Spitfire IX - first look (quite brief)

**philstyle** · Dec-16-2016, 13:13

**ATAG_Snapper** · Dec-16-2016, 14:19

Nice first-look, Phil.

I only had a few moments to try the free flight before heading out to work, but immediately tweaked my X and Y axis S-curve to 30%. Improved the control feel tremendously and eliminated the twitchiness. The force feedback is very good through my Sidewinder. The elevator and rudder trim are less sensitive than the Clod trim, and it takes a bit of getting used to when trimming out.

Will be spending more time with it this weekend.

**ATAG_Colander** · Dec-16-2016, 15:03

Nice!
Regarding the stall, no idea here either, however, I would suspect is somewhere in between.

**RAF74_Buzzsaw** · Dec-16-2016, 16:14

There are large differences between the Spitfire IXB LF and the Spit I and II:

- Much higher wingloading on the Spit IX, approx. 31.5 lbs per Sq/ft compared to approx. 25.5 lbs per Sq/ft on the other two. The Spit IX had a higher stall speed.

- Fabric ailerons on the Spit I and II, metal ailerons on the Spit IX.

- Two radiators on Spit IX... effect on airflow.

- Elevator in later models of the Spit V and IX had inertia weights added to prevent excessive acceleration in G force during higher speed turns... the early models of the Spit did not have this inertia weight, hence they had very very sensitive elevators and it was very easy to generate enough G acceleration in a turn to rapidly reach stall. These early aircraft had a tendency to tighten into a turn automatically even without the pilot consciously applying stick force.

Re. whether the CoD stall modeling is correct: I don't claim the modeling is perfect by any means. In fact, there will be improvements to the accuracy of the modeling of all flight characteristics for TF 5.0... as a result of us discovering and solving a number of bugs and improving our knowledge of how the CoD physics engine works. As has said many times before... we have been operating in a situation whereby we have had to guess what the original developers intended, or what the various parameters in the files were intended to affect. Without the Source Code, there is no way to be sure, only experimentation and constant testing and comparison with historical documents can give us the clues.

At the same time, I believe the modeling in TF 4.312 was a reasonably good replication of what an early Spitfire's handling would be. Not perfect, and will be improved.

From the Spit I manual:

On the other hand: Far from me to criticize, but from observing your video... while it is up to DCS on how they want to model their aircraft, I would wonder about the modeling of a Spitfire which seems incapable of entering a spin, no matter how hard it is pulled into a stall... especially an accelerated one.

**philstyle** · Dec-16-2016, 23:08

Originally Posted by RAF74_Buzzsaw

On the other hand: Far from me to criticize, but from observing your video... while it is up to DCS on how they want to model their aircraft, I would wonder about the modeling of a Spitfire which seems incapable of entering a spin, no matter how hard it is pulled into a stall... especially an accelerated one.

This is a good point. I'm going to try some higher speed stuff today to see if I can get it to spin.
Also, I wonder if they have the fuel tanks properly modeled and accounted for the issues with rear fuel-tank and stability (mentioned in the pilots operating manual).

**RAF74_Buzzsaw** · Dec-17-2016, 01:49

There is no question the Spit IX was a more stable aircraft at the stall than the early Marks.

But any aircraft will spin given a pilot with the deliberate intention or one who is particularly ham-fisted.

The Spit IX manual includes notes for spin recovery, so obviously it was a condition which could expected to be encountered.

**Bounder!** · Dec-17-2016, 11:47

I am running the latest DCS version (including last nights hotfix patch) and I did a quick stall test after seeing this thread. I can report the Spitfire stalls just fine in my hands!

(see short test video above).

Not sure what the difference is - maybe the hotfix patch? If not it could be the use of joystick curves. I don't use any curves in DCS at all and would be very very wary as they can be adjusted to limit full deflection of control surfaces without realising it. I know it's tempting to use them especially when getting used to a new aircraft and make it easier to control but remember what might work well at low speeds may hinder you at higher speeds (or possibly in this case inadvertently help)

**LuseKofte** · Dec-17-2016, 17:15

I went into a stall too, (installed it today)
But it was easily recovered witch I read was not quite so easy. But in my mind they have made it balanced compared to its opponents. It is definitive not a uberplane with no limitations.
My interest of this plane are totally recreational, I see no usage of this until Normandie map comes, dogfight is a boring time waste in my mind. And I am bad at it.

**ATAG_Headshot** · Dec-18-2016, 02:00

Remember that this is also very early into the release. They often make changes shortly after a plane comes out (look at the 109 paper wings issue they had at release).

**Barone** · Dec-18-2016, 11:18

I'm addicted to the spitfire. Is one of the few plane that I really like for the shape,the sound and the history. So when I knew that a DCS one came out I bought it, no questions.
I know that it's a beta and not the final product so it will be finished.
But in the end I have to say that it didn't impressed me as I was expecting.
Sounds seems better in Wagner's videos. I suffer from little FPS problems using the module. And also some textures needs to be improved.
I also have something wrong with the feeling of the rudder. I'm still trying different curves settings but seems still random to me... Sometimes during Take off it works too much sometimes is the opposite...
But as said is a beta so we'll see!

Inviato dal mio Moto G (4) utilizzando Tapatalk

**ATAG_Headshot** · Dec-18-2016, 11:34

Originally Posted by Barone

I'm addicted to the spitfire. Is one of the few plane that I really like for the shape,the sound and the history. So when I knew that a DCS one came out I bought it, no questions.
I know that it's a beta and not the final product so it will be finished.
But in the end I have to say that it didn't impressed me as I was expecting.
Sounds seems better in Wagner's videos. I suffer from little FPS problems using the module. And also some textures needs to be improved.
I also have something wrong with the feeling of the rudder. I'm still trying different curves settings but seems still random to me... Sometimes during Take off it works too much sometimes is the opposite...
But as said is a beta so we'll see!

Inviato dal mio Moto G (4) utilizzando Tapatalk

Make sure that you go into your options for the plane in the settings menu and set "Take Off Assistance" to 0. I've really found that the take off assistance in the other WWII modules really makes it harder for me as you end up fighting the assistance and it all just feels wrong.

**Barone** · Dec-18-2016, 11:51

Originally Posted by ATAG_Headshot

Make sure that you go into your options for the plane in the settings menu and set "Take Off Assistance" to 0. I've really found that the take off assistance in the other WWII modules really makes it harder for me as you end up fighting the assistance and it all just feels wrong.

Yeah. I always turn that option to off in any ww2 module.

Inviato dal mio Moto G (4) utilizzando Tapatalk

**9./JG52 Mindle** · Dec-18-2016, 19:13

I find all dcs rudder too sensitive.

I have a deadzone of 3. Y saturation at 75%. Curve of 30. That works well for my crosswinds for all the planes I have except sabre which is curve 20.

I also use a curve of 20 for roll and 25 for pitch on the twitchy Spitty. Y saturation 90 for pitch and roll.

Pitch and roll 20 and y saturation 95 for all other planes except 190 where pitch is at 10.

This my starting point - subject to messing with.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk