PDA

View Full Version : More 109's, quick and simple addition?



LG1.Farber
Apr-29-2013, 12:24
Hey,
during a discussion on another forum I see there are allot of other 109's that the model and FM already exist for that TF could add to the current package to make things more interesting. Hope this helps.


Here is a list of all the operational Bf109 Emil's:

Bf109 E1
Bf109 E1/B
Bf109 E1/N
Bf109 E1/B/N

Bf109 E3
Bf109 E3/B
Bf109 E3/N
Bf109 E3/B/N

Bf109 E4
Bf109 E4/B
Bf109 E4/N
Bf109 E4/B/N

Bf109 E5 (Camera fitted recon)
Bf109 E6 (Camera fitted recon, different camera)

===========Maybe these come later but I add them for completeness====================

Bf109 E7
Bf109 E7/N
Bf109 E7/B
Bf109 E7/B/N
Bf109 E7/Z (GM1)
Bf109 E7 Trop

Bf109 E8 (Extended range fighter)
Bf109 E8/N
Bf109 E8/B
Bf109 E8/B/N
Bf109 E8 Trop

All B and Trop models could be fitted with DB601/N, so I added Bf109EX/B/N

Bf109 Marked in bold are missing from the game/TF mod.

Source: Bf109 Recognition Manual by Marco Fernandez-Sommerau

Kodoss
Apr-29-2013, 13:47
E-1/B would be easy to add, and was also more preferred by the real pilots because of the higher ammunition (500 against 60 bullets) to hold down AA.

E-1/N and E-1BN I would drop, since the E-8/N is nearly the same (also 4 MG 17, but head armor (which is missing in E-4 types), drop tank/bomb).

E-7 and E-7/N can carry drop tanks or bomb, so no E-7/B or E-7/BN. Same for E-8 and E-8/N.

E-7/NZ were first build in March 1941, so after the BoB.

E-5, E-6/N and E-9 are armed recon planes, but I doubt that anyone wants to fly them.

The Trop-types came March 1941 (50 A/C at I./JG 27 in April 1941).

But for most of it you need a working import/export tool for cockpit and A/C which we lack at the moment.

LG1.Farber
Apr-29-2013, 16:18
Hey Kodoss,
thanks for taking the time to reply. I agree with you about the later Emils but with regards of the E1/N and and some of the other models if it was an aircraft and its just a case of bundling a FM, a poly model (which already exist) into a pickable aircraft it all adds to the mod which cant be a bad thing, surely? Besides just because its in the game doesnt mean mission makers have to include it.

ATAG_Snapper
Apr-29-2013, 18:36
Bring 'em on if feasible IMHO. It sounds like the extra variants would add creative flexibility and authenticity to more diverse missions. :thumbsup:

RAF74_Buzzsaw
Apr-29-2013, 23:05
Salute

We will not release miss-matched pairs of aircraft.

We do not want to see one side having a large advantage in aircraft types and we want to see aircraft matched by historical times periods. So the E-7/E-7n will not be released till the RAF aircraft of the same period are available.

Those are the reasons why we added the E-4n to the planeset in our first release, so that the game had an aircraft to match the Spit IIA. Plus the E-4n was in use in the time period of the BoB.

As far as the E-1N's etc. we do not see a significant difference between the performance of an E-1 updated with the DB601N and the E-4N. Both would have similar weapons, equipment and performance. When the Luftwaffe pulled older aircraft airframes out of operational use and refitted them, they replaced anything which was not up to current standards, so re-fitted E-1's would have cannon, armour, etc.

Other types you mention were not present in significant numbers. The exception might be the E-3N, but I wonder how many would fly this aircraft instead of the E-4N? It would not have the MG/FFM 20mm with the better high explosive shell.

The E-1B is a definite historical consideration, in fact there were quite a few of these, but again, when players have the option of the much faster E-3B/E-4B, would they select an earlier slower aircraft which is quite vulnerable down low as it can be run down by Spit IA 100 octane variants?

LG1.Farber
Apr-30-2013, 04:25
I see you point Buzzsaw and I wasn't advocating the later ones, thats why I added a line saying they were only included for completeness. So if adding an E1/N is not feasible, even though all the red aircraft have a 100 oct version now and the N is a 100 octane DB601, and why not add the "crap" versions? After all the DM and ammunition is next for adjustment, maybe the "crap" cannons of the E3 will see a change?

Some people complain about the IIa vs E4/N - I am one of them as I prefer the E1 but am forced to fly the E4/N if the Spit IIa is present in large numbers to compete, although quite often I take an E1 anyway cos I love getting raped :D .

