Avimimus Posted March 29 Posted March 29 I've moved the wishlist posts to this topic (once again), so the dev update can remain focussed on the announced aircraft: 1 1
JG4_Moltke1871 Posted March 29 Posted March 29 Regarding the pictures we receive the FW 189 A-2. So we should receive twin barrel MG 81Z as defence armament? Sorry using Wikipedia as source 😅😅 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focke-Wulf_Fw_189_Uhu 1
Avimimus Posted March 29 Posted March 29 1 hour ago, JG4_Moltke1871 said: Regarding the pictures we receive the FW 189 A-2. So we should receive twin barrel MG 81Z as defence armament? Sorry using Wikipedia as source 😅😅 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focke-Wulf_Fw_189_Uhu The initial reply from the devs suggests an MG-81J (single gun) in the dorsal turret and an MG-81Z (twinned gun) in the rear turret. This sent me looking at historical photos - and I couldn't spot any with an MG-81Z in the dorsal turret. Perhaps the fact that the rear turret received the MG-81Z confused a historian and it became widely repeated that both guns were MG-81Z (just as the existence of the Fw-189A4 became widely repeated). That said - it would be very interesting to hear more from the developers, and even more interesting if anyone could find better primary sources! 2 1
JG4_Moltke1871 Posted March 30 Posted March 30 18 hours ago, Avimimus said: The initial reply from the devs suggests an MG-81J (single gun) in the dorsal turret and an MG-81Z (twinned gun) in the rear turret. This sent me looking at historical photos - and I couldn't spot any with an MG-81Z in the dorsal turret. Perhaps the fact that the rear turret received the MG-81Z confused a historian and it became widely repeated that both guns were MG-81Z (just as the existence of the Fw-189A4 became widely repeated). That said - it would be very interesting to hear more from the developers, and even more interesting if anyone could find better primary sources! Haha, you can getting crazy searching the web about this topic. But every source is talking about A2‘s are equipped with 81Z twin machine guns in both gunner positions, this is just one example. Close-up photos are available, but these do not allow for a clear assignment to a specific type. „Combat experience quickly revealed that the Fw 189 needed a stronger defensive armament. In response, the Fw 189V9 prototype was tested with the installation of two twin 7.92 mm MG81Z (Z stands for Zwilling – twin) mounts. As these proved reliable, they were adopted for the A-2 variant, which entered production around mid-1941“ https://plane-encyclopedia.com/ww2/fw-189a/ Many model builders also use the 81z twin machine gun for the A2 version of this aircraft. This source, however, claims that there was an early and a later version, which seems quite plausible, and that aircraft were retrofitted. Therefore, it would make sense to make both versions of the dorsal turret available in the settings. Even this would mean more work for the developers😜. However, a more accurate depiction of the aircraft across the different time periods would be worth the effort. 2 3
Avimimus Posted March 31 Posted March 31 21 hours ago, JG4_Moltke1871 said: Haha, you can getting crazy searching the web about this topic. But every source is talking about A2‘s are equipped with 81Z twin machine guns in both gunner positions, this is just one example. Close-up photos are available, but these do not allow for a clear assignment to a specific type. „Combat experience quickly revealed that the Fw 189 needed a stronger defensive armament. In response, the Fw 189V9 prototype was tested with the installation of two twin 7.92 mm MG81Z (Z stands for Zwilling – twin) mounts. As these proved reliable, they were adopted for the A-2 variant, which entered production around mid-1941“ https://plane-encyclopedia.com/ww2/fw-189a/ Many model builders also use the 81z twin machine gun for the A2 version of this aircraft. This source, however, claims that there was an early and a later version, which seems quite plausible, and that aircraft were retrofitted. Therefore, it would make sense to make both versions of the dorsal turret available in the settings. Even this would mean more work for the developers😜. However, a more accurate depiction of the aircraft across the different time periods would be worth the effort. @=FB=VikS - Any chance of getting this MG81Z mid-upper/dorsal turret as a field modification? I'm sure it would be appreciated (one can't exactly outrun opponents, even if one can turn inside them - so every bit of extra firepower looks attractive). 1
