Foul Ole Ron

Interesting. The pictures on pages 5 & 6 would seem to suggest that in online dogfights we tend to get in closer than the optimal gun convergence distance which leads us to pepper their wings rather than get the more critical hits around the cockpit and engine area. Would explain a lot of the damage results I've seen. Or maybe we're just mostly lousy shots :)

http://simhq.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/3568820.html The above thread on this same subject was over in simhq a while back. EvilBivol mentioned that the gun convergence for each gun was set in the LUA files somewhere but didn't say where and that it also wasn't very straightforward. If it's something we could get put up here that could be copied in to our files it might be a stop gap solution until it's possible to do via the UI?

I didn't see him accuse you of anything. He just replied to the OP that it was possible to mod a tail hook to DCS planes. Unless I'm missing something it seems more like the leap was on your side?

I had a similar problem before with Track Ir going nuts sometimes. Turned out it was the base of a lamp causing the problem - not the actual light bulb itself. The base was one of those you tap to turn it on and off and for some reason Track Ir saw it as a light source. You can check pretty easily if there's another source interfering in the Track Ir settings - it shows all the light sources that it is currently seeing. In my case I could see a weird looking blob of a light source which was causing the problem.

If you got onto the virtual aerobatics server and take off from Sochi you can try carrier landing your P51. I haven't managed to do it yet - keep sliding off the front of the carrier into the sea. I don't think it's possible at all.

According to this link which explains boresighting the P51 they usually set the convergence to about 300ft / 100 yards / 91m (see pg. 359) but it also mentions 250-300 yards. It probably differed across units, pilots, etc. http://books.google.ie/books?id=KuujDHr7uHwC&pg=PA358&lpg=PA358&dq=p-51+gun+convergence&source=bl&ots=n5TuqUK02Q&sig=TUtRBOyHQZXOjOjltj5GIKCmDQ0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=vcQ9UZeTOYbD7AaFuoCwCA&ved=0CGoQ6AEwCTgK#v=onepage&q=p-51%20gun%20convergence&f=false

The "fact" about the P51 and FW190 not integrating in the mutilplayer is only a short term state. First of all there's lots of us who'll love to fly stangs vs butcher birds in the current environment. Secondly it's another step on the road towards making a decent WW2 stable which is something we'll get to in time. This is the direction that ED has chosen and I'm fully behind it. Companies have to make money and these are tough times generallyso if they can turn out ww2 planes quicker than complex jets which helps to keep things ticking over and even expand then it makes sense to me.

I don't think it's fair to say that ED might be losing focus on the modern stable by working on the 190. Right now they're also working on DCS F-18C, DCS F-15C and DCS SU-27SM. We also don't know how ED are managing their resources as they may easily have hired somebody to work on the 190. I just think we need to look at the longer term future. There's absolutely no reason that ED can't operate in both the modern and historical spaces. It's just a question of time and resources and if they can carve out a profit from both areas then they should go for it and grow. The question mark will be around delivering both in a reasonable time frame and that's up to ED to manage. I'm quite sure they're well aware of this and know far better what they have and what theycan achieve on a given time frame. Personally I think in 2-3 years we'll have a decent WW2 stable and an appropriate map which will make for a great full realism playground for those who want that kind of thing.

I play RO2 now and again. It's not realistic and fairly different to the original RO but still kind of fun. It's a fairly fast paced close quarters game now but there's a few user-made maps that are starting to use bigger areas to play over. Arma would be a better bet if you wanted something more realistic though.

The accelerated stalls are fine and don't need to be seen to. Probably what you're experiencing is the low amount of travel on your stick that's needed to go from ok flight to an accelerated stall. A real P51 stick would have more travel and wouldn't feel quite as quick to get into one. It might be a good idea to flatten our your X and Y stick curves a bit so that you have some more leeway during the initial stages of pulling on the stick. It still should happen fairly easily though as that's just how the P51 was due to it's wing design. Have a read over this link: http://www.warbirddepot.com/fighter_formation/documents/FFQP_Turn_Performance.pdf The accelerated stall envelope for a 8,000lb gross weight P51D is given in a V-G diagram at the bottom.

