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

[III/JG52_Al-Azraq]

On 1/27/2024 at 8:13 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...

 

I don't agree at all.

 

All these variant require a lot of work, as it is not as simple as just changing a few weapons and stats. The airframe had way more changes other than engines or weapons. Many times they made the engine housing bigger, control surfaces adaptations, wings, canopies, etc. all of this also affect the flight model.

 

I think that all these variants add a lot to the simulation, as they allow us to fly the appropriate variants for each scenario. Of course if you go with the min-maxing mindset then it doesn't make sense, but with the historical simulation lover standpoint, I think it's great.

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

8 hours ago, III/JG52_Al-Azraq said:

I don't agree at all.

 

All these variant require a lot of work, as it is not as simple as just changing a few weapons and stats. The airframe had way more changes other than engines or weapons. Many times they made the engine housing bigger, control surfaces adaptations, wings, canopies, etc. all of this also affect the flight model.

 

I think that all these variants add a lot to the simulation, as they allow us to fly the appropriate variants for each scenario. Of course if you go with the min-maxing mindset then it doesn't make sense, but with the historical simulation lover standpoint, I think it's great.

 

They have said, explicitly, this model has THREE MINOR changes: 

 

1. a different, less stable rudder

2. different, weaker guns

3. A slightly different cockpit layout

 

That is literally it. We will still have the same Merlin 66/70? engine, same cowlings, same intake, same clipped wing mods, same mirrors, same everything essentially. By all means: buy it. I won't be picking it up until it's $5 and only if it actually turns out to be somewhat different or missions online allow it and don't allow the IXe.

 

To each their own. I like value for my money.

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

Very interested in the control input improvements.  Does this mean we will be getting the ability to have custom yaw and roll tuning for each aircraft as was done with the pitch settings?   Would be a great addition. 

[LukeFF]

7 hours ago, drewm3i-VR said:

They have said, explicitly, this model has THREE MINOR changes: 

 

1. a different, less stable rudder

2. different, weaker guns

3. A slightly different cockpit layout

 

That is literally it. We will still have the same Merlin 66/70? engine, same cowlings, same intake, same clipped wing mods, same mirrors, same everything essentially. By all means: buy it. I won't be picking it up until it's $5 and only if it actually turns out to be somewhat different or missions online allow it and don't allow the IXe.

 

To each their own. I like value for my money.

 

You missed a whole lot of other details: 

 

It's fine if you don't like it, but let's try to be a little more evenhanded in our responses, please. 

[Mtnbiker1998]

Agreed with some of the above posts, really hopimg the P-39 is getting some love too down the line! Its such an interesting plane with a huge gun and a fun cockpit to sit in in VR! Really unique plane I want to fly more

[Aleksander55]

On 1/28/2024 at 6:06 PM, 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.

 

This will probably not matter in a few days with the next update, but you can change the altitude of the bombers you escort right now by editing the waypoints 2 and 3. The altitude will be taken over by the bombers and you'll escort above them as normal.

 

This only works when you start on the runway. If you start in the air they won't climb above 2000ms. Make sure you have enough friendly airspace for them to climb. If your airbase is close to the frontline this may not be advisable.

 

Click on the orange dot...

 

 

 

Edit waypoints 2 and 3 (return) with whatever altitude and speed you want.

 

 

 

 

I started a german and an american career to see if it would work as with the soviet career. It does, and there are the following characteristics and caveats:

 

1 - The JU-88s are very strong climbers. In this mission they had the 4 external big bombs, even then with a headwind they got to 5000 meters in about 60-65 kms.

 

 

2 - As we crossed the frontline, a flight of 5 Mig-3s spawned at around 2000 meters... To immediately give up, start cruising towards their airfield and despawn. As we got close to Klin, 3 Mig-3s took off, to immediately give-up and despawn as well.

 

I suspect with the current settings in the mission generator for the pilot career, if you put your german bombers at 5000 meters there'll be few if any soviet fighters able to reach you and they'll almost always give up. I-16s are too slow, Mig-3s are poor climbers. Sometimes Mig-3s spawn higher, 4000 maybe even 5000 meters, but it's rare. This might even be historically correct.?