MDzmitry Posted March 31 Posted March 31 1 час назад, Avimimus сказал: @=FB=VikS - Any chance of getting this MG81Z mid-upper/dorsal turret as a field modification? I'm sure it would be appreciated (one can't exactly outrun opponents, even if one can turn inside them - so every bit of extra firepower looks attractive). Although it's going to bite me in the backside once I have to face 189s in my Yaks, I think it's only reasonable to work on a dorsal MG81Z turret as a possible modification akin to Pe-2 s.87 turret upgrade. And to show at least some proof of 2x81Z A-2s being used - here's a photo of a 189 which was, supposedly, shot down near Stalingrad in September of 1942: Скрытый текст 1
=FB=VikS Posted April 1 Posted April 1 (edited) 21 час назад, Avimimus сказал: @=FB=VikS - Any chance of getting this MG81Z mid-upper/dorsal turret as a field modification? no for the moment - as its much more complicated task and will took alot of time (as its not only an external difference - but also a cockpit with alot of changes). PS: there where different variations of the upper turret on A-2 - where MG81Z on upper point with armor glass mostly reffered as "late" A-2 version (by photos with dates - it mostly appears by end 1943-early 1944), but the point for choose of single one upper turret - was to have Fw-189 version - which can be used thru all careers from Moscow 1941 till Leningrad/Odessa 1944 - so in our case - "early" A-2 version - is a kind of compromise here. Edited April 1 by =FB=VikS
Avimimus Posted April 1 Posted April 1 1 hour ago, =FB=VikS said: no for the moment - as its much more complicated task and will took alot of time (as its not only an external difference - but also a cockpit with alot of changes). PS: there where different variations of the upper turret on A-2 - where MG81Z on upper point with armor glass mostly reffered as "late" A-2 version (by photos with dates - it mostly appears by end 1943-early 1944), but the point for choose of single one upper turret - was to have Fw-189 version - which can be used thru all careers from Moscow 1941 till Leningrad/Odessa 1944 - so in our case - "early" A-2 version - is a kind of compromise here. I suspected as much! Both the internal within-cockpit changes and prioritising a variant that would be most useful. I find these types of decisions fascinating and would love to hear more in a development update someday. I take it the research will have also shown that the A4 never existed and that no photos survive of the interior of the night fighter field modification? I've long suspected these things but never had confirmation. Of course, both are likely irrelevant from a development perspective. P.S. I suppose we should be glad to have only three defensive guns! It'll give enemies a chance and keep the Fw-189 from completely dominating the online meta 😉 1
Docholiday Posted April 11 Posted April 11 (edited) YES finaly a A-20G ! 😁 And with Torpedoes 😁 ! I hope the Version with the 6 Guns Nose will have the opportunity to use torpedoes too ! unfortunately You did not mention a loadout with 4.5-inch (114 mm) M8 high-explosive rockets 😉 I know they were rarely used. 🫣 (I think only in Pacific). If somebody of our skinning artists could create a Beaufighter-hack-skin (Strike wings in the north sea) the whole combination might somewhat alleviate the pain of not having a real Beaufighter. 😍 😂🤣 Doc Edited April 11 by Docholiday typos 1
JG4_Moltke1871 Posted April 14 Posted April 14 Currently there is a cccp rocket in the IL2 menu“s hangar, I also want to fly this. 1
AEthelraedUnraed Posted April 17 Posted April 17 3 hours ago, PaperPilot said: That’s a good point, but I think if the dev team can spare anymore resources towards Great Battles these days, I think it should be on the Finnish Air Force and the Karelian division of the Soviet Air Force, as well as some Luftwaffe planes. This would help enrich the Leningrad map and the Finnish Virtual Pilots server experience. I shouldn’t go on, but I think it would be a good idea. As far as I'm aware, the Finnish team is still making the G.50 and Buffalo so you can have your wish. Say, do you happen to know a guy called Jack?🤔 3 1
Shinobimono Posted April 17 Posted April 17 1 час назад, MDzmitry сказал: Imagine the amount of complaints about engine handling if it really appeared in the game... Complaints of bad engine could be possible in DCS. Here we have only aircraft of "gold standard". This game is about dogfight and not about aircraft systems, unfortunately.
