Ala13_ManOWar

A-8, although a fighter, is probably more interesting in the ground pounder role (and F-8 version should come some day to the module, indeed), it's clearly underpowered as per any historical readings you could find, it's barely the same engine since A-5 but even more weight which isn't helping. You can understand why in Dora a high altitude performing engine was desperately needed, which I find interesting in DCS, any other simulator gives you that kind of deep understanding of what was going on and why. Externally (and internally) Anton is way better and accurate than Dora, the time it has shows here but there was a textures update a time ago and Dora cockpit looks fine, though not as detailed. Anyhow that's cosmetics only and Dora might get an update sooner than later since it's reaching the 10 years old now. FM wise, handling is not that different but you can definitely tell the shorter fuselage and stability difference, either on the ground or airborne, but not specially harder to fly in that regard anyway, once one known the other is mostly similar which makes sense since Dora (D-9) was basically an Anton (A-8) with an inline engine. Both are great modules though Anton sadly is underrated by many pilots because that lack of power, but it's a very interesting aircraft, flies quite nicely, a historical match in Normandy, and all in all an interesting bird to fly and interesting in learning tactics and how to cope with some better opponents.

Interesting!! Can you post a link to that?

Yeah, probably I'm the one, right .

Increase this, increase that, like this was the arcade you're thinking about…

Yeah, procedures are usually what works in aviation, I don't know exactly what you see off about that. Every warbird here favours the use of relatively strict procedures whenever you want to master it to your best, without procedures you can fly but "things" happens easier than not. - Control column has nothing to do with ground controllability, unless you slam it into the control panel and you get nose over. Control wise it's not exactly related, not in a way you could or should feel in front of a PC screen. Holding the control column back settles the tail for sure, but what do you expect to "feel" here? It's a simulation, do you feel any different any other warbird?. I can't recall if Ishak tail wheel has any controllability or is a free castering wheel, anyway tail is short, aircraft is relatively light, nothing special should happen because of that. Easier to control on the ground sure it is, I believe it should be from memoirs readings about the plane. - Brakes are known to be ineffective on this aeroplane, drum brakes IIRC, hence not much can be done about that. It's historic. - In the very video you posted at first there are a take off in which tail is seen lifting like a split second after slamming power on. What would you expect with a high powered nimble aircraft? Anyhow you can hold your stick back to prevent that from happening too early if you like. - I found myself taking off from "grass runways", be it real runways or plain fields, is quite nice and the aircraft is comfortable there. I'd rather prefer grass take off rather than tarmac ones, indeed, though not many grass aerodromes out of Normandy/Channel maps. - Yes, it does pitch up because of the lift, though indeed AoA is lower with flaps down. Real aircraft has no trim, but control column is like 2 metres long (I've had one in my hand, I've sat on a real i-16 yes, so same as any other warbird it's no big deal to hold the long control column a bit forward or backward, cero problem with that. The problem comes whenever we try to do that on a short stick sitting on top of a table, that's a problem but not a module problem. My warthog with a 25cm long extension is perfect and I have no problem with that. Hardware matters, yes. What you feel isn't exactly a pitch up momentum, IIRC from my tests in the past, AoA lowers as it should but since lift is higher you "feel" you have to hold harder on the stick. Problem related to not having a trim available, nothing else. - To my taste landings in this aircraft were quite nice, better than other more highly powered warbirds in DCS IIRC, take off can be tricky due to high torque in a small aircraft, nothing unheard of, but landings were quite nice AFAIK, surprisingly nice and easy after those relatively tough take off. - Yes, the aircraft is nimble, and modelling might be just different from other since every developer has it's own ways, but I'm fine with it being nimble, I didn't expect otherwise in a really small aircraft boasting 1000Hp in the nose. Whatever it is, it might not be perfect as any simulation/pc game is to start with, but I don't see big problems with this module. It flies as expected, it performs quite well and nothing crazy but what you can expect from this aircraft and what they tell about it historically. You probably noticed the guy in the video you posted at first says it has no flaps and that's why it's hard to land . It does have flaps, either historically or in modern copies, no matter he uses or not for a reason. If that's what he thinks and he doesn't even know his aircraft for whatever the reason it is, well nice thoughts to listen to but I'd take those thoughts with a grain of salt just in case. He also compares it to Yak-52, which obviously has nothing to do with this aircraft, like nothing, zero, I don't know if you have ever stand next to a Yak-52 but it's a bus on wings, huge, but only 400Hp engine. It's used on aerobatics (where I saw it and had a chance to talk to the pilot) but it's so clearly in another league compared to proper aerobatic aircraft, it lacks power compared to those. But i-16 is a really nimble aircraft with a high power engine, definitely nothing to do with that. Why he thinks they're close or related? Who knows, but he also says whenever he tells that to test pilots they look at him like he was crazy, so…

