Developer Blog #356: IAR 80 and Spitfire IXc updates, career mode, flight model, and control input improvements

[TacticalOni]

Ayy! Glad to see the 47 wasn't forgotten! 
The P-40's a nice surprise too

[JG27_Mainz]

The aircraft is labeled Spitfire Mk. IXc, but it has the E-wing. Why?

 

[LukeFF]

1 hour ago, -332FG-Ursus_ said:

In essence will be the same Spitfire Mk IX we have now. 

It has type E wing and the clipped one as well, despite the fact that is the type C wing variant, with the Merlin 66, and Merlin 70 engine i presume. With 66 engine allowed to use 150 octane fuel i presume to, because its for the LF variants which used Merlin 66.

The only is different is the early rounded tailrudder, which comes from the original designs of the Spitfire Mk IX, and is inherited from older Spitfires like Mk V which was replaced with the latest one added on Mk VIII variants, because of the increment of power which came with the Merlin 61, 63, 66.

I don't see how standard is for 1944 then... Even in Normandy there was a lot of Spitfire Mk V flying alongside Mk IX.

 

It also has .303s as the standard MG armament.

[senseispcc]

All in all good news. Thanks.

The Spitfire IX has a very complex production history and not always very logical.

Edited January 27, 2024 by senseispcc
Addition

[Spidey002]

Eager to see the changes to the P-47! Maybe I’ll actually enjoy flying it now! ?

 

Is there a post where the updated FM is discussed?

[ShamrockOneFive]

3 hours ago, JG27_Mainz said:

The aircraft is labeled Spitfire Mk. IXc, but it has the E-wing. Why?

 

 

Yeah I was a bit confused about that. Hopefully a simple explanation that could include the IXc as labelled actually also has the E-wing available. Would be good to clarify.

[Avimimus]

People associate the E-wing with the 0.5 cal though...

 

Perhaps calling it the Spitfire IXc (late) would be the way to go?

[-250H-Ursus_]

31 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

People associate the E-wing with the 0.5 cal though...

 

Perhaps calling it the Spitfire IXc (late) would be the way to go?

Is not because it has .50 cals. Is because it is an Spitfire Mk IX e wing. 

A Spitfire Mk IXc, the 20mm cannons are inner, and the .50 cals are external, or the .303

Like in this 2 photographs of a C type Spitfires.

Spoiler

While in a Spitfire IXe the cannons are in the external side.
Just like this real one and the one showed on the DD
 

Spoiler

 

This made me remember once when the Spitfire XIV when it was introduced of the AI was bugged and showed the E and C wings together, off course not working at same time, was a visual bug.

It looked pretty funny because it was giving the impression of having 4 20mm cannons just for this reason.

I know... This Type C an Type E wing thing is pretty confusing, but once one knows the little differnece externally is easy to distinguish a C from an E, besides that an a C could have .303 or twin 20mm if given the case.
 

Edited January 27, 2024 by -332FG-Ursus_

[blockheadgreen_]

1 hour ago, -332FG-Ursus_ said:

Is not because it has .50 cals. Is because it is an Spitfire Mk IX e wing. 

A Spitfire Mk IXc, the 20mm cannons are inner, and the .50 cals are external, or the .303

Like in this 2 photographs of a C type Spitfires.

  Reveal hidden contents

While in a Spitfire IXe the cannons are in the external side.
Just like this real one and the one showed on the DD
 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

This made me remember once when the Spitfire XIV when it was introduced of the AI was bugged and showed the E and C wings together, off course not working at same time, was a visual bug.

It looked pretty funny because it was giving the impression of having 4 20mm cannons just for this reason.

I know... This Type C an Type E wing thing is pretty confusing, but once one knows the little differnece externally is easy to distinguish a C from an E, besides that an a C could have .303 or twin 20mm if given the case.
 

The plane will have the mixed .303 armament as standard with the E wing being a modification, like the Mk XIV.

 

To clarify further, the Mk IX never used the "IXc" designation officially, it's more of a useful term in modern times used to differentiate between the standard IX and the later IX(e) (originally called the IX.5). This is because the Mk IXs wing, though based on the C/Universal wing of the Mk Vc, was in fact not capable of carrying two cannon due to outer cannon bay being occupied by the ducting for gun heating from the radiators. Originally it was intended it could still use the A type armament of eight .303s, but this was never trialled let alone used in service, and from the outset its armament was officially limited to the B type of two cannon and four MGs. This is stated in the offical AP1565 manual (see paragraph 2)

This was also eventually officially implemented as an modification for both the Mk Vc and the Mk IX in late 1943, though even before that between April and November of 1943 both Mk Vc and IXs were being built with only the inner cannon port (hence MH415 and 434). In November, pending the future introduction of the E type armament, the outer cannon port was reintroduced on production (to facilitate easy modification to that standard on existing airframes) though the first IXs so equipped didn't appear till April 1944. 

