RE: Anyone have any database mod requests?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: Anyone have any database mod requests?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Gary Grigsby's Eagle Day to Bombing the Reich >> RE: Anyone have any database mod requests?

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Anyone have any database mod requests? - 10/10/2013 12:08:54 AM

TaggedYa

Posts: 218
Joined: 10/9/2005
Status: offline

I hate to rain on anyone's parade, Lord knows this is more activity than this board has seen in six months, however, it is probably a good idea to think a little bit about game design before you start nerfing planes.

Bombing the Reich is a simulation. You probably don't want to go changing things that are properly simulated because something else might be improperly simulated. I have no reason to believe that there is anything wrong with the combat model or the production model of the TA 152. The only problem relating to the TA 152 that I am aware of is that some German players in play by email games have managed to greatly accelerate its production.

I have never heard of anyone having a problem with the AI because it had TA 152s. Quite frankly, the concept of nerfing something because the AI is too strong in this game is laughable. You should be looking for ways to make games against the AI somewhat challenging, which they currently are not.

What no one seems to want to look at is why the research function exists at all. If the historical entry dates for the aircraft are correct, then why would we have a way to accelerate them. The allies have no way to accelerate their production. They fly what they are given when it's given to them. This is where game design comes in. For the game to work you have to prevent the allies from just sitting and doing nothing for the first 100 turns. If the allies don't play at the start the system for the Darwinian improvement of the German Air Force does not work. So, you have to come up with a way to reasonably force the allies to actively engage the Germans. The game has two functions to do this. One is the sudden-death rules where you simply lose if your score gets to low. The other is the research rule. If you let the Germans amass large stockpiles of aircraft he can turn his excess production into research and get better planes.

I put it to you, that if you let a human opponent expend 40 or 50 aircraft frames, engines, and parts every day for 150 days on research, you deserve to lose. The game is designed to make you lose. The cure is not to Nerf the airplane. It's not to Nerf production. It's for Allied players to actively attack the Germans.

Ask Turner if he thinks that German production is too high, or that he is able to put too much towards research. I don't think he will answer in the affirmative. I expect to have him below 100 engines per turn by the end of turn 20.

This game has a multitude of problems that need to be addressed, the TA 152 is not one of them!

_____________________________

TaggedYa

The Vociferously Verbose

(in reply to rob89)

Post #: 31

RE: Anyone have any database mod requests? - 10/10/2013 12:19:06 AM

K 19

Posts: 131
Joined: 9/25/2013
Status: offline

Interesting viewpoint. Thank you. I think we can all agree that the planes don't need to be nerfed. Aircraft changes to delay Ta-152 for pbem games... we'll all have to vote on that I think.

Can you please provide list of the other non-hardcoded problems that need to be addressed?

< Message edited by K 19 -- 10/10/2013 12:31:23 AM >

(in reply to TaggedYa)

Post #: 32

RE: Anyone have any database mod requests? - 10/10/2013 12:26:51 AM

K 19

Posts: 131
Joined: 9/25/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Turner

The issue raised was the very early possible availability of the 152 which can only be a problem in PBEM since the AI won't pursue ahistorical dates.

Sorry for the misunderstandings. I don't play the German side, and am not so familiar with how research works. But I think I understand what you are saying now. The German player can accelerate research towards the Ta-152 at a much faster rate than was historically possible. Basically the Ta-52 can show up too early in the pbem game, making it highly unbalanced. Your proposal is to replace some of the lesser-known German aircraft with later version of the FW-190. Both pbem players agree that the German player must have researched these first before builiding the Ta-152's. None of these changes affect the computer German player because it follows the historical research and production dates. Is this correct?

(in reply to Turner)

Post #: 33

RE: Anyone have any database mod requests? - 10/10/2013 12:38:27 AM

TaggedYa

Posts: 218
Joined: 10/9/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: K 19

quote:

ORIGINAL: Turner

The issue raised was the very early possible availability of the 152 which can only be a problem in PBEM since the AI won't pursue ahistorical dates.

Sorry for the misunderstandings. I don't play the German side, and am not so familiar with how research works. But I think I understand what you are saying now. The German player can accelerate research towards the Ta-152 at a much faster rate than was historically possible. Basically the Ta-52 can show up too early in the pbem game, making it highly unbalanced. Your proposal is to replace some of the lesser-known German aircraft with later version of the FW-190. Both pbem players agree that the German player must have researched these first before building the Ta-152's. None of these changes affect the computer German player because it follows the historical research and production dates. Is this correct?

