Fulqrum Publishing Home   |   Register   |   Today Posts   |   Members   |   UserCP   |   Calendar   |   Search   |   FAQ

Go Back   Official Fulqrum Publishing forum > Fulqrum Publishing > IL-2 Sturmovik: Cliffs of Dover > CoD Multiplayer

CoD Multiplayer Everything about multiplayer in IL-2 CoD

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 01-07-2012, 06:20 PM
JG5_Thijs JG5_Thijs is offline
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 9
Default

Hello all,

Over the last couple of months I’ve been enjoying flying on the ATAG server, which is really my favourite server for this game. Although there are still some game related issues with launcher crashes and certain flight characteristics of certain planes that are not corresponding with what I’ve read in most recently (let’s say the last 10 years) published memoirs and books regarding planes like the Messerschmitt Bf109 on the German side and the Spitfire and Hurricane it is still good fun flying the game. (I won’t go into what I think should be or shouldn’t changed in this post since there are other treads about that on the forums where people can give their, sometimes poorly based, opinion about this).

I would like to give my two cents regarding limiting the Bf109E-4 on the server and allowing mainly the E-1 to be used. Which, as the table below shows would not be correct. (I also like to state that apart from the, now poorly working, automated pitch on the 109E-4 the only difference is the canopy, which doesn’t have a large impact on flying, the only difference between the two subtypes of the Emil is the armament) The E-4, and the E-3 slightly less so, packs a far greater punch compared to the E-1 in the gun department with the MG17 being replaced by the MG FF (in the E-3) and the MG FF/M (in the E-4) making it a much more effective fighter. This is probably the reason why most people that fly fighters on the German side prefer the E-3/E-4 compared to the E-1.

Of course it annoying to get shot down by one of these cannon armed 109’s and therefore wanting to limit them.(like limiting the number of Spitfire MK II which is annoying to fly against, to say the least, for a German fighter pilot in the game. A good case can be made for limiting the number of Spitfire MK II’s when one looks at historical numbers in the actual Battle of Britain).

If the aim of the server is to give a somewhat historical planeset I don’t think severely limiting the number of cannon armed is a good one. Since a lot of documentation of the Luftwaffe was destroyed it will be impossible to find out what the exact numbers of every subtype of 109E that fought in the Battle of Britain was. There are however a number of Geschwader which documents have survived. I only have the books by Jochen Prien on JG3 (all 3 Gruppen that flew in the Battle of Britain) and JG53 that provide numbers on the losses sustained by these units during the Battle of Britain (Period taken 10 July- 31 October 1940). Both Geschwader operated the 109E in this period.

I made a list of the losses of each Geschwader (In both damaged, written off in France and shot down over England/Channel) in the period stated above per subtype of the 109E.

I./ JG3
Bf 109 E-1 #A/C lost 12 (percentage 36 )
Bf 109 E-3 #A/C lost 2(percentage 6 )
Bf 109 E-4 #A/C lost 18(percentage 54 )
Bf 109 E-7#A/C lost 1(percentage 3 )


II./JG 3
Bf 109 E-1 #A/C lost 16(percentage 37 )
Bf 109 E-3#A/C lost 1(percentage 2 )
Bf 109 E-4 #A/C lost 26(percentage 60 )
Bf 109 E-7#A/C lost 0(percentage 0 )



III./JG 3
Bf 109 E-1 #A/C lost 13(percentage 32 )
Bf 109 E-3 #A/C lost 0(percentage 0 )
Bf 109 E-4 #A/C lost 27(percentage 68 )
Bf 109 E-7 #A/C lost 0(percentage 0 )


JG53
Bf 109 E-1 #A/C lost 44(percentage 38 )
Bf 109 E-3 #A/C lost 0(percentage 0 )
Bf109 E-4 #A/C lost 69(percentage 59 )
Bf109 E-7 #A/C lost 4(percentage 3 )


As we can see from the tables above it is clear that although the 109E-1 still was a substantial part of the Luftwaffe inventory during the Battle of Britain the majority of planes in use by these units* was the E-4. I therefore have to say that limiting the number of e-4’s, or e-3’s, would not be a good to limit the number of the cannon armed 109’s on ATAG.

