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

[Art-J]

Mitchells and Marauders were not operating as high as Forts and Liberators, though. So that 15k is more correct and that's where the escorts would also be, whether it's optimal altitude for them or not.

[Yogiflight]

What about German bombers at the eastfront, when flying escort missions? They surely were not flying at 2000m.

And I already asked for that, what about intercept missions? You don't fly to intercept bombers at the same altitude as the bombers. And with ground attack aircraft intercept missions it is even more wrong. You fly at an altitude of 500-600 m, while the ground attack aircrafts approach at 1000-1500 m.

[Gunfreak]

47 minutes ago, Art-J said:

Mitchells and Marauders were not operating as high as Forts and Liberators, though. So that 15k is more correct and that's where the escorts would also be, whether it's optimal altitude for them or not.

 

But then you wouldn't use P51 and P47s to escort those bombers. You'd use spitfires that are far superior to not only the Ps at that the allies used but any German at those altitudes. So the whole escort mission in IL2 for the allies are already off. As they've just changed the planes but the mission is the same as the Eastern front.  So it's already not a realistic mission, so might as well have the bombers fly at 25 000 feet. And pretend it's a long range escort mission, to utilise the long range high altitude fighters for what they are.

But 15 000 is much better than what it was. I hope the make sure the baddies are flying 20+. Or are we going to see Germans trying to attack bombers at 15 000 from 8000? As of now I don't think I've ever seen an IL2 AI fly above 12 000 feet.

[357th_KW]

1 hour ago, Gunfreak said:

But then you wouldn't use P51 and P47s to escort those bombers. You'd use spitfires that are far superior to not only the Ps at that the allies used but any German at those altitudes. So the whole escort mission in IL2 for the allies are already off. As they've just changed the planes but the mission is the same as the Eastern front.  So it's already not a realistic mission, so might as well have the bombers fly at 25 000 feet. And pretend it's a long range escort mission, to utilise the long range high altitude fighters for what they are.

But 15 000 is much better than what it was. I hope the make sure the baddies are flying 20+. Or are we going to see Germans trying to attack bombers at 15 000 from 8000? As of now I don't think I've ever seen an IL2 AI fly above 12 000 feet.

 

I started a mp server called The Cold Blue, focused around higher altitude escort and intercept scenarios to give people a chance to play with these aircraft at higher altitudes.  Combat at 20-30k ft is common on there with any of the 8th AF scenarios.  This week we're running a bunch of 8th AF stuff (and introducing a new 15th AF themed mission on Thursday) to celebrate the release of Masters of the Air.  The server is populated with AI bombers, escorts and interceptors, so there's plenty to do even if no one else is online.

 

 

[Gunfreak]

1 hour ago, 357th_KW said:

I started a mp server called The Cold Blue, focused around higher altitude escort and intercept scenarios to give people a chance to play with these aircraft at higher altitudes.  Combat at 20-30k ft is common on there with any of the 8th AF scenarios.  This week we're running a bunch of 8th AF stuff (and introducing a new 15th AF themed mission on Thursday) to celebrate the release of Masters of the Air.  The server is populated with AI bombers, escorts and interceptors, so there's plenty to do even if no one else is online.

 

 

Nice  might give it a go.

I just want AI aircraft to use all of the sky. Not just the first 10 000 feet. I would also love if IL2 developers could make it so AI flight paths in career mode isn't always the exact same high as the clouds. Can't tell you how many careers I've abandoned after 3rd straight mission I'm stuck on a cloud for 20 minutes crossing the channel.

[LukeFF]

3 hours ago, Gunfreak said:

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.

 

15000 feet is the max height B-25s and B-26s flew. 

 

1 hour ago, Gunfreak said:

But then you wouldn't use P51 and P47s to escort those bombers. You'd use spitfires that are far superior to not only the Ps at that the allies used but any German at those altitudes. So the whole escort mission in IL2 for the allies are already off.

 

Sorry, but that's not true. P-38s, P-47s, and P-51s were regularly employed to escort medium bombers, plus those Spitfires. 

 

2 hours ago, Yogiflight said:

What about German bombers at the eastfront, when flying escort missions? They surely were not flying at 2000m.