Correct. What we (Turner and I)would like to do is change a couple of the obscure and never built things in the German tree with the FW 190D-11 and the TA 152A. This combined with a house rule requiring predecessor aircraft to be in combat before production can be changed to successor aircraft. This will keep the research induced onus on the allies to press the attack while limiting somewhat the instant death result from a less than perfect strategy.

_____________________________

TaggedYa

The Vociferously Verbose

(in reply to K 19)

Post #: 34

RE: Anyone have any database mod requests? - 10/10/2013 12:49:01 AM

K 19

Posts: 131
Joined: 9/25/2013
Status: offline

Sounds good, and shouldn't be too difficult to implement.

(in reply to TaggedYa)

Post #: 35

RE: Anyone have any database mod requests? - 10/10/2013 1:13:49 AM

TaggedYa

Posts: 218
Joined: 10/9/2005
Status: offline

If you can change the upgrade path numbers in the database then you can fix the Century Unit fail to upgrade bug which is actually a bug that also effects a lot of things in AI games. Basically what happened is they assigned a lot of aircraft upgrades to gun pack or field conversion types. Then they changed the system so that those types wouldn't ever be in the pool (the field conversion is striped and they return to the pool as base type). To fix the problem all of the effected types need their upgrade target changed to the base type not the conversion type.

I can make a list for you of what types need changed. Let me know if you can make that change.

An example: The Bf 109G-6/R6 is AC# 9. It upgrades to AC# 14 the Bf109G-14/R6. As there are never any of #14 in the pool the units using the 109G-6/R6 will never upgrade. A human player can upgrade them manually or can remove the cannons and then they will upgrade normally but the AI will fly them forever and will keep the 109G-6 in production forever to support them. To fix this particular instance of this bug you can just change the AC# 9 upgrade to AC# 13 the standard 109G-14. An even better way to fix it would be to set the upgrade to AC# 40 the FW190A-8. This wouldn't effect a human player but would help the AI to move its anti-bomber work to a better class of aircraft. This is an example of what I meant when I said we need to be looking to help the AI provide more challenge.

_____________________________

TaggedYa

The Vociferously Verbose

(in reply to K 19)

Post #: 36

RE: Anyone have any database mod requests? - 10/10/2013 1:21:19 AM

K 19

Posts: 131
Joined: 9/25/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rob89

Hi all,

I see you all know very well the database structure

Two questions :

1) Could someone explain to me the meaning of the data-fields in the 'device-sub-database', for the case of factories

For ex. : K19, please, what is the meaning of your statement :

<<I have also slighly increased engine manufacturing requirements to help keep aircraft production numbers down a bit. >>

Are you referring to those parameters, or other issues ?

2) Do you think it's possible to introduce a different 'device-type' to model the first german surface-to-air missiles ?

thank you in advance

Rob

Hi.

1. I originally increased engine requirements to slow down production, but will no longer be doing that.

2. Yes, I think it's possible. I have successfuly added new aircraft types to the database. Should also be possible for new weapon types. Implementing all the locations where the missiles would be based on the map and what they would protect would be very time-consuming though.

< Message edited by K 19 -- 10/10/2013 4:10:17 AM >

(in reply to rob89)

Post #: 37

RE: Anyone have any database mod requests? - 10/10/2013 1:26:11 AM

K 19

Posts: 131
Joined: 9/25/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TaggedYa

If you can change the upgrade path numbers in the database then you can fix the Century Unit fail to upgrade bug which is actually a bug that also effects a lot of things in AI games. Basically what happened is they assigned a lot of aircraft upgrades to gun pack or field conversion types. Then they changed the system so that those types wouldn't ever be in the pool (the field conversion is striped and they return to the pool as base type). To fix the problem all of the effected types need their upgrade target changed to the base type not the conversion type.

I can make a list for you of what types need changed. Let me know if you can make that change.