 

3 - B-25s are extremely poor climbers. They get to 2000 meters fine, after that they are extremely weak. In this mission here they couldn't get to 5500 meters even with the entire round trip - about 240 kms - with half of this being after dropping the bombs.

 

I don't know their exact fuel and bomb load and if this poor climbing performance is historically correct, might be something you report about in the appropriate forum.

 

 

 

4 - Both german and american escorting fighters are colliding regularly as they escort at the same height above the bombers. This doesn't happen in the soviet career as the fighters are separated by altitude.

 

 

 

5 - Whether the bombers are good or poor climbers I think the devs will probably change the way the player's squadron forms up with the bombers formations. The current system of the bomber formation flying at low altitude towards the players airfield and then climbing towards the frontline, which is many times very close by... I imagine no airforce in WW2 did it like this.

 

It's probably better to have climbing waypoints for the player's flight, then go towards the bombers airbase where they'll spawn, preferably already in formation and altitude, in the waypoint towards the target. Example using Pat Wilson's campaign generator:

 

 

American fighters will have no problem with fuel and range, fighters from other nations will probably need to have their max escort mission ranges shortened, and I'm afraid of what will happen to I-16s escorting missions.? ?

 

Edited February 3, 2024 by Aleksander55

[Jade_Monkey]

On 1/31/2024 at 6:30 AM, sevenless said:

You never can have enough Spitfires. Same with Yaks, 109s or 190s. Variety is key. 

Lol, not sure those two sentences make sense together.

 

Variety is adding an IAR80, an Arado, a Storch, a FW189, a Waco glider, and so on.

 

Getting three Bf109 G6 as separate models is not it.

[BlitzPig_EL]

Well, if you truly want variety, you need to shift your focus north to Finland.

Best plane set ever.

[Koziolek]

1 hour ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

Well, if you truly want variety, you need to shift your focus north to Finland.

Best plane set ever.

Yes, but the question is: will we ever have it?

[Yogiflight]

12 hours ago, Aleksander55 said:

This only works when you start on the runway.

The main issue is, this only works, when you are the squadron commander. But if you start as squadron commander, it is not a career mode. Without having the opportunity to make your way through the different ranks, it is only a campaign. This is not what I am looking for.

[Aleksander55]

2 hours ago, Yogiflight said:

The main issue is, this only works, when you are the squadron commander. But if you start as squadron commander, it is not a career mode. Without having the opportunity to make your way through the different ranks, it is only a campaign. This is not what I am looking for.

 

You can put AI as flight lead if you want but I agree it's not really the same thing as progressing the career. From my side I think the pilot career is still too 'immature' and bugged to deserve this kind of consideration right now (in the soviet career the squadron would get decimated almost every day) and I prefer to make do with what works. Welp, in a few days we'll get the new bomber altitudes as well as many bug fixes.

[Yogiflight]

14 hours ago, Aleksander55 said:

From my side I think the pilot career is still too 'immature' and bugged to deserve this kind of consideration right now

Completely agree. This is the reason why I wrote several bug reports and hope, that the one or the other gets taken into account.

 

14 hours ago, Aleksander55 said:

(in the soviet career the squadron would get decimated almost every day)

it is the same in German careers. And what adds to that, it is mainly the flightleader, who gets killed, either by enemy fighters or AAA. My guessing is, it is because he always flies alone, while the two wingmen stay together. This way the flightleader is an easy target. In fighter missions I tried to follow my flightleader to protect him, but it is absolutely annoying how he is flying. Mainly killing speed by flying with low power and flying completely unneccessary ways.

 

14 hours ago, Aleksander55 said:

in a few days we'll get the new bomber altitudes

only in the west

 

14 hours ago, Aleksander55 said:

as well as many bug fixes.

we will see if it is really many

[LukeFF]

4 hours ago, Yogiflight said:

only in the west

 

I've asked about increasing the bomber altitudes in the East as well, so we'll see if it makes it into the update. 

