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

[Regingrave-]

As it was stated several times, new collector planes were made to train new engineers without putting too much work on the already busy 3D department. Spitfire XIVe and IXc FMs were made from scratch, and the models have as many distinct differences as artists schedule allows. That has nothing to do with "neglecting" other features for planes and overall mechanics. We always try to pack as many sub-mods and variety into one plane, as 3D model creation schedule allows, and adding new gameplay features is other departments work. Not to mention that we need experienced engineers for that too and experience is gained through creating new planes.

 

1 час назад, SIA_Koss сказал:

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. And it's great! But... it took 3 years...

Mere suggestions are not enough, these additions were made possible because we've expanded our engineering department, trained new people with our technology by making, as you've said, "copy-paste planes" (which is, by the way, very disrespectful for the amount of work it really takes, especially for the junior specialist, and that attitude is really not welcome here), and now have the window in our production schedule to add those features.

 

 

[EAF19_Marsh]

1 minute ago, Regingrave said:

As it was stated several times, new collector planes were made to train new engineers without putting too much work on the already busy 3D department. Spitfire XIVe and IXc FMs were made from scratch, and the models have as many distinct differences as artists schedule allows. That has nothing to do with "neglecting" other features for planes and overall mechanics. We always try to pack as many sub-mods and variety into one plane, as 3D model creation schedule allows, and adding new gameplay features is other departments work. Not to mention that we need experienced engineers for that too and experience is gained through creating new planes.

 

I don't think anyway is unappreciative of the work and most of us understand business considerations, just that the cost for what appears to be little benefit and a disappointment that what was inferred to be a new aircraft is in reality a frankenplane. When it was announced that a Mk. IXc as to be released, it did not mention that actually it would be the current one but with the Mk. V tail and XIV wing, FM unchanged. Soz.

[354thFG_Leifr]

Just don't buy it, most of us already own a pretty much identical model with the existing Mk.IX anyway.

 

[Calos_01]

12 hours ago, drewm3i-VR said:

It really is frustrating being an Allied pilot sometimes.

What a weak faith! Spitfire beeing your ride is your reward! ??

[sevenless]

You never can have enough Spitfires. Same with Yaks, 109s or 190s. Variety is key. The more the merrier. Its a collector. Take it or leave it.

[MarcoPegase44]

for my part. I am very happy with the release of the SpitfireIXc which was really lacking on a historical level to take advantage of the Normandy map and its career. I didn't realize it hadn't come out sooner. Furthermore, the Spitfire IXe with its pointed tail corresponds to the Spits with clipped wings, which allows you to have 2 very different SpitIXs in the quarry. grumpy people don't have to buy the new Spit

[-250H-Ursus_]

41 minutes ago, MarcoPegase44 said:

for my part. I am very happy with the release of the SpitfireIXc which was really lacking on a historical level to take advantage of the Normandy map and its career. I didn't realize it hadn't come out sooner. Furthermore, the Spitfire IXe with its pointed tail corresponds to the Spits with clipped wings, which allows you to have 2 very different SpitIXs in the quarry. grumpy people don't have to buy the new Spit

Pointed tail is an innovation from the Spitfire Mk VIII, which was added to the Spitfire Mk IX later. 

Unless you have the earliest engines, Merlin 61 from 1942 version, or the Merlin 63 versions which was relegated in the second half 1943 in favor to LF variants with Merlin 66, its the same plane, you just should notice a decreace in your rudder efficiency, in comparison to Bodenplatte Spitfire Mk IX which has the pointy tail from the Spitfire Mk VIII

[justin_z3r0]

1 hour ago, MarcoPegase44 said:

for my part. I am very happy with the release of the SpitfireIXc which was really lacking on a historical level to take advantage of the Normandy map and its career. I didn't realize it hadn't come out sooner. Furthermore, the Spitfire IXe with its pointed tail corresponds to the Spits with clipped wings, which allows you to have 2 very different SpitIXs in the quarry. grumpy people don't have to buy the new Spit

Agreed. More the merrier. 

[LukeFF]

9 hours ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

I don't think anyway is unappreciative of the work and most of us understand business considerations, just that the cost for what appears to be little benefit and a disappointment that what was inferred to be a new aircraft is in reality a frankenplane. When it was announced that a Mk. IXc as to be released, it did not mention that actually it would be the current one but with the Mk. V tail and XIV wing, FM unchanged. Soz.

 

The clipped wing will be a modification like it is on the IXe model, and the FM is new (as Reg wrote in his reply ?).