An example: The Bf 109G-6/R6 is AC# 9. It upgrades to AC# 14 the Bf109G-14/R6. As there are never any of #14 in the pool the units using the 109G-6/R6 will never upgrade. A human player can upgrade them manually or can remove the cannons and then they will upgrade normally but the AI will fly them forever and will keep the 109G-6 in production forever to support them. To fix this particular instance of this bug you can just change the AC# 9 upgrade to AC# 13 the standard 109G-14. An even better way to fix it would be to set the upgrade to AC# 40 the FW190A-8. This wouldn't effect a human player but would help the AI to move its anti-bomber work to a better class of aircraft. This is an example of what I meant when I said we need to be looking to help the AI provide more challenge.

I understand. It is very easy to change what aircraft upgrade to. If simply doing this would fix a lot of the game's problems, I'm all for it. A complete upgrade list would be very helpful. Thank you.

< Message edited by K 19 -- 10/10/2013 1:27:36 AM >

(in reply to TaggedYa)

Post #: 38

RE: Anyone have any database mod requests? - 10/10/2013 1:32:54 AM

K 19

Posts: 131
Joined: 9/25/2013
Status: offline

And Turner or TaggedYa, please provide a list of which aircraft will be replacing which. For example, the Ta-52A will be replacing what obscure aircraft?

(in reply to K 19)

Post #: 39

RE: Anyone have any database mod requests? - 10/10/2013 3:32:47 AM

TaggedYa

Posts: 218
Joined: 10/9/2005
Status: offline

The 109G-6/R6 I already covered.

AC# 18 the Bf 109T-2 upgrades to AC# 7 the 109G-5/AS It should change to AC# 6 the 109G-5. This is for the AI, humans can upgrade to whatever they like. There is no source in the game for replacements and the unit that is using them just runs out of planes.

AC# 39 the Fw 190A-6/R1 upgrades to AC# 43 the Fw 190A-8/R8 which can never exist in the pool. It can be changed to AC# 40 the Fw 190A-8 which does pool. Or AC# 42 which might pool, I think it does but it will have to be checked.

AC# 125 the Me 410A-1/U2 upgrades to AC# 129 the Me 410B-2/U4 which doesn't pool. It can be changed to AC# 128 the Me 410B-2/U2 which does pool.

Here are the real bugs we all were looking for:
AC# 131 the Bf 109G-6/U4N upgrades to AC# 14 the Bf 109G-14/R6 which doesn't pool. As a human can't change the night fighters to day fighters this locks all 109 flying night units in there night role. The dreaded "Century units won't upgrade" bug. Change it to AC# 13 and all will be well.

AC# 133 the Fw 190A-5/U2 upgrades to AC# 43, the Fw 190A-8/R8. Change it to AC# 40 the Fw 190A-8 and all will be well. (I think that you could also use 42 the A-8/R7 version but I am not sure it pools)

That's all that I can legitimately call bugs. There are changes that could be made to help out the AI but that is a mod not a bug fix.

_____________________________

TaggedYa

The Vociferously Verbose

(in reply to K 19)

Post #: 40

RE: Anyone have any database mod requests? - 10/10/2013 3:49:22 AM

K 19

Posts: 131
Joined: 9/25/2013
Status: offline

Got it. Thanks. I'll start working on implementing these.

Luckily, I figured out that it is possible to add completely new aircraft models and variations to the database. I created and added a fictitious Bf 109Z-4 with slightly uprated performance, and got no error messages in the game. Worked just fine. Setting the factories up for production of new Axis aircraft is trickier and more troublesome though. It's much easier adding new models to the Allied side because they have automatic replacements. Don't need to worry about adding new aircraft parts and such.

< Message edited by K 19 -- 10/10/2013 3:54:03 AM >

(in reply to TaggedYa)

Post #: 41

RE: Anyone have any database mod requests? - 10/10/2013 4:27:15 AM

Turner

Posts: 299
Joined: 9/14/2010
From: Sweden
Status: offline

Obviously there is no need to add aircraft parts if the type added uses the same parts as a type already in the game. For example the FW190D-11 would draw from the FW190 parts pool, the FW Ta152A would draw from the Ta152 parts pool. They can also use the same bitmaps.

TaggedYa is spot on and neither do I see the Ta152 as a problem but could not word it or explain it as well. I too will be looking over the db make changes and add aircraft types, perhaps more than the types mentioned.