1.a You're right, it's not exactly like that since governor's job it to keep a constant rpm in the gauge, so no gear change at all, on the contrary constant rpm even though at a constant rpm you can get different power outputs due to manifold pressure changes. That's the weirdness of constant speed props when you fly them at first, you get different power outputs but rpm are constant and hence sound pitch is constant either. 1.b In a constant speed propeller there's no difference theoretically, governor keeps the optimal pitch for you and you don't need to care about that since you have no direct control of pitch itself but an rpm selector in your hand. 1.c In a constant speed propeller, yes, it's supposed to be the best, even though theoretically you could squeeze some extra mile per hour out of a manual pitch, but since you're flying not optimally all the time with a variable pitch propeller I'm not so sure how much in a simulator a difference would be. That anyway is something to test if we get some day a manual variable pitch propeller aircraft available and modelled to DCS standards, otherwise pointless at all. Yes, max rpm are the fastest you can get in P-51, the most optimal setting certainly. 2. Prop overrev is only a thing when your governor gets hit (quite easy on P-51), but generally speaking overreving in the P-51 is not a thing, it won't happen in most cases, governor does a pretty good job. Anyhow what gets damaged is the engine itself out of shear temperature, the problem with piston engines is always temperature and cooling, if you manage to keep it cool you'll be good to go almost all the time you want to, if you don't you'll kill the engine fast as hell. 3. Not exactly. Max rpm are tested by engine manufacturer, if they tell you it's safe to run 27-46 forever it's because they've tested and they know it's safe. Usually what kills an engine with a constant speed prop is overboosting since governor will manage to keep the rpm selected but pressure inside the engine isn't constant, that kills an engine relatively easily, but it's not like you can't overboost even an inch over your rpm "limit", you can and it's also a long term thing, indeed the problem with overboosting should be more for the ground crews after you land rather than while flying most of the time, so mostly not a thing in a simulation since you don't see the engine leaking oil and having to be overhauled with new cylinder heads and seals. Overreving isn't a thing as said, governor will take care of that, overboosting on the contrary is easily performed by the careless pilot. The balance you look for are the engine settings at the manual, a rev selection is like a stop you should never go beyond in order to keep things cool (no pun intended, but double meaning here indeed), so you already know, 27-46, you never should go far beyond 46 inches manifold pressure with a 2700rpm setting, 24-36, same, etc. 3000 rpm is your no limit for manifold, but then you have to keep an eye on anemometer even before temps, as long as you keep speed up it'll be fine so that's why you can kill the engine in combat, speed isn't constant and refrigeration either while you're getting the most out of the engine, that's where the engine dies. 4. Yes, there are. The thing with P-51 is it boasts a so good range you could fly around almost all of the maps we have available and not having a problem with fuel (unlike Spitfire, or 109/190 with way smaller fuel tanks). You can indeed get an even more conservative setting that would allow you to fly all day long if you want, those are usually low rpm settings and "high" (relatively high) manifold and you can squeeze lots of miles, useless miles since you can't go Berlin and back in the maps we have, but it's there and it actually works. It does work either for Spitfire indeed. I wouldn't remember actual numbers you have to run for those settings in P-51 but they should be somewhere, and no those aren't specified in the manuals, those appeared out of field tests by pilots. There's a story indeed about a guy "stealing" a P-51B, with full fuel and all, and he made it to Norway and back only to probe their bosses it works. Japanese pilots with Zeros knew those settings indeed and that was the "secret" for a6m amazing ranges, not any other. 5. All I said here could be mostly the very same in any engine management, I mention P-51 since that's the one you ask for, but the kind of management explained here (numbers aside) could be for any piston engine aircraft sporting a constant speed prop.