And I already asked for that, what about intercept missions? You don't fly to intercept bombers at the same altitude as the bombers. And with ground attack aircraft intercept missions it is even more wrong. You fly at an altitude of 500-600 m, while the ground attack aircrafts approach at 1000-1500 m.

 

I'll ask about this, thanks. ?

[LukeFF]

57 minutes ago, Gunfreak said:

Can't tell you how many careers I've abandoned after 3rd straight mission I'm stuck on a cloud for 20 minutes crossing the channel.

 

That should be improved in the next update, simply by removing dive-bombing missions from days of extreme cloud cover. 

[Gunfreak]

32 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

 

That should be improved in the next update, simply by removing dive-bombing missions from days of extreme cloud cover. 

I've never done dive bombing missions. I've done free hunt, bomber escort, transport escort etc. My AI flight always ends up in clouds and the AI doesn't care. One way of removing this problem 8s having fighters fly at realistic altitudes instead of that magic altitude were the clouds always are. There are far less clouds at 15 000-25 000 feet. But AI likes 6000-10 000 feet were the clouds always seem to be in career mode. There's literally never any reason for western allied planes to fly at 6000-10 000 feet. If they are avoiding radar they should be lower. If they are moving to a designated target area or escorting stuff, they should be higher.

[BlitzPig_EL]

The AI doesn't "like" anything, that is where the mission maker placed them.

[LukeFF]

Getting the AI to not fly straight through clouds is a difficult task, now that we have far more cloud types than before for each weather preset. This was made even more complicated after adding the new cloud types a while ago. That's why with dive-bombing missions I recently decided to remove the worst weather preset from the list of permissible weather conditions since often the AI will fly straight and level and then decide to make its dive on the target while in the middle of thick clouds. And, since AI fighters cannot dive-bomb higher than 1500 meters it restricts other potential solutions.

 

Long story short, work is being done to try to mitigate issues like the AI cruising through the middle of cloud banks, but it's probably always going to be an imperfect situation. 

[ZachariasX]

3 hours ago, LukeFF said:

Getting the AI to not fly straight through clouds is a difficult task,

Important is in muission planning that you select proper altitudes. Ingress is always as high as possible (or below treetop), CAP can be directly below cloud base. As a mission planner, you know these parameters. That should take care of most such situations, as stratus clouds are way more common than huge cumuli. If you set your precipitation layers correctly, there shouldn't be too much in the way.

 

If cloud base is for example at 12k ft, you just don't set your waypoint altitudes at 13k ft. You are either 11'500 ft. or much higher, above the clouds. Other then that, anything between 30k ft and below treetop was a no-fly zone anyway unless you were required to do specific business there. There is only one other option, this is around 24k ft, where contrails start. Depending on your type of business, going just below the cons might be a good idea (and altitude of choice for photo recon flights.) Mitchels and Marauders would go at some 15k ft and the escort just slightly above them. But looking through Pierre Clostermans flight logbook (not his novel), the medium bombers not seeing their targets due to clouds was rather common, especially when it's not summertime. Actually, nobody finding anything was not that uncommon.

[Lusekofte]

I feel like the IAR might get me back in business. It is nimble, it is cool, it can divebomb , and it sort of can take care of it self. I was thinking of skipping it. But I am not married to that decision 

[Luftschiff]

Controller setup improvements is absolutely wonderful. Flight sims typically have very low QoL compared to most genres, and they are issues that tend to aggregate over time as more planes and features are added. Lately even I have a hard time finding the righ keybinds, I can imagine for a newcomer it'd be a nightmare. Huge thanks to the team for taking the time to improve this! 

I'd love an ability to filter per plane as well for ease of setup/troubleshooting - and so we wouldn't have to figure out which of the 8 types of radiator binds is relevant for [insert plane here]. It's been a bit of a pain with my new 128 HOTAS to figure out ways to make all binds work with IL2s 32 bit input.

[Gunfreak]

9 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

The AI doesn't "like" anything, that is where the mission maker placed them.

Congratulations on taking things to literal.

By likes. I mean those that program the career mode has programed it so that the AI almost always flies at certain altitudes. Which happens to be the same altitude as the programers of career mode has programed the vast majority of clouds to be. 

