Ala13_ManOWar

Bad choice of words from automatic translator, perhaps you aren't understanding the other way around since you probably only read that as our answers. No I'm not the boss anywhere nor I tried to be, thanks . I know you wouldn't read, and even if you try most probably you wouldn't understand, but I'll tell anyway. It was explained somewhere on these very forums that that behaviour is common in old instruments since they don't have whatever the device invented and used later to stabilize the readings. If you let free flow current alone the instrument readings are like that you mention since they point only direct readings with all the instant jumps all around happening in real time as one flies. Later instruments weren't like that, but Mosquito still had that kind, same as most British aeroplanes of the time hence Spitfire does too. They're trash for today standards? Yes, they are. Is it impossible to fly with those? No, it isn't. Is it cool to see that kind of simulation even for real instruments behaviour? Yes, it is a hell of a lot of coolness since no other simulation ever to my knowledge bothered to represent that ever until now .

Yep, might well be mixed memories from different manuals.

Ok, but it tells more info on how it works to the OP writer, isn't it? You kept telling about this or that Ata which isn't the thing here . Anyhow I believe without MW50 there were different limits and 3250 weren't the best option without it but 3000 max. Will recheck the manual some time.

Funnily enough that behaviour is realistic since instruments back then weren't nearly as reliable as modern day ones. Go see in cockpit videos of current airworthy Mosquitos to see it by yourself before coming to the forum to throw the zillionth "it's unrealistic cause I say so" thread. As Grafspee says, Spitfire is the same. Maybe it's related to British instruments back then?

Exploits have existed in gaming since ever, and DCS is no different in that than any other gaming software where you just take advantage of you being in front of a screen and not suffering whatever is happening inside the game. Tough to solve problem since it's only up to the players using the software in a "realistic way" now DCS allow us to do so, or not and still no matter how realistic DCS is it ends up in another shooter played with a gamepad. Sadly you can't send the police to every player's home to check how they use the software .

It's being a while since my last time flying D-9, quite true. Whatever it is, not sure how long does 3250 rpm last without MW50, anyhow you, and I mean YOU, said couple posts before throttle is limited without MW50 which I didn't even remember, but you won't go any further than 3250rpm with or without MW50, then, what's the point in having MW50 if you can't go any further than a limit already there? You're missing something on the explain which I don't care for myself, I would find out the very first time I fly Dora again, but this thread was trying to answer some questions for others . So, what is it? 3250 or not? 3000 or not? What's limiting your throttle with and without MW50, is it really Ata? I'll say again, Komandogerat here isn't a manifold pressure selector, is an RPM selector and the thing will keep it safe for the RPM selected whatever the conditions and altitude. That's not any obscure thing only I and myself know, it's clearly stated on the aircraft's manual which I read back in time . So?

The Spanish EE below carries an Elint pod IIRC. Also used by French aircraft, but cannot find more info about it. Anyhow, recon pods AFAIK,

As said, you set throttle to 3000rpm, or with MW50 you're allowed to 3250 IIRC, not Ata aside that it changes with altitude but rpm don't .

Both are good and more than enough for DCS, we all hope for several years since they are plenty of margin. It's mostly just the one you like better. To say something, one has a somewhat better graphics card than the other. But it's only minor reached those performance levels.

Yes, I know, and anyway the low drag elliptical wing profile is the cause of the good performance in diving (same as P-47) so of course it's modelled in DCS as we have two elliptical wing models to fly. But it was a joke and sort of head ups in case he realizes how he just told one cliche after another and many of those things he's "suffering" are only his own faults, not the aircraft. Maybe he sees it as I already told him one thing which falls apart his house of cards settled beliefs . I'm sure he's curious enough to find it.

I wouldn't know how much different it is, but you know F1CZ is actually out there online for download, right?

I'll tell you a secret, Spitfire is actually the best dive performer, historically it was the fastest airframe in a dive capable of reaching 0.92 Mach IIRC. From that starting point, maybe you want to rethink the rest you said .

You can leave MW50 connected most of the time, since it isn't working until you push throttle forward you're fine just controlling your RPM and it'll be there available the moment you need it. Remember Dora Komandogerat works as an RPM selector, Ata indication is just that, an indication and extra info you don't really need. 109 works selecting Ata manifold pressure, but not Dora. They sport different engines.

It's being a while since I last flew the Mosquito, but there's even such a thing as engine selection in DCS Mosquito? I believe you're thinking of a different "simulation" there .