*Both JG3 and JG53 were not privileged units in that they received the latest equipment first and can be considered as ‘normal’ units in respect of converting to the latest plane types.

Note in all the books I checked, In October 1940 the E-1 appears in very limited number and has been largely replaced by losses of 109 E-4’s.
It is also safe to assume that lost 109e-1’s were replaced by 109e-4’s since the E-1 was phased out as the Battle of Britain went on.

Maybe someone that has the Jagdfliegerverbande series by Prien or the JG27 and JG77 by the same author could provide numbers of the losses in the Battle of Britain period by these units in the manner I have done above.

Regards

Thijs

Last edited by JG5_Thijs; 01-07-2012 at 06:35 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 01-08-2012, 07:48 AM
csThor csThor is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: somewhere in Germany
Posts: 1,213
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JG5_Thijs View Post
Hello all,

I would like to give my two cents regarding limiting the Bf109E-4 on the server and allowing mainly the E-1 to be used. Which, as the table below shows would not be correct. (I also like to state that apart from the, now poorly working, automated pitch on the 109E-4 the only difference is the canopy, which doesn’t have a large impact on flying, the only difference between the two subtypes of the Emil is the armament) The E-4, and the E-3 slightly less so, packs a far greater punch compared to the E-1 in the gun department with the MG17 being replaced by the MG FF (in the E-3) and the MG FF/M (in the E-4) making it a much more effective fighter. This is probably the reason why most people that fly fighters on the German side prefer the E-3/E-4 compared to the E-1.

Of course it annoying to get shot down by one of these cannon armed 109’s and therefore wanting to limit them.(like limiting the number of Spitfire MK II which is annoying to fly against, to say the least, for a German fighter pilot in the game. A good case can be made for limiting the number of Spitfire MK II’s when one looks at historical numbers in the actual Battle of Britain).

If the aim of the server is to give a somewhat historical planeset I don’t think severely limiting the number of cannon armed is a good one. Since a lot of documentation of the Luftwaffe was destroyed it will be impossible to find out what the exact numbers of every subtype of 109E that fought in the Battle of Britain was. There are however a number of Geschwader which documents have survived. I only have the books by Jochen Prien on JG3 (all 3 Gruppen that flew in the Battle of Britain) and JG53 that provide numbers on the losses sustained by these units during the Battle of Britain (Period taken 10 July- 31 October 1940). Both Geschwader operated the 109E in this period.

I made a list of the losses of each Geschwader (In both damaged, written off in France and shot down over England/Channel) in the period stated above per subtype of the 109E.

I./ JG3
Bf 109 E-1 #A/C lost 12 (percentage 36 )
Bf 109 E-3 #A/C lost 2(percentage 6 )
Bf 109 E-4 #A/C lost 18(percentage 54 )
Bf 109 E-7#A/C lost 1(percentage 3 )


II./JG 3
Bf 109 E-1 #A/C lost 16(percentage 37 )
Bf 109 E-3#A/C lost 1(percentage 2 )
Bf 109 E-4 #A/C lost 26(percentage 60 )
Bf 109 E-7#A/C lost 0(percentage 0 )



III./JG 3
Bf 109 E-1 #A/C lost 13(percentage 32 )
Bf 109 E-3 #A/C lost 0(percentage 0 )
Bf 109 E-4 #A/C lost 27(percentage 68 )
Bf 109 E-7 #A/C lost 0(percentage 0 )


JG53
Bf 109 E-1 #A/C lost 44(percentage 38 )
Bf 109 E-3 #A/C lost 0(percentage 0 )
Bf109 E-4 #A/C lost 69(percentage 59 )
Bf109 E-7 #A/C lost 4(percentage 3 )


As we can see from the tables above it is clear that although the 109E-1 still was a substantial part of the Luftwaffe inventory during the Battle of Britain the majority of planes in use by these units* was the E-4. I therefore have to say that limiting the number of e-4’s, or e-3’s, would not be a good to limit the number of the cannon armed 109’s on ATAG.