Throwing money at the problem always helps :) But I'm assuming from the above that he's trying to improve performance without having to spend £300 on a 670. A CPU overclock is the easiest way way to get a free speed improvement. The 930 overclocks easily as well - it'll go to 3.3GHz without any heat issues once you've a reasonable air-cooling setup. If there's a little budget to go around the Club 3D HD 7870 XT can be had for £170 and that'll deliver performance close to a 670.

DCS is CPU intensive as well so might be worth having a go at overclocking. I bumped my 930 up to 3.3GHz without any issues.

In the absence of anything better the fixed sight is probably the only useful tool for rockets and bombs. Yes it doesn't account for wind, aileron movements, sideslip, etc. but I find the lower lines in the reticle useful when using rockets in a fairly shallow dive and I'm pretty close to the target. Rockets aren't high precision but they're reasonably easy to aim with a bit of practice. Bombing is another story and I haven't worked it out properly yet though having said that RL pilots couldn't seem to hit their targets to save their lives either so I don't feel too bad about it.

I just use the POV buttons on my X52. Up and down for elevator trim and right and left for aileron trim. I then use the wheel on the throttle for rudder trim. Works very easily and if anything is a bit of a cheat as I can trim and work the throttle simultaneously.

Sounds like you might have the simplified settings on and maybe auto rudder. Have a look through your options settings. Though once airborne the pony isn't a difficult airplane to fly with perhaps the accelerated stall being the trickiest thing to watch out for during normal flight. This is realistic and reflects what pilots said about flying it - they tended to feel very much at home quite quickly.

F18 on the Amiga was mine. Back in the day when undulating terrain was a distant dream.

There hasn't been any time-frame given by ED. The 2-3 years I was referring to earlier was about how long I think it'll take to have a few planes and an appropriate map done. The butcher bird should be a fair bit sooner. They've done the proof of concept and groundwork with the P51 and prop planes have to be a bit quicker to build than more complex modern jets. From Yo-Yo's earlier post it sounds like they're in the middle of interpretation of data to do all the FM, CEM, etc. modelling. Trying to come up with a time-frame is pretty impossible without knowing what resources ED are devoting towards the project but if I had to guess I'd say 6 months would be reasonable but we'll see.

The FW-190D9 that'll be made for DCS World will be of a significantly higher fidelity than other WWII combat sims on the market. There's lots of us who want to fly full fidelity WWII combat planes. It'll all make more sense once we get a critical mass of development going on and some 3rd party developers getting involved. But it'll be a 2-3 year project before it's properly realised I'd estimate. WWII is a big market and if ED can grab themselves a profitable slice then they should go for it. Also these things don't have to be an and / or situation. If ED can see that there's decent money to made with high fidelity WWII sims they'll hire people to churn them out.

Gun smoke stutter is definitely better for me. I only had a brief go at the Sitting Ducks mission last night and was able to do some low level strafing on the 7 ground targets with a good deal less stutter.

Yep it's a insta-buy as soon as it's available for me. That pretty much goes for any WWII bird that's done to the P51 level of fidelity. I don't feel like I have the time these days to learn the likes of the A10c and all the ins and outs of the systems properly but can get up to speed on these older birds quickly enough. I think it'll take about 2-3 years but by then we might have a nicely fleshed out stable of WWII aircraft and a map or two to play on.

If you centre it while you're purposely sitting up higher than you normally would and then sit back then into your comfortable position then TIR would read this as you lowering your view and it would then be "right" for you.. if I'm thinking right.. it's been a long week.

Assuming that normally you're centring your Track IR correctly before you play you alternatively could centre your Track IR with you sitting up too high to begin with. Then when you sit back down into your normal comfortable position your view would effectively be lowered. It sounds more like your initial centring of Track IR isn't working out right for some reason though.

I would think that it's being covered (at least partly anyway) in the change log under: DCS World • Tuned aircraft gun smoke.

As far as I'm aware the "signature swirl" that's visible in gun cam footage is actually due to the gun camera shaking and not the bullets swirling through the air. They wouldn't have actually looked like that to the pilot firing at his target.

There's a couple of downloadable missions in the User Files section which are something along those lines - Train Ranger & Operation Hangover. Obviously not period specific trains but the missions are worth having a go anyway.