As always, money, it's a hell of a lot of work and a highly time consuming task to later sell only a few copies for a meagre profit. We usually never know about figures, but I'm relatively sure those you mention were less than stellar sales wise. Don't be, it's usual in DCS some aircraft come before others apparently "easier" from our eager compulsive buyers perspective, but it's usually all about info available. You can't make a hardcore simulation out of thin air. You can in arcade games where a few hints here and there are more than enough, but not a real simulation where deep engineering information is a must. Sometimes it's just that what makes a difference, and what makes possible to model something, while the opposite is either true, the lack of that info hinders, when not directly prevents and stops, any further approach to some models, even some very well known from a historical standpoint subjects aren't possible to model. Remember we were close to no P-47 at all because of that and we aren't talking about a rare and obscure subject here. Mosquito happens to be a very well and highly documented aircraft, P-38 I'm not that sure. Anyway don't get me wrong, I want it along so many other warbirds , just commenting the struggles they face to model things. Think of DCS like a kind of archaeological job in some regards where you know something was there because hints and so but you are unsure about how it really worked, what and how whatever was really used for and so. If many times that's a problem even in modern jets were info is lacking about this or that apparently unimportant detail but needed for modelling the thing properly, think of stuff made, used, and scrapped 80 years ago and… I don't envy them facing that kind of troubles just to give us a game. Anyhow, I'm stopping there trying to answer your somewhat rhetorical questions we all have made at some point, I thought we were talking about P-61 wishlisting here and we derail threads too easily .

I don't recall the exact date, I didn't think it to be so long as 2018, I believe the two years-ish pandemic confinement made us all lose track of time. I might recall Dora-109 ones perhaps came a bit later and not at the same time as the P-51D 3D revamp, D-25 added, and for Dora there was a cockpit texture and windscreen geometry adaptation? So it would be closer to now, not sure though since it's from my currently rather poor memory. Anyhow and whatever it is, those were updates for modules released in 2012 P-51, 2014? D-9, you're right it's hard to believe more updates would come very close from now. Who knows though. The 109 poor texture though is only for that canopy edge IIRC, the rest of the cockpit was retextured either and it's not bad at all. That edge though is probably a bad "fix", it might be related to 3D model so they can't just rise resolution for the edge and that's all. Anyhow, have you tried flying with the canopy closed?

Funnily enough those three you mention had retextured cockpits not long ago .

There're several topics somewhere telling you how to match your throttle profile to fit AB kick whenever you need to. Here's the first one I found, though there are more, even one telling you just what numbers to write on the custom axis for every module.

I had listened many times many years ago refuelling probes could be and were removed and refitted easily and commonly during daily service. I think now that was a bad mistake confusing C and E models, which by the way were changed and mixed in numerals (though constant serials OC) for all their active life making the identification even more confusing without that info at hand. Tried to find something about that in a little though quite useful and thorough book about F1 in Spanish service to no avail. Anyhow there I found which numerals and serials were what model (even more than I thought, apparently there were up to seven variants in service in Spanish Air Force at some point, which I weren't aware of ), so a quick check in my little modelling purposes photo stash (useful right now) and I was unable to find a single example, even among overhauled ones after 1999, which was a previous CE model wearing a refuelling probe in their latter configuration as F1M. Apparently for M model, since it was not just a MLU but a full overhaul to make it the final and most capable model until retirement, everything was upgraded even for CE models as long as their airframes were Ok to make the whole fleet homogeneous in capabilities and everything. But the refuelling probe wasn't probably one of those upgrades though I was convinced till I checked now the probe were actually removed and refitted. Never checked for myself till now either, I guess. By the way, I couldn't find either a single example of a clearly identified E model without a probe fitted, neither in M latter config of those, and I believe that was a definitive evidence that the removal-refit thing wasn't practised at all in SAF service. So, Aerges will have to compromise their model making it all the same I guess, M will be one and not two different ones featuring C/E mixed properties and so. Anyhow that's not a bad compromise I believe. Maybe they allow us to remove/refit the probe in ME options, for M model at least, so we can "disguise" them as upgraded Cs either.

Posted one hour, 1, ago. I don't think that was any confirmed info we already had . Very welcome news anyhow those other IA variants. That fills almost all of them for so many environments we could simulate.

I still think textures in skins, and probably PBR need some extra work, but details are amazing. Love those wheel chocks and ladder, those tiny details give so much vividness to the model.

Never had a 360Hz screen, but that difference usually comes from Windows desktop settings versus Nvidia, AMD or whatever graphics card you have, application settings. Check, whether you have made a profile in the toolbar app or not, what's the profile running for apps aside for desktop settings. I can't recall exactly where (and it might depend on your graphics card brand and model) but check the graphics card profile currently running and try to find out an option called "keep desktop settings on running apps", or something on the like. That probably means either editing, or making if you hadn't one already, whatever the graphics card profile which is now running. You know, Nvidia control panel, or AMD control panel or whatever it's called now, or the like. There is usually an option to tell the graphics card to keep your desktop refresh rate setting on running apps, either control panels as said in a general profile, or maybe a dedicated profile for DCS or whatever other games you want to keep like that, sometimes if there's no other option even inside the app there is that option, even though I can't recall DCS having that.

I wouldn't recall, but wasn't Razbam never really settled intention, or good will for the really distant future, for a Mirage III a IIIC model? If we get IIIEE from Aerges after the F1 down the years I don't see a problem with that being them different models. So many years anyway we might get a Mirage III whatever the model from another third party before that .

I'm remembering typical 80's ones for sure.

Bf 109 DB sounds like an old scooter, check any of the in cockpit videos on YT and you'll see how it does. In DCS I believe they used a more gentle sound than that since that old scooter sound takes all the appeal out as the alleged ultimate fighter it's supposed to be .