Doughguy

it works. however. make sure you dont overwrite the new inputs lua with old carburator fix luas. it wont work then.

Right i guess ive found the problem. The x52 throttle didnt move back all the way to where the two lines allign.... once ive reduced it with num- and the two lines alligned, throttle off worked. ffs... had to adjust curves for whatever reason here...

yes. ive mapped it to the "arrow down" key. it works for start up, which would be rshift + pos1 (arrow up for me) ive also mapped the same buttons to my x52 pro throttle. for start up it works, but thottle off or throttle off/idle, it doesnt.

Been playing around with the Viper lately and working thorugh some tutorials. So far so good. I cant really seem to power down the engine? Ive mapped the up and down arrow keys for the throttle idle etc (which usually is mapped to right<profanity> pos1/home), however once i have the engine running, i cant seem to get it to shut off. As far as i understand i simply reverse the startup procedure but once the engine starts idling i cant seem to shut it off (rightshift+home), and the throttle doesnt move back. not really sure whats wrong. unable to shutdown f16.trk

This isnt working for a long time and easy fix. if you have a look around this subforum youll find tons of threads regarding that matter. its really just changing 2 numbers in 2 lines of code......

Hm, is this a better approach mission editing wise, or even necessary? i sure have to look into this first. kinda wanted the "oldskewl" real approach that you had to be there by time xyz etc. eventually script a percentage that bombers might not show up or the other escort and you abort the mission, or go hunting secondary targets. yea noticed this. changed already. i see. i thought something like this, but as it was set up the same way as in the corrected test mission i was kinda wondering. thought it might have something to do with the mustangs interacting and such. btw. does it cause any wacky behavour of the ai mustangs if i assign them to escort all b17 groups, or should this be kept to lead flight/group exclusively? Furthermore, is it possible to set up the mustags to fly in formation with the 17s? atm they just drag behind. Cant make them part of the big formation. Aswell is it possible to set the mustangs behaviour so, that once they extend eg. 5nm away from the lead bombers, and below 18k ft, they break off any attack and rejoin the lead group? guess this would have to be scripted ? Cause atm, once they spot bandits... they´re off... and the b17´s get done with.

thanks. ill look into it. been years since ive used mission editors. last time was for op flashpoint/arma/vbs1. seemed more convenient.

Natural occurance... Unless you classify nature as a glitch.

Alright ive set the misson and works like i want up until the b17s reach wp 7 (well the lead flight). the others break off to the one wp they have and then proceed to land in maupertus. funny enough its the same set up for the rest of b17 flights as in the fixed example mission above? bit oddly random behaviour. the mustangs are supposed to escort the b17s up to their wp 7 then break off and return to the designated bases, while the bombers proceed to wp8 and circle. this works to some extend for the players flight (scythe) and the accompanied flight (scythe 2) that simpyl supposed to follow the playerflight. upon landing, scythe2 flight simply flys off and heads to the initial assembly point. the 2nd p51 groupsl fights (razor1 and 2) follows the lead b17 flight until wp7 but then breaks off and proceed to the initial assembly point like scythe 2 and all go on an extra round. from the settings of the mustangs escort option id expect them to escort the bombers from wp 2 (rally point) up to the bombers wp7, as ive set the last wp of the escort to be wp7 of the lead b17 flight, and then break of and land. just like in the fixed example mission. but no avail... i cant really make out whats wrong as ive basically set it up the same way as the fixed example mission. PS.: atm the mission takes about 2 hrs. from start to finish. bomber_escort.miz

Thanks again,checked out the file. wasnt that far off. works like i wanted!

thanks ill check out the file. ive initially used less waypoints for the bombers and got some odd behaviour aswell once the bombgroup hit the target.

Hi there, i´m tinkering around with the editor but ran up to some problems i can´t seem to overcome or even get my head around whats wrong. Very simple. 2 flights of p-51´s. the first is on the rdv early and circles, whats for the 2nd flight that is bit behind (supposed to be the players flight). the b-17 formation is spawned later (08:02). the flight of p-51´s escort the b17s. the 17s drop bombs etc. upto here its all working as expected but upon departure the p-51´s dont stop the escort despite ive limited each escort waypoint, or even tried setting the to be escorted a/c to "nothing". on top of that, the 2 other flights of b-17s seem to break formation early and head their own way, instead of heading out to see with the lead flight and circle there. i can´t really make out whats wrong here. any advice greatly appreciated. bomber_test.miz

cooling flaps open? cant view track atm.

not sure how to test this in dcs as even with breaks youd nose over past 35 mp and 3000 rpm.

i look it up. ive skimmed the manual yesterday eve and iirc it said something about amb temps if my eyes didnt deceive me. but it was more of a side note really.

there you go i can settle with that and am curious aswell. but just assuming things because they appear in a certain way w/o having the actual knowledge or just relying on warstories and here say simply arent hard facts. hard facts would either be a clear statement by a pilot or excerpts of manuals of any kind regarding that very matter. anything else is mere opinions i must say. wether its right or wrong now.

look all im sayin is you/we dont have the whole picture here. just because you and i read some accounts and played a sim doesnt make us experts. youve said it yourself that it appears unrealistic to you because youve not read it in any memoirs. again, those books wont capture the whole picture. no hard feelings here and no anymosities. its a simple thing of facts vs opinions.