Why would an E1/N have cannons? Would its designation not then change to E4/N? I agree it work number would stay the same.


Thanks for the reply Buzzsaw you are always quite informative. :thumbsup:

VO101_Kurfurst
Apr-30-2013, 09:48
So the E-7/E-7n will not be released till the RAF aircraft of the same period are available.

*caugh* For E-7 that would be the Spitfire Mark II ( E-7 was introduced in August 1940 in Gruppe-strenght. E-7 is like E-4, but w. DB 601Aa and drop tank capabilty). However you would probably have to touch the cocpit (fuel feed piping being present, DT release) for 100% authenticity.

E-7/N appeared sometime late 1940 (as E-7, but with DB 601N. Contemporary of Hurricane Mark II.), with 34 reported on strenght as of 1st January 1941 (plus 3 E-6 / E-8 recce variants).

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
Apr-30-2013, 11:17
*caugh* For E-7 that would be the Spitfire Mark II

I think Buzzsaw is referring to the "b" variants, and not newer Marks.
...oh and such other types as Beaufighters.

Gromit
Apr-30-2013, 11:38
Bearing in mind we already have a variety of 109's and Spits, would it not be more beneficial to the game to introduce more flyable aircraft than waste time and effort messing about with the minutia of sub marks which would add nothing in reality?

Red side already has an extremely limited plane set, yet there are aircraft such as Wellingtons, defiants and Beaufighters in the game that could be of far more use in diversifying missions?

let's face it without limiting plane types on the mission most players will simply opt for the best flight model, hence why we see so many people flying Bf109E4n and Spit iia, rare aircraft in reality yet grossly over represented on the server simply because of the flight model and to the detriment of lesser types!

Furious
Apr-30-2013, 12:31
Think there's a bit of an agenda going on here. Can i refer people to this thread:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/technical/use-100-octane-fuel-raf-pt-2-a-20108.html


A bit of a lengthy read, but it does make some things pretty clear.

ATAG_Snapper
Apr-30-2013, 12:42
Think there's a bit of an agenda going on here. Can i refer people to this thread:

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/technical/use-100-octane-fuel-raf-pt-2-a-20108.html


A bit of a lengthy read, but it does make some things pretty clear.


Hooo boy, let's not go down this road. If anyone wishes to, please first read each and every post in this thread dealing with the issue of 100 octane fuel. All 1,757 of 'em. And that thread got closed, too.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=20110

ATAG_Snapper
Apr-30-2013, 15:38
Hi folks,

After a quick PM discussion with the OP, I've reopened this thread. Please continue to keep this thread on the 109 variants aspect and not let it devolve into a fractious 100 octane yes/no argue fest.

Sorry for the interruption.

Snapper

:)

gavagai
Apr-30-2013, 16:52
I would rather see the effort expended on a 109F-4 and Spitfire Mk V.

Muffin
Apr-30-2013, 16:58
I see you point Buzzsaw and I wasn't advocating the later ones, thats why I added a line saying they were only included for completeness. So if adding an E1/N is not feasible, even though all the red aircraft have a 100 oct version now and the N is a 100 octane DB601, and why not add the "crap" versions? After all the DM and ammunition is next for adjustment, maybe the "crap" cannons of the E3 will see a change?

Some people complain about the IIa vs E4/N - I am one of them as I prefer the E1 but am forced to fly the E4/N if the Spit IIa is present in large numbers to compete, although quite often I take an E1 anyway cos I love getting raped :D .

Why would an E1/N have cannons? Would its designation not then change to E4/N? I agree it work number would stay the same.


Thanks for the reply Buzzsaw you are always quite informative. :thumbsup:


I agree with Farber, I would love to see the E1/N

I love going out with e1, I like the machine guns more than the cannons, however, performance wise, the e1 isnt an option compared the the spit 2a's.

I think it would be a brilliant idea!

III/JG53_Don
May-01-2013, 06:22
With the implementation of a proper coop mode, there wouldn't be the problem of players taking the latest plane models. If only 4 E-3s are available, the rest need to take the remaining E-1s of the planeset. ;) Sorry but I have to point out the lack of a proper coop mode as often as possible :) Man do I miss them!
This would be also true if the "old" but very advanced dogfight missions of Wolf would be reintroduced.... but as far as I know they cost too much bandwidth?!

92 Sqn. Philstyle (QJ-P)
May-01-2013, 07:00
With the implementation of a proper coop mode, there wouldn't be the problem of players taking the latest plane models. If only 4 E-3s are available, the rest need to take the remaining E-1s of the planeset. ;) Sorry but I have to point out the lack of a proper coop mode as often as possible :)

Restricted aircraft-type numbers can already be coded into the missions.
However, when this was suggested on another thread there was some resistance to the idea.

