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

[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.

[fruitbat]

Originally Posted by Matt255

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.

like the E1 you mean.

Its weird how the usual lufty whiners don't seem to be concerned about that, yet they are concerned about which type of 20mm cannon they get (and upset it's not the better of the two).

[TUSA/TX-Gunslinger]

Hey Mom, some kid at school called me a "Lufty Whiner".

Now's the point that I start thinking about if the Dedicated Server has restrictions on aircraft slots, ammo, types, etc... If I remember correctly, it does.

Simple enough for online mission builders to limit numbers, etc... Spit II and E4/N limited to a few per side, for example.

Originally Posted by 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!

Can you elaborate some more? If many E-3's were converted to MG FF/M's in BoB why wouldn't they get MG?

S!

Gunny

[fruitbat]

my point is simple.

surely having a plane that fought in much larger numbers (the E1) in the Battle of Britain is more important than other sub types (E4N) which fought in much lesser numbers, if you want an as accurate as possible BoB (although having all the variants would be nice).

yes/no?

[JG53Frankyboy]

Originally Posted by TUSA/TX-Gunslinger

....................................

Can you elaborate some more? If many E-3's were converted to MG FF/M's in BoB why wouldn't they get MG?

S!

Gunny

well, Maddox decided to put in the E-3. Than it should stay to be an E-3 ! And with a mineshell firing canon it becomes an E-4...


i guess we all here have the same opinion:
That the CoD 109 , at least at release, will be the E-3 is 'strange'.
It was there and had action but was by far not the most common variant. E-1 and E-4 would have been the much more logical choice. And perhaps more interesting for a Luftwaffe fighter campaign. First you have to fly the E-1 and later get the upgrade to the canon plane.
Even more strange is that 1C already have the MG-FF/M modelled for the Bf110C-4 & -7 ?!?!

my, very personal, wishlist for the 109 in CoD would have been:
E-1 & -/B with DB601A-1 old canopy , no headarmour
E-3 & -/B with DB601A-1 old canopy , no headarmour
E-4 & -/B with DB601Aa with newer canopy and headarmour
E-4/N with DB601N with newer canopy and headarmour

would have been from plane to plane a nice improvemnt in a pilotcareer. And for online, COOP designers have no proplems to restrict the numbers , and im actually sure that Dogfight designers will also be able to limit planenumbers and weapons.


But ok, the axis side will get a lot (in comparison to the RAF) of flyable bombers
and dont forgett , there will still be the mighty G.50

[Matt255]

Originally Posted by fruitbat

like the E1 you mean.

Exactly.

Now of course, they could keep the same cockpit (would be wrong), cut the barrels of the cannons and say those are machineguns (would be wrong too) and then pretend it's a E-1.

I don't think people would like that, even those that want the E-1 in CloD.

Its weird how the usual lufty whiners don't seem to be concerned about that, yet they are concerned about which type of 20mm cannon they get (and upset it's not the better of the two).

Maybe they are concerned that they won't get the more common, historical variant in a realistic flightsim.

Also because the E-3 is so similar to the E-4 and the E-4 was more common, it is a bit surprising, that the developers decided to only model the E-3 instead of the E-4.


But whatever, i'm still hoping for E-1, E-3 and E-4 (and E-7, but then that's a bit too unlikely).