[Der_Hans]

Nice work! I'm having some trouble getting the rocket tubes to show up but I think I'll figure it out.

Is there any way to revert to the standard cockpits though?

[kubanloewe]

hello,

im using UI1.2 with Jafa

[Guest]

This pack is now obselete and is part of the Ultimate 109 pack I made.

But as for the incorrect size of the mortars, well spotted! Zorin did make a fix but I don't think he has released it as of yet

[III/JG52_Torpe]

Muas, Just a question is rolling in my head from the day i know there will be a Merge for the One modpack

Ultrapack Muas's 109s FMs are made by 303_Kwiatek, and Unified Inataller Muas 109's FMs are made By Gitano/Karaya and others. So there is a little conflict that i would like to know how you will solve...

And, moreover, actual FM modelling for 109s (Oleg included, of course), are not as "real" as it seems:

Let's compare the four examples of the Bf 109 G6/AS speeds between Luftwaffe tests 7/6/44 (kurfurst.org), and actual FM models:

Luftwaffe Test (7/6/44) G6/ASM >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Speed at 3000m./ 2600 rpm 1.3 ATA 565 km/h TAS

Oleg Maddox G6/ASM >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Speed at 3000m./1.42 ATA 490 km/h IAS - 519 km/h TAS

Karaya/Gitano G6/AS NewSlot (early version with no MW50?) >>>>>Speed at 3000m./1.42 ATA 465 km/h IAS - 493 km/h TAS

303_Kwiatek G6/ASM RL >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Speed at 3000m./1.42 ATA 400 km/h IAS - 424 km/h TAS


As you can see, or each one here has based his FM on a different test chart. or different engine version? Will we have a unified FM for the G6/AS too?

8)

[_1SMV_Gitano]

I have never done a FM tweak... :wink:

[supongo]

Gitano, FM no, but, and performances?

As you can see, or each one here has based his PERFORMANCES on a different test chart. or different engine version? Will we have a unified PERFORMANCES for the G6/AS too?


does it sound better?

Un saludo


Supongo

[III/JG52_Torpe]

I have never done a FM tweak... :wink:

Well i meant just mod authors, (Gitano/Anto/Karaya/EnsignRo/Monguse) i don't know exactly who did FMs for Muas 109s, perhaps Karaya was?

Anyway G6/AS engine performance must be tweaked on performances at least based on the real kurfurst test for DB605-ASM. As i have shown on tested max speeds for actual FMs, they are far from being "real". And we are just talking about speeds, not climbing, turn rate, etc. (but sure they are wrong too if engine perfromance is wrong). In my opinion that must be solved or we will have many 109s, but all wrong or worst than Oleg stock 109s, we have quantity, but not quality now. :wink:

[_1SMV_Gitano]

Torpe, I understand your worries... however the fact is that the matter under debate is confused by itself and defining a standardization is close to impossible.

As said by some historians, standardization is a unappropiate word when referred to the war years, especially for the 44-45 period in the Axis countries, due to shortages of materials, tools, ecc.

For example, you could find the same engine model with different setups for fuel type, boost system and so on. Add modification to the airframe and other equipments, experiments ecc. and you get a variety of planes which have formally the same designation but were very different between each other. So, to define a representative FM and 3D models for a late war Bf-109 is very hard and you'll always find someone that does not agree with your definition of "standard".

[III/JG52_Torpe]

Well, in that case, perhaps when merge occurs, Muas will need to re-name 109 designations based on FM performances, so the final user can understand what kind of plane is flying, final user needs to understand why there are 3 different bf109 G6/AS with different FM performances, for example, what bf109G6/AS "New slot" designation means? i think if the plane is an early version with no MW50, it could be designated as "bf109 G6/AS Early" or "bf109 G6/AS No MW-50", the worst example is the Ultrapack version designated as Bf109 G6/AS RL (Realistic FM), what means realistic? 400km/h at 3000m/ATA 1.42 is realistic? in what chart is based this "realistic" engine performance? perhaps it is based on defective construction due to shortage of materials and tools, in that case it could be re-designated as "Bf109 G6/AS defective", ok, no one will want to fly it, but at least final user is not being deceived with designation, or we will not think that 303_Kwiatek is assumpting that Realistic performance of G6/AS was this joke performance he modelled.

