1944 Spitfire version

Can we expect a 1944 version of the Spitfire at some stage?

With the E wing, and a "clipped" option, drop-tanks and bombs, it will be able to carry out more historically accurate types of missions for the D-Day period, and onwards.

It will also be able to fight against the current axis aircraft and ground targets as a contemporary, rather than being "1 to 1 1/2 years older" by comparison.

E wing = 120 rounds of 20mm per gun + 250 rounds of .50" per gun.

Cheers

Witch

We will get the clipped wings when the module is out of beta stage and for the additional weapons, looking at how long they take to do the remaining weapons for the K4, I think they should come soon.

By the way, how do you get the two years difference between the IX and the D9/K4?

We will get the clipped wings when the module is out of beta stage and for the additional weapons, looking at how long they take to do the remaining weapons for the K4, I think they should come soon.

 

By the way, how do you get the two years difference between the IX and the D9/K4?

The LF IX, with Merlin 66 came out in mid '43, the K-4 was late '44, so a year and a half then :)

Witch

oh, ok, my bad. I thought the IX was introduced in early '44...

Hi Folks,

I believe you will find that the Mk LFIX with the Merlin 66 @ 18lbs boost started front line service in March 1943

Happy landings,

First let me say that my observations regarding ED's Normandy aircraft are the conclusions I am forced to and not meant to be in any way offensive. I believe things went wrong from the start.

This is an old chestnut. ED seem to have chosen to create Axis aircraft that were the last design examples of their type. The K-4 and the D-9 may be 'specimen' examples of how far the Bf109 and FW190 stables had gone but they do not reflect air fighting in Normandy.

The K-4 only became operational in August 1944 - the same month that the German forces were beaten and driven out of Normandy with the closure of the Falaise pocket and the routing of the German forces back to the Seine. The K-4 played no significant part in the 'Normandy' campaign. It appears to have been presented by ED as the last development in the Bf109 series even though it had little or nothing to do with Normandy.

Similarly the D-9 entered service around August 1944 and as such would have had little involvement in Normandy for the same reasons. Again ED seem to have decided to present the last operational version of the FW, allowing that the Ta152 entered service later in January 1945.

I think this is the key to understanding ED's choice of 109 and 190 models - they represent probably the last versions but there is a disconnect between these and operational service in 'Normandy'. Of course they may have been misled by the original proposer of 'WWII 1944' . Against this ED chose to produce probably the most popular mark of Spitfire built but put it against superior aircraft of a different era (however slim).

Perhaps one problem is that ED have a history of designing Cold War aircraft where combats occurred in penny packet numbers (pairs, perhaps fours) and with greater emphasis on BVR/radar weapons engagements. There is great emphasis on accurate jet flight and missile modelling.

What seems to have been overlooked by ED is the fact that WWII was entirely WVR fought with largely contemporary aircraft types and in considerable numbers. It was not the cross-generation of aircraft operating in small numbers that might be found during the Cold War period among the disparate users of those aircraft generations and which might therefore be acceptable to the DCS cold war players. Super-accurate modelling of individual, if unrelated, aircraft seems to be the holy grail making it more a flight simulator or a single-player simulator than a player combat simulator. I think this habit/oversight may have mistakenly led to the provision of non-contemporary Axis aircraft types for that short Normandy campaign and, as stated above, the Spitfire MkIX was a 1943 aircraft and even the MkXIV was introduced in early 1944 but we don't have it. Also the WWII scenario numbers may explain why online performance creates lag problems.

The tragedy is that there is considerable discontent among many WWII players, especially online where these things matter so much more and which with its forums is the vehicle for attracting more customers (where else is DCS advertised?). My own flying group of many years experience are being torn apart by the unrealistic balance of aircraft we are given and the desire to find more attractive flying elsewhere. Keeping player attention is hard at the best of times especially with the competition in the WWII air combat market. Having an unrealistic aircraft balance is hard to chew on for long. It's almost impossible to create interesting historical missions with an unrealistic aircraft set.