It's an extremely easy fix. Just make career mode AI fly at 15 000+ when flying towards the target(or whatever the end goal is) and you'll have far less clouds to worry about as the clouds are rarely generated to be much present there.

[SIA_Koss]

On 1/26/2024 at 9:07 PM, FTC_ChilliBalls said:

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.

 

On 1/27/2024 at 10:13 AM, 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...

 

Wait... Is it going to be another collector plane? Or will we get the modification after release because we already own Spit IX?

[Lusekofte]

7 minutes ago, SIA_Koss said:

Is it going to be another collector plane?

Yes

I own none of the subversions of Spitfire and 109 other than those we got with the dlc. Because of no interest for them. I am however very interested to know how many buying this. Curious, for no other reason than curiosity. 
 

[SIA_Koss]

On 1/29/2024 at 6:56 PM, Lusekofte said:

Yes

OMG... again? "New" copy-paste collector plane only for few options? Why not to make it as option for Spit IX? If it will be separate - i will not buy it. 

 

I don't understand new planes creation policy. Devs make pretty the same planes (which could be an option) as separate collector planes. But they have made IAR-80/81 as a single one... I'm losing logic

Edited January 31, 2024 by SIA_Koss

[Lusekofte]

12 minutes ago, SIA_Koss said:

I'm losing logic

Logic is 

money for less work. A policy I always supported for my self 

[LukeFF]

6 hours ago, Gunfreak said:

It's an extremely easy fix. Just make career mode AI fly at 15 000+ when flying towards the target(or whatever the end goal is) and you'll have far less clouds to worry about as the clouds are rarely generated to be much present there.

 

Like I said, efforts are being made to improve this. ?

[Yogiflight]

With still new mission types for career mode comming, maybe we will get anti shipping missions in the future? I am not talking about torpedo bombers, although this would be fantastic, but bombers, dive bombers and ground attack aircrafts trying to sink ships on large rivers like the Volga, large lakes like in the northeast of the Moscow map or the Black Sea.

[parkerc341]

Cool stuff. Wish we could've gotten chaika news though.

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

10 hours ago, SIA_Koss said:

Wait... Is it going to be another collector plane? Or will we get the modification after release because we already own Spit IX?

 

Nope, it is an additional plane to purchase. Lame, right?

[tattywelshie]

8 hours ago, Yogiflight said:

With still new mission types for career mode comming, maybe we will get anti shipping missions in the future? I am not talking about torpedo bombers, although this would be fantastic, but bombers, dive bombers and ground attack aircrafts trying to sink ships on large rivers like the Volga, large lakes like in the northeast of the Moscow map or the Black Sea.

That would be fab, but seem to remember @LukeFF saying it’s not a simple task doing this, for the life of me though, I can’t remember the reason? 

[Gunfreak]

13 hours ago, drewm3i-VR said:

 

Nope, it is an additional plane to purchase. Lame, right?

Collector planes cost the same as the dcs warbirds do on sale.

I definitely know what I would choose between a IL2 Spitfire Mk IXC and a DCS Spitfire Mk IXC for $25

Hell even if the choice was between full price DCS Spitfire $50 and IL2 Spitfire £25 I would still go for the DCS one.

[justin_z3r0]

Lots of complaining about having to pay for a new spitfire variant. I don’t see the issue though. Why should we expect something for nothing? I’m sure none of us work for free. And why should we?

 

You have the option. Buy it. Or don’t buy it. 
 

ill be buying as a spitfire fan. 
 

[EAF19_Marsh]

3 hours ago, justin_z3r0 said:

Lots of complaining about having to pay for a new spitfire variant. I don’t see the issue though. Why should we expect something for nothing? I’m sure none of us work for free. And why should we?

 

I think the complaint is value for money. A model with virtuality no physical changes, no mechanical changes and - if I understand correctly - no FM changes is not exactly an exciting prospect. Sounds more like a free addition than a pay-for module.

 

Add current Mk. V tail to current Mk. IX fuselage and current Mk. XIV wing option. Leave current Mk. IX FM in place. What encourages me to pay for that, the slight;y different view from the cockpit over the tail?