*Both JG3 and JG53 were not privileged units in that they received the latest equipment first and can be considered as ‘normal’ units in respect of converting to the latest plane types.

Note in all the books I checked, In October 1940 the E-1 appears in very limited number and has been largely replaced by losses of 109 E-4’s.
It is also safe to assume that lost 109e-1’s were replaced by 109e-4’s since the E-1 was phased out as the Battle of Britain went on.


Maybe someone that has the Jagdfliegerverbande series by Prien or the JG27 and JG77 by the same author could provide numbers of the losses in the Battle of Britain period by these units in the manner I have done above.

Regards

Thijs
Actually it's not that the E-1 was phased out and replaced by new E-4. The Bf 109 E is unique among the german aircraft as an Emil that was upgraded received a new sub-type number on the Werknummer plate. It was common to rebuild earlier types (such as E-1 and E-3) with the new MG FF/M wing-mounted cannons and turn them into E-4s. It wasn't uncommon for aircraft to be built as E-1s, upgraded to E-4s and finally into E-7s. The german Technikmuseum in Berlin has one such aircraft, an E-7 salvaged from a lake near Murmansk, which was built as E-1, got an upgrade to E-4 and another to E-7, served in the MTO, was refurbished and sent to JG 5 at Petsamo.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 01-08-2012, 01:58 PM
JG5_Thijs JG5_Thijs is offline
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 9
Default

You are right CsThor, I should have phrased that better, thanks for clarifying this for everyone.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 01-08-2012, 04:17 PM
JG52Krupi's Avatar
JG52Krupi JG52Krupi is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,128
Default

not happy with the current mission, it seems to have hit my performance massively, too many object on the ground.
__________________


Quote:
Originally Posted by SiThSpAwN View Post
Its a glass half full/half empty scenario, we all know the problems, we all know what needs to be fixed it just some people focus on the water they have and some focus on the water that isnt there....
Gigabyte X58A-UD5 | Intel i7 930 | Corsair H70 | ATI 5970 | 6GB Kingston DDR3 | Intel 160GB G2 | Win 7 Ultimate 64 Bit |
MONITOR: Acer S243HL.
CASE: Thermaltake LEVEL 10.
INPUTS: KG13 Warthog, Saitek Pedals, Track IR 4.

Last edited by JG52Krupi; 01-08-2012 at 04:25 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 01-08-2012, 09:12 PM
ATAG_Dutch ATAG_Dutch is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,793
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JG52Krupi View Post
not happy with the current mission, it seems to have hit my performance massively, too many object on the ground.
Huh?

My system copes with it fine (see sig) and I've run exclusively bombing missions so far. I'd've thought yours would be better mate.

The mission itself is a huge improvement IMHO, with achievable objectives for both sides and some strategic thinking required (some very nasty flak though!).

There was an initial hiccup which I fedback to Bliss regarding the wrong 'target destroyed' messages coming up, so that the blue guys were defending a target which had already been destroyed, whilst leaving an untouched target undefended, but I'm assured this is now corrected.

Would like to see variations on this theme become the norm.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 01-08-2012, 09:46 PM
JG52Krupi's Avatar
JG52Krupi JG52Krupi is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 3,128
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbop View Post
Is it my imagination or are there more clouds too? I haven't noticed any difference on my system, though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ATAG_Dutch View Post
Huh?

My system copes with it fine (see sig) and I've run exclusively bombing missions so far. I'd've thought yours would be better mate.

The mission itself is a huge improvement IMHO, with achievable objectives for both sides and some strategic thinking required (some very nasty flak though!).

There was an initial hiccup which I fedback to Bliss regarding the wrong 'target destroyed' messages coming up, so that the blue guys were defending a target which had already been destroyed, whilst leaving an untouched target undefended, but I'm assured this is now corrected.