[Lusekofte]

16 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

and the FM is new

This can make a difference. 
After a very long brake from it all I might take a Spit up no doubt it is a cool plane

[Dubsy]

It's slightly disheartening that some people are willing to financially support this. The reason we are not getting a meaningfully different Spit IX is that some of you folks will look at a round tail and shell out full price. To reiterate, slightly adjustments to the model and performance curves for M61 and or 63 would yield 10x more difference in how this plane flies, give significantly more historical range, and turn most of us whingers into customers. But clearly they've done the cost-benefit and decided Spit fans are dumb enough to buy. Vote with your wallets, do you want more planes like this, or do you want actually different ones that actually round out the stable?

I understand the work that's gone into it, but if 1C made an exact copy of the IXe and did the FM from scratch, it would be the same amount of work - doesn't make it a worthwhile purchase. All the effort in the world is useless without good direction and decision making as to where it is directed. From the customers perspective this seems to be seriously lacking.

[EAF19_Marsh]

1 hour ago, LukeFF said:

 

The clipped wing will be a modification like it is on the IXe model, and the FM is new (as Reg wrote in his reply ?).

 Thanks, I had not registered that. So:

- New tail

- New FM

- New default to .303 armament

 

 But:

- Merlin 66 only

[LukeFF]

1 hour ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

 Thanks, I had not registered that. So:

- New tail

- New FM

- New default to .303 armament

 

 But:

- Merlin 66 only

 

And the Merlin 70, like with the IXe model. 

 

There will also be some changes to the cockpit layout.

[Rjel]

2 hours ago, ACG_Dubsy said:

It's slightly disheartening that some people are willing to financially support this. The reason we are not getting a meaningfully different Spit IX is that some of you folks will look at a round tail and shell out full price. To reiterate, slightly adjustments to the model and performance curves for M61 and or 63 would yield 10x more difference in how this plane flies, give significantly more historical range, and turn most of us whingers into customers. But clearly they've done the cost-benefit and decided Spit fans are dumb enough to buy. Vote with your wallets, do you want more planes like this, or do you want actually different ones that actually round out the stable?

I understand the work that's gone into it, but if 1C made an exact copy of the IXe and did the FM from scratch, it would be the same amount of work - doesn't make it a worthwhile purchase. All the effort in the world is useless without good direction and decision making as to where it is directed. From the customers perspective this seems to be seriously lacking.

What a load of… insulting. We each like what we like. If I choose to buy this Spit, it’s my damn money. My damn choice.it’s an airplane I’ve wanted in this series, in the guise it will be in. I’ll buy it, I might even buy two just spite those who think I’m too damn dumb to know better. How’s that? 

[=621=Samikatz]

2 hours ago, LukeFF said:

And the Merlin 70, like with the IXe model. 

 

There will also be some changes to the cockpit layout.

 

Will any changes to the flight model make their way back to the IXe?

[ICDP]

3 hours ago, ACG_Dubsy said:

It's slightly disheartening that some people are willing to financially support this. The reason we are not getting a meaningfully different Spit IX is that some of you folks will look at a round tail and shell out full price. To reiterate, slightly adjustments to the model and performance curves for M61 and or 63 would yield 10x more difference in how this plane flies, give significantly more historical range, and turn most of us whingers into customers. But clearly they've done the cost-benefit and decided Spit fans are dumb enough to buy. Vote with your wallets, do you want more planes like this, or do you want actually different ones that actually round out the stable?

I understand the work that's gone into it, but if 1C made an exact copy of the IXe and did the FM from scratch, it would be the same amount of work - doesn't make it a worthwhile purchase. All the effort in the world is useless without good direction and decision making as to where it is directed. From the customers perspective this seems to be seriously lacking.

 

You might want to take a step back and reflect on your post.  If someone decides they want to purchase this or any other collectors plane, that is their choice.  If you or anyone else don't see any benefit to this plane, by all means say so but let's not start insulting people for "financially suporting" something just because you don't like it.

 

We always have the vocal people who decry anything they don't personally like as a waste of time/space/money (delete as appropriate.)  I particularly love it when people like you start referring to themselves as part of some customer focus group.  So you speak for all customers now do you and they all told you the direction is serisouly lacking... or am I going out on a limb by assuming you are projecting your own opinion?

[LukeFF]

1 hour ago, =621=Samikatz said:

Will any changes to the flight model make their way back to the IXe?

 

Not sure, too early to tell. Alpha testing just began this last week.

[T24_Martin]

Actually I do not understand why there are complaints about new planes. About a year ago it wasn't sure if there will be anything released for GB after Normandy. And now... Plenty of new things!