It would be good if ED would speak up and tell us what they are doing to redress the balance of WWII aircraft. Updating the SpitIX might help but I doubt it will overcome the difference of the K-4 and D-9. What might be a quicker and more relevant solution is to give us the 109G series. It may not require too much reworking of the K-4 and although it goes against ED's principles I'd accept a 'G' in a K-4' skin for now.

First let me say that my observations regarding ED's Normandy aircraft are the conclusions I am forced to and not meant to be in any way offensive. I believe things went wrong from the start.

 

This is an old chestnut. ED seem to have chosen to create Axis aircraft that were the last design examples of their type. The K-4 and the D-9 may be spot examples of how far the Bf109 and FW190 stables had gone but they do not reflect air fighting in Normandy.

 

The K-4 only became operational in August 1944 - the same month that the German forces were beaten and driven out of Normandy with the closure of the Falaise pocket and the routing of the German forces back to the Seine. The K-4 played no significant part in the 'Normandy' campaign. It appears to have been presented by ED as the last development in the Bf109 series even though it had little or nothing to do with Normandy.

 

Similarly the D-9 entered service around August 1944 and as such would have had little involvement in Normandy for the same reasons. Again ED seem to have decided to present the last operational version of the FW, allowing that the Ta152 entered service later in January 1945.

 

I think this is the key to understanding ED's choice of 109 and 190 models - they represent probably the last versions but there is a disconnect between these and operational service in 'Normandy'. Of course they may have been misled by the original proposer of 'WWII 1944' . Against this ED chose to produce probably the most popular mark of Spitfire built but put it against superior aircraft of a different era (however slim).

 

Perhaps one problem is that ED have a history of designing Cold War aircraft where combats occurred in penny packet numbers (pairs, perhaps fours) and with greater emphasis on BVR/radar weapons engagements. There is great emphasis on accurate jet flight and missile modelling.

 

What seems to have been overlooked by ED is the fact that WWII was entirely WVR fought with largely contemporary aircraft types and in considerable numbers. It was not the cross-generation of aircraft operating in small numbers that might be found during the Cold War period among the disparate users of those aircraft generations and which might therefore be acceptable to the DCS cold war players. Super-accurate modelling of individual, if unrelated, aircraft seems to be the holy grail making it more a flight simulator or a single-player simulator than a player combat simulator. I think this habit/oversight may have mistakenly led to the provision of non-contemporary Axis aircraft types for that short Normandy campaign and, as stated above, the Spitfire MkIX was a 1943 aircraft and even the MkXIV was introduced in early 1944 but we don't have it. Also the WWII scenario numbers may explain why online performance creates lag problems.

 

The tragedy is that there is considerable discontent among many WWII players, especially online where these things matter so much more and which with its forums is the vehicle for attracting more customers (where else is DCS advertised?). My own flying group of many years experience are being torn apart by the unrealistic balance of aircraft we are given and the desire to find more attractive flying elsewhere. Keeping player attention is hard at the best of times especially with the competition in the WWII air combat market. Having an unrealistic aircraft balance is hard to chew on for long. It's almost impossible to create interesting historical missions with an unrealistic aircraft set.

 

It would be good if ED would speak up and tell us what they are doing to redress the balance of WWII aircraft. Updating the SpitIX might help but I doubt it will overcome the difference of the K-4 and D-9.

They could give the Spitfire an option to use its notorious 150 octane/+25psi boost setting. This setting would allow the spit to compete with the Kurfurst and Dora at low level (they'll still hold the edge up high). It's a bit of a bandaid fix, and would inevitably lead to whining from K-4 and Dora drivers about how it's unfair that Allied planes get 150 octane but they don't get C-3 fuel, but I think it's still better than nothing (and it makes the spit more contemporary to the German planes).

Playing the devil's advocate: The 109 G-10 would not be much different from the K we have now. I might be mistaken but G models turned and climbed better. The K is faster but heavier. I'd rather face a K in my Spit. And I don't think there is any imbalance in MP, the Spitfire is quite a capable and deadly plane. I think some people have unrealistic expectations of being able to keep up with the 109 while flying circles around it, but this should not be the case.