Well, then I'm a pilot myself, as per usual I know many pilots just because I happen to be among them, and the ones I've talked to about this game are really happy with it, either military pilots who have flown several of the types recreated, or ATPLs who only might have flown IRL a couple at best, but still they all say the same. This "game" features things I'd never seen on a pc "game", name it simulator or not, ever before and those things go way farther than any other software company had even tried in the past, current times or foreseeable future. It's not perfect mate, how could it be, it's still a PC game trying to show us a hint of what it's like to fly one of these machines, but, what do you know other than DCS coming even remotely close to this attempt? So, stop complaining about everything and enjoy the actual gorgeousness this "game" has to offer. I'm not blind, I know there're issues here, but generally speaking a few smaller details can't stop me from enjoying a experience I couldn't have IRL (fighter jets? warbirds? come on), but even though I haven't flown any of the models we have here (not even Yak-52, 400$ per flight hour are to blame), in my limited experience, this "game" models things never, ever seen before in a commercial simulation, and that's a thing either, I became a pilot after having 30 years of simulation gaming experience, thus I know what it takes in both worlds. "FM's aren't even ballpark" , really, I don't know what you talking about. Allow me to rephrase so perhaps you get it, "the best FM's we've ever seen on a PC game, featuring things which apparently are just a kind of magic and obscure wizardry for every other developer out there, which despite being a pc game after all still is a really great and accurate representation of what is really like to fly a real aeroplane, aren't even a ball park because I'm suspicious and I say so". Clearer now? P.S.: Don't get me wrong, because I know many pilots I also know the ones who usually only have experience in their training simulators, and they still to this day in the twenty first century think those are just useless entertaining games (aided by the fact that training simulators use to be quite ugly and lacking detail, fine). But, no matter the pilots they are, they haven't the faintest about modern simulation and what can be done just at home, so their own bigotry about this being a useless game don't allow them to know better, let along enjoy such a thing like DCS or any other game out there is. The day they discover how wrong they were usually a new world opens up to them. Anyhow, those can say whatever condescending thing to "wannabe gamers" they consider everybody, but since they have no idea about what is and what is not a real simulation like DCS is and I happen to have my own 30 years simulation experience before PPLing, I trust my own criteria here which also concurs with many other pilots open minded enough and/or with their own experience in simulation besides RL to know better than the former .

It might be related to some axis double set or the like, but that movement is indeed quite common trackIr not tracking correctly whatever the clip you have. Both camera lights on in red isn't trackIr standing by, is trackIr working but the clip is out of camera or wrongly tracked. Check in the trackIr app the camera, what it's actually seeing, it's usual to have a glare, a light, a window, or whatever alike in your back and that happens.

It's always advisable to remind Dora won't turn with P-51, both are quite high wing loaded, but Dora even more so in that pair suddenly P-51 is the somewhat Turn&Burn fighter while Dora is the Boom&Zoom one. Anyhow, if you keep your speed high, Dora's strength, you can use the vertical more than P-51 can. At low level you can hit&run since nobody will get any close to you max speed wise while you keep it high.

Funnily enough, you only care about the real world experience that suits you. Whenever you heard of another pilot telling you it's fine and the problem is yours you turn off hearing .

As I already said, too many unanswered questions, but it's not up to us to clarify them .

Currently nobody knows, but let's hope so provided the module is a success and sales figures are good to them.

