Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[U]

What rule? This place isn't the old AAA.

I did not say the G-6/AS with MW-50 didn't exist, but in  small numbers. We previously did have a non-MW-50 slot but after extensive reading it was found that the 'ASM' variant did not exist in enough numbers to warrant a slot (if I remember correctly, most were test airframes). In addition, since it was so similar to the G-14/AS, we decided to remove the MW-50 from the slot. The issue is with the late G-6s and the G-14s is they were a mish-mash of parts, so designating these aircraft is not that straight forward.

Now if you can provide some documentation that says this aircraft served in significant numbers, and can prove that these aircraft all had DB605ASM engines, then we will consider changing it. But for now the evidence supports what we have. If you aren't happy with the G-6/AS, then fly the G-14/AS.

The point is that it breaks balance in existing (mainly dynamic) campaigns. If it didn't I wouldn't care, because gameplay wise, it doesn't matter as G14 is very similar.

As for historical, I can't be sure, but I think there are many accounts of G6 with MW50 so that means they were either DB605ASM or DB605AM. I don't know the numbers but this plane is realistic and there is no reason to remove it. There is no problem adding BF109-K14, but there is a problem with a G6/MW50?

What rule? This place isn't the old AAA.

Sorry, I don't even know what AAA is. I mistakenly thought that there was a rule to not change stock flyables. Can I have a list of all the modifications?

Thanks, and keep up the good work.

[razor1uk]

AAA was/is in the IL-2 sence, All Aircraft Arcade, sometimes Anti Aircraft Artillery, but not Amazingly Amorous Animals, As Attractive As... etc.

[SAS~CirX]

Sorry, I don't even know what AAA is. I mistakenly thought that there was a rule to not change stock flyables. Can I have a list of all the modifications?

Thanks, and keep up the good work.

Hi

Such a list in unfortunately impossible. There was such a "rule" in the past, especialy when the IL2 modding world was being lorded over by one site. However, the mayority of modding communities deicded after 4.101 to break with the stock game and persue independantly a more encompassing path of correction for Il2. So such a list is not practically doable, as it changes and is developed constantly. Safest to assume that, we changed everything, and what we have not changed yet, we soon will.

As for the limitation of BF109 extra slots, and the incorporation of some modded slots and new slots into a representative list, there were many considerations that led to that, not least of which is a system dependant limitation we reached with new slots, as well as a frightening and growing incompatibility problem for online players and mission/campaign builders , with the uncontrolled and largely doubled, or trippled or redundant slots of 109s that were out there. So we decided to agree with UP to a set list of "merged" and historically defendable choiced of slots. That is not to say it is set in stone, there are still some "oddity" 109 mods around here, but we have at least achived some sort of parity with it. And for the few drawbacks it brings, like you mentioned, as well as some difficulty for older skins on trop slots and the like, the overall benifit it brought to that game is much better, and freed up 1000's of hours of modder's time, to focus on other areas of the game.

As for balance breaking, I doubt the arguement floats much when one talks about the stock game. There was not much balance there to begin with, and if you fly with AI, there is even less. And in RL there is not balance anyway. But I understand what you mean, it breaks the current status que regarding that plane in that campaign. And to this I say, yes you are probably right. But we hope it, in conjuction with everything else we are changing, or want to change, will change the balance positively for the overall game in the long run.

[SAS~Anto]

To follow on from CirX post, if you aren't happy with the balance in the stock campaign, you can always change it. The stock Il-2 Bf-109 campaign is a static campaign, hence you can edit the mission files. I did this in the past to add in the new aircraft and in fact for the missions after 6/44 I replaced the G-6/AS with the G-14/AS. There is going to be another revision of the 109 pack in coming months, so some 'oddities' will be ironed out or reassessed.

Just to recall my point about the DB605 engines, I can't find the reference I had (lost my bookmarks list) but from memory, the AS engine was introduced into service in February 44 (cleared for GM1 usage around same time). AM engines arrived around April-May and I believe ASM engines around June/July. This again lends support to the argument that few G-6/AS aircraft had the DB605ASM engine and looking at service records on the Western Front, appearance of the engine in service corresponds with the deployment of the G-14/AS on the western front in July/August 44.