This being said, I agree that the 109K and the 190 D didn't see any action over Normandy and are not contemporaries of our Spitfire, but in terms of relative performance it doesn't change much. The only adjustment I would make are adapted engine limitations for the Spit and the P-51. (+25 boost and 72" MP)

Personally, I am not that bothered by the performance differences. I don't think a lot of current 109/190 owners would also buy an earlier version of the 109 or 190 and I would not bother buying a slightly later model of the Spit. Without people owning them then no servers will use them instead of the current ones apart from the servers that also allow Migs v Spits so why buy one unless you are just an offline flight sim fan?

For me, the major problem is a Normandy sim that has no Typhoon or Tempest and if we want to recreate the early weeks I would like to see an A26 and/or Mosquito. Even a P47 would be preferable to another spit/190/109 for me.

I am not saying anyone else is wrong to want different variants of current aircraft, just presenting an alternative view.

Playing the devil's advocate: The 109 G-10 would not be much different from the K we have now. I might be mistaken but G models turned and climbed better. The K is faster but heavier. I'd rather face a K in my Spit. And I don't think there is any imbalance in MP, the Spitfire is quite a capable and deadly plane. I think some people have unrealistic expectations of being able to keep up with the 109 while flying circles around it, but this should not be the case.

 

This being said, I agree that the 109K and the 190 D didn't see any action over Normandy and are not contemporaries of our Spitfire, but in terms of relative performance it doesn't change much. The only adjustment I would make are adapted engine limitations for the Spit and the P-51. (+25 boost and 72" MP)

G10 would be similar to K4 with relevance. If we were given Bf109G6 and its modifications (AS, U4 etc.)it would fit the Normandy. Anything above is stretching the likelihood of any operational numbers. But theoretically it was possible for G14 to be available. G10, K4 are impossible.

Even though G6 is lighter than K4 It has less power and more draggy airframe. It would still be a bit fastrr than Spit but wouldn't be able to pull away with ease. Spitfire would still have a turning advantage.The 109 also loses its high tail and the rudder with flettner tab that K4 has, Which means lower maneuverability at high speeds.

It is a valid point to be had as we can see that ED is creating another model of P-51D to fit the Normandy setting.

The bigger issue lies with Dora as it would require basically a new radial powerplant to bring Fw190A7 or 8 to DCS and that could be a new DCS module itself. All DCS current planes would fit into Battle of the Bulge scenario but it would still be in favour of Luftwaffe.

I see your point, Solty. However, when flying a Spitfire I'd rather meet a K to be honest, but that's just me. Sure it's faster, but maneuvers worse than the G-6. When I'm in a 109 I really have a hard time drawing a bead on Spits, and I only manage some very high deflection shots unless the pilot is distracted.

ED promised us 190A-s, 109G-s, Ju88s, B25s, etc, but only as AI. I wonder in how many years this will happen - if ever.

It is funny (for me) how people won't get the simple fact that DCS World is not about balance, in any way. ED never stipulated that they will bring a "balanced" set of planes for Normandy. People forget what DCS is all about.. it is a study combat sim and a very "niched" one. Sure, it'll be ideal to have all the planes ever produced modelled in DCS, but it's easy to understand that this will never happen.

"The DCS: Normandy 1944 Map is centered on the World War II battlefield of Normandy, France and is specifically created to depict the period after the D-Day landings and the establishment of several allied airfields in Normandy to support the beachhead breakout in late June 1944."

Personally, I am not that bothered by the performance differences. I don't think a lot of current 109/190 owners would also buy an earlier version of the 109 or 190 and I would not bother buying a slightly later model of the Spit. Without people owning them then no servers will use them instead of the current ones apart from the servers that also allow Migs v Spits so why buy one unless you are just an offline flight sim fan?

 

For me, the major problem is a Normandy sim that has no Typhoon or Tempest and if we want to recreate the early weeks I would like to see an A26 and/or Mosquito. Even a P47 would be preferable to another spit/190/109 for me.