 

The official designations from the post-war pilots notes for the two wings are Mk IX and Mk IX(e).

 

Anyways, perplexed as to why they showed off the E type armament in the devblog instead, but I'm excited nonetheless!

 

Edited January 27, 2024 by Lythronax

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

13 hours ago, FTC_ChilliBalls said:

I love the P47 and P40 FMs being worked on, 

the IAR sounds pretty dope as well.

 

I just can't see myself buying the Mk IXc, as it just doesn't add anything to the game.

It's literally the same plane as the MK IXe, with a different wing and tail,

the former of which could have been added as an option to the MK IXe like on the Mk XIV.

 

If it had a different Merlin variant like the 61 or 63, then yes, sure, but the same old Merlin 66? 

No thank you.

I agree. Feels like a shameless cash grab by 1CGS. There are modifications for other planes that add more meaningful changes than these...

Edited January 27, 2024 by drewm3i-VR

[Juri_JS]

A question for the Spitfire experts. In which time frame does the new IXc fit, if it has the Merlin 66 and 70 engines. Only 44/45 or also second half of 43?

[BMA_FlyingShark]

4 hours ago, Avimimus said:

People associate the E-wing with the 0.5 cal though...

Here's probably one of the most stupid questions ever asked on this forum, on flight sim fora in general even.

 

But, what is that E-wing compared to a non-E-wing actually?

Has it got to do with the guns sticking out of the plane or does it mean something completely different?

 

Have a nice day.

 

[blockheadgreen_]

33 minutes ago, Juri_JS said:

A question for the Spitfire experts. In which time frame does the new IXc fit, if it has the Merlin 66 and 70 engines. Only 44/45 or also second half of 43?

With the Merlin 66/70 and the big air filter, technically from November 1943 onwards, though these variants entered service in the Spring of 43 (March and April respectively IIRC).

18 minutes ago, FlyingShark said:

Here's probably one of the most stupid questions ever asked on this forum, on flight sim fora in general even.

 

But, what is that E-wing compared to a non-E-wing actually?

Has it got to do with the guns sticking out of the plane or does it mean something completely different?

 

Have a nice day.

 

The E wing features two 20mm cannon and two .50 cal Brownings, as opposed to the earlier wing with two 20mm and four .303 Brownings. It entered service in the late Spring of 1944 on the Mk IX.

[CountZero]

1 hour ago, drewm3i-VR said:

I agree. Feels like a shameless cash grab by 1CGS. There are modifications for other planes that add more meaningful changes than these...

if they make it to turn better, or climb better, or roll better or be faster then one in game now, ppl will buy it, if not maybe there is some ppl here who also like to buy bridges, tey will be interested for sure

Edited January 27, 2024 by CountZero

[Tendo]

Improve mouse control please

[BubiHUN]

14 hours ago, LukeFF said:

What's wrong with the 109 manual radiator controls right now? 

we cant set them 1 by 1 wich shouldnt be the case

[Letka_13/Arrow_]

3 hours ago, drewm3i-VR said:

I agree. Feels like a shameless cash grab by 1CGS. There are modifications for other planes that add more meaningful changes than these...

From dogfight/warthunder perspective there maybe are. From historical point of view it adds a lot to the game, during the battle of Normandy IXc it was RAF's workhorse and there were plenty of them flying combat ops in all imaginable roles. It can be used in campaigns, career, single missions, realistic coop scenarios and other interesting content. I think the sim is not just about online dogfight about higher climb rates, turn rates, speeds and guns...

Edited January 27, 2024 by Letka_13/Arrow_

[CountZero]

1 hour ago, Letka_13/Arrow_ said:

From dogfight/warthunder perspective there maybe are. From historical point of view it adds a lot to the game, during the battle of Normandy IXc it was RAF's workhorse and there were plenty of them flying combat ops in all imaginable roles. It can be used in campaigns, career, single missions, realistic coop scenarios and other interesting content. I think the sim is not just about online dogfight about higher climb rates, turn rates, speeds and guns...

why then not make it with engine modifications ppl expect, so it can be used in more historical events, also if aim is not just df why we keep geting fighters mostly and plans are focuse on adding fighters only, there is 0 allied bomber to fly that fits west front, why not make one flyable and expand posibilitys for combat ops, Spit 9 same like one we have adds nothing to game, its made because they think ppl will buy it, its used to train new guys probably, and i bet it will have better performance then one in game, like it was case with 109g6 they added later that was on paper same as one we had but somehow is better in DF

[ShamrockOneFive]