[U]

Such a list in unfortunately impossible. There was such a "rule" in the past, especialy when the IL2 modding world was being lorded over by one site. However, the mayority of modding communities deicded after 4.101 to break with the stock game and persue independantly a more encompassing path of correction for Il2. So such a list is not practically doable, as it changes and is developed constantly. Safest to assume that, we changed everything, and what we have not changed yet, we soon will.

So if I understand correctly, SAS-Buttons already alters FM for stock flyable planes, and even more stocks will be altered in the future?

But why is it so difficult to somewhat log these changes so the player can understand what is going on? He is playing a mod(ification) after all, don't you think that he should know what was somewhat modified in a game that he plays and is used to for 10 years?.

Thanks.

Just to recall my point about the DB605 engines, I can't find the reference I had (lost my bookmarks list) but from memory, the AS engine was introduced into service in February 44 (cleared for GM1 usage around same time). AM engines arrived around April-May and I believe ASM engines around June/July. This again lends support to the argument that few G-6/AS aircraft had the DB605ASM engine and looking at service records on the Western Front, appearance of the engine in service corresponds with the deployment of the G-14/AS on the western front in July/August 44.

I am warning you again, that I am just a casual researcher on these stuff.
So what I understand on the G6/AS/MW50 situation is this (and why I find Oleg's G6/AS correct):

It has nothing to do with engine names, those where standardized later (that was the point of G14).
G6 with MW50 was a HighAltitude (recon) G6 with DB605AS and GM-1, with the GM-1 tank having water-methanol (MW50) instead of nitrous oxide.. Only the "recon, and High-Altitude/AS" G6 part had a GM-1 Tank, so that was the only version that could get an early MW50.

That's it. I don't understand why you are searching for engine names. It was all about finding "a way" to inject water methanol in existing engines, existing G6/GM-1 installations provided that. Nothing more nothing less.

So the G6/AS/MW50 is the most important plane in early 44, because it was the only one with early MW50. G14's with "standard MW-50" came later.

Of course all that may be crap. From what I have read, this is what I thought happened.

[vanir]

I've had my headspace away from this for a little while, and didn't browse my usual haunts of LEMB website and all my saved documents, this is all just off the top of my head but should be about right.

Okay firstly the 350kg GM-1 tank was pressurised and not interchangeable with the 150kg MW50 tank.

GM-1 was used on the 605A-1 motor, it was tested on a couple of early build G-1 and serially fitted to some G-5 (an option for G-6, possibly used on a couple in Med). It is useless for the 605AS motor since it can't even be used on that engine under 9km altitude and B-17s cruise over Europe at 5.5-6.5km alt. A regular G-5 or G-6 with a 605A-1 motor and GM-1 will have a nice burst of speed at around 7km alt, though which is right where B-17 escorts like to hang around. It's good for them, just not the AS.
Point is, GM-1 is useless on an AS motor.

Second, MW50 engine kits did not enter serial production until February 1944 and so weren't delivered for fitment into aircraft until Mar-Apr and so weren't seen in service until about Apr-May as Anto mentioned.

Next point, very few G/AS were built in the first half of 1944, Me-109 production shot up in the second half of the year and it was all anyone could do just to get enough regular fighters to the numerous, ever changing fronts all over the Reich and occupied territories. A small number of G-5/AS (by small I mean like 20 maybe), and G-6/AS (something like 70-100 sounds about right) were built and delivered for Reich Defence (ie. Berlin defence, mostly as wilde sau). If you actually jumped in a keubelwagen in say May44 and went hunting for G/AS of any description being used actually in service, you'd manage to find like 2 or 3 dozen in the entire universe readily. They didn't have MW50.

A couple of MW50 kits did make their way into some G-6 just ahead of G-14 production but universal convention among Luftwaffe pilots is to call these G-14 anyway. The G-14 is really an industrial designation, they are G-6 and G-8 just with MW50 serially fitted, the significant thing about them is a reorganised industrial schedule to dramatically increase Me-109 production output. They also had a radio nav update because new towers/signals for all weather operations in the Reich were being used from about mid 1944, but you wouldn't need that to operate in a lot of areas (eg. SdOst, Baltic, N.Italy). New build G-14 also got a new instrument panel and an MW50 guage but a great many G-14 are just converted late build G-6 with the conversions done in the field and they didn't get that, just the radio and MW50 kitted motor.