 

I am not saying anyone else is wrong to want different variants of current aircraft, just presenting an alternative view.

Allied fighters currently only have one aircraft with cannons and that is a Spitfire variant introduced from May 1943. Given that we have the 190 Dora and 109K to play with, the Tempest V would be by far the best option in my view.

The Tempest V was a variant of the Typhoon. The Tempest V was introduced in spring 1944 and in action shooting down 109-G types in June 44. By contrast, the Typhoon was introduced in September 1941, although it was modified and had a 4 bladed propeller for June 1944. It was also improved by being fitted with Tempest tail units. The Tempest V is the better contemporary to the 190 Dora and 109K in terms of the historical technological time line match and fought alongside the Typhoons. Also, the Tempest was the first British aircraft to take inspiration from the P51 low drag laminar flow wings. In addition, the Tempest frequently flew against the Messerschmitt Me 262 jet fighter. Historically scrambling when word arrived that Me 262s were airborne. Since the DCS plans to give us the Me 262 for WWII, this is another reason the Tempest V would make sense as a better choice for now, given the circumstances of the current DCS aircraft set.

It is a shame that it looks like we will not get the Spitfire XIV, since this was the main air superiority aircraft for the 2nd TAF and the Spitfire IX Low Fighter (LF) we have in DCS was increasingly used for ground attack.

I would be grateful if DCS could provide us with their vision for flyable aircraft in WWII for the future and how they see things developing and matching up. Particularly as I am still trying to decide whether to go in the 'whole hog' with DCS rather than other combat flight simulations I am with at the moment. I am not alpha testing version 2 or the Normandy map as I still feel somewhat uncertain about the future of WWII, which is my main interest.

Happy landings,

I agree, a "balanced" late WW II plane set would be brilliant to have in DCS.

And it would be something we don't have in another sim.

Tempest V, Spitfire XIV, Mosquito and Me 410 and/or Ju 188 or Ju 88 in late version and possibly (preferably :) ) Typhoon as well would be a very good setup.

And fitting with the Me 262 and the P-47 as well.

Probably too much to hope for, but one can always wish.

It is funny (for me) how people won't get the simple fact that DCS World is not about balance, in any way. ED never stipulated that they will bring a "balanced" set of planes for Normandy. People forget what DCS is all about.. it is a study combat sim and a very "niched" one. Sure, it'll be ideal to have all the planes ever produced modelled in DCS, but it's easy to understand that this will never happen.

"The DCS: Normandy 1944 Map is centered on the World War II battlefield of Normandy, France and is specifically created to depict the period after the D-Day landings and the establishment of several allied airfields in Normandy to support the beachhead breakout in late June 1944."

This has nothing to do with balance don't try and turn people words, just incorrect choice in theatre and aircraft set so it is more to do with realism than anything else.

I was hoping that a Mk14 would go some way to address (if available in small numbers) this issue, however now that ED & Veao have pulled the plug the future looks bleak.

It is funny (for me) how people won't get the simple fact that DCS World is not about balance, in any way. ED never stipulated that they will bring a "balanced" set of planes for Normandy. People forget what DCS is all about.. it is a study combat sim and a very "niched" one. Sure, it'll be ideal to have all the planes ever produced modelled in DCS, but it's easy to understand that this will never happen.

"The DCS: Normandy 1944 Map is centered on the World War II battlefield of Normandy, France and is specifically created to depict the period after the D-Day landings and the establishment of several allied airfields in Normandy to support the beachhead breakout in late June 1944."

And it is funny for me how people always ignore these (true) comments which make the discussion pretty much irrelevant, and carry on like they never read it and project their own views on how the game should be and what should be in it.

And it is funny for me how people always ignore these (true) comments which make the discussion pretty much irrelevant, and carry on like they never read it and project their own views on how the game should be and what should be in it.

no offence but isnt that what everybody is doing, historically correct or not? everyone should be able to have an opinion and u stating how it really should be is ignorant too.

i would really like to hear what ed has to say on this topic, cause its fairly interesting and im a huge fan of WW II era in DCS.

no offence but isnt that what everybody is doing, historically correct or not? everyone should be able to have an opinion and u stating how it really should be is ignorant too.