Would like to see variations on this theme become the norm.
When I fly near Hawkinge my fps go from ~65 to 16 , not the only one with this problem.
__________________


Quote:
Originally Posted by SiThSpAwN View Post
Its a glass half full/half empty scenario, we all know the problems, we all know what needs to be fixed it just some people focus on the water they have and some focus on the water that isnt there....
Gigabyte X58A-UD5 | Intel i7 930 | Corsair H70 | ATI 5970 | 6GB Kingston DDR3 | Intel 160GB G2 | Win 7 Ultimate 64 Bit |
MONITOR: Acer S243HL.
CASE: Thermaltake LEVEL 10.
INPUTS: KG13 Warthog, Saitek Pedals, Track IR 4.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 01-08-2012, 10:08 PM
Osprey's Avatar
Osprey Osprey is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gloucestershire, England
Posts: 1,264
Default

From looking at those records posted from JG53 the only conclusion which can be drawn is that more E4's were shot down. JG53 may have been well equipped but not all crews were. Steinhilper makes it clear that only 'the Spaniards' got the E4 in his squadron for example. If there is a good source for ratio information I would love to read it though, all parties regardless of preference should make efforts to understand the historical information we have in the interests of making a sim not a game.

As an RAF pilot I do not fear the cannon because it is harder to hit with, lower muzzle velocity etc. In actual fact although I call for an E4/3 limit to enforce use of the E1, I fear the E1 much more because it has a minute of ammunition! Very dangerous indeed - but I still want it in for the sake of history.

The other feared item is the FM's which are awful, but mainly the "rear deflector shield" carried by 109's, where that can be hammered by belt after belt and remain largely unaffected. Still, I think that will change and when it does half the 109 drivers will shout and the other half will change their tactics.

Last edited by Osprey; 01-08-2012 at 10:12 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 01-08-2012, 10:38 PM
FFCW_Urizen's Avatar
FFCW_Urizen FFCW_Urizen is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Munich, Germany
Posts: 297
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JG52Krupi View Post
When I fly near Hawkinge my fps go from ~65 to 16 , not the only one with this problem.
Had the same today south of littlestone, at altitude!!! Going from smooth 40 down to 5 or less. OK there were a major furball going on at that time, but the moment it was quieter, i still struggled at around 15 fps. and i´ve already lowered my settings to the point where it hurts looking at the graphics .
Next thing i heard on comms, was people being disconnected from the server.
Maybe the problem isn´t mission related.
__________________


Quote:
Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Banks View Post
The devs need to continue to tweak the FM balance until there is equal amount of whining from both sides.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 01-08-2012, 11:00 PM
335th_GRAthos 335th_GRAthos is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,240
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JG52Krupi View Post
When I fly near Hawkinge my fps go from ~65 to 16 , not the only one with this problem.
When I look at the Hawkinge airfield my fps go from ~68 to 28
If I flying near it without looking at the airfield my fps does not suffer.

~S~
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 01-09-2012, 03:32 AM
Bounder! Bounder! is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 129
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JG52Krupi View Post
When I fly near Hawkinge my fps go from ~65 to 16 , not the only one with this problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FFCW_Urizen View Post
Had the same today south of littlestone, at altitude!!! Going from smooth 40 down to 5 or less. OK there were a major furball going on at that time, but the moment it was quieter, i still struggled at around 15 fps. and i´ve already lowered my settings to the point where it hurts looking at the graphics .
Next thing i heard on comms, was people being disconnected from the server.
Maybe the problem isn´t mission related.
I've had the same thing this weekend over Hawkinge with my fps dropping to single digits which I can't say I've had before to this extent - I blamed it on my rubbish pc (hoping to upgrade soon[tm]). When I fly away from Hawkinge I recover good fps again. It may have been a coincidence but I seemed to notice it during busy peak time periods on the server.

Last edited by Bounder!; 01-09-2012 at 03:39 AM.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:28 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.