_____________________________

"There are no desperate situations, only desperate people." - Heinz Guderian

Trippin' with Jagdgeschwader 11

(in reply to K 19)

Post #: 42

RE: Anyone have any database mod requests? - 10/10/2013 6:34:52 AM

npsergio

Posts: 185
Joined: 1/23/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: TaggedYa

The 109G-6/R6 I already covered.

AC# 18 the Bf 109T-2 upgrades to AC# 7 the 109G-5/AS It should change to AC# 6 the 109G-5. This is for the AI, humans can upgrade to whatever they like. There is no source in the game for replacements and the unit that is using them just runs out of planes.

AC# 39 the Fw 190A-6/R1 upgrades to AC# 43 the Fw 190A-8/R8 which can never exist in the pool. It can be changed to AC# 40 the Fw 190A-8 which does pool. Or AC# 42 which might pool, I think it does but it will have to be checked.

AC# 125 the Me 410A-1/U2 upgrades to AC# 129 the Me 410B-2/U4 which doesn't pool. It can be changed to AC# 128 the Me 410B-2/U2 which does pool.

Here are the real bugs we all were looking for:
AC# 131 the Bf 109G-6/U4N upgrades to AC# 14 the Bf 109G-14/R6 which doesn't pool. As a human can't change the night fighters to day fighters this locks all 109 flying night units in there night role. The dreaded "Century units won't upgrade" bug. Change it to AC# 13 and all will be well.

AC# 133 the Fw 190A-5/U2 upgrades to AC# 43, the Fw 190A-8/R8. Change it to AC# 40 the Fw 190A-8 and all will be well. (I think that you could also use 42 the A-8/R7 version but I am not sure it pools)

That's all that I can legitimately call bugs. There are changes that could be made to help out the AI but that is a mod not a bug fix.

That's why my single engine night fw doesn't change into fw190a8/r8?? Does it means that they will be always nightfighters?

I supose that the AC# 133 the Fw 190A-5/U2 upgrades have to be changed into to AC# 42, the Fw 190A-8/R7, as they are the source AC for the AC# 43 the Fw 190A-8/R8, IMHO, and yes, you have pool for the AC# 42, and this cahnge will encourage the axis to use some of his precious production into the Fw Sturm models.

(in reply to TaggedYa)

Post #: 43

RE: Anyone have any database mod requests? - 10/10/2013 6:45:38 AM

Turner

Posts: 299
Joined: 9/14/2010
From: Sweden
Status: offline

What I've seen in the '44 scenario is that the A-8/R7 oes not pool because even if there are factories building it, those aircraft do not enter the pool. That is a whole different bug which is related to production not upgrades. Harley hsaid some time back he had fixed it but it is no good to us if the fix is never released publicly in a patch.

I do not recall now if it was that the aircraft didn't enter the pool, or if they pooled but didn't deploy. It may be the latter.

< Message edited by Turner -- 10/10/2013 6:53:00 AM >

_____________________________

"There are no desperate situations, only desperate people." - Heinz Guderian

Trippin' with Jagdgeschwader 11

(in reply to npsergio)

Post #: 44

RE: Anyone have any database mod requests? - 10/10/2013 6:54:04 AM

npsergio

Posts: 185
Joined: 1/23/2010
Status: offline

Really? I didn't know it! I'll look this in my game...

(in reply to Turner)

Post #: 45

RE: Anyone have any database mod requests? - 10/10/2013 9:00:14 AM

Denniss

Posts: 7902
Joined: 1/10/2002
From: Germany, Hannover (region)
Status: offline

Does the Ta 152H really have 2x drop tanks in this BTR version? No wing hardpoints, just a centerline hardpoint for a DT.
Both Bf 109 G-14 have a too high cruise speed - no boost used during cruise so they should have the same speed as G-6.
All /R6 versions have a way too high cruise speed reduction, should not be higher than maxspeed reduction and more in the range of 5 mph. Also miss a max alt reduction. MVR reduction for them way too high (a G-6/R6 should have no problem to tangle with a Hurricane)

The Me 410 (at least the A) never had a drop tank option, I have only seen one or two images of Me 410 with two strange looking DT but tons of images without them.

The Bf 110 G-2/R3 just had the MG 17 replaced by MK 108 cannon, the 2cm belly weapon pack ist jsut an option (disliked because of speed loss).