PaperPilot Posted April 17 Posted April 17 1 hour ago, AEthelraedUnraed said: As far as I'm aware, the Finnish team is still making the G.50 and Buffalo so you can have your wish. Say, do you happen to know a guy called Jack?🤔 Yoiu got me. 1
AndreiTomescu Posted April 17 Posted April 17 14 hours ago, Shinobimono said: This game is about dogfight and not about aircraft systems, unfortunately. Fortunately this game is about historical reenactment of the Great aerial Battles that took place in the past. Dogfighting including. Good for those wanting to virtual fly those encounters, right? For mechanical hyper accuracy, there is DCS. Technical details, in GB, and maybe even more Korea, are, IMHO, sufficiently and plenty represented in terms of: - technical difference between planes - damage model, behaviour after damage - flight model between planes, etc Not hardcore represented, but plenty enough to give me the vibe of how I Imagine the real deal, while keeping the sim enjoyable. The accent is put on historical recreation of the encounters. I really appreciate this game for what it is, for what it does (nothing is flawless) and for what it gave me so far: around 3k hrs of enjoyment. 9 3
BlitzPig_EL Posted April 17 Posted April 17 Exactly, this is a historical combat flight simulator, not a cockpit procedure button mashing festival that requires a manual the size of a dictionary for each plane. If this sim went the way of DCS I'd bail as fast as if my virtual plane was on fire. 6 3
FuriousMeow Posted April 18 Posted April 18 (edited) Not to mention the cost. We get a very healthy representation of these aircraft with a module that includes ten of them plus a map for what would be a single aircraft in the study sim. Lots of times these aircraft were already running when the pilots got to them anyway, Soviet aviators weren't camping in the cockpit while the engines were being run in their little winter huts to keep the oil from becoming the viscosity of obsidian. And in-flight combat the La5 does require noticeable attention to the engine controls vs a 109 or 190 to maintain optimal operations. Edited April 18 by FuriousMeow 1
Shinobimono Posted April 18 Posted April 18 (edited) 7 часов назад, BlitzPig_EL сказал: that requires a manual the size of a dictionary for each plane. If this sim went the way of DCS I'd bail as fast as if my virtual plane was on fire This is exactly what it means to be a pilot. But thank god we have such a barrier between people who love tech and marmosets jumping from virtual fiery lids. 🙂 Edited April 18 by Shinobimono
AndreiTomescu Posted April 18 Posted April 18 (edited) Oh, I've searched on Google, didn't know what a marmoset is! 😊 It's a small and lovely monkey. But that's exactly my point. There is already an excellent sim for those who want to pretend they are pilots, virtual, of course: DCS. I wonder if someone really good on DCS could just jump in a real cockpit thou, taking the physical necessary training aside. How long it took a REAL, experienced pilot to convert from one plane to another? 2-6 month? Wonder if it is the same in virtual DCS life. We have plenty of actual, true pilots here, in GB. I know about 5, won't name them. Guys, how it is ? On the other hand, we have this: Il-2 Sturmovik. With its iterations. Genre: sim. Plane sim? Nope! Historical sim ? Yes. Different type of sim. There is also a "pilot sim" on the market, that Wings over ...... Here us, marmosets, some of us passed our first, second third and so on youth, are reenacting that wartime experience. A bit of plane accuracy, but not too much, since this week i'm a Canadian on Spit, next week i'm Boris on a Yak, and next i'm Ruspoli taking the skies in a Macchi. Otherwise, it would take 2-6 month for the change.... After having the honour to know and help a bit some extraordinary guys, designing missions/campaigns, I understood the amount of WORK needed to SIMULATE historical facts. Yes, indeed, it takes about 6 month for a campaign lasting 20+hrs in game time..... and there's more than often 3-4 people involved. So, that's simulated here. History of our air wars. Be a transport pilot, ground pounder, mighty fighter, patient bomber guy, or gunner. So, yes i do see your point. But this simulates a different facet : more the event, less the machine. But things are intertwined, like in Bundy Family : can't have one without the other! You need a bit of marmoset to simulate the tech, and you need some tech to keep the marmoset alive ! 😆 Edited April 18 by AndreiTomescu 1 3