To me a Su-17/22 out of DCS world wouldn't make sense at all, but it can't be discarded those renders maybe for a classic civil simulation already having several nice though useless for the environment military aircraft from OctopusG .

How many? It's always too many to handle, but too few to please you .

They're both similar in performances, P-51 gets better with altitude, Dora is better low level (sort of, it's more complex than that). Perhaps P-51 is more interesting with regards to usability in online servers, but both are interesting to fly. Dora isn't exactly better, it is better in some parts of the envelope, but P-51 is better in others. In this case it's more a question of which one you like better.

Sadly it's not ED's choice to decide whether a mod gets done or not, only an official third party signing a contract would make a difference with regard to that and if neither did so it's currently only two mods kind of competing to make it first to the end line. A real pity they both couldn't work together, but that's neither up to ED to tell. Remember even third parties do work in their next projects and only at a certain point they sign with ED a contract about that possible next module (somebody recall about an L-39 module a third party took 5 years to make and finally they unfulfilled the signed contract so ED went with their own L39?), so OctopusG isn't "ahead" because they already are a third party, they have to have something to sign the contract and we've only seen a couple renders' screenshots. A modder alone is sadly behind because of manpower, but it's not impossible to make it. We'll see, we're guessing but we don't even know if those renders are DCS related . Again, too many unanswered questions…

Su-17/22 is nice, if it were a DCS aircraft it would definitely be really welcome (though concerns arise by the fact OctopusG was a single guy, who did an amazing job in the i16, but a Fitter on his own… tough job). BUT, the thing is, what about the La-7? Aren't we getting the La-7 in DCS now?? Too many unanswered questions…

Even if they enhance Dora sounds, to be fair, that Jumo 213 sounds like an old tractor anyway .

Pues si no sabes leer cirílico y no conoces el avión aún, pon la cabina de inglés en las opciones especiales. No tiene sentido dejarla en ruso si por hacer la frikada no vas a saber dónde está nada. Y por cierto que si te haces el tutorial de arranque te va diciendo dónde está cada cosa, lo mismo que en cualquiera de los mil vídeos que habrá por youtube contando el proceso. Las bombas de combustible son los tres primeros interruptores en el panel horizontal del paño derecho de la cabina. Donde enciendes la batería y el generador AC, los tres delanteros de ese bloque de interruptores.

Depende de en qué circunstancias. Si acabas de arrancar y estás en el suelo, por ejemplo, te has dejado las bombas de combustible sin encender.

As a matter of fact, negative transfer of skills is a thing to be considered IRL aviation, it happens, it's something to be aware and cautious about if you fly too many aircraft types at the same time. On the simulator, aside from my own memory loss and everything, I don't think I've felt that so strongly, but nonetheless it may definitely happen, of course. As others said, it probably means you need more experience in all the types, not less. If you reach a point were you're confident enough with any aircraft, flying a different one is not such a big deal. Tactics, on the other hand, well one has to know which aircraft is flying at a certain moment and certainly stick to the appropriate tactics for the model. In the end more experience again, not less, I guess. Don't be afraid of the Spit and fly it more (together with others of course), so you know by heart what to do when you're in that particular type.

No, I'm remembering from my modelling stuff, in order to build a CJ out of a regular Mirage IIIC, you have to scratch build (or find some aftermarket for the purpose) the tail end/engine exhaust which is a bit different .

Engine was different, I believe. System wise I haven't the faintest.

I hope we eventually get Mirage IIIEE from Aerges after F1 if they manage to do so sooner than Razbam, especially since they already have a knowledge and are modelling Dassault systems and all with F1. It would be more or less the same for the purpose I guess, and it's a cold war aircraft fitting many sceneries in Middle East, not only Malvinas/Falklands.

What we've seen is probably just a first implementation, we're commenting here like it were already a fully finished module and it's not even released yet. A friend of mine, who used to be Mirage F1 mechanic in the Air Force, told me he knows the radar (from the simulator, you cannot switch it on while on the ground unless you want to deep fry ground crews ) and the RedKite's video looked mostly quite spot on to him.