As usual the He 219 is set up completely wrong, there was only the He 219 A-0 with 6x MG 151/20 (two often removed to ave ome weight) produced in 100+ examples until ~5/44, then the A-2 with higher alt engines with ~90 built until 11/44 and then the A-7 with slightly more powerful engines and 50-70 produced to war's end. All had the option for two MK 108 in SM config. With SM guns the weapons bay could only hold the two 2cm guns (+ the wing root 2cm). Neither MK 103 nor MK 108 were ever used operationally in the weapons bay. Also no /R numbers really known.

Do 217 N-2 SM guns were MG 151/20, not MG FF.

_____________________________

WitE dev team - (aircraft data)
WitE 1.08+ dev team (data/scenario maintainer)
WitW dev team (aircraft data, partial data/scenario maintainer)
WitE2 dev team (aircraft data)

(in reply to npsergio)

Post #: 46

RE: Anyone have any database mod requests? - 10/10/2013 9:24:06 AM

npsergio

Posts: 185
Joined: 1/23/2010
Status: offline

Wow!
... And what about the allies? Any sugestion there? I would like to know what can be changed in the allied side (probably I'll play allied side soon, I hope that a modded version)

< Message edited by npsergio -- 10/10/2013 9:25:42 AM >

(in reply to Denniss)

Post #: 47

RE: Anyone have any database mod requests? - 10/10/2013 2:34:29 PM

K 19

Posts: 131
Joined: 9/25/2013
Status: offline

Yes, I'm aware the same parts and bitmaps can be shared by different aircraft. I was just stating that completely new aircraft and parts can be added to the database. But doing so is a lot more work!

(in reply to Turner)

Post #: 48

RE: Anyone have any database mod requests? - 10/10/2013 3:18:17 PM

K 19

Posts: 131
Joined: 9/25/2013
Status: offline

EDBTR Database Project 10-10-13 is out. Please see the first post in this thread. I have also included my Light Bombers Ground Attack Conversion v1.0 mod with it.

This is the last version I'll be modding. Anyone who wants to take over modding future versions of the EDBTR Database Project, please do so!

< Message edited by K 19 -- 10/10/2013 3:22:16 PM >

(in reply to K 19)

Post #: 49

RE: Anyone have any database mod requests? - 10/10/2013 3:30:53 PM

Turner

Posts: 299
Joined: 9/14/2010
From: Sweden
Status: offline

I'll be tinkering with the db yes, and there's bound to be others that will too.

Deniss those are all good points that will need to be adressed, I agree on all of it.

< Message edited by Turner -- 10/10/2013 3:35:03 PM >

_____________________________

"There are no desperate situations, only desperate people." - Heinz Guderian

Trippin' with Jagdgeschwader 11

(in reply to K 19)

Post #: 50

RE: Anyone have any database mod requests? - 10/10/2013 4:58:45 PM

Wijter

Posts: 30
Joined: 10/10/2013
Status: offline

Device Type 0 - GUN
-------------------
#22 30mm Cannon MK108, was a high ROF, low velocity lightweight cannon (about 50kg w/o ammo)
#23 30mm Cannon MK103, was a low ROF, high velocity gun
Load is of both is 150, this should be different (MK 108 << MK 103)
The range of MK 108 should be less than a .50 Browning MG (is 4), the effective battle range was 200-300 meter (1-2).
Accuracy MK108 is 18 and MK103 is 13 (I think this does reflect ROF), even if MK108 has a worse trajection.
Both guns use Minengeschoss (High explosive), penetration of Minengeschoss is low against armored target, should be 1.
#197 Klein-Heidelberg is created as Type 0 (Gun), it was a passive ground based radar set used as an early warning device. Change it to Device type 0 (Ground Radar). Due to its nature as a passive device no jamming was possible.

Device Type 3 - GP Bomb
-----------------------
Accuracy >5 for an unguided free falling bomb?
Incendiary bombs (Device 4) have an accuracy of =1.