LG1.Farber
May-01-2013, 10:14
With the implementation of a proper coop mode, there wouldn't be the problem of players taking the latest plane models. If only 4 E-3s are available, the rest need to take the remaining E-1s of the planeset. ;) Sorry but I have to point out the lack of a proper coop mode as often as possible :) Man do I miss them!
This would be also true if the "old" but very advanced dogfight missions of Wolf would be reintroduced.... but as far as I know they cost too much bandwidth?!

YEs! I already made a post about this, Bank's coop script works great, if TF would give it a GUI like their welcome screen that made you pick a side then displayed all the aircraft available it would be awesome! It would be a great leap for TF and a great addition to this fine mod.

Foul Ole Ron
May-01-2013, 12:25
Some people complain about the IIa vs E4/N - I am one of them as I prefer the E1 but am forced to fly the E4/N if the Spit IIa is present in large numbers to compete, although quite often I take an E1 anyway cos I love getting raped :D .

It's for this reason that I prefer the earlier timeframe map they've brought in recently as it allows more planes to fly somewhat competitively against each other. I mostly fly the Hurricane Mk1 100oct and while still outclassed it's not ridiculous like going up against a E4/N. I also noticed that in this map more blue pilots try different 109 variants, try out 110s & Ju-88s and some mad men even take up Stukas. Red pilots are more inclined to try out the Hurricane as well. Makes for a more interesting battle overall in my opinion.

It's why I'd also support server plane-set limitations on maps with the MkIIa / E4N - one possible twist that could be put on it would be allowing a user to select the "best" plane but can only use it again if they actually bring it back and land safely. This might sort of reflect the relative scarcity of these crates and would allow players to go for the best and make an effort to actually preserve them. No idea if this could be done code-wise though.

As for development of future variants I'd tend to be in agreement with Gavagai to put the effort into developing distinctly different variants such as the Spit Mk V or the 109F. But the downside to this is that it makes all other previous variants redundant. Anyhoo it's damage model bug fixing up next so I don't think we'll be seeing any new variants coming anytime soon.

LG1.Farber
May-01-2013, 12:42
There is some great opinions and consensus being shared here. I would just like to point out one more time that the FM for the DB601/N engine already exists and that a model in game of the Bf109 B versions exist (except for the E1) and that the correct BF109 models exist already, as far as I know its simply a case of packaging them and including them in the next release.

I am definitely not saying "hey TF make some more 109's instead of something we need!" I would love to see a Gladiator, a swordfish, a jabo Hurricane (Mk III?), a P40, beaufighter and a mosquito! Maybe even a Moraine 406 or 412?

If content can be put into the game does it not add to list of fixes and content and entice more people to come and check out this awesome mod? - Can that not only be a good thing?

Most of all, I would like to see a new map. Something with land!

ATAG_Snapper
May-01-2013, 13:02
I place great faith in mission designers who put a lot of time and effort into researching the aircraft types available and those most commonly in use. They can only use those aircraft variants available to them. Apart from historical accuracy, some mission designers may wish to build "what if?" -type missions and/or have built-in incentives such as model upgrades for pilots that fly carefully yet effectively.

Someday I'd love to see a "what if?" mission of, say, 110's vs Beaufighters just for the helluvit -- who can knock out whose ships first kind of scenario. And I do enjoy the early-variant missions, too.

Foul Ole Ron
May-01-2013, 13:29
The E-1/B is probably the only one really worth putting in any effort at all given that it would take almost no effort it seems. But it would probably see pretty limited service given what most players select whenever something better is present. I check out the front page pretty often to see what people are flying and usually around 40-50% of red pilots are flying the Spit IIa. It's usually around 65% of blue players flying the E4/N. For whatever reason(s) noticeably more blue players go for the "best" plane. Unless the better planes are taken away by mission designers the lesser variants are just going to be treated like red-headed step-children for the most part.

ATAG_NakedSquirrel
May-01-2013, 14:14
Salute

We will not release miss-matched pairs of aircraft.

We do not want to see one side having a large advantage in aircraft types and we want to see aircraft matched by historical times periods. So the E-7/E-7n will not be released till the RAF aircraft of the same period are available.

Those are the reasons why we added the E-4n to the planeset in our first release, so that the game had an aircraft to match the Spit IIA. Plus the E-4n was in use in the time period of the BoB.

As far as the E-1N's etc. we do not see a significant difference between the performance of an E-1 updated with the DB601N and the E-4N. Both would have similar weapons, equipment and performance. When the Luftwaffe pulled older aircraft airframes out of operational use and refitted them, they replaced anything which was not up to current standards, so re-fitted E-1's would have cannon, armour, etc.