 

i would really like to hear what ed has to say on this topic, cause its fairly interesting and im a huge fan of WW II era in DCS.

This issue has been beaten so much the horse has turned to nought but a bloody pulp and ED have yet to do anything other than ignore the legitimate questions.

I would have been moaning about this a lot more if it wasn't for the fact that I have stopped flying, 2.0 performance is just not good in VR especially the spitfire cockpit which is another issue that has not been acknowledged by ED...

Allied fighters currently only have one aircraft with cannons and that is a Spitfire variant introduced from May 1943. Given that we have the 190 Dora and 109K to play with, the Tempest V would be by far the best option in my view.

 

 

The Tempest V was a variant of the Typhoon. The Tempest V was introduced in spring 1944 and in action shooting down 109-G types in June 44. By contrast, the Typhoon was introduced in September 1941, although it was modified and had a 4 bladed propeller for June 1944. It was also improved by being fitted with Tempest tail units. The Tempest V is the better contemporary to the 190 Dora and 109K in terms of the historical technological time line match and fought alongside the Typhoons. Also, the Tempest was the first British aircraft to take inspiration from the P51 low drag laminar flow wings. In addition, the Tempest frequently flew against the Messerschmitt Me 262 jet fighter. Historically scrambling when word arrived that Me 262s were airborne. Since the DCS plans to give us the Me 262 for WWII, this is another reason the Tempest V would make sense as a better choice for now, given the circumstances of the current DCS aircraft set.

 

 

It is a shame that it looks like we will not get the Spitfire XIV, since this was the main air superiority aircraft for the 2nd TAF and the Spitfire IX Low Fighter (LF) we have in DCS was increasingly used for ground attack.

 

 

I would be grateful if DCS could provide us with their vision for flyable aircraft in WWII for the future and how they see things developing and matching up. Particularly as I am still trying to decide whether to go in the 'whole hog' with DCS rather than other combat flight simulations I am with at the moment. I am not alpha testing version 2 or the Normandy map as I still feel somewhat uncertain about the future of WWII, which is my main interest.

 

 

Happy landings,

Never seen a Typhoon with a Tempest tail. What is your source please?

Never seen a Typhoon with a Tempest tail. What is your source please?

There you go, there are other sources, but this is one of them:

http://www.clubhyper.com/reference/typhoonpropsf_1.htm

Happy landings,

It is funny (for me) how people won't get the simple fact that DCS World is not about balance, in any way. ED never stipulated that they will bring a "balanced" set of planes for Normandy. People forget what DCS is all about.. it is a study combat sim and a very "niched" one. Sure, it'll be ideal to have all the planes ever produced modelled in DCS, but it's easy to understand that this will never happen.

"The DCS: Normandy 1944 Map is centered on the World War II battlefield of Normandy, France and is specifically created to depict the period after the D-Day landings and the establishment of several allied airfields in Normandy to support the beachhead breakout in late June 1944."

I think you misunderstood the word "balance" in context of this discussion. It's not about "balancing" a multiplier game by giving both sides an equal chance.

As you say DCS is about a simulation. It does a great, actually the best job as for simulating a specific airframes.

If you look however from a wider perspective, what makes a real simulation is the complete environment. At the end, the all great fidelity of a specific plane quickly diminishes if we can't put it into a realistic scenario, historical context and fly against an opposition that it had to deal with in real life. In this respect seems that the modules development could be more coordinated and synchronized towards complete theaters.

Using a race car simulator analogy - if you want to feel like a Formula 1 driver, I guess getting an fully fidelity Formula 1 car module will not give you a complete experience. You want to race other Formula 1 cars and race them on a Formula 1 race track in a Formula 1 sezon. Or maybe it's enough to have a Formula-1 car module but race it with monster trucks on a rally car section in a touring car championship? Yes, that's exaggerated but quite often could serve as an illustration of the current DCS MP scene (and ability to setup SP missions).