Device Type 6 - Radar Detector
------------------------------
#41 Naxos rename to FuG 350 Naxos-Z
#43 Flensburg rename to FuG 227 Flensburg
#186 BOOZER and #188 PERFECTOS do not have an effect
#187 SERRATE has an effect =500, SERRATE IV not?
#222 FuG 217 Neptune was an active Device including tail warning and gun release functionality (comparable to distance warning devices in modern cars). If added to the DB it should be there twice, 1st as a detector agains allied airborne radar, 2nd as an active radar

Device Type 7 - Jamming
-----------------------
Only #193 has an effect

Device Type 9 - Aircraft Radar
------------------------------
All german radar sets are configured as an detector, they require some changes
#45 FuG 202 rename to FuG 202 B/C, effect =1000, Anti-device =0 (single frequence)
#45 FuG 212 rename to FuG 202 C1, effect =1000, Anti-device =0 (single frequence)
#45 FuG 218 Neptun, range =30, effect =1500, Anti-device =0 (six switchable frequence, much harder to jam)
#45 FuG 220 SN-2, reduce range =15, effect =1500, Anti-device =0 (it is comparable to FuG 212 operating on a much longer wavelenght)
#45 FuG 240 Berlin, effect =2000, Anti-device =0 (based on an allied H2S device captured 1943)
#94 AI Mk. VIII Radar effect =50, change to =2000 (slightly enhance Mk. VII)

Device Type 10 - Ground Radar
-----------------------------
#42 Y-Dienst is a navigation device, change to type =8
#196 See-Elefant has penetration =0, was designed as a long range early warning device. Change range to >150 and penetration =2500

Device Type 11 - AA Rocket
--------------------------
#77 R4M, trajection was comparable to MG151 (could use same settings in REVI), so change range to =5 (was 10), as the warhead uses blast effect the penetration is =1, it was fired in salvos of 12 or more -> the accuracy should be better than 1

Device Type 16 - Armor
----------------------
#244 Type IXc Submarine (only few are built), rename to VII-C (more than 500 built)

Aircraft
--------
#17 Bf109K-6 change engine gun from MK103 to MK108. The MK103 in the game was far to large+heavy for this fighter, the germans plan to built a smaller version (MK103M) that never materialized, so the MK108 was used
#109 Ta 152C as this one was used as a low level fighter and ground attack plane change the type from FIGHTER to FIGHTER BOMBER
#121 Bf110G-2 uses a MG81Z as TR defence weapon
131 Bf 109G-6/U4N rename to Bf 109G-6/N and change the detector to FuG 227 Flensburg
#133 FW 190A-5/U2 change the detector to FuG 227 Flensburg
#145 Bf110G-4 add a MG81Z as TR defence weapon, change SM istallation to MG FF
#146 Bf110G-4/M1 add a MG81Z as TR defence weapon, change SM istallation to MG FF
#148 Bf110G-4/R7 add a MG81Z as TR defence weapon, I found no information of an installed Naxos detector so I recommend to remove it
#148 Bf110G-4/R8 add a MG81Z as TR defence weapon, I found no information of an installed Naxos detector so I recommend to remove it
#168 Ju388 this machine has a FuG227 Flensburg installed. Allied learned of its existence mid of 1944 and ordered not to use MONICA anymore and Flensburg was useless
#153 Do217J-2 uses a MG131 in the BR position, change it to TR
#160 He219A-5/R4 has a 3 man cockpit. The third one was a rear gunner operation one TR mounted MG131
#164 Ju88C-6 does have a MG15 in BR installation, should be TR
#166 Ju88G has a MG131 in BR installation, should be TR
#173 Ta 154 (A should be C), the prototype had a FuG212. This device was obsolete by late 1943, so production model should use a FuG220 SN-2

(in reply to Turner)

Post #: 51

RE: Anyone have any database mod requests? - 10/10/2013 5:33:33 PM

npsergio

Posts: 185
Joined: 1/23/2010
Status: offline

Wow wow!

(in reply to Wijter)

Post #: 52

RE: Anyone have any database mod requests? - 10/10/2013 6:10:05 PM

Creeper

Posts: 177
Joined: 11/8/2008
From: Germany
Status: offline

yep, all here have extreme specialist knowledge, all but me!

(in reply to npsergio)

Post #: 53

RE: Anyone have any database mod requests? - 10/10/2013 6:32:30 PM

Turner

Posts: 299
Joined: 9/14/2010
From: Sweden
Status: offline

Very interesting, great stuff!