1 hour ago, CountZero said:

why then not make it with engine modifications ppl expect, so it can be used in more historical events, also if aim is not just df why we keep geting fighters mostly and plans are focuse on adding fighters only, there is 0 allied bomber to fly that fits west front, why not make one flyable and expand posibilitys for combat ops, Spit 9 same like one we have adds nothing to game, its made because they think ppl will buy it, its used to train new guys probably, and i bet it will have better performance then one in game, like it was case with 109g6 they added later that was on paper same as one we had but somehow is better in DF

Not sure if a rhetorical question or no but the reason why they aren't doing a Merlin 66 plus an earlier version is because there are quite a few, albeit minor, differences between the earlier Spitfire IX and later ones. If I were me calling the shots, I would have been offering up a mid 1943 version for more interest.

 

Such as it is, if they do this late model Merlin 66 LF.IXc right it will perform almost identically with the IXe.

[No105_Swoose]

All very good news.  Thank you devs!  I hope the new AI Spitfire IXc's will not have the unexplained, unfixed engine cutoff problem like the current Spitfires have.

[JG4_Deciman]

Quote

Quite a bit of improvements are being added to the input subsystem: most importantly, it will be possible to search for a command assigned to a button by pressing it or moving a control axis or search for a command by its name. To make mapping a HOTAS controller easier, several command bindings were duplicated as separate on/off or open/close pairs: bomb fuses, bomb doors, air brakes, Ju-87 siren, canopy, prop feathering (all, 1st engine, 2nd engine).

 

 

That is really great!

 

Deci

[pasao]

Wow unexpected update, great!!! total surprise

A P40 with a less fragile engine is always welcome. You can die but with style in a beatiful plane

You did it every time, that is to fidelize the customer
Very appreciated

[kissTheSky]

I’m pleasantly surprised the development team is looking into QoL improvements. There’s hope yet for them to fix VR stutter issues perhaps. 

[Rjel]

1 hour ago, pasao said:

Wow unexpected update, great!!! total surprise

A P40 with a less fragile engine is always welcome. You can die but with style in a beatiful plane

You did it every time, that is to fidelize the customer
Very appreciated

I had to look up "fidelize". I can honestly say I've never heard the word before. 

 

Before I irritate someone with my remarks, I'll confess I am not an expert about the Spitfire series or that of the Bf-109 and Fw-190s. Considering we have multiple versions of both German fighters that to my uneducated mind, are little more than a different canopy, cowling or tail fin, I'm more than pleased with the new Spitfire. Even if it brings little more than the earlier rounded rudder with it, I'm more than eager to purchase it. It has such a graceful appearance that was marred by the horribly  ugly tails and rudders cobbled onto later marks of the series. It will easily be my second favorite ride behind the P-51s we have now.

[LukeFF]

4 hours ago, No105_Swoose said:

All very good news.  Thank you devs!  I hope the new AI Spitfire IXc's will not have the unexplained, unfixed engine cutoff problem like the current Spitfires have.

 

Is this problem documented somewhere?

[BlitzPig_EL]

Was wondering the same Luke, I've never had a Spit "cut out".

[Hook_Echo]

The AI spitfires will kill their engines, usually at the beginning of combat. If you scan through your external cameras at your wingmen there will usually be one gliding to the ground with no other damage. It was reported over a year ago in the AI bugs thread.

 

Edit: I tried tried a few missions and none of the Spit IX's killed themselves, so maybe it was fixed, but I don't remember seeing any patch notes mentioning this.

Edited January 27, 2024 by Hook_Echo

[JG4_Moltke1871]

A separate arm/disarm button is a good step. But best would be a visual confirmation about the bomb fuse status like we already have in the US/British planes. Please also do it in the German/soviet planes

[stiboo]

1 hour ago, Hook_Echo said:

The AI spitfires will kill their engines, usually at the beginning of combat. If you scan through your external cameras at your wingmen there will usually be one gliding to the ground with no other damage. It was reported over a year ago in the AI bugs thread.

 

Edit: I tried tried a few missions and none of the Spit IX's killed themselves, so maybe it was fixed, but I don't remember seeing any patch notes mentioning this.

 

I have this happen regularly to my a.i. squadron flying the Spit IX on a PWCG campaign I'm playing at the moment, the last occasion earlier today, normally just one plane in the flight.

[-250H-Ursus_]

On 1/27/2024 at 7:38 AM, Letka_13/Arrow_ said:

From dogfight/warthunder perspective there maybe are. From historical point of view it adds a lot to the game, during the battle of Normandy IXc it was RAF's workhorse and there were plenty of them flying combat ops in all imaginable roles. It can be used in campaigns, career, single missions, realistic coop scenarios and other interesting content. I think the sim is not just about online dogfight about higher climb rates, turn rates, speeds and guns...