Other types you mention were not present in significant numbers. The exception might be the E-3N, but I wonder how many would fly this aircraft instead of the E-4N? It would not have the MG/FFM 20mm with the better high explosive shell.

The E-1B is a definite historical consideration, in fact there were quite a few of these, but again, when players have the option of the much faster E-3B/E-4B, would they select an earlier slower aircraft which is quite vulnerable down low as it can be run down by Spit IA 100 octane variants?

If aircraft like the E1/N would be effectively no different than the E4/N, I agree, no point in adding them. Also, the E3/N I don't see a point for (why not just fly a E4/N without the MG rounds in your loadout?)

I would rather see aircraft that have at least a marginal performance/structural/armament difference.

I would like to see aircraft like the E1/B though. It might fit in early war maps. I don't think adding aircraft should only be based on whether they are "good enough" or "OP" are a fair considerations. We were able to limit aircraft types before (but I think the script caused too much lag) I'm sure we will be able to implement something like that again... someday.

Robo.
May-01-2013, 14:31
I would just like to point out one more time that the FM for the DB601/N engine already exists and that a model in game of the Bf109 B versions exist (except for the E1) and that the correct BF109 models exist already, as far as I know its simply a case of packaging them and including them in the next release.

I see what you're saying and I support the idea of adding the 'low hanging fruit' variants in the game, but on the other hand there would be just too many sub-versions, if we followed this with all possible variations known with the Emil. I believe the TF already did a good job in representing different 109 engine versions (compared to the single Aa / A-1 'hybrid' version we had in the stock game) so now we have got 4 different DB601s. The simplification within the game is, that unlike in RL, you have one engine type per version - e.g. the E-1 has got the DB601A-1 with old supercharger whereby there were certainly many E-1s with newer A-1 or Aa or even the N after standard field engine replacement. The idea behind the TF patch variants was to represent the most typical setups possible within the game to distinguish between the various stages of the 109 development, for example the early E-1 variant has got the earlier version of the DB601. This goes similarly for all 109 variants, you could have E-3/N or even E-3/B with the N engine fitted at some point. The question is do we really need all the possible combinations of engines / armamant / armour for any aircraft? That being said I am all for the E-1/B, there were 100 produced (61+49) mid summer to test the new JaBo 109 platform with Erp.Gr.210 and although iirc they were all converted to E-4/B before they were sent to the frontline as 3. Staffel, + there were some E-1/B converted in other units and some are photographed after being shot down over Britain.

Robo.
May-01-2013, 14:40
If aircraft like the E1/N would be effectively no different than the E4/N, I agree, no point in adding them.

It would be different with the given armament. The question is how many E-1 did happen to have an 601N engine fitted at some point. There were some 64 E-4/Ns produced in total and some E-3s and probably some E-1s did have this engine installed, but not in the factory but in the field.


Also, the E3/N I don't see a point for (why not just fly a E4/N without the MG rounds in your loadout?)

Mind you it's not just M-Geschoss but also the muzzle velocity, the Oerlikon ballistics is quite different between E-3 and E-4.

LG1.Farber
May-01-2013, 15:05
I see what you're saying and I support the idea of adding the 'low hanging fruit' variants in the game, but on the other hand there would be just too many sub-versions, if we followed this with all possible variations known with the Emil. I believe the TF already did a good job in representing different 109 engine versions (compared to the single Aa / A-1 'hybrid' version we had in the stock game) so now we have got 4 different DB601s. The simplification within the game is, that unlike in RL, you have one engine type per version - e.g. the E-1 has got the DB601A-1 with old supercharger whereby there were certainly many E-1s with newer A-1 or Aa or even the N after standard field engine replacement. The idea behind the TF patch variants was to represent the most typical setups possible within the game to distinguish between the various stages of the 109 development, for example the early E-1 variant has got the earlier version of the DB601. This goes similarly for all 109 variants, you could have E-3/N or even E-3/B with the N engine fitted at some point. The question is do we really need all the possible combinations of engines / armamant / armour for any aircraft? That being said I am all for the E-1/B, there were 100 produced (61+49) mid summer to test the new JaBo 109 platform with Erp.Gr.210 and although iirc they were all converted to E-4/B before they were sent to the frontline as 3. Staffel, + there were some E-1/B converted in other units and some are photographed after being shot down over Britain.

Then why make all the allied 100 oct, is not that too many versions? There is a red maxim gathering pace in blue circles:

"If its for red; its historical. If its historical for blue its cos blue want an edge..."


