Me 410B-2/U4 vs Me 410B-2/U2

[Tinstaafl]

After a few year break back into the game and OFC into the editor .

I'm just curious, why is U4 so much worse in almost every important stat except altitude performance than U2? Doesn't seem to me, that with those stats it would make any sense to rearm from U2 to U4 configuration. It's also using a different bitmap. Would this be a bug or is there a logical explanation?

I'm also somewhat curious, why less armed R3 having as expected a bit higher speed has slightly worse maneuverability and altitude performance than R5.

[Tinstaafl]

I can see, that for Me 410B-2/U4 it's all centered around the 50mm Bk5 cannon, which has very high penetration and quite low accuracy (which seems to be historically accurate), and is causing some additional drag. Still, it's not a pod, just plane's nose modification AFAIK, so would it have such big impact on performance, both on climb speed and maneuverability? Also, any idea how would this high pene/low acc translate in game into kills, while attacking bombers, how would it compare to U2? I'm also not sure, how the gun effect value is working in game, but it would seem to me, that if MGs are usually at 2-3, 20mm cannons at 4 and 30mm at 5, then 4 may be quite low for a 50mm cannon.

[JeffroK]

Possibly lugging around a 500kg weapon pack plus ammo wasnt good for performance, anyway it was to attack bombers outside fighter cover (which grew less and less as the weeks went by)

The low ratings might also reflect the low ammo load, 21 rounds isnt going to last long (This is a Gary Grigsby common thread where ammo load, rate of fire & muzzle velocity are built into the ratings)