312_Lobo

It looks like https://invictuscockpits.com/ have taken over the production of VFS.

Please can you make displaying "Kneeboard current position mark point" (RCtrl+K) on the kneeboard map as an option that can be enforced (disabled or enabled) in the mission options/by the server? This way we could turn this off for the missions that are set in in the era before GPS. I mean, if we wanted to have "realistic" mission depending on navigation skill, with current implementation it would be quite pointless, because everybody can display own position instantly with RCtrl+K as a chevron mark on the kneeboard map... .

Thanks! :thumbup:

May I ask where were you able to download PiTool 197?

:thumbup:

+1

^^^^^this :thumbup: It is possible that in some air forces every pilot had a personal plane, but I doubt is was a common practice during war. Normally there were more pilots than planes in a squadron and at least some planes would be flown by more than one pilot. Not mentioning that people need rest, planes need maintenance. So planes and pilots would normally rotate. One could have "personal plane", but that does not mean that he would be flying it all the time. Having big differences in settings would be just impractical. We all read/hear stories about exceptional guys, aces. Nobody will write a book or shoot a movie about average Joe. There were only about 5% aces (= more than 5 kills) among all fighter pilots. Who knows the facts about those remaining 95%? Again, I am not against having the option for convergence in game. Just saying that it was not as common as we all think based on famous stories.

I would not say that having adjustable convergence is a bad thing or completely non-historical or unrealistic. On the other hand I have serious doubts that it was common practice. Well, commanders or aces could have something like "personal" plane. But regular pilots in the squad would hardly fly the same plane all the time. And if you rotate planes and pilots, having one day the plane with convergence 100yards and the other day 400yards would be a real pain. That is a reason why all army equipment is usually standardized and not personalized. As for me, nice to have at some point but I do not need this in DCS. There are much more important things to improve first.

Could please be more specific at which power settings and altitude DCS P-51 over-performs? I assume you did measurements in game and compared them to TSCEP5E-1908, right?

:thumbup: Yeah, one day I would love to see the Ardennes 44/45 in DCS. Current DCS WWII planeset would fit it almost perfectly and it would also be a great playground for both a2a and a2g fighter-bomber sorties. And with multi-engine medium bombers (B-25/B-26) if they ever come to DCS it would be even better.

Nakajima Homare?

Noticed that too. Someone stated on the forum that DCS simulates gun barrel overheat due to prolonged fire affecting the dispersion. And that, after some time without firing, the barrel will cool down and dispersion will return to normal. I was never able to replicate this cool down effect. The more rounds you fire the more gun dispersion increases regardless of cool down periods. Once I spent all ammo in multiple short bursts observing deteriorating accuracy with each burst. Then left the plane sitting on the ground for more than 30 minutes to allow barrels cool down. When I re-armed the dispersion was still much higher than if you re-spawn in a fresh plane (like there was no cool down at all).

AFAIK Rallye Commodore 180 GT has full span slats, while bf-109 has slats only on the outer half, isn't this what makes the difference? You probably know that wing has usually some washout so that wing root stalls first producing some buffeting giving feedback to pilot that plane is near cAoA while keeping ailerons effective. Although Bf-109 wing has no washout, it has slats at the outer half which produces similar effect as washout i.e. when inner portion of wing is at critical AoA the outer part is not due to slats deployment... .

I don't like how it's done at the moment, real immersion killer for me, and I would like to be able to disable it even if it puts me into disadvanage on the servers that have it enabled-enforced. Of course the best implementation would be if user/client could use any of lower settings than those that are enforced by server. E.g. if server enforces '2', client could use anything between 'off' and '2' at will but could not use '3' (if client sets '3' server will enforce '2'). If that makes sense... .

As for the server enforced settings, I'd prefer if user had the option to disable impostors completely. So that when client has the model enlargement set to 'off', there will be no impostors on client regardless of what the server setting is. If model enlargement is enabled (client has it set to 1,2 or 3) then the server enforces the settings.

Digital Convergence Simulator :)

I'm really not sure that "other sims have this feature" is a proof of validity and correctness of whole "convergence" concept. As mentioned before on this forum, P-51s used two harmonization patterns. What we have in game is historical patten for K-14 gun sight optimized for longer ranges. There was another pattern optimized for a somewhat shorter range and older gun sights. Having an option to switch between these two standard harmonization patterns and gun sights would be nice though rather cosmetic feature. I seriously doubt that ordinary air force pilot flew each mission on the same plane. E.g. in case his (customized) plane was grounded due to maintenance, would that pilot stay on ground as well? I don't think so. This is the reason why things are usually not customized but standardized in the army, so that everyone can use them with expected results. Yes, there were exceptions. But is it realistic to expect that every exception will be modeled in DCS? :) By the way, where on the internet or in the books I can find some examples/stories about P-51 pilots that used custom convergence with K-14 gun sight? Or maybe some technical orders how to set up custom convergence? Custom convergence is possible in DCS. If someone needs it so desperately, it's easy -- tell ground crew to adjust your LUA :). I believe this LUA adjustment is as simple in DCS as was the setting of non standard "convergence" IRL without having proper alignment figures for these non standard settings.

Tested it just quickly yesterday but I haven't noticed any performance change when compared to prev version. For MIL ~560km/h is still max TAS at SL with radiator set to auto. BTW RL tests we are all referring to (TSCEP5E-1908 - http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p51d-15342.html) are with radiator set to auto as well.

+1 I did similar performance tests for MIL power at SL some time ago with the same result (http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2332942&postcount=1).

I didn't mean to hurt anybody's feelings, though I should probably choose my words more carefully. I just wanted to say that I liked DoW for the older "objectives" oriented misions like "Three lakes", "Leap Frog", ... and that I dislike air quake style ones with swarming AIs. There are ~3 ww2 servers, one of them is running "air quake" mission all the time, when it happens that both DoW servers at the same time run RiverRiders, it does not give much variety... just my opinion. No doubt it's your server and you can do whatever you want with it... .

+1 I like the other missions on DoW but River Riders running on both servers is PITA.

I think that example with A-10c demonstrated that F2 shows TAS quite accurately close to SL ... unless A-10c has same error as p-51. Well, I think OP shows that there is quite good chance that P-51 speed is off. It would be great to know whether it's been reported or not.

PEC is apparently not modelled for P-51 in DCS. F2 view or F10 view shows TAS for given plane. When I tested A-10 and switched airspeed indicator on HUD to TAS it showed 350 KTAS on HUD and at the same time object speed in F2/F10 views showed 648km/h (~350KTAS). For P-51 at ~350mph IAS F2/F10 view shows 560 km/h TAS (~348mph) which des not explain the measured difference within measurement tolerance.

I'm not able to reach max speed at sea level at MIL settings. Attached is a track and mission and also TacView record. In DCSW v1.2.15 P-51 TAS at sea level at MIL power seems to be only 348mph which does not match the expected value (~364mph) stated in this post http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1577405&postcount=7 . Weather: Default, Temp 15°C, no wind. Plane condition: Clean aircraft, wings tanks full (67% fuel), radiator auto Steps to repro: Spawn at altitude, decent to approx 25m AGL, set Military power (3000 RPM and 61") fly straight and level for about 5 minutes. Observed: After 5 minutes TAS stabilizes around 560km/h (348mph). Expected: According to TSCEP5E-1908 (http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p51d-15342.html) at MIL power settings TAS at SL should be 364mph which is ~585km/h. Difference is ~25km/h (16mph). SPEED_TEST-p-51.miz speedtest-p51SL.trk Tacview.zip