 

I am more then happy with any kind of plane, map or improvement! When I look at my plane set, I have a smile in my face and think "which version of a plane will you try today".

Even though I know I will probably not use every plane, my virtual hanger is fully equipped

 

If you don't like it, simply don't buy it. Respect the work and decisions made by the team.

[ICDP]

The Spitfire IXc with Merlin 66 was historically produced from late 1942.  So contrary to some of the hyperbole, it does actually expand the historical RAF planeset.  The larger chord rudder and E type wing Spitfire IX was an early 1944 variant.

 

In summary

The Spitfire IXc with Merlin 66 has a new FM and expands the RAF planeset for all of 1943 scenarios.

Edited January 31, 2024 by ICDP

[BMA_FlyingShark]

The way I see it, sometimes we get several planes for the price of one, look at the recent IAR80 or the Hurricane a few years ago and other times, you just get one plane.

This time, with the Spit, differences are more subtle.

But that doesn't take away it's still an interesting addition to the sim and one thing compensates for the other in my opinion.

 

Have a nice day.

 

Edited January 31, 2024 by FlyingShark

[Bloke75Bloke75]

18 minutes ago, T24_Martin said:

Actually I do not understand why there are complaints about new planes. About a year ago it wasn't sure if there will be anything released for GB after Normandy. And now... Plenty of new things!

 

I am more then happy with any kind of plane, map or improvement! When I look at my plane set, I have a smile in my face and think "which version of a plane will you try today".

Even though I know I will probably not use every plane, my virtual hanger is fully equipped

 

If you don't like it, simply don't buy it. Respect the work and decisions made by the team.

 

+1  . 

     

I treat the whole issue similar to my model car / aero collection ,  ie nice to have different variants of each model .  Now , in saying this , i would like the different in -sim variants to have some subtle flight model changes to reflect the changes in IRL variants flight characteristics ,  BUT ,  overall i am really happy to have an option to purchase different variants / new aircraft etc   ( remember , gun to nobodies head forcing a purchase ? )   and long may it continue ?.

[Jaegermeister]

9 hours ago, ACG_Dubsy said:

It's slightly disheartening that some people are willing to financially support this. The reason we are not getting a meaningfully different Spit IX is that some of you folks will look at a round tail and shell out full price. To reiterate, slightly adjustments to the model and performance curves for M61 and or 63 would yield 10x more difference in how this plane flies, give significantly more historical range, and turn most of us whingers into customers. But clearly they've done the cost-benefit and decided Spit fans are dumb enough to buy. Vote with your wallets, do you want more planes like this, or do you want actually different ones that actually round out the stable?

I understand the work that's gone into it, but if 1C made an exact copy of the IXe and did the FM from scratch, it would be the same amount of work - doesn't make it a worthwhile purchase. All the effort in the world is useless without good direction and decision making as to where it is directed. From the customers perspective this seems to be seriously lacking.

 

Apparently you don't understand the work that went into it. It was stated that it was a training project with limited supervision for junior designers. If 1C can get some return on that time investment then that's good for everybody.

 

How do you know there aren't new customers out there that just have Battle of Kuban and this is the perfect plane for them to step into the Multiplayer Arena... ? I'm a customer too and I get it. I doubt the directors and decision makers will respond to your post though.

[Lusekofte]

This protest against the Spitfire start to get very boring. The developers do what they like. And you ain’t having to buy it. It is not up to us setting the priorities. 
This is kind of going into a store and complain they are selling a cheese you do not like

Edited February 1, 2024 by Lusekofte

[Art-J]

There's two sides of each coin, though. "If you don't like it don't buy it" mindset is a pure mental cancer which fuels absurds like EA annual releases of sport games with only cosmetic changes not warranting full price, or Iphone releases (ditto), or any other instances where customers are being, let's say, taken advantage of

 

It is technically correct of course, capitalism, self regulating free market and all, yadda yadda yadda, but where does one draw the line? If they charged 60$ for that IXc (by all means they're free to charge whatever they want) would you all still say with a straight face "If you don't like it don't buy it"? Well, some would apparently, but the point is how it affects our favourite game market in general.

 

Moreover, for end customer it shouldn't matter if the plane was a training project for a new dev, or if dev's hamster is terminally ill and needs expensive meds, or if development time and cost are dependent on African swallow capability to reach capital of Assyria. That's dev's problem on his end and none of our business. What should matter on our end is final "bang for the buck" and there's quite a gap here compared to aforementioned Hurricane and IAR-80, or even Waco to some extent, given its novelty gameplay input and unique code that needed to be programmed for it.