[Lusekofte]

But it can hardly be any surprise 

They said they going to do collector plane based on existing designs. 
I do not lift an eye when a new version of 109 or Spit come along. I ignore them. I suppose that is what people should do. There might be people buying this. Let them. 
What is it with this negativity? 

[LukeFF]

10 hours ago, tattywelshie said:

That would be fab, but seem to remember @LukeFF saying it’s not a simple task doing this, for the life of me though, I can’t remember the reason? 

 

Well, it could be done, but templates have to be built and tested, the right aircraft added to the config files for these missions, etc. Personally, I'm hoping for a convoy protection mission type, since that's what IAR 80s were doing mainly over the Kuban in 1943 and it was a lot of what RAF squadrons were doing over England in 1944. We'll see. ?

[Calos_01]

3 hours ago, justin_z3r0 said:

Lots of complaining about having to pay for a new spitfire variant. I don’t see the issue though. Why should we expect something for nothing? I’m sure none of us work for free. And why should we?

 

You have the option. Buy it. Or don’t buy it. 
 

ill be buying as a spitfire fan. 
 

I feel the same way. I may be disappointed we don't get the earlier variants as well. But I'm gonna buy it anyway, after all I find the variant with the pointy rudder less appropriate for the invasion period.

[EAF19_Marsh]

20 minutes ago, Calos_01 said:

I feel the same way. I may be disappointed we don't get the earlier variants as well. But I'm gonna buy it anyway, after all I find the variant with the pointy rudder less appropriate for the invasion period.

Rudderist!

[Calos_01]

3 hours ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

Rudderist!

 

This is a variant I hope to see in this sim one day, so NASALIST I may be!? 

 

 

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

8 hours ago, justin_z3r0 said:

Lots of complaining about having to pay for a new spitfire variant. I don’t see the issue though. Why should we expect something for nothing? I’m sure none of us work for free. And why should we?

 

You have the option. Buy it. Or don’t buy it. 
 

ill be buying as a spitfire fan. 
 

Because it is the same damn plane with two VERY minor, likely indiscernible, changes...and they just did this with the Mk XIVe no less. A Spit IXc Early is sorely missing from the sim and instead of properly filling in the 1942-43 gap (for Channel Battles + Dieppe) with an earlier engine, they make another IX that is functionally identical to the one we have now minus the peashooters and slightly smaller rudder.

 

And we still don't have a Mk. Vc, with the accompanying clipped wing mods. So what we really have are three Spits posing as five, when a Vc and Ixc Early are really missing from the sim.

 

As a Spit guy, that's frustrating considering the game is basically a library for the 109 E-K and FW 190A-3 through Ta-152H.

Edited January 30, 2024 by drewm3i-VR

[BlitzPig_EL]

Shouldn't the c have different stability characteristics than the e?  They went to the larger tail for a reason after all.

[357th_KW]

No one is expecting something for nothing, but we’re a little irritated at getting almost nothing for something.  Particularly when the something we’re asking for is a couple extra mods on the plane they already chose to build that helps flesh out the mid war western front set, which is a GAPING hole in the planes that we have.

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

2 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

Shouldn't the c have different stability characteristics than the e?  They went to the larger tail for a reason after all.

It should, but from what has been said, it seems like it's going to have the same FM or so close that it will be almost indistinguishable. 

1 minute ago, 357th_KW said:

No one is expecting something for nothing, but we’re a little irritated at getting almost nothing for something.  Particularly when the something we’re asking for is a couple extra mods on the plane they already chose to build that helps flesh out the mid war western front set, which is a GAPING hole in the planes that we have.

This. It just doesn't sit well and makes it seem like they don't value their customers, but only $. We get it: GB is on the way out and the "new project" is in full swing, but is this how you button up GB and reward all of us who have "invested" in the game since new? I personally don't think so. And again, the German players get their Me-262, Ar-234, Ta-152H, Dora, K-4 with DC, along with a full compliment of early, mid, and late-war bombers, attackers, dive bombers, fighters, etc., etc. and we can't even get a Spit I, Hurricane I, Spit Vc, or Spit Ixc Early, much less a B-25 or B-26. It really is frustrating being an Allied pilot sometimes. 