[VA_Doc]

@LukeFF what kind of changes can we expect to see with the P47?

Changes to the way the turbo works? More realistic handling with top-speed capabilities and climbing? More durability? Better handling characteristics?

 

Right now to be competitive in the P47 (either model) you have to have 150 octane fuel to even remotely compete with aircraft that it was very successful against historically speaking (190A's and 109G's). You also have to run firewalled most of the time.

I've flown the P47 for hundreds of hours in this sim since its release and have never been able to come close to matching historically accurate performance data for the two variants we have in the sim:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47.html

 

[LukeFF]

20 hours ago, VA_Doc said:

@LukeFF what kind of changes can we expect to see with the P47?

Changes to the way the turbo works? More realistic handling with top-speed capabilities and climbing? More durability? Better handling characteristics?

 

Right now to be competitive in the P47 (either model) you have to have 150 octane fuel to even remotely compete with aircraft that it was very successful against historically speaking (190A's and 109G's). You also have to run firewalled most of the time.

I've flown the P47 for hundreds of hours in this sim since its release and have never been able to come close to matching historically accurate performance data for the two variants we have in the sim:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47.html

 

Everything is still in progress, so if/when changes are made I'm sure they will be explained in the update notes.

[EAF19_Marsh]

Random question, were there plans for other BoN seasons? Now have for FC and BoBP etc, but anything for the Channel?

[LukeFF]

4 hours ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

Random question, were there plans for other BoN seasons? Now have for FC and BoBP etc, but anything for the Channel?

 

Not that I can recall, since the official time frame of the Normandy title is April to August 1944.

[EAF19_Marsh]

1 hour ago, LukeFF said:

 

Not that I can recall, since the official time frame of the Normandy title is April to August 1944.

Thanks. Would be a nice small add-on if there were time. You could have 1941-44 over the map ?

 

BTW: Masters Of The Air? I was a little underwhelmed but maybe that’s just me. Compared to 1990 Memphis Belle is just seemed to lack….something.

[Gambit21]

On 2/4/2024 at 12:30 PM, VA_Doc said:

@LukeFF what kind of changes can we expect to see with the P47?

Changes to the way the turbo works? More realistic handling with top-speed capabilities and climbing? More durability? Better handling characteristics?

 

Right now to be competitive in the P47 (either model) you have to have 150 octane fuel to even remotely compete with aircraft that it was very successful against historically speaking (190A's and 109G's). You also have to run firewalled most of the time.

I've flown the P47 for hundreds of hours in this sim since its release and have never been able to come close to matching historically accurate performance data for the two variants we have in the sim:
http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-47/p-47.html

 

Not to mention that the real Jug reached terminal velocity no problem - and no parts started flying off - unlike this Jug.

[DD_Arthur]

1 hour ago, Gambit21 said:

Not to mention that the real Jug reached terminal velocity no problem - and no parts started flying off - unlike this Jug.

?

[Gambit21]

1 minute ago, DD_Arthur said:

?

Parts fly off of the GB Jug in a dive. The actual P-47 could get to terminal velocity in a dive without such problems.

[DD_Arthur]

I know what your trying to say but Terminal Velocity is something rather different.

 

Terminal velocity is when an object in free fall reaches the point of zero acceleration.

The force of gravity acting on it is equalled by the drag it produces.

Plus the objects inherent buoyancy.

Drop a man out of a plane at ten thousand feet and once he’s accelerated to a little over ( I think ) 120mph, he’ll stop accelerating and hit the ground at that speed. If he orientates himself head down and cuts the drag he’ll accelerate to somewhere around 150mph.

 

Drop a mouse out of the same plane at that height and it’ll no doubt be a bit confused by the experience but since it’s terminal velocity will be so low it’ll walk away.

 

 

[Gambit21]

17 hours ago, DD_Arthur said:

I know what your trying to say but Terminal Velocity is something rather different.