 

I don't have horses in this race, 'cause I wasn't planning to buy this new Spit anyway, but I'm trying to look at a bigger picture. Maybe sometimes some guys should think again about how their purchasing decisions affect the remaining lifetime of GB and future lifetime of the "new project".

Edited February 1, 2024 by LukeFF
NSFW references

[ACG_Bussard]

On 1/31/2024 at 8:26 AM, Regingrave said:

As it was stated several times, new collector planes were made to train new engineers without putting too much work on the already busy 3D department. Spitfire XIVe and IXc FMs were made from scratch, and the models have as many distinct differences as artists schedule allows. That has nothing to do with "neglecting" other features for planes and overall mechanics. We always try to pack as many sub-mods and variety into one plane, as 3D model creation schedule allows, and adding new gameplay features is other departments work. Not to mention that we need experienced engineers for that too and experience is gained through creating new planes.

 

Mere suggestions are not enough, these additions were made possible because we've expanded our engineering department, trained new people with our technology by making, as you've said, "copy-paste planes" (which is, by the way, very disrespectful for the amount of work it really takes, especially for the junior specialist, and that attitude is really not welcome here), and now have the window in our production schedule to add those features.

 

 

That sounds great with the time available! So is it also possible to model and integrate the missing components into the incomplete artillery sight mechanism for the German assault guns, which was released at the beginning of December last year, in the near future? 

 

A number of suggestions for improvements have already been posted in Tank Crew forum with a selection of verifiable references:

 

 

The Tank Crew community would be very pleased if the artillery gunsight feature started by the developers would be completed.

[MajorMagee]

Along with German and Russian AI Infantry Squads!

 

 

[Dubsy]

Seems I rather tilted some people, apologies if my phrasing was strong but I think the point stands. Art J has done a much better job of expressing what I was trying to. 

12 hours ago, ICDP said:

The Spitfire IXc with Merlin 66 was historically produced from late 1942.  So contrary to some of the hyperbole, it does actually expand the historical RAF planeset.  The larger chord rudder and E type wing Spitfire IX was an early 1944 variant.

 

In summary

The Spitfire IXc with Merlin 66 has a new FM and expands the RAF planeset for all of 1943 scenarios.

But service entry for the 66 was several months into 43 and it took time to fill up the numbers. And more importantly the model coming still has the late model intake and extended elevator horns no? AIUI both date to Autumn 43, later to become common. That cuts most of 43 off if we care about the small aesthetic changes. If we don't, the IXe is already 'close enough'

[ICDP]

Sorry, but your argument of "close enough" could equally be applied to a 109G4 vs an F4, or an Fw190A5 vs an A3, or an A8 vs an A6.  The fact is this new IXc is not purely cosmetic changes over the MkIXe, as you and others keep alluding to.

1. It has a different FM
2. If we are being pedantic over the different elavator type, the earliest image verifying their use was about April 1943.  Kits were available from about March/April 1943 and they went into serial production in mid 1943.
3. The modified rudder (Mod 914) was authorised from late Feb 1943 and also mentions the new elevator type.  So the new elevator existed in kit form long before Autumn 1943.
4. This still means the IXc with Merlin 66, later elevator and 100 Octane fuel is historically accurate for a Spring/Summer 1943 scenario and is still a better match for early 1943 than an Mk IX with an E wing.
5. The extended air scoop would be purely cosmetic and not affect the FM or engine performance.

 

I get it, you think the IXc  a waste of time and money and anyone buying it should be ashamed of themselves.  You keep inventing reasons why it isn't really suitable for most of 1943 scenarios.  In the meantime the people who bought it will try to live with their shame.

Edited February 1, 2024 by ICDP

[ACG_Joghurt]

Quote

you think

Don't do that, please. Everyone can has his opinion. You may not like it and that is fine. Same with him. But stop trying to fake argument like that. He never said a buyer should be ashamed. And you shouldn't use that as an argument cause it will harm your own arguments.

It's up to each individual to decide whether to buy or not. And if you are happy with what they offer that is great. But stop trying to interpret something into a statement that was never said. 

[Rjel]

43 minutes ago, ICDP said:

I get it, you think the IXc  a waste of time and money and anyone buying it should be ashamed of themselves.  You keep inventing reasons why it isn't really suitable for most of 1943 scenarios.  In the meantime the people who bought it will try to live with their shame.

?