[Ribbon]

9 hours ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

 

I think the complaint is value for money. A model with virtuality no physical changes, no mechanical changes and - if I understand correctly - no FM changes is not exactly an exciting prospect. Sounds more like a free addition than a pay-for module.

 

Add current Mk. V tail to current Mk. IX fuselage and current Mk. XIV wing option. Leave current Mk. IX FM in place. What encourages me to pay for that, the slight;y different view from the cockpit over the tail?

Agreed, 20$ for pretty much the same aircraft is a bit over line....price should be 5$ top for ppl who own IXe, corresponding to amount of work involved and compared to other unique collector planes.

For others who dont own BoBp mk.IXe price shuld stay same as other collectors.

Im a spit fan but my store chart will remain empty!

ED did this good when new Channel map went out, u only pay few bucks if u own old map. 

Edited January 31, 2024 by Ribbon

[Charon]

11 minutes ago, 357th_KW said:

that helps flesh out the mid war western front set,

 

Exactly. We've got one 1944 Mk IX; the 1942-3 channel missions on your Cold Blue server are about the only place I expect I'd get to use the Mk IXc. But if it can't be configured to a 1943 standard then I can't see much point.

[Avimimus]

13 hours ago, Gunfreak said:

Collector planes cost the same as the dcs warbirds do on sale.

I definitely know what I would choose between a IL2 Spitfire Mk IXC and a DCS Spitfire Mk IXC for $25

Hell even if the choice was between full price DCS Spitfire $50 and IL2 Spitfire £25 I would still go for the DCS one.

 

Dude. The Collector Planes on sale go for much less than that... usually something like $6.99 (and some are cheaper still).

 

P.S. Honestly, even if they were still the same price, I'd probably prefer the Great Battles aircraft to DCS ones.

[SIA_Koss]

There's no negativity. Sorry if it might be taken that way. It just makes me sad... Because it enlarges aircraft list without enlarging the variety. Some of them are made as separate models, some of them are merged together. Strange logic sometimes. Only for saying "we have 100+ planes recreated"?

 

I don't say aircraft submodels as a collector planes are bad. But it's not that thing the game needs now. A lot of things have been frequently suggested by players, but it's not implemented still. Or implemented with a very long delay.

 

New input system with on/off, open/close binds is going to be super useful for those who makes cockpits on toggle or rocker switchers. And it's great! I prefer even don't touch a keyboard in flight. But... I've made a suggestion about that on forums around 3-4 years ago when i was in the beginning of making my cockpit project. Looks like it's going to be a big rework for my cockpit after new update. But... it took 3 years...

Propeller feathering per engine. How much times i accidently stopped or burned working engine trying to feather dead one, struggling that weird selecting system?

 

There are a lot of things that was frequently suggested or been asked for. But we will get a new aircraft submodel nobody asked for, that will not change the gameplay in general and will not bring something new. 

 

As I always said - there's no lack of aircrafts in the game. At least fighters. There is lack of game mechanics. Or things that will stimulate players to interact each other, to works together (no inbuilt voice comms for ALL pilots still, for example). A lot of other stuff. Recon plane for axis (equivalent of U-2VS). Torpedoes armament. Self evac game mechanics. Same one but on the sea (stop pilots deaths on the water, give them life vests!). Seaplanes. Cargo planes loadout for supplying and repairing players on the ground vehicles... And so on.

 

Talking about "new" Spitfire IXc.
I will not buy it for 25$. I will buy it at big discount in future maybe. 
I have purchased IAR-80/81 it because it's a new plane.
WACO glider is a cool stuff, but there no clear mechanics for using it (i mean for online). If there will be a progress with that - i will buy it.

I will buy a Chaika, because it will be a new one.

Edited February 4, 2024 by SIA_Koss

[EAF19_Marsh]

8 hours ago, 357th_KW said:

No one is expecting something for nothing, but we’re a little irritated at getting almost nothing for something.  Particularly when the something we’re asking for is a couple extra mods on the plane they already chose to build that helps flesh out the mid war western front set, which is a GAPING hole in the planes that we have.

 

And I am not getting my chicks for free.