kablamoman

No need to be snarky, here: What we've had were 4 posters replying in good faith in response to OP's concern with some tips about how they manage to max perform with the warbird modules despite lacking the aforementioned real world sensory cues. We all know it's a sim and that it has limitations, but working around those limitations is also its own set of skills that can be practiced and learned with time. OP's suggestion of a real time EM plot could be a really cool feature, and I think it would be a neat tool to have when practicing. A major impediment to its implementation might be that pace of development is already pretty glacial, and so it's not likely that we'd ever see it. Not to mention, if it were optional, a drawback may be that it could prevent folks from learning how to use the other cues that are already readily available (which may be necessary if you ever want to play online with other people). Despite protestations, the simple fact remains that players actively use these cues right now, with great success, when flying these modules in the sim. You could spend a bunch of money and look into getting a fancy Rhino force feedback stick -- maybe that would help -- but short of that, the only solution forthcoming for OP's issue is to practice, and learn how to fly with, and not against, the simisms.

Don't mean to pile on, but hopping on the bandwagon to express much the same: The fun of flying the warbirds is largely because they're not fly-by-wire and don't have the envelope protections you may have been accustomed to on the more modern aircraft. To your point, we are indeed missing certain feedback indicators that contribute to your sensory awareness in real life: Things like the feel of G on the body and the forces required to move control columns to generate that acceleration, but you can get by in the sim just fine without them by learning to use other performance indicators. Things like the audible sound of the slipstream at high speeds, mushy control response at low speeds and/or high altitudes, the camera shake with stall buffeting, the squeal of the p51 gun ports at high AoA, or even just the sense that your wing is starting to drop without you commanding it. All the warbird afficionados in the sim are well-practiced at this and can vouch that it works just fine (while still wishing they had industrial strength force feedback, and hydraulic motion rigs). One thing I would suggest, which I think would really help just about anybody trying to fly the warbirds, is to set some stick and rudder sensitivity curves in your axis assignments. To put it into perspective a bit, I've flown a range of aircraft in real life: From small, piston singles, to mid and large-sized turbo props and jets, all requiring significantly different control actuation forces. I have a pretty nice VKB stick at home, with a 200mm extension, using the strongest springs, but even using that it's hard to get close to the feeling of even a small single piston, especially if it's mis-trimmed or pulling G -- this is to say nothing of the 75lbs+ force it can take to pull G in some of these warbirds! I've found that using curves allows for a bit more finesse with general flying, at least with my setup, as I have a bit more authority in the initial range of stick movement and have to really intentionally work against my hardware's springs to go into the range where I'm starting to make the wings work. With the 200mm extension, I use a 20 curve on X and Y, but with a shorter stick, perhaps a 30 curve would be more appropriate? I use a 30 curve for my rudder axis with a set of excellent Slaw pedals. All this is to say that you should see if maybe tweaking some of those axis tuning values will work better for you and your hardware. Good luck! --- Edit: Just noticed this was in the Spitfire forum and thought it may be worth pointing out I actually use 30 curves across the board (X,Y, and Z) for that module, even with my extension, just because the stick is so sensitive.

Great video, thanks for sharing!

It's a bit more complicated than the DCS manual implies. The Jumo 213 manual describes two separate throttling mechanisms. The primary one, that is used through most of the operating range, and the one that the MBG is able to actuate via oil pressure, is the "filling" throttle, sometimes refered to as the "swirl" throttle in the manual. This is part of the induction system at the supercharger. They found that at lower power settings, this method of throttling did not work as efficiently so there is also a separate low speed, "idle" throttle and it is this one that is mechanically linked to the power lever and changes schedule when the notzug handle is pulled. I am assuming that when the oil pressure in the MBG is dumped when the notzug handle is pulled, the hydro-mechanically actuated filling throttle is left open at some arbitrary amount (in normal operation it would be carefully and deliberately metered by the MBG/Engine Control Unit), and primary modulation is instead obtained directly via mechanical connection to the idle throttle. Due to the power limitations when operating in this mode, I think it is safe to assume this method is less efficient, and can result in the combined effects of the non-responsive "filling" throttle and idle throttle creating overboost situations, or perhaps other problems with ignition timing or fuel mixture problems when the power lever position is too far forward.

I think this is another issue with the manual that snuck in due to changing specifications throughout the war. This video may help clear things up for you (or confuse you even more): The long and short of it is that for a brief period of about 2 months at the end of '44 (more details here), there was a 3 minute "increased take-off power" spec ("Sonderstartspitze") that was useable up to 500m that was activated by the Notzug pull handle (bowden cable in the video). The Jumo engines that were approved for this were designated 213 A G-1, but this designation was soon revoked when the engine regime was found to be unreliable, and the Notzug mode for the MBG was again restricted to 2700 RPM/1.55 ata.