_____________________________

"There are no desperate situations, only desperate people." - Heinz Guderian

Trippin' with Jagdgeschwader 11

(in reply to Creeper)

Post #: 54

RE: Anyone have any database mod requests? - 10/10/2013 6:50:14 PM

Denniss

Posts: 7902
Joined: 1/10/2002
From: Germany, Hannover (region)
Status: offline

MK 108 was good up to 600 meters.
Both MK 108 and MK 103 used AP and AP/I shells (and some others), penetration is also more a function of caliber (higher caliber = more punch) but MK 108 should for sure be lower than MK103.
FuG 217s name was Neptun, not Neptune.
Indeed the Bf 109 G-6/U4N name is wron as /U4 implies a MK 108 engine cannon. No info about it using the R6 gun pack or not.
Lots of IXc subs (and follow-ons) were produced, ~170

Bf 110G and MG 81Z TR and MG FF as SM gun - MG 81Z was used on almost all Bf 110G and the MG FF was used as SM gun in nightfighter. In old BTR there may have been a problem with an .exe based per-aircraft SM gun upgrade which may replace the TR gun with 2x MG 151/20 SM gun. This may or may not be blocked by using MG 151/20 instead of MG FF as SM gun.

Both Bf 109 G-6/N and Fw 190 A-5/U2 were supposed to used Naxos but very few used it. Some used FuG 227 but most had no electronics.
No additional electronics in Bf 110 NF besides Radar.

Bf 110 G-4/M1 - there was no built-in SM gun in the Bf 110 until the /R8 in ~August 1944.
Bf 110 G-4/R7 - the cruise speed is too high - no boost used in cruise. a/c ha either additional fuel or GM-1 boost but not both. Either same speed as other G-4 or same endurance but not both.
Bf 110 G-4/R8 - was the G-4 with factory-built SM gun installation, speed should be similar to G-4 but with the disliked belly gun pack bot max and cruise should suffer (like /M1 which is a wrong designation btw).

No 3-men He 219 was ever built.
Ju 88 C-6 used either two MG 81, one MG 81Z or one MG 131 in TR, BR should be MG 81Z, SM gun was only an option
Ju 88G deliveries started in 1/44 with the G-1, MG 131 should be TR instead of BR
Go 229 - name was Ho 229 after the designers, not after the manufacturer. See Ta 152/154 which were Focke-Wulf a/c designed by Kurt Tank.

< Message edited by Denniss -- 10/10/2013 6:55:42 PM >

(in reply to Creeper)

Post #: 55

RE: Anyone have any database mod requests? - 10/10/2013 6:57:41 PM

Turner

Posts: 299
Joined: 9/14/2010
From: Sweden
Status: offline

This short clip illustrates perfectly well what the Mk108 Minengeschoss were capable of.

< Message edited by Turner -- 10/10/2013 6:58:24 PM >

_____________________________

"There are no desperate situations, only desperate people." - Heinz Guderian

Trippin' with Jagdgeschwader 11

(in reply to Denniss)

Post #: 56

RE: Anyone have any database mod requests? - 10/10/2013 7:10:48 PM

Turner

Posts: 299
Joined: 9/14/2010
From: Sweden
Status: offline

I believe the values in the DB have been tweaked to give realistic results. It would be interesting to change all values to represent actual historical values but one must realize that it may not give the desired results within the game engine. So these numbers have probably been tweaked to give combat outcomes more representative of the historical actions.

One thing I'm a little disappointed with is the ineffectiveness plaguing interceptors. Historically there is one particular occasion (I fail to remember the units involved and exact date) when a group of about 50 FW190A fighters shot down ~50 B17s in only 3 minutes. The result of a well executed intercept carried out by veteran pilots in capable aircraft. It should be possible to achieve such devastating losses when facing unescorted bomber formations with experienced pilots. Not in the Bf109, but the FW190A sure was capable. It did not earn the nickname 'Butcher Bird' for nothing.

_____________________________

"There are no desperate situations, only desperate people." - Heinz Guderian

Trippin' with Jagdgeschwader 11

(in reply to Turner)

Post #: 57

RE: Anyone have any database mod requests? - 10/10/2013 7:21:45 PM

npsergio

Posts: 185
Joined: 1/23/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Turner

This short clip illustrates perfectly well what the Mk108 Minengeschoss were capable of.

Only one shot!!