 

Terminal velocity is when an object in free fall reaches the point of zero acceleration.

The force of gravity acting on it is equalled by the drag it produces.

Plus the objects inherent buoyancy.

Drop a man out of a plane at ten thousand feet and once he’s accelerated to a little over ( I think ) 120mph, he’ll stop accelerating and hit the ground at that speed. If he orientates himself head down and cuts the drag he’ll accelerate to somewhere around 150mph.

 

Drop a mouse out of the same plane at that height and it’ll no doubt be a bit confused by the experience but since it’s terminal velocity will be so low it’ll walk away.

 

 

Gotcha

I understand the term in relation to skydiving etc.

 

IRT the Jug…

Terminal dive speed or whatever

[Varibraun]

49 minutes ago, DD_Arthur said:

Drop a mouse out of the same plane at that height and it’ll no doubt be a bit confused by the experience but since it’s terminal velocity will be so low it’ll walk away.

 

Of all the things I have learned through the years of reading these forums, I must say this one was unexpected.  Thank you Arthur for the "Of (falling) Mice and Men" education! 

[354thFG_Drewm3i-VR]

3 hours ago, DD_Arthur said:

I know what your trying to say but Terminal Velocity is something rather different.

 

Terminal velocity is when an object in free fall reaches the point of zero acceleration.

The force of gravity acting on it is equalled by the drag it produces.

Plus the objects inherent buoyancy.

Drop a man out of a plane at ten thousand feet and once he’s accelerated to a little over ( I think ) 120mph, he’ll stop accelerating and hit the ground at that speed. If he orientates himself head down and cuts the drag he’ll accelerate to somewhere around 150mph.

 

Drop a mouse out of the same plane at that height and it’ll no doubt be a bit confused by the experience but since it’s terminal velocity will be so low it’ll walk away.

 

 

Why do I want to see MythBusters test this? ?

[EAF19_Marsh]

10 hours ago, DD_Arthur said:

I know what your trying to say but Terminal Velocity is something rather different.

 

Terminal velocity is when an object in free fall reaches the point of zero acceleration.

The force of gravity acting on it is equalled by the drag it produces.

Plus the objects inherent buoyancy.

Drop a man out of a plane at ten thousand feet and once he’s accelerated to a little over ( I think ) 120mph, he’ll stop accelerating and hit the ground at that speed. If he orientates himself head down and cuts the drag he’ll accelerate to somewhere around 150mph.

 

Drop a mouse out of the same plane at that height and it’ll no doubt be a bit confused by the experience but since it’s terminal velocity will be so low it’ll walk away.

 

 

 

Apart from your appalling attitude towards innocent mousekind, I agree with your summary. but does not the addition of thrust mean that the physics become slight different? If you evil scheme with mice involved a rocket assist then they - like the P-47 - would exceed their natural terminal velocity due the the augmentation of gravitational acceleration by the rocket or P&W? The balance of forces - ie the inability of the engine to overcome the drag (increasing by the square) - would stabilise, but at for argument's sake another 50 kph over the terminal velocity over the unpowered P-47?

[ICDP]

7 hours ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

Apart from your appalling attitude towards innocent mousekind, I agree with your summary. but does not the addition of thrust mean that the physics become slight different? If you evil scheme with mice involved a rocket assist then they - like the P-47 - would exceed their natural terminal velocity due the the augmentation of gravitational acceleration by the rocket or P&W? The balance of forces - ie the inability of the engine to overcome the drag (increasing by the square) - would stabilise, but at for argument's sake another 50 kph over the terminal velocity over the unpowered P-47?

 

In a word... no

 

Don't confuse terminal velocity with the never exceed speed (VNE).

 

Terminal velocity is the velocity any object will have when falling under gravity, where drag/air resistance is equal to weight.

VNE is the indicated Air Speed which, if exceeded may result in structural damage and obviously thrust is a major factor.

[EAF19_Marsh]

7 hours ago, ICDP said:

In a word... no

 

Don't confuse terminal velocity with the never exceed speed (VNE).