Regarding the effect of pulling the handle: As I understand it, the idle throttle being under direct control of the power lever and opening on a different schedule than it would in the regular automatic mode, coupled with the lack of automatic metering for the "filling" throttle at the supercharger (oil-actuated) could result in a boost to ata compared to when the automatic mode is engaged. The reason for the 2700 RPM/1.55 ata limit in the manual mode is that there was the danger of over-boosting the engine and causing critical damage. Whether or not any of this is modeled in the sim, I'm not sure, but it's clear from those limits that the emergency handle is not a "WEP" handle used to get away from bandits -- unless you like running away with your RPM at 2700 as opposed to 3250. There is a post from 2014 in the forums by the original manual writers seeking information about the MBG that also seems to express some confusion about the emergency handle, so that may be partly why the manual is so confusing.

I don't have the manual myself, but it looks like @saburo_cz posted an excerpt above. Here's another excerpt, but this from a copy the TA-152 pilot's notes (also using the Jumo 213): Translation: Engine Malfunctions, as a result of failure of the automatic control system in the Engine Control Unit; Engine seizes or runs erratically: Pull back the power lever. Emergency handle for Engine Control Gearbox... "Pull". Do not exceed boost pressure of 1.55 ata. Another interesting note about the handle is that it was pulled for cold starts (and easier starting in general). As I understand it, the emergency handle, when pulled, allowed the power lever direct mechanical control of the idle throttle valve on a different schedule than when in automatic mode (where its use was coordinated the oil-actuated filling throttle at the supercharger) and that ended up working better for cold starts. Another interesting tidbit is that when pulled, the handle should catch on teeth along the shaft. To push the handle back in, the pilot first had to rotate it 90 degrees to the right to unlock it before stowing it again (as seen here) :

You have to charge the cannon before it will fire. Hold the button at the base of the grip on the left side for a couple seconds to do this.

I think this is an issue with the description/translation in the manual. The way its worded implies that the handle is used as a kind of "WEP" for extra boost, but it's really just a mechanical backup to the main MBG in the event that it is damaged, or it otherwise fails. Although the description implies you can achieve higher power settings (this may be true for specific RPM values), you are still limited overall in the back up mechanical mode compared to what you could achieve with a fully-functioning hydro-mechanical MBG unit. TL;DR: Use it only if the MBG fails and your engine is not responding normally. When you do so, ideally you pull the handle after first selecting idle power, and then once switched over you have to respect the lower power limits while you're limping back to home plate.

@motoadve There was quite a bit of interesting back-and-forth with Yo-Yo in this thread that may shed some light on what's going on:

It is correct.

Yeah, the AI is notoriously bad for this and it really ruins a lot of missions. They do some weird stuff when it comes to not bleeding energy and warping around to conform to assigned formations and stuff. I would encourage and recommend to anybody into flying WW2 to take it online (don't be scared or intimidated) and find a fun server to play on instead. There are a few training servers without the map or asset pack requirements that can help ease you into things in a safe environment and get you interacting with "real" aircraft that actually adhere to the same physics as you do. Most popular servers are running on the Open Beta release, so be sure to update to that if you are interested.

That's correct. 61"/3000 RPM will give you max performance in a climb. To go back to your analogy of shifting gears in a car, the lower the gear, or finer the pitch, the better you will accelerate. This has diminishing returns when it comes to the propeller, though, so the governor will automatically adjust to take a bigger bite of the air as the aircraft speeds up. You can think of it as continuously automatically shifting for you. Your best rate-of-climb speed is around 175 mph from sea level up to 10,000 decreasing to 170 at 15,000, and 165 at 20,000 to 25,000. It'll climb really well even at max continuous power (46"/2700 RPM) and 200 mph. These are sustained climbs in a piston prop, so you won't be zooming up like in a jet. If you're having trouble maintaining above 150 mph, double check your flaps and gear are up, set your power as desired, and control your speed with your pitch attitude (ie. if you're too slow, lower your nose). It'll settle into a steady climb of 2,000+ feet per minute at the lower levels and will end up being very shallow indeed once you're up above 30,000' -- you won't even be able to maintain above 1,000 FPM at the higher altitudes of the aircraft's flight envelope, and the best rate won't be much different (maybe a bit slower than 165 mph at 25,000 feet).

There is no problem whatsoever with running it up to 61"/3000 RPM for combat. With the old cooling model you could run the danger of overheating if you got too slow (I seem to remember it having trouble overheating in extended, aggressive climbs), but with the revamped cooling it's not something you really need worry about, especially considering you'd want to keep speeds 250 mph+ in a fight anyway. Red line it.

This was put together by @Magic Zach (hope he doesn't mind me posting it).

I've made many carts for the Persian Gulf map and the terrain variable is indeed as you wrote it. ie. terrain = "PersianGulf" I can confirm that works in the .dtc format, so may be worth double checking other things.

I agree it looks awful. I am curious, though, if somebody more knowledgeable could weigh in on the kind of stresses imposed on critical structures by these kinds of rapid positive to negative elevator deflections. One would think the rapid alternating deflections would impose stresses above and beyond just a simple sustained deflection, and potentially even be in excess of design loads, even though the overall G experienced by player may technically still be within limits. Similar to that one airline incident where the pilots overstressed and snapped off their entire vertical stabilizer: Even though they were technically below critical maneuvering speeds, the excessive alternating rudder input imposed extreme loads that weren't accounted for in the original design parameters (link). Is this kind of failure mode also applicable to the Spitfire example above? If so, maybe it's an oversight in the modeling that gets exposed by the fact that players are not subjected to the kind of discomfort somebody would obviously feel from this in real life, as OP correctly points out. Perhaps a more robust player g model would prevent this, but perhaps not entirely (people still wobble in that other sim, last I checked, if not as egregiously). But I think if people started ripping their tails off with such careless handling, the behavior would cease pretty quickly for sure.