me neither. and ive fairly broadly tried different settings on take off. cooler open/auto/closed etc. i do. temp is usually high on take off especially with loads but regulates itself if you gain speed. aswell the manual states that one should be cautious with amb temps above 25 °C. funny how everyone is experiencing different things on basic things. like people be talking about entirely different aircraft.

i dont have the manual at hand but i recall power on spins are mentioned in prohibited manouvers. again theres multiple things to take kn account. the power on spin alone and lack of airspeed and hence temperature rise from a climb. if you enter a power spin on its own, the manual has the procedure correctly. youve had enough airspeed beforehand, hence reducing throttle upon entering the spin is correct. if you howerevet are in a steep climb with airspeed already low and then enter a spin... well.. do the math. again: speed is cooling cooling is life. again. i guess the pilots were taught to keep limits. and whod take the flak for breaking an engine because of a silly mistake. theres simply things peope do not talk about. especially memoirs. personal image. as for the video i cant really watch it atm but with the hood taken off and coolers open i can imagine why it doesnt break... iirc ive read that on the ground youre supposed to have the coolers open anyway. as for sources: well come up with something that tells otherwise. one cant say things arent realistic without being able to back up claims. eventually the merlin manual will give clues if one can dig that up. i'm rather neutral here. the flight model might be indeed kinked but people simpl claiming things arent right based on "sim experience" not being a pilot nor flown that very aircraft let alone in anger is a rather poor argument aswell eh? @grafspee i cant really see say ive ever cooked the engine on take off. it was stated by ed that they work on a new cooling system for the warbirds. however this wont change general characteristics merely give 4 5 6 more seconds at its best. and i bet you a 10er people will crawl out their holes bitching about.

to be frank ive not flown any other aircraft so far in dcs apart from the öony and anton. youre literally comparing apples and oranges. each airplane has its very specific kinks. if its so merlin specific as you say, guess what, i guess it is? cause... its a very specificly build engine? and certainly not a radial engine and or a jumo. the prototype anton also had problems with temp as its cooling was ineffective. as for the lack of resources regarding the downside of the pony, well historical accounts of pilots should be taken with a grain of salt without smudgin their effort. they simply had the specs hammerd in and told not what to do that they did watch the instruments very closely. some sure will not and not live on to tell the story or maybe even simply not said theyve screwed the engine because they didnt pay attention. sure mightve had some consequences screwing government property. its with every other kinks of any other machine. not everything in the manual explicitly or alltogether cause if you can add 1 + 1 youll understand what "dont go below the temps red line" means. then again..again manual again might be "faulty", not takin in account some numbnut might not do the math... i think we can agree that high temps in an engine are bad. regardless of engine and plane. not cooled not working. its a commonality. specs just differ by each airframe. just as turn ratio and stall characteristics and the tendency to get ones wings ripped off. not everything of this is expressedly written in manuals.

no you just dont get my point. neither did i dismiss valid historical sources. but it simply is not stated in the manual. period. just because something is not expressedly written in a manual, doesnt make it untrue. thats what you´re negating. How about this: videos and specs are very specific to the specs of a 51. you dont need to repeat bfm etc in every manual. Any manual gives cornerstones about the specific vehicle. Not general do´s n donts of any aircraft that will apply, which a steep climb and resulting engine temperature rise is. Aswell it wont state: dont do dives for too long or your wings will fall off. it talks about precise altitudes and dive speeds. Just as it states specific temperatures which should not be exceeded. That a stall will induce a lack of cooling, and hence temperature rise to a point itll fry the engine, is something indicated by that fact that the manual explicitly states how its coolin system works. Speed>Airflow>Cooling. The rest is a bit of common sense and an instructor tellin you so, so you´ll have it in the back of your mind.

Is that a manual? doesnt look like it. It´s a thing theyve worked out during war. Well i guess then the instructors mustve thought them young hot shots good on how to fly the pony eh? Well, just because you cant grasp or imagine something, doesnt make it untrue. What we can do here is to grasp a portion of what really was going on back then. We are no experts here. We´ve not been flying these planes under wartime conditions. This whole sim is an estimate.

Again, ive not had much problems with the engine aswell. So, the P-47 is realistic yes? Cause it serves your idea? I guess its something tought in basic flight training, applying to all aircraft at that time. The K4 does climbe better yes. Is its engine bombproof? No. P-51 isnt a K4. It´s a different engine.

Not seen this in any manual either. So on the otherhand itll mean, as its not stated in the manual, its neglegible?

As nine line said, it depends on the speed. Speed = Cooling. Speed = Life. If you manage to gain speed fast from a stall and not climbed for too long, the engine wont blow. If youre too slow, turn over or tumble, you cook the enigne. Why this was never stated in literature? Maybe pilots were taught what they mustnt do, in order to keep the engine running. If your life depends on it, you certainly dont want to mess with the very thing that keeps you alive. It is and was very well known, that the pony had a very delicate engine, especially the cooling. it was stated by pilots, that if the cooling went bonkers, you were out. So, as it was known, they surely will not risk a cooked engine and fly by parameters. And then again "but it causes irreversible damage too fast, I don't know." Exactly. You dont know. You assume.