1944 Spitfire version - ED Forums
 


Notices

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-21-2017, 03:37 PM   #1
Witch 56 Squadron
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 21
Default 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

Last edited by Witch 56 Squadron; 08-21-2017 at 04:22 PM.
Witch 56 Squadron is offline  
Old 08-21-2017, 04:09 PM   #2
razo+r
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 4,323
Default

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?
__________________

Rig: Maximus VII Ranger, 4790K @ 4.00 Ghz, MSI GTX 980 Ti, 16 GB non-oc RAM, 250 GB SAMSUNG EVO 850 SSD, 2TB HDD, Win 10 64-bit
razo+r is offline  
Old 08-21-2017, 04:20 PM   #3
Witch 56 Squadron
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 21
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by razo+r View Post
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
Witch 56 Squadron is offline  
Old 08-21-2017, 04:44 PM   #4
razo+r
Veteran
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 4,323
Default

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

Rig: Maximus VII Ranger, 4790K @ 4.00 Ghz, MSI GTX 980 Ti, 16 GB non-oc RAM, 250 GB SAMSUNG EVO 850 SSD, 2TB HDD, Win 10 64-bit
razo+r is offline  
Old 08-21-2017, 06:08 PM   #5
56RAF_Talisman
Member
 
56RAF_Talisman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 536
Default

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,
__________________
56RAF_Talisman

Spitfire! 'That's no aircraft, that's a bleedin' angel'
56RAF_Talisman is offline  
Old 08-21-2017, 10:54 PM   #6
klem
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 837
Default

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.
__________________
klem
56 RAF 'Firebirds'

ASUS Sabertooth X58 /i7 950 @ 3.8GHz / 16Gb DDR3 1600 CAS8 / 2 x EVGA GTX980 GPU 4Gb SC SLi/ 256Gb & 128Gb SSDs/ 750W PSU
Windows 10 Home / 3 off 27" @ 5760 x 1080 plus 27" @ 1920 x 1080 below / TrackIR4 with TrackIR5 software / Saitek X52 Pro/ MFG Crosswind pedals / CH CM

Last edited by klem; 08-22-2017 at 05:28 AM. Reason: Added final commenrs about the 109G
klem is offline  
Old 08-22-2017, 12:52 AM   #7
Nerd1000
Member
 
Nerd1000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 527
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by klem View Post
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).
Nerd1000 is offline  
Old 08-22-2017, 06:14 AM   #8
Reflected
Senior Member
 
Reflected's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: LHDK
Posts: 2,063
Default

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)
__________________


My Music
My DCS Skins
B350 Gaming Plus / Ryzen 5 1600 X @ 3,9 / MSI GeForce GTX1070 8192 / 16 GB RAM / Samsung PM961 512 SSD / MS FFB 2 / TM Warthog throttle / Saitek ProFlight pedals / Oculus Rift CV1
Reflected is offline  
Old 08-22-2017, 07:31 AM   #9
Roblex
Member
 
Roblex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Cornwall, UK
Posts: 101
Default

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.
__________________
==============================================================================================================================
56sqn US@R
Diary of a hopeless Pilot Officer http://roblex56raf.livejournal.com

NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1050 Ti, 16Gb RAM, Intel Core i3/i5/i7 6xxx @ 2700 MHz
Roblex is offline  
Old 08-22-2017, 09:14 AM   #10
Solty
Senior Member
 
Solty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Poland
Posts: 1,687
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Reflected View Post
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.
__________________
In 21st century there is only war and ponies.

My experience: Jane's attack squadron, IL2 for couple of years, War Thunder and DCS.
My channel:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCyA..._Sqdc0IKJuv6dA
Solty is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 12:22 PM. vBulletin Skin by ForumMonkeys. Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.