I would like one question,why is not included in this part of the E4 Messer?

[TUSA/TX-Gunslinger]

I only used the term E4 canopy for convieniance sake.

Any idea of a better term?

[TheGrunch]

Originally Posted by TUSA/TX-Gunslinger

I only used the term E4 canopy for convieniance sake.

Any idea of a better term?

Dunno, say rounded-frame and square-frame canopy I guess.

[WTE_Galway]

I am in favor of as many early models as possible.

The "whinge and whine" factor of online hotrod jocks complaining about needing faster later machines means flightsims very rarely progress backwards in time.

Hence the earlier the initial models in the sim are the better.

[TheGrunch]

I think you'll be pleasantly surprised once the third-party scene takes off for the new series. After all, we had plenty of early-war birds turn up after the initial release even for Il-2, the Gladiator, for example, even if it was created as an export version. Lots of guys from European countries other than England and Germany have an interest in the earlier types because they were the main types in use in their countries. The Buffalo for Finland, for example.

BTW, I think one of the guys earlier in the thread had it nailed when he pointed out that give the screenshots we've seen of the armament screen and the info that many have given regarding the profusion of different variations of the cockpit/head armour styles among all three models, equipping any aircraft as an E-4 instead of an E-3 will likely be more of a case of choosing the belting. Admittedly that creates the "inaccuracy" of being able to fire older-type ammo with the newer MG FF/M, but given that on choosing the ammo you're semantically choosing the gun it's loaded into, and in terms of the damage model and aircraft weights there ought not to be a noticeable difference in the MG FF -> MG FF/M transition so I don't think it really matters.

The real omission is the E-1.

[TUSA/TX-Gunslinger]

Originally Posted by TheGrunch

Dunno, say rounded-frame and square-frame canopy I guess.

Thanks!

After thinking for a bit - either what you propose or perhaps "armored" or "unarmored"?

[TheGrunch]

Originally Posted by TUSA/TX-Gunslinger

Thanks!

After thinking for a bit - either what you propose or perhaps "armored" or "unarmored"?

Haha, don't take me as any kind of definitive reference. It's not something that anyone's going to criticise you for if you don't use the most closely-translated name, though, I'm sure.

[Blackdog_kt]

Originally Posted by robtek

No, the E4 is just a E3 where the MG-FF were replaced with MG-FF/M.
The canopy change was made around the same time to all emils for additional pilot protection.

If that's the only difference, then maybe we'll have it as an option in the arming options. The sim might still call it an E-3, but if i can go to the belting options and choose the m-shells for the cannons it's a good enough E-4 for me until they properly patch it in.


EDIT: Seems i was a bit slow

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Banks

Maybe the mineshells are selectable as a belting option. I know, the name of the Bf 109 would not be historically 100% correct in this case.

[JG53Frankyboy]

Just to ad: the additional headarmor and even the additional windscreen armour was also possible with the early, more rounded canopy...

IF the mineshells are available in the amunition selection of the E-3 i would be very surprised, not to say dissapointed...
And btw, who would fly without them!

[TheGrunch]

Originally Posted by JG53Frankyboy

And btw, who would fly without them!

Haha, that's true. Why would you be disappointed, though? Whether you'd call the aircraft E-3 or the E-4 in game would be dependent upon which ammo it was firing, it's not like the game considers alterations to the recoil system of the gun - it doesn't really matter in game since it's just a label for two aircraft with differences in the guns which have no practical difference in the game in terms of separating the two types. If mission builders are able to choose which ammo types are available in their mission to indirectly choose whether the player flies an aircraft with MG FF or MG FF/M - and they definitely should be able to - it's perfectly fine.

[Matt255]

Originally Posted by JG53Frankyboy

IF the mineshells are available in the amunition selection of the E-3 i would be very surprised, not to say dissapointed...
And btw, who would fly without them!

Well, basically everyone who knows the difference would then fly a E-4, which is probably more realistic anyway.

I don't think it would be that bad. Better than leaving the E-4 out entirely.