 

Terminal velocity is the velocity any object will have when falling under gravity, where drag/air resistance is equal to weight.

VNE is the indicated Air Speed which, if exceeded may result in structural damage and obviously thrust is a major factor.

 

Yep, I get that. My (very silly) post was just to add the thurst element so while I agree that terminal velocity is the balance of g, drag etc, adding thrust changes the reality of the situation and a powered object will stabiilise at a higher speed than the terminal velocity alone determined by 10m/s vs. density, form, drag, air density and whatnot.

 

But, yes, I understand that Terminal velocity is as you say.

 

And also, a not very god Charlie Sheen film.

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

On 2/2/2024 at 9:47 AM, RNAS10_Mitchell said:

Very interested in the control input improvements.  Does this mean we will be getting the ability to have custom yaw and roll tuning for each aircraft as was done with the pitch settings?   Would be a great addition. 

@LukeFF, can you shed any light on this?

[LukeFF]

2 hours ago, RNAS10_Mitchell said:

@LukeFF, can you shed any light on this?

 

I'm not aware of any changes to this right now.

[LukeFF]

2 hours ago, RNAS10_Mitchell said:

@LukeFF, can you shed any light on this?

 

Adding on to my last post, this is the word from the team (paraphrased):

 

"Custom pitch profiles were added since the neutral position for pitch on different planes could vary widely and for most WWI planes there are no trimmers available.

 

However, for roll and yaw axes, there is almost no difference between different planes that would make custom profiles necessary, so we consider it more of a gizmo that will burden both UI and code without much added benefit. We would prefer to focus on more useful GUI improvements instead."

[EAF19_Marsh]

Awww, has Luke deleted our mouse-based debate on the physics of terminocity?

 

i was enjoying that. Better than a ‘To IXc or not to IXc; that is the question’ slanging match.

[RNAS10_Mitchell]

2 hours ago, LukeFF said:

Adding on to my last post, this is the word from the team (paraphrased):

 

"Custom pitch profiles were added since the neutral position for pitch on different planes could vary widely and for most WWI planes there are no trimmers available.

 

However, for roll and yaw axes, there is almost no difference between different planes that would make custom profiles necessary, so we consider it more of a gizmo that will burden both UI and code without much added benefit. We would prefer to focus on more useful GUI improvements instead."

Thanks for the reply.   I disagree with that summation on a few of the planes.  Particularly the yaw adjustments.  But thanks for the response. 

[Charon]

On 2/6/2024 at 12:26 PM, Gambit21 said:

Not to mention that the real Jug reached terminal velocity no problem - and no parts started flying off - unlike this Jug.

 

How much of the problem is the P-47's flight model, and how much the flight model of its opponents? Both the 109 and the 190 have a higher listed (in-game pilot's notes) dive speed than the P-47.

 

Listed P-47D-22/28: 805km/h

Listed Bf 109G-14: 850km/h

Listed Fw 190A-5: 850km/h

 

Yet this document gives a maximum permissible indicated dive speed of only 750km/h at up to 3km height for the bf 109G "owing to continually recurring accidents caused by wing breakages[!!]."

[Gambit21]

2 minutes ago, Charon said:

 

How much of the problem is the P-47's flight model, and how much the flight model of its opponents? Both the 109 and the 190 have a higher listed (in-game pilot's notes) dive speed than the P-47.

 

Listed P-47D-22/28: 805km/h

Listed Bf 109G-14: 850km/h

Listed Fw 190A-5: 850km/h

 

Yet this document gives a maximum permissible indicated dive speed of only 750km/h at up to 3km height for the bf 109G "owing to continually recurring accidents caused by wing breakages[!!]."

 

No, relative performance is another subject.

 

 

 

 

[EAF19_Marsh]

6 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

 

No, relative performance is another subject.

 

 

 

 

Let’s get bogged down in that quagmire until Korea is confirmed ?

[ICDP]

11 hours ago, Charon said:

 

How much of the problem is the P-47's flight model, and how much the flight model of its opponents? Both the 109 and the 190 have a higher listed (in-game pilot's notes) dive speed than the P-47.