Whats wrong with more content? More content makes the mod better! Just because it is there doesn't mean you have to use it or "historicalise the fun out of the game".

VO101_Kurfurst
May-01-2013, 15:39
I see what you're saying and I support the idea of adding the 'low hanging fruit' variants in the game, but on the other hand there would be just too many sub-versions, if we followed this with all possible variations known with the Emil. I believe the TF already did a good job in representing different 109 engine versions (compared to the single Aa / A-1 'hybrid' version we had in the stock game) so now we have got 4 different DB601s. The simplification within the game is, that unlike in RL, you have one engine type per version - e.g. the E-1 has got the DB601A-1 with old supercharger whereby there were certainly many E-1s with newer A-1 or Aa or even the N after standard field engine replacement. The idea behind the TF patch variants was to represent the most typical setups possible within the game to distinguish between the various stages of the 109 development, for example the early E-1 variant has got the earlier version of the DB601. This goes similarly for all 109 variants, you could have E-3/N or even E-3/B with the N engine fitted at some point. The question is do we really need all the possible combinations of engines / armamant / armour for any aircraft? That being said I am all for the E-1/B, there were 100 produced (61+49) mid summer to test the new JaBo 109 platform with Erp.Gr.210 and although iirc they were all converted to E-4/B before they were sent to the frontline as 3. Staffel, + there were some E-1/B converted in other units and some are photographed after being shot down over Britain.

Well said. Personally I loathed the gazillion of very limited use of remotely known subtypes of some old Il-2 mods. They have very little use/difference and doesn't add all that much to the players in the end, yet they took away a lot of development/debugging time from other, more important projects. I see some use of a E-1/B, but incomparably more so for an E-7, which is important for a mulitude of reasons (apart from the only major variant not yet present - apart from the Hurri Mark II - and its also effectively the "standard" Emil for later 1941 scenarios..).

The GM-1 types were there (E-7/Z, in 1941) so it would not at all be fair to give Blue much later, essentialy uncatchable high alt aircraft (with very little/no historic flight data to start with) and let Red struggle against them, when BTW they already facing the best high alt fighter (E-4/N).

vranac
May-01-2013, 15:48
Then why make all the allied 100 oct, is not that too many versions? There is a red maxim gathering pace in blue circles:

"If its for red; its historical. If its historical for blue its cos blue want an edge..."


Whats wrong with more content? More content makes the mod better! Just because it is there doesn't mean you have to use it or "historicalise the fun out of the game".

And then we have 90% pilots flying 109E4/N rocket on ATAG and 99% on 109E4 on ACG server in the early missions.

ATAG_NakedSquirrel
May-01-2013, 16:04
Then why make all the allied 100 oct, is not that too many versions? There is a red maxim gathering pace in blue circles:

"If its for red; its historical. If its historical for blue its cos blue want an edge..."


Whats wrong with more content? More content makes the mod better! Just because it is there doesn't mean you have to use it or "historicalise the fun out of the game".

Robo didn't bring anything up about Red vs Blue.

It's kind of a silly point for this discussion because all of the variants (that fit the era of aircraft we have). Have either slightly worse armament or armor.

I guess the big question is: did they make it to the front lines? Or were aircraft like the E1/N effectively gutted and refitted to be E4/Ns with an E1 serial number by the time they made it to the front.

The E1/B and E3/N E4/B/N seem like good additions imo (and the E7/E8s whenever post BoB aircraft are ready)

Most of the differences seem marginal (save for maybe the E4/N/B. I would much more like to see variants of the fighter-bombers Ju 88, 87s and Bf110.

The 110 would benefit greatly from auto prop-pitch and engine variants. It had a slew of different D variants that flew around that time iirc.

It would also be fun to see planes that fill niche roles like the Ju88C (but I'm not sure if they made it to the lines because they weren't supposed to be in production in the first place)

Robo.
May-01-2013, 16:08
Then why make all the allied 100 oct, is not that too many versions? There is a red maxim gathering pace in blue circles:

"If its for red; its historical. If its historical for blue its cos blue want an edge..."

Whats wrong with more content? More content makes the mod better! Just because it is there doesn't mean you have to use it or "historicalise the fun out of the game".

Sorry I didn't know this was another blue vs. red thread, I thought we were discussing the possible Emil sub-variants for the game and you were interested in other people's opinions.

ATAG_Snapper
May-01-2013, 17:07
Sorry I didn't know this was another blue vs. red thread, I thought we were discussing the possible Emil sub-variants for the game and you were interested in other people's opinions.

Same here. I gave it the benefit of the doubt, reopened this thread, and was proved wrong.

This thread will remain closed.