So basically if you found a G-6/AS with MW50, it wouldn't be before Jun44 and everyone, I mean everyone would call it a G-14/AS anyway. The only difference between such a thing and a G-14/AS is if the G-14 is a new build (after July 44), then it will have a different instrument panel and a new serial number will be stamped right over the top of its factory tooled G-6 serials. A lot of listed G-14 didn't have these however, they were just late build G-6 conversions in the field, it is really in 1945 that the G-14/AS became very distinct because it started getting the ASB/C motor, which brought it to K-4 standard like the G-10. The regular G-14 though was a real hodgepodge, they were getting whatever was laying around the factory floor by then, often just a stock non-boosted 605A-1, sometimes a 605DB that belongs in a G-10.

An interesting sidetrack. Hartmann refused a new build G-14 in mid44 because the build quality was so bad. So he confiscated a 1943-build G-6 from the ErgGr training squadron and had it updated to G-14 standard. That is to say, he had an MW50 kitted motor fitted. The wk.n remained listed as a G-6 however, so there has always been a little discrepency about Hartmann's second last mount before his G-10, whether it was a G-14 or a G-6. It was a G-14 but converted from a G-6, I don't think it even had the erla haube.

[vanir]

In case all of that was confusing, from the squadron level, before 7/44 you'd have a couple of G-5/AS with JG11 and several G-6/AS with JG1 but all these squadrons are being supplied with B4 fuel. Towards the end of 1944 JG300 gets G-14/AS and is supplied from the start with C3 which is maintained until the end of the war (the single biggest argument that they operated 2000PS G-10, nobody else did they all had the 1850PS B4 version).

Only the G-14 onwards has MW50 basically, though not strictly true, generally it is and it kind of goes double for the G/AS versions. Ultimately the best confirmation using war records is to look up specific squadrons operating the G-6/AS and find out what fuel type they were being delivered. It is almost always only one fuel type per given field.

[SAS~Anto]

Thanks for clarifying Vanir. Interesting point about the AS engine with GM-1. During research for this pack I found a set of test results where GM-1 was tested with that engine and pretty much as you said. The new supercharger negated any practical benefit the GM-1 gave, hence why it was not used.

U: Please understand we get dozens of posts each day from members claiming this and that, so this is not a personal attack on yourself. We have done our research on this stuff and whilst we will happily stand corrected if proven wrong, this is not the case. Engine names have a huge part to do with it, as they designated what kit was attached and as Vanir has explained, the vast majority of G-6/AS operated without MW-50. Hence we won't be reinstating the MW-50.

Anyway I don't think arguing over this is going to achieve anything. Lets both move on from this and leave things as they are. I hope you are enjoying the rest of the pack

[U]

@vanir

Thanks for the comments, you may be right.


@SAS~Anto

Where we disagree is that I don't like invasive changes. I prefer to have conservative improvements/additions. You guys need to remember that IL-2 without mods was not that bad game. No need to be so drastic and change everything everywhere.

Remember, modding is like cooking. You always somewhat like your own food. That doesn't mean it is always good.

[SAS~Anto]

We aren't going to apologize for being 'invasive', considering the original game had a known flaw, supported by historical evidence, and we opted to patch it. We aren't forcing you to use this and if it isn't conservative enough for you, then you don't have to use it. We don't appreciate being told how we should conduct our business here, especially from someone who is new to the modding scene.

So we leave it there, we don't agree. As this is a modding website, I do suggest you keep such commentary to the constructive type ('invasive' changes implies something malicious, don't say that), as some moderators won't take it as well as I have.

[U]

Hello, Anto, I never asked you to apologize. I just stated my feedback in case anyone cared.

Invasive doesn't mean a thing. I am a modder myself in other game, and I always do invasive mods. It is just that I don't prefer them in IL-2.
There is however something wrong with the "business" word you used.

And I don't understand how being new to IL-2 modding scene matters. I comment here as a player, not as a modder.

Anyway, it ends here.

Thanks.

[SAS~Malone]

Anyway, it ends here.

thank frack for that. i was dreading another 10-page 109 rant from the hundreds of net-experten, something i've seen carry on incessantly in my 10 years of playing IL2.
always with the 109's, it seems. anyway, moving on....