 

Listed P-47D-22/28: 805km/h

Listed Bf 109G-14: 850km/h

Listed Fw 190A-5: 850km/h

 

Yet this document gives a maximum permissible indicated dive speed of only 750km/h at up to 3km height for the bf 109G "owing to continually recurring accidents caused by wing breakages[!!]."

 

You have listed the 109G14 dive limits, but your document is referring to the early 109G2 limits that were imposed.  I agree these limits aren't in game but that's a different debate to the later 109G with the tall tail that improved (removed) these lower limits.  The 109G mach limit issue was traced to rudder overbalancing caused by a horn balance on the rudder and if you check the aircraft view, this horn balance was removed with the tall tail on the G6 Late, G14 and K4.  The critical (tactical) mach limit of the P47D was lower than the 109G with the new tail, or Fw190 (0.71 vs 0.75).  Yes pilots would regularly exceed these limits if the alternative was getting shot down but fundamentally the later 109G and the 190A may not have reached the tactical mach limit as quickly as a P47, but it was higher than the P-47.  The problem is not the planes, but the arbitrary way max dives speeds are implemented in game.

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/me109/Diving_Test_109F_W.Nr.9228_ger_eng.pdf

 

Bear in mind conservative factory limitations were imposed on plenty of aircraft as a rule of thumb.  This did not mean every 109G would break up at 750kph and the same goes for the P47D, or P51.  Manufacturers frequently imposed rconservative limitations that were overly cautious.  Some planes break up at 800kph but others reach 900kph, lets impose a 750kph limit so if/when it happens they could can blame pilot error.  We also need to factor in if there were bomb racks fitted and far more often than not a P47D would indeed have had wing racks fitted.

 

Max dive speeds reached in many of these aircraft is much higher than the game limitations, for example the 109G was tested up to 906kph TAS (after that 750kph limitation was introduced).  Here is a 109K dive limit with the same tall tail as the G14 and 109G late and it would be on the conservative side.  As you can see 850kph is listed with and without gondolas, the right column is for an external bomb rack.

 

Various Allied fighter mach limits.

 

RAE found that the 109 and 190 had a tactical Mach limit of 0.75, the P-47 was 0.71.

Edited February 8, 2024 by ICDP

[ACG_Cass]

1 hour ago, ICDP said:

Various Allied fighter mach limits.

 

RAE found that the 109 and 190 had a tactical Mach limit of 0.75, the P-47 was 0.71.

This test had always been a bit of an outlier for the P47. Most other tests showed a mach limit of ~0.81.

 

High drag tests were conducted where the pilot was able to stabilize the dive angle >0.8 Mach.

 

 

Also worth taking into account that this is Indicated Airspeed and the P47 read >15mph high at 350mph.

 

I support the devs sticking close to the manuals for Mach limits though. Otherwise there would be so much conjecture.

[DD_Arthur]

4 hours ago, EAF19_Marsh said:

Let’s get bogged down in that quagmire until Korea is confirmed ?

 

Perhaps we can get mice into this discussion while his lordship is asleep?

[ICDP]

47 minutes ago, ACG_Cass said:

This test had always been a bit of an outlier for the P47. Most other tests showed a mach limit of ~0.81.

 

Also worth taking into account that this is Indicated Airspeed and the P47 read >15mph high at 350mph.

 

I support the devs sticking close to the manuals for Mach limits though. Otherwise there would be so much conjecture.

 

I am using tactical mach limits because that seems to be what the devs use, not critical mach limits.  There was sometimes a significant difference between the two and the RAE tests were to designed to find at what speed an aircraft was still able fight and maneuver reasonably effectively.

 

The devs decided to use tactical mach as the dive limits and the way they implemented it was to have your aircraft fall apart.  Which I believe is the area of contention/confusion.

 

So a P47D may have higher critical mach number, than a late 109 or 190 but a lower tactical mach number.

Edited February 8, 2024 by ICDP