For that one just could add the Spitfire Mk IX as just Spitfire Mk IX. Using the C Wing and Merlin 66 as standard model, with all the modifications as optionals like.
Initial versions, with Merlin 61.
Later versions, with Merlin 63, 66 , 70, with the E wing as mod and clipped to, without forgetting the 2 different rudders it had.
You can have all in one. Pretty much in pretty similar way as G-6 Late has, literally because G-6 Late in game is like having G-6 from collector and G-14 all in one, just depends on your modifications.

PS: Literally all in one with our current Spitfire Mk IX.

Edited January 28, 2024 by -332FG-Ursus_

[chris455]

On 1/26/2024 at 10:05 AM, LukeFF said:

 

What do you mean?

 

 

As built, the IXc was armed with .303s instead of M2 .50s and featured a different tail section. There were other engine types fitted, but AFAIK those are not going to be part of this update, as the plane is being modeled per 1944 specs.

A Spit with .50s??? Did I miss something? ?

[Hook_Echo]

56 minutes ago, chris455 said:

A Spit with .50s??? Did I miss something? ?

The current Spit IX has a 50 cal and a 20mm in each wing

[357th_KW]

3 hours ago, -332FG-Ursus_ said:

For that one just could add the Spitfire Mk IX as just Spitfire Mk IX. Using the C Wing and Merlin 66 as standard model, with all the modifications as optionals like.
Initial versions, with Merlin 61.
Later versions, with Merlin 63, 66 , 70, with the E wing as mod and clipped to, without forgetting the 2 different rudders it had.
You can have all in one.

I would love to see this.  Yeah there’s a slight difference in the intake and a minor bulge in the cowl of some of the very early Mk IX’s.  This shouldn’t be insurmountable - the Hurricane II has a completely different intake model available as a mod, AND different engine setting mods, AND 5 different armament packages, each of which require a different wing graphic.

[LukeFF]

4 hours ago, stiboo said:

I have this happen regularly to my a.i. squadron flying the Spit IX on a PWCG campaign I'm playing at the moment, the last occasion earlier today, normally just one plane in the flight.

 

5 hours ago, Hook_Echo said:

The AI spitfires will kill their engines, usually at the beginning of combat. If you scan through your external cameras at your wingmen there will usually be one gliding to the ground with no other damage. It was reported over a year ago in the AI bugs thread.

 

Edit: I tried tried a few missions and none of the Spit IX's killed themselves, so maybe it was fixed, but I don't remember seeing any patch notes mentioning this.

 

Need track files, guys. ?

[Varibraun]

12 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

Need track files, guys. ?

 

Old issue - here is thread from 2021/2022 - with acknowledged track file:

 

 

 

[AKA_Ramstein]

how about fixing the bombs, the 500 lb bombs are weak... I have been around exploding bombs, in the USAF (I was 500 feet from a 5 story building being destroyed. by 200 lbs.), and they are much more deadly than the modeling in this sim. IMHO. in fact only the larger bombs seem to pack any real punch. In real life you don't have to drop directly on a target, like tanks. close by is deadly in real life. again IMHO.

[Lusekofte]

I am happy about the P 47 and P 40 revision 

I hope P 47 glass engine this time will be made by solid steel. 
 

[BubiHUN]

On 1/27/2024 at 1:12 PM, CountZero said:

why then not make it with engine modifications ppl expect, so it can be used in more historical events, also if aim is not just df why we keep geting fighters mostly and plans are focuse on adding fighters only, there is 0 allied bomber to fly that fits west front, why not make one flyable and expand posibilitys for combat ops, Spit 9 same like one we have adds nothing to game, its made because they think ppl will buy it, its used to train new guys probably, and i bet it will have better performance then one in game, like it was case with 109g6 they added later that was on paper same as one we had but somehow is better in DF

I can agree with this. Why not spending resources and time on adding flyable bombers?
It is still possible that very few people will buy it though...same effect could be with the gliders.
Glider and such should be in an asset pack, not standalone planes.

Edited January 28, 2024 by BubiHUN

[EAF19_Marsh]

My inference is that the ‘new IX’ USP is 90% aesthetic with 10% the armament? ‘Cos that is pretty poor as a ‘collector’ aircraft. There is more variance in the 109F2 - F4 - G4 progression, despite their external profile and armament being equal or even more similar.

 

Verily on this one, much effort has not been made.

 

[Gunfreak]

It's good that the bombers will fly higher. But 4.5km is still just 15 000 feet. Granted that 5000 feet higer than what most AI fly now as max. But still far below where both P51 and P47 are at their best. Ideally we should have fights at 25-30 000 feet.

Even if they make the P47 better and more realistic. Its still not gonna be at its best unless it's at 25 000 feet or higher.