As @=475FG= Dawger already mentioned, a lot of you seem to have an unrealistically inflated idea of how impactful airframe icing would be to the majority of the aircraft simulated in the game. For almost all of the fighter jets and at the speeds they travel, the ram air temperature rise alone (in addition to the other factors Dawger mentioned) render the concern pretty moot. I do differ from his opinion that more work in the area wouldn't be worthwhile, though. I would welcome improvements to the atmosphere simulation, as it's currently quite lacking and should be a core part of any flying sim. Realistic winds, sheer layers, convective forces, moisture content and ultimately clouds and precip are all features of different air masses and how they interact. If we get a more realistic weather depiction in the sim -- maybe more likely now with multithreading being added to the engine -- one hopes it would open the door to things like wind and turbulence being affected by terrain, inversion layers affecting visibility, clouds affecting missile seekers and AI instead of just being cosmetic, and yes, maybe even some carb or airframe icing to contend with in our subsonic pistons (if we chose to bomb around in cloud at the mid-levels). Maybe it's a bit of a pipe dream given the glacial rate of progress at addressing long standing bugs and missing features, but I would certainly much prefer a more robust weather simulation over a new module or map DLC. Better weather would benefit the entire sim as a whole. As it stands now, the canned pitot-static icing effect you sometimes experience in many of the modules (in severe clear air) would be better left out of the sim entirely. And if you do that, by extension you might as well not even bother modeling the heating switches or their component systems to being with.

Biggs, perhaps because of refraction your method for aligning the two pictures using external reference (as seen through the glass) is giving incorrect results. Can you find another reference where you can align the view with interior cockpit geometry instead?

Regardless of refraction, would the sight not still be zeroed so that the rounds landed where it was aiming through the glass? Not sure I follow your logic, Fenrir. What's more, is that you can clearly see the sight ring itself is offset by both metrics -- by its apparent visual clearance over the front of the cowl, but also by its height with relation to the interior canopy features only. (Although aligning the two pictures, when one is affected by the canopy glass, while the other isn't, based on cowl features, is probably also an issue). Maybe more of a question to ask would be "how exactly has the sight has been zeroed in Biggs' reference picture?" I think we'd need to know more about that to say for certain if there is an issue with the way it's modeled in the sim. How do we know the referenced sight has been aligned and zeroed in the same way it would have been during war time? Even if it was, variations in convergence range use throughout the war would likely affect vertical alignment of the sight as well. In any event, it may be worth a closer look.

I think this has been reported before, and there is some question as to whether or not the damaging behavior of the slight overspeed is accurate. I think you can actually achieve a wider range of prop pitch control if you switch to manual mode and coarsen the pitch, which doesn't make much sense to me (you'd think the high-pitch stops would be the high-pitch stops). You could try that as a workaround Ultimately, I think there is plenty of room for improvement with the prop modeling in a dive (not to mention diving from high altitudes doesn't really seem to generate the kind of behavior it's supposed to in terms of compressibility). Been a while since I messed with the module due to other issues (the fragile engine bearing), so my input may be well out of date.

Yes, would be nice if they fixed this.

The Leaning Tower of Ford!

Granted, it's at a much lower speed than 130 mph, but here is an example of a real player doing exactly this (and it's quite funny to witness): oops.mp4 Perhaps the modules are more forgiving than their real-world counterparts, but I definitely do find that the relationship you're talking about when making comparisons to the jets in the sim is definitely there. The jets are far simpler to control with their centerline thrust and their fly-by-wire as you progress through the roster in the sim from older to newer. Perhaps your experience makes it seem quite easy for you to fly the older warbirds -- but throw someone new to flying into the sim, and they similarly struggle like the poor chap in the video. Overall, I think DCS does far better a job than any other sim I've played at modeling these things, and I think it's a bit unfair to call them poorly modeled.

Probably the most accurate assessment of the issue I've read. I would agree with everything you've said. Really hope they give some time to the problem. The dots at extreme distances varying with resolution seem to have been addressed fairly well by that user modification they locked away behind IC. Hopefully they will put their own solution on a fast track. I think the issue with mid-range spotting is a pretty tough one to address, though. So much of spotting in real life is learning to focus your eyes properly (something we can't really do with current display tech), and so any solution that tries to emulate it might be an arbitrary kludge. I do think there is something going on with the lighting, as you say, and maybe the texture filtering used by the renderer that could be improved -- as it stands now aircraft blend into the background scene in ways that unnaturally mask them. I also hope they add some mechanism to render glints of reflected sunlight off of shiny aircraft surfaces and canopies, and fix the problem of contrails de-rendering prematurely at distances where they should still clearly be seen.