[EAF19_Marsh]

13 hours ago, Lusekofte said:

This is kind of going into a store and complain they are selling a cheese you do not like

i don’t like cheese, so every store sells cheese I do not like. Dammit, these days in the UK you have to specify a bacon sandwich WITHOUT cheese!!!!!!! Seriously, WTF????!!???!!!??(

 

So I got 99 problems, but this Spit ain’t one.

[BlitzPig_EL]

10 minutes ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

So I got 99 problems,

Problems with a "99"?  Those were one of my great discoveries when I visited England in 1972, when I was 18.  Do they still sell those?   

 

Sorry for the highjack, but you triggered a good memory from my time in East Anglia so many years ago.  A tasty treat on what was for you a hot day.

Edited February 1, 2024 by BlitzPig_EL

[ICDP]

24 minutes ago, ACG_Joghurt said:

Don't do that, please. Everyone can has his opinion. You may not like it and that is fine. Same with him. But stop trying to fake argument like that. He never said a buyer should be ashamed. And you shouldn't use that as an argument cause it will harm your own arguments.

It's up to each individual to decide whether to buy or not. And if you are happy with what they offer that is great. But stop trying to interpret something into a statement that was never said. 

 

I'm doing no such thing.  This is a direct quote from this person.

 

"It's slightly disheartening that some people are willing to financially support this."

 

There is no ambiguity there, they are calling out people in a disparaging way for purcasing this plane.  That statement is meant to make other customers feel some sense of guilt (or shame) if they bought the IXc.

[EAF19_Marsh]

2 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

Problems with a "99"?  Those were one of my great discoveries when I visited England in 1972, when I was 18.  Do they still sell those?   

 

Sorry for the highjack, but you triggered a good memory from my time in East Anglia so many years ago.

Since I was being childishly flippant, I don’t think you were highjacking anything. And yes, they certainly do. Alongside modern democracy, Darwin and the Beatles it is one of Britain’s great gifts to the world.

 

You’re welcome.

[Avimimus]

On 1/29/2024 at 4:40 AM, LukeFF said:

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.

 

That is probably quite realistic though? I know the Ju-87 was fitted with an automatic abort system after the (cloud related) accident - but other aircraft didn't have that, so I assume dive-bombing required clear visibility during the ingress.

[LukeFF]

55 minutes ago, Avimimus said:

That is probably quite realistic though? I know the Ju-87 was fitted with an automatic abort system after the (cloud related) accident - but other aircraft didn't have that, so I assume dive-bombing required clear visibility during the ingress.

 

Yes, the main thing is that it is nearly impossible to stay in formation with the AI while flying through a thick cloud layer. And, even if you have a break in the clouds, the AI has an uncanny ability to ID targets through thick cloud coverage, so you end up having to dive much closer to the gound than need to be in order to ID your target.

[Avimimus]

3 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

Yes, the main thing is that it is nearly impossible to stay in formation with the AI while flying through a thick cloud layer. And, even if you have a break in the clouds, the AI has an uncanny ability to ID targets through thick cloud coverage, so you end up having to dive much closer to the gound than need to be in order to ID your target.

 

Ah, yes. Seems true regarding air-targets as well... the AI is far too fast at scanning the sky and far too good at tracking targets reliably once found. At least that is my impression. I'd love to have the AI be worse at spotting other aircraft when in the clouds! It could make for some very exciting combat. As it currently stands, I'll usually try to break away from clouds in a dogfight to avoid giving them too much of an advantage.

 

IMHO, more realistic spotting (slower scanning, greater likelihood of not picking out a target that is behind foliage etc.) would make Tank Crew a lot better too... even if it was just RNG based.

[Roover]

I'll buy the spit to support the team. Another spit is not bad at all. What I'm looking for though is the new P40 and P47 FM.

 

Talking about the P40, since the P39 have the same engine (might be wrong) do you look foward to change it's FM too, or more like make it's engine tougher ?

 

Have a nice day guys

[LukeFF]

2 hours ago, Roover said:

Talking about the P40, since the P39 have the same engine (might be wrong) do you look foward to change it's FM too, or more like make it's engine tougher ?

 

I've not seen any discussion internally about updating the P-39's FM, but that doesn't mean it won't ever be done. ? It's just that other planes have a higher priority right now.

[Art-J]

I think P-40 might have a development priority because lack of MAP regulator just makes it easier than -39 to accidently get in troublesome timer range in heat of the battle. Makes it extra-risky for those of us who fly with technochat off.

 

But of course if Allison in -39 gets a tweak or two down the line as well, that would be great.

Edited February 2, 2024 by Art-J