To continue however on the original post. To be fair it should be said that the Bf-109K and Fw 190 were done before probably there were any plans for Normandy. With the current state of the arts however, even considering that the axis modules are from the end of WWII period IMO DCS is more in a need of other modules and especially AI units. The last probably don't have to come in such a great quality as WWII assets pack. Going on quantity route instead of superb quality would be probably an better choice for AI. After all, after an initial "wow" moment when admiring the AI models with F2/F7 views, AI units end up to fill in the battlefield in order to create an immersion and serve as a “cannon-fodder”. During engagements I guess most of us don’t have time nor are close enough to admire the details.

I think you misunderstood the word "balance" in context of this discussion. It's not about "balancing" a multiplier game by giving both sides an equal chance.

 

As you say DCS is about a simulation. It does a great, actually the best job as for simulating a specific airframes.

If you look however from a wider perspective, what makes a real simulation is the complete environment. At the end, the all great fidelity of a specific plane quickly diminishes if we can't put it into a realistic scenario, historical context and fly against an opposition that it had to deal with in real life. In this respect seems that the modules development could be more coordinated and synchronized towards complete theaters.

Using a race car simulator analogy - if you want to feel like a Formula 1 driver, I guess getting an fully fidelity Formula 1 car module will not give you a complete experience. You want to race other Formula 1 cars and race them on a Formula 1 race track in a Formula 1 sezon. Or maybe it's enough to have a Formula-1 car module but race it with monster trucks on a rally car section in a touring car championship? Yes, that's exaggerated but quite often could serve as an illustration of the current DCS MP scene (and ability to setup SP missions).

 

To continue however on the original post. To be fair it should be said that the Bf-109K and Fw 190 were done before probably there were any plans for Normandy. With the current state of the arts however, even considering that the axis modules are from the end of WWII period IMO DCS is more in a need of other modules and especially AI units. The last probably don't have to come in such a great quality as WWII assets pack. Going on quantity route instead of superb quality would be probably an better choice for AI. After all, after an initial "wow" moment when admiring the AI models with F2/F7 views, AI units end up to fill in the battlefield in order to create an immersion and serve as a “cannon-fodder”. During engagements I guess most of us don’t have time nor are close enough to admire the details.

I think your F1 motor racing analogy hits the nail on the head! It is the analogy I have often thought of myself, but never posted. Thank you and well said.

Happy landings,

I understand the analogy and I couldn't agree more, but as I said before, it's just wishful thinking. The reality is much more complex than this when it comes to budgets, human resources, expanses and so on. My feeling is that ED is already on the right track but the amount of work needed to fulfill our wishes is.. you tell me..

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

You don't ask, you don't get.

I understand the analogy and I couldn't agree more, but as I said before, it's just wishful thinking. The reality is much more complex than this when it comes to budgets, human resources, expanses and so on. My feeling is that ED is already on the right track but the amount of work needed to fulfill our wishes is.. you tell me..

 

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

The point is amazingme, that we would be grateful if ED could communicate and tell us.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but you do not appear to be a representative of ED. Therefore, your comments on things like wishful thinking, reality and complexity re budgets and resources and so on strike me as likely to be assumptions on your part. Please, I don't want to offend anyone or see this thread go down hill so it can be closed, but the request from the OP is rather simple to answer I would have thought and a 1944 technological time line Spitfire or a cannon armed Tempest V is not asking the earth by any means.

Wags has explained in a live stream video recently how it does not take long to produce a war bird compared to the lengthy time span needed to produce a modern fast jet. So, perhaps more warbirds would bring money in at a faster pace for ED and allow them more resources in the long run for other projects to expand and improve business profits overall.

Finally, some communication from ED with greater detail regarding their bigger vision, aspirations and a road map for WWII is a reasonable request I would have thought. Particularly now that there has been a change of circumstance regarding expected aircraft. Perhaps when ED have had a chance to review the changed situation they may be able to give us some more information. I suspect that many of us may want to hear more from ED regarding the direction and plans they have for WWII.

Happy landings,