Well, i dont want to be too much critic, but the merge of all mods in one modpack means merge of FMs too, and if we will have 3 different G6/AS, we have the right to know exactly i what particulars are different, because historically we only know one G6/AS, not three.

This thread is too discussed at UP site:

http://il2ultrapack.net46.net/index.php/...848.0.html

:wink:

[III/JG52_Torpe]

I invite all 109 experten to follow these steps:

1. Read kurfurst engine performances for DB605-AS:

http://kurfurst.org/Performance_tests/1 ... 6_ASM.html

2. Run IL-2 Sturmovik 1946 4.09m official, and test bf 109 G6/AS speeds at ATA 1.42 at any altittudes ...sea level, 1000, 2000, 3000, write them and then compare with kurfurst graphic of link.

3. Run Ultrapack 1.8 and test bf 109 G6/AS RL speeds at ATA 1.42 at any altittudes ...sea level, 1000, 2000, 3000, write them and then compare with kurfurst graphic of link.

4. Run Unified Installer 1.2 and test bf 109 G6/AS New slot speeds at ATA 1.42 at any altittudes ...sea level, 1000, 2000, 3000, write them and then compare with kurfurst graphic of link.

5. Come here and post results, and we'll see and discuss

[III/JG52_Torpe]

Well i have to admit some things:

Ultrapack 109 G6/AS RL is currently the same engine model of kurfurst link, DB605-ASM with ata 1.3 and MW50. so this engine is the one i have selected at kurfurst. So i was right comparing this engine at kurfurst with it.

Oleg G6/AS modelled a DB605/ASM too, but with unblocked ATA 1.42 engine, so, the FM already used in Muas G6/AS RL, is not the same, because is blocked at ATA 1.3, so, it can be perfectly compared with kurfurst test of DB605-ASM (just having in mind that oleg's engine is unblocked at ATA 1.42)

Unified Installer's Muas G6/AS New Slot, modeled by Karaya has correct NO MW-50, and yes, it could be compared with the test of a DB605-AS engine, not ASM, with no MW50, so that is my fault having compared it in the same chart.

[Guest]

Ultrapack 1.8 and HSFX for some reason messed up their buttons file causing the 109s to have incorrect engine performance. If you use the SAS buttons, the engine models are corrected.

[III/JG52_Torpe]

From Kwiatek at ultrapack forum:

Im also agree that historical order with actually 109G familiy is needed for UP.

So after my research i have such suggestion for represting these planes in UP 1.8:

- G-6 1.32 Ata ( Early) - 1943
Performance: 0- 510, 6.6 - 630 km/h, climb rate 19 m/s, turn ~ 22,5 sec

- G-6 1.42 Ata ( Late - Erla) - 1943
Performance: 0- 530, 6.5 - 650 km/h, climb rate 21 m/s, turn ~ 21,5 sec

- G-6 A/S 1944 - with DB 605 AS engine ( high alt engines without MW 50)
Performance: 0- 520, 9 - 660 km/h, climb rate 19 m/s, turn ~ 22,5 sec

- G-6 AM 1944 - with Db 605 AM ( MW 50)
Performance: 0- 568, 5 - 660 km/h, climb rate 23 m/s, turn ~ 22 sec

- G-14 with Db 605 AM
Performance: 0- 568, 5 - 660 km/h, climb rate 23 m/s, turn ~ 22 sec

- G-14 A/S with Db 605 ASM ( high alt with MW 50)
Performance: 0- 560, 7.5 - 685 km/h, climb rate 22 m/s, turn ~ 22,5 sec

Performacne are based mostly on Kurfurst site and other german charts data. These planes was the most common versions of 109 G -6 and G-14 types.

If these performances are put in the next bug repairing patch, we will be very happy!

[kubanloewe]

Ultrapack 1.8 and HSFX for some reason messed up their buttons file causing the 109s to have incorrect engine performance. If you use the SAS buttons, the engine models are corrected.

sry but what are SAS buttons ?
and where can i dl the ultimate 109 pack ??

thx