eclipse]

6 hours ago, Gunfreak said:

Yes, you can if ED is serious about WW2, this excuse is getting really really old.

^ what he said

7 hours ago, Silver_Dragon said:

A map builder by 3rd party, with only was a map planned by a product by other company outside ED, with nevel planned a realistic planeset of aircrafts. That require more 3rd parties make more WW2 maps.

But you need search a 3rd party with make a G-6, no expected others resolve a problem build by others.

ED has developing a Digital Combat Simulator, but you dont understand the WW2 has not planned initialy by ED and you cant force to ED to resolve a problem builder by others, more with ED has your own plans.

 

Initially ED only planned for the Black Shark, none of the rest of it existed. There were no other modules.  Plans changed, and they developed it into a platform that supported other aircraft as modules. Multiplayer was not included in the beginning, it was single player only. They changed their plan and added multiplayer support. VR did not exist yet, but the changed their plans and added VR support.  Also, all third party development is done with ED's support. No third party is developing something ED does not want them to develop. 

Your argument is invalid, sir. 

We have late war pretty well covered on both sides. Having a mid-war Bf 109-G to go with the allied mid-war modules like the Spit and eventually the (exciting) La-7 would be a good thing. Having a Bf 109-E or F-2 or something to match up with the I-16 and the Mosquito would be a good thing.  If you can't understand that I don't know what to tell you.

If you disagree that's fine. But I agree with the OP, a 109-G would be a nice addition. 

 

[Silver_Dragon]

Initially ED only planned for the Black Shark, none of the rest of it existed. There were no other modules.  Plans changed, and they developed it into a platform that supported other aircraft as modules. Multiplayer was not included in the beginning, it was single player only. They changed their plan and added multiplayer support. VR did not exist yet, but the changed their plans and added VR support.  Also, all third party development is done with ED's support. No third party is developing something ED does not want them to develop. 
Your argument is invalid, sir. 
We have late war pretty well covered on both sides. Having a mid-war Bf 109-G to go with the allied mid-war modules like the Spit and eventually the (exciting) La-7 would be a good thing. Having a Bf 109-E or F-2 or something to match up with the I-16 and the Mosquito would be a good thing.  If you can't understand that I don't know what to tell you.
If you disagree that's fine. But I agree with the OP, a 109-G would be a nice addition. 
 

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