HootsButOlder Posted April 18 Posted April 18 36 minutes ago, AndreiTomescu said: How long it took a REAL, experienced pilot to convert from one plane to another? 2-6 month? Wonder if it is the same in virtual DCS life. Interesting fact (to me anyway) the men and women pilots of the UK Air transport auxiliary underwent no real conversion training for the aircraft they delivered, often being given just a copy of the ferry pilot notes. They often went from delivering a spitfire to delivering a Lancaster. My grandfather flew in Lancasters and told of a time a bunch of crews watched a Lancaster land with a bit of a bounce so the gathered to take the piss out of the pilot but out stepped a tiny woman who had delivered the Lanc solo so they all felt a bit sheepish. A fascinating and under reported facet of WW2. 4 1 1
BlitzPig_EL Posted April 18 Posted April 18 5 hours ago, Shinobimono said: marmosets So, someone disagrees with you and it's straight to name calling, very mature of you. I am under no illusion that this is anything like being a real airman engaged in aerial combat. Tell me this, when you do get "shot down" do you immediately shut off the computer, take it out side and set it on fire? No? So much for realism. 2 1
Catch Posted April 18 Posted April 18 3 hours ago, AndreiTomescu said: We have plenty of actual, true pilots here, in GB. I know about 5, won't name them. Thanks for keeping my anonymity secure Andrei but ultralights hardly count. Not the fancy ones mind, the real simple ones. Complexity ain't my cucumber sandwich. 3 hours ago, HootsButOlder said: out stepped a tiny woman who had delivered the Lanc solo Them chicks had balls if I may be so vulgar. 1
Shinobimono Posted April 18 Posted April 18 1 час назад, BlitzPig_EL сказал: So, someone disagrees with you and it's straight to name calling, very mature of you. You shall not be talking about maturity at all. I was having a conversation with someone else about handling the I-185' engine in the context of the game, where no systems are developed, and yet you somehow felt the need to add your two cents about how you can’t handle some DCS aircraft and choppers. 🤷🏼♂️
Shinobimono Posted April 18 Posted April 18 14 часов назад, AndreiTomescu сказал: The accent is put on historical recreation of the encounters. Such type of recreation was made by community even in War Thunder at community's event servers. With historical aircraft sets and locations. Not a big deal actually.
BlitzPig_EL Posted April 18 Posted April 18 I always fly with full engine management, no matter the aircraft type. But one thing I won't do is denigrate other players who choose not to. Who am I to tell someone else how to enjoy themselves? 1 3
FuriousMeow Posted April 18 Posted April 18 (edited) 6 hours ago, HootsButOlder said: Interesting fact (to me anyway) the men and women pilots of the UK Air transport auxiliary underwent no real conversion training for the aircraft they delivered, often being given just a copy of the ferry pilot notes. They often went from delivering a spitfire to delivering a Lancaster. My grandfather flew in Lancasters and told of a time a bunch of crews watched a Lancaster land with a bit of a bounce so the gathered to take the piss out of the pilot but out stepped a tiny woman who had delivered the Lanc solo so they all felt a bit sheepish. A fascinating and under reported facet of WW2. A story I had heard about, can't recall the source, with US WASPs where they had to ferry some fighters but somehow the planes were reassembled incorrectly so the controls were reversed and they found that out getting airborne. Unfortunately Google turns up nothing on that. 1 hour ago, Shinobimono said: But actually it's bad for any game when it has small and non-growing/non-updating player base of gramps (for example by Steam' statistics for DCS last 24-hours peak is 1232 players, for Il-2 it's 382 players). Uh, GB is kind of on its way out. Limited support, a few planes being added, dev focus is on Korea, that's not really the comparison you think it is. More players use the launcher too, Steam can't track that. Edited April 18 by FuriousMeow
Recommended Posts