NoJoe

I thought I remember seeing those "new" rivers some time, but they definitely are just plain blue for me too. My settings are set to High for everything, also (and same result with water set to Medium).

Haha, true. It may have been the only "dogfight" the A-10 could have won, anyway. :P Though back to the issue at hand, that gun kill occurred only after the A-10 attempted to use its AIM-9s first.

Kinda... Wasn't it an A-10 that got the first kill? It was against a helicopter with the gun, I think.

I'd bet real charts would be close enough for our purposes as simulator pilots. And worst case, if you come across numbers in the chart that aren't accurate, you could record the sim's performance and write your own. :)

6 kills in a single pass is pretty darn good! Consider how long it would take to do the same thing with the gun, or Mk-82s. Also consider some of the "not-killed" tanks may still have been damaged and degraded to some extent.

Yowzah! :D

Heck, if someone could make a radar that rendered stealth obsolete, then maybe they could get working on anti-gravity as well! If they can change the laws of physics, why not, right? :P

That was a great read, thanks for posting that! :) It goes to show that especially with older planes like that, what's in the POH isn't necessarily how the aircraft is set up. He was a lucky guy!

It would be good to know under what conditions the estimated and actual test runs were (the light and dark green lines on the chart). 0 degrees C at sea level is quite a large difference from a standard day. (though now that I think about it, I don't know if a "standard day" had been defined back when that chart was made). In any case: do we know what the atmospheric conditions were for the actual test that made 440-something at 26,000? There's no reason why you should consider the actual test to be "correct" unless you know what the temperature and pressure was so it can be replicated in-sim. This may be why the DCS P-51D follows the estimated/calculated curve much closer.

It was just an example. I'm glad to see that you've gotten a response in your bug post. Hopefully that'll get some extra eyes looking at the issue. :)

Maybe Eagle Dynamics based their P-51D performance on what had been calculated in general (the light green line), instead of a single test with one specific aircraft. [shrug] Besides, what's the difference in percent between 440 mph and 430 mph.. Within 2.5 percent; that's pretty darn close.

Ah, fair point. I see your thread in the bug reports section. You probably could have titled that better; "Multiplayer not working" is probably how most will read that. ;) Maybe something like "Critical altitude appears too low" would have been better. But there really hasn't been much activity in that section for a while, looks like. It may just take some time for one of the testers to check it out.

Though they also show 60.5 at lower altitudes too, suggesting it's the regulator limiting it. But check out most of the way down the page, there's a graph with a bunch of green and blue lines showing true airspeed versus altitude. The light green line is for our P-51D with V-1650-7 at 67" MP. The true airspeed shows a sharp decrease starting just above 24,000 feet. Perhaps the other manuals are suspect, Starkey, and 24,000 feet is indeed the correct critical altitude? Interesting that the P-51Bs with the same engine show a critical altitude more like the 26,000 and 28,000 that you expected. [EDIT] Wow, there are data in there for 75" and 90" MP. That's a lot of manifold pressure...!! [EDIT2] That's a great page, Hitman, thanks!

I suppose you'd need Yo-Yo to chime in. Maybe the engine model could use a little tweaking to get the published critical altitude, or maybe there's some other legitimate reason it's behaving as it is. But without Yo-Yo's input we're just guessing. I'd suggest submitting a bug report and see where that goes. Worth a shot. :) I'll save the constant speed prop discussion for a different thread.

Oh, hmm then I'm not sure what he's referring to either. Is your issue that you can make 67 inches only up to 24,000 feet, while the manual (and other sources) say 26,000-28,000? You've got the carburetor air set to ram, not heat, right? (I know, I know, simple questions, but sometimes it's little things that get missed). As for the propeller: Hitman, I think you're describing a "controllable pitch" propeller. The P-51 has a "constant speed" prop, so the RPM will remain constant by varying the blade angle. The pilot simply sets the desired RPM and the governor does the rest. I think Starkey's understanding is correct here. And the reason the MP goes down at lower RPMs is because the supercharger is mechanically driven off the crankshaft of the engine. Lower RPM means the supercharger is running slower and, uh, supercharging less (assuming high power settings where the regulator may be already at maximum).

Just in case you hadn't tried it, have you ruled out throttle calibration? Is your throttle actually at 100% in the sim? I have a vague recollection of some posts by Yo-yo where he discusses why WEP is only able to give a MP boost at lower altitudes... I'll see if I can find it. Anyone else know what I'm talking about? It might have the answer to your questions, Starkey. [EDIT] I think this is the thread I was thinking of. There's a bit of discussion later in the thread: http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=119654 See post #14, where Yo-Yo says:

If you're flying the proper AoA for landing, your speed doesn't matter. Just fly whatever speed gives you the correct AoA. Wait, or do you mean that it's hard to keep the speed constant when you're focusing on AoA? I have that same problem. :)

Just had to dig this one back up to say: Based on the landings some of my students do, I say yes! :P

Is there anyone in particular we should contact? Or do we just need to wait a bit for RRG to get things sorted?

Eddie and Noodle, thanks for chiming in and sharing your knowledge, even if it was in frustrating circumstances. ;) I know I learned more about the TGP and associated systems!

The targeting pod doesn't use the laser to track objects in point mode. The way it calculates the distance to the target (and therefore shows on the TAD) is by using its built-in digital terrain elevation database. If the pod knows where it is over the terrain (location and altitude info from the aircraft) and the angle that it is looking, it can calculate where that line of sight intersects with the terrain. I agree with Yurgon on this one. :)

I'm not in a cockpit right now because it's my day off. :D I'll be back up there tomorrow, flying all around the Seattle area.

I would assume those trees are "inherited" indeed because they are part of the Black Sea map. Presumably Nevada (or any other map) would have its own trees. As for the new pics, they look awesome! I love the way those mountains look in the distance, and all the blue haze. Looks so real! :D

... Nothing scary about that, it's just the phone company sending a fake "ring" while the international call connects. Otherwise folks would hear silence and hang up before the connection could be made. Of course, the passengers' phones never connect, sadly. An article that mentions why: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/03/11/malaysia-airlines-370-passengers-cell-phones/6285325/

We can do almost all of those in single player with the "Mission Planner" function before you click Fly. So in other words, you want that functionality in MP. Then if the server just ran one big mission, there you go. :)