Foul Ole Ron

Yep looks like a few sites have their restored planes listed as 25NA but they were actually older blocks. Here's another one where they call it 25NA that was delivered in Jan '45 but the block number is actually 20NA: http://www.warbirdheritagefoundation.org/WHF_AC_P51_1_Hist.html Seems like the 20NA would be the more appropriate block for late '44 / early '45.

Had some trouble finding the exact dates associated with the block numbers but I did find this: http://warbirds-eaa.net/p-51-swamp-fox/ History: US Army Air Force and US Air Force History of P-51 Mustangs 44-15660 & 44-74202 P-51D-25NA, s/n 44-15660 (the original “Swamp Fox”) According to USAF records, the P-51D, s/n 44-15660, was manufactured by North American Aviation, Inglewood CA and delivered to the USAAF on 20 Oct 1944. It departed the US by sea on 30 Oct 1944 and was assigned to the Eighth Air Force, England, on 10 Nov 1944. It was disposed as surplus overseas on 16 Jul 1946.

P-51D-25NA would be the logical choice. They were delivered to England late Oct/early Nov 1944 and assigned to the 8th AF. The K-14 gunsight was factory fitted to that block so no change needed there. And that block is contemporary with the K-4 and D-9.

Only the ADGB squadrons used it though until supplies on the continent were sorted out. 2 TAF didn't convert to the higher boost until early '45. The problem really is the choice of the K-4. Was a bad choice for the scenario that was marketed. Should have been a later G model variant. Nobody would be arguing for a +25 lbs Spit IX over Normandy in' 44. But it's a valid argument to have it and a 72" Mustang on the continent in '45 once the K-4 and D-9 became fairly common.

If it's a 1944 Spit IX over France then +18lbs is probably appropriate. 2 TAF didn't convert to +25lbs until Jan 1945. Would be nice to have the choice though as there was plenty of them around by early 1945. Higher boosts were well in place for Spitfires and Mustangs by that time once supplies were guaranteed.

Weekend news letter a while back said they hoped to release the Spit IX by mid 2016. Things seem to be progressing well so hopefully they can keep to that timeframe.

This site used to have range tables for the .303 vickers mg but the dropbox links seem to have expired. Maybe if you contact the site owner they could send them on to you. http://www.vickersmachinegun.org.uk/manual-range.htm

AvioDev should probably help themselves a bit better though. We know they have day jobs, etc. but they're operating in a professional business world. If you say you're going to deliver something by X date and then you blow past that date completely this dents your professional image - especially when it's the first product you release. At that point you should be going into damage control. If I was AvioDev I would have committed at the very least to a substantial update once a month outlining what was completed this month, what's left to do and a tentative completion window. This demonstrates to your customers that you recognise the issue & their frustrations and shows the steps you're taking to fix it. When you have a track of record of delivering finished products you don't necessarily have to do this kind of thing but when you're in AvioDev's situation you need to be a bit more proactive and it'll help them in the long run.

Aug 2005 - Patrician III PC game

Update looks good. Once the CC + EFM is released this will be a top notch model.

Yep - 30% goes to Steam and why big players like EA don't use Steam any more for their AAA titles like Battlefield. Using Origin is a bit of a PITA for users but it makes total sense for EA.

That's all well and good but as a commercial entity there's a long term benefit to ED considering things like a 72" Mustang. The MP aspect to DCS WW2 hasn't really taken off yet due to a number of factors but once things like dedicated servers come along there should be a good bump. Having a balanced historical match-up is good for keeping the MP punters buying planes. I get that the actual difference between the a 67" and a 72" might not be all that much in reality but perceptions come into play and they can be hard to shake. So while you might not really care if your Mustang is 67" or 72" and would buy either anyway it might put off a portion of the playerbase as they'll feel disadvantaged. You mightn't agree with their decision as you play for different reasons but at the end of the day their $50 is the same as your $50. I'm probably in between - I'd buy either way but when playing online MP I like things to be balanced. I get that the Mustang was made by ED first for different reasons and they can't constantly revise old models as it's not the most commercially viable thing to do but hopefully this is in their thinking when it comes to future models.

Don't see any issue with having the K-4 as it was a relatively common front-line plane. The Mustang probably should have a 72" WEP rating in line with the 8th AF standard from mid-44.

Prowler111 confirmed that the Super Tucano would follow as a separate release after the Tucano in post #105 of this thread. No idea of how long after or anything else but that's the roadmap.

We're not sure what the wing type will be. We've seen screenshots with both clipped and standard wings. It's possible that we could get both. The pre-order price is usually discounted.

Having the FAA version would be nice but I'm guessing we'll only get the USN / Marines version based on their map plans. Would be sweet to have the Corsair Mk IV as well as a British carrier somewhere down the line though.

Yep I'd have absolutely no issue buying the plane + the rest of the package you have in mind with the knowledge that the rest would come in due course. But it's understandable to want to hold off for maximum impact and it avoids certain sections of the crowd grumbling about prolonged betas. Looking forward to seeing some screenshots over the next while to tide me over.

Yep - hoping it was just an omission by ED. Corsair is the most anticipated upcoming module for me.

Probably swing jazz might be the place to start.

Yeah 1.5 has a more pronounced torque effect for me. Once in the air both versions appear to be exactly the same to me. It's just take-off that seems to have some issue in 2.0.

FWIW I have exactly the same issue as you - virtually no torque on take-off with just a gradual drift to the left at full mil. My settings have always been ok: ["P-51D"] = { ["CPLocalList"] = "default", ["assistance"] = 0, ["autoRudder"] = false, My DCS 2 version is completely un-modded in any way. Seems like some inadvertent bug crept in as part of some recent update as this definitely was not the way it was before.

Command line sorted it - thanks.

I'm having trouble with this too.

€700.. ouch a bit rich for my blood right now considering I'll need a new gfx card to make it work. Think I'll wait for the new pascal cards and then see where VR is at next year. Early adopters always end up paying vicious top dollar.

It's official - we just haven't had the official release but LNS are doing the Corsair and Viggen. Personally I can't wait for the Corsair - my favourite fighter from WW2.