(in reply to Turner)

Post #: 58

RE: Anyone have any database mod requests? - 10/10/2013 7:22:31 PM

Wijter

Posts: 30
Joined: 10/10/2013
Status: offline

Found on the Internet in 'The Aviation History Online Museum' describing Mk108 performance

"... It had a relatively low muzzle velocity and was designed to attack bombers and not fighter aircraft. The bullet drop was 41 m (135 ft) at a range of 1,000 meters (3,300 ft). To be effective it was necessary for fighter aircraft to get in close to 200 to 300 meters, making it especially challenging for the Me 262, with its high approach speed, to hit the target without colliding into it. ..."

And some more information on Umbausaetze (/U) and Ruestsaetze used with various Bf 109

Bf 109 G-6 (Late)
Cowling weapons: 2x MG-131 (300 rpg)
Engine mounted weapon: MG-151/20 (200 rounds)
Options:
- /U4 : replace the MG151/20 engine mounted cannon by an MK108 (65rounds)
- /U5 : add 2x MK108 Gondolas (35rpg)
- /U6 : like /U4 and add 2x MK108 Gondolas (35rpg)
- BR21 : Under wing 21cm rockets
- R1 : 1x SC250
- R1 : 1x SD250
- R1 : 1x AB250-1
- R2 : 4x SC50
- R2 : 4x SD50
- R2 : 4x SD70
- R2 : 4x AB24t SD2 (48x SD2 bombs in total, different from the R4 system)
- R3 : 1x Type D droptank
- R4 : 96x SD2 (4x 24 SD2 bombs = 96)
- R6 : 2x MG151/20 Gondolas (135rpg)
Note : the MK108 gondola manual dates from July 1944 so I doubt earlier aircraft would have been equipped with it, since it required some change in the wing design. The most common version would have been the /U6, the manual clearly state that the modification is to be applied to the /U4.

Bf 109 G-6/AS
Cowling weapons: 2x MG-131 (300 rpg)
Engine mounted weapon: MG-151/20 (200 rounds)
Options:
- /U4 : replace the MG151/20 engine mounted cannon by an MK108 (65rounds)
- R1 : 1x SC250
- R1 : 1x SD250
- R1 : 1x AB250-1
- R3 : 1x Type D droptank
- R6 : 2x MG151/20 Gondolas (135rpg)

Bf 109 G-10
Cowling weapons: 2x MG-131 (300 rpg)
Engine mounted weapon: MG-151/20 (200 rounds)
Options:
- /U4 : replace the MG151/20 engine mounted cannon by an MK108 (65rounds)
- R1 : 1x SC250
- R1 : 1x SD250
- R1 : 1x AB250-1
- R3 : 1x Type D droptank
- R6 : 2x MG151/20 Gondolas (135rpg)
- R7 : 2x 21cm BR rockets

Bf 109 G-14
Cowling weapons: 2x MG-131 (300 rpg)
Engine mounted weapon: MG-151/20 (200 rounds)
Options:
- /U4 : replace the MG151/20 engine mounted cannon by an MK108 (65rounds)
- /U5 : add 2x MK108 Gondolas (35rpg)
- /U6 : like /U4 and add 2x MK108 Gondolas (35rpg)
- BR21 : Under wing 21cm rockets
- R1 : 1x SC250
- R1 : 1x SD250
- R1 : 1x AB250-1
- R2 : 4x SC50
- R2 : 4x SD50
- R2 : 4x SD70
- R2 : 4x AB24t SD2 (48x SD2 bombs in total, different from the R4 system)
- R3 : 1x Type D droptank
- R4 : 96x SD2 (4x 24 SD2 bombs = 96)
- R6 : 2x MG151/20 Gondolas (135rpg)

Bf 109 K-4
Cowling weapons: 2x MG-131 (300 rpg)
Engine mounted weapon: MK108 (65 rounds)
Options:
- R1 : 1x SC500 (possible with ETC-503)
- R1 : 1x SD500 (possible with ETC-503)
- R1 : 1x SC250
- R1 : 1x SD250
- R1 : 1x AB250-1
- R3 : 1x Type D droptank
- R4 : 2x MG151/20 Gondolas (135rpg)

(in reply to Turner)

Post #: 59

RE: Anyone have any database mod requests? - 10/10/2013 7:26:19 PM

npsergio

Posts: 185
Joined: 1/23/2010
Status: offline

50 Fw shot down 50 b-17?? Are you sure about that? Never read about that. I thought that Schweinfurt raid was famous because of the high losses the allied suffered and it was 77 (Am I wrong?)

(in reply to Turner)

Post #: 60