Echo38

Frostie, your post implying that FC3 is the same fidelity as A-10C is misleading at best. You owe it to the new people to not trick them into buying something that they're going to wish they hadn't. I would be very disappointed if I bought FC3 because you called it a realistic simulator, only to find out that it does not have realistic systems management like that on the high-fidelity modules. Javelina: the A-10C, P-51D, Ka-50, Mi-8MTV2, and UH-1H modules are maximum-fidelity. This means that they are modelled about as realistically as you can get on a PC. There are a few minor things missing (e.g. the classified encoded radio), but almost everything is working like the real aircraft (or, more accurately, about as close as you can get on a PC sim). All the other modules at the time of this post are "medium-fidelity"--most of the systems are unrealistically simplified a great deal. Instead of taking a couple of dozen actions to get the aircraft started & combat ready, it takes only a handful of keypresses. Turning on the engines is as simple as pressing two keys, instead of the multiple actions required on the higher-fidelity modules. Same's generally true of the other systems.

Well, he does have a point; the sim itself is amazing, but the game engine is ... well, the engine is in rather desperate need of a complete rewrite. Unfortunately, for aforementioned reasons, that doesn't seem to be possible in the forseeable future. I hope EDGE runs better (performance & stability) than the current build, but--I suspect it might not be nearly as large of a leap as we would like, in those terms. It looks gorgeous, sure, but I'm content with even the graphics of the current engine, and am more concerned with performance. Still, recall, I have much faith in ED's dedication & ingenuity.

As I understand it, FC3 was a bigger release than P-51D, commercially speaking. More people are interested in medium-fidelity stuff like FC3 than in the high-fidelity modules, unfortunately. As was stated before, hardcore flight sims are a tiny niche market. Niche-within-niche-within-niche, actually. Realistic flight sims < flight sims < flying games < general gaming

My take on the future of DCS? I feel that the flight sim community is impossibly lucky to have this simulator--regardless of present and future bugs--and that we need only have patience as it gets even better. It's going to be slow going, because--as eFirehawk pointed out--hardcore flight sims are a tiny market and also amongst the most difficult and costly types of software to develop. But I've seen ED make a miracle; five years ago, I believed that a flight sim of this caliber was impossible in this world, that I would never see something of a higher fidelity than the sad old sim-games where you hit the "I" key to turn on your engine, where there was no such thing as moments of inertia and adverse yaw. I never thought I'd see a PC flightsim with fluid physics and accurate systems management. Fluid physics! Magic, can't be done on a PC. And yet here we are. Nothing's perfect. I'd love for that to be possible, but it's entirely unreasonable to expect perfection from anything in the universe. ED does occasionally make some judgments which disappoint me (e.g. spending resources developing medium-fidelity modules instead of polishing the P-51D module), but I understand that their resources are very limited and that pretty much everyone in the community has a different idea of what should be top priority. Regardless, I have a great deal of faith in ED and their ability & willingness (as demonstrated by past and present work) to further improve this sim, making the greatest flightsim ever made--better. DCS is a work of love, not merely a business product. Never stop flying, guys.

IIRC, Yo-Yo specifically made recordings of the Fighter Collection's real P-51 for our sim. It may not sound exactly like a real P-51 under all conditions, due to the difficulties of incorporating recordings into a digital simulation (you can't simply record an airplane and throw in the recording and have it sound right under different conditions), but it doesn't sound anything like a Cessna. Not being a sound engineer myself, I don't know that it's as good as you could possibly get on a PC, but our P-51 sounds pretty damn good to me. Here's an except from the "Horsemen Fly DCS P-51" thread: (That said, there are some things that are not yet in the sim, although I believe Yo-Yo has plans ...)

Yo-Yo, what joystick do you use? Have you modified the length?

Yo-Yo himself recommended using direct input (no curves, no dead zones) for joystick, and I emphatically agree. I've explained often, on several forums, exactly why, as well as detailing the benefits and detriments of curves and direct input. Perhaps such an explanation, instead, should be in the manual/training.

Yep, pretty much. I held it in the spin for longer than I would have for a snap roll, to let it flatten out a bit. Hmm--some possible ones I can think of: your airspeed at the time of entry, your throttle setting, and the direction of the snap roll. Not sure how much any of that actually affects it, but you should be able to spin a bit faster in one direction than the other, because of your torque.

What I did in that video wasn't quite a lomcevak, although it was pretty similar. A lomcevak involves down-pitch instead of up-pitch, as I understand it. Fifi, I don't know if what I did in that video is possible in a real P-38 or P-51; the flight physics in AH2 were simpler than those in DCS. I haven't tried this in DCS: P-51, but maybe you could give it a shot and tell me how it works? I can't fly anymore because of my hand injuries. It's an easy manuever (a stunt, really--not a useful thing to do in combat, ever); just full back stick and full rudder to induce the tumble, then opposite when you want to recover. Might need to use a little opposite aileron in the beginning.

Having been looking for some good, precise, wide-set pedals for over a decade, I'm very pleased to hear about this MFG Crosswind. Ever since Simped went out of business, there hasn't been a reasonable option for those of us who want good fighter-spaced pedals. Looks like there is now. : ) I read the "About" section on his site and, well, no wonder! I've been saying for ages now that the only way we're ever going to get decent simming pedals is when someone who knows real aircraft*, flight sims, and machining decides to make some. About time! *Stick & rudder birds, specifically.

Yes, it is, but the blame is on our hardware, not the sim.

As you wish: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDXRKB17s-Q

I think you may be missing the point, Bucic; the point is that even if I don't see colored boxes below people's names, that doesn't mean that others won't see the ones below mine. The number & color of boxes under my name may affect their behavior toward me (and this is the core problem!), regardless of whether or not I see those boxes. That is why "if you don't like them, don't look at them" is an odd response to the objection; it doesn't address the actual problem.

Confirmed elsewhere by ED engineer Yo-Yo.

When gliding, you should pull back the propeller lever to decrease drag. However, when at high throttle, pulling back the propeller lever loses you power. (It's also damaging to the engine, if throttle is high and propeller lever is low.) So, the only time pulling back the propeller lever should make you go faster is when your power is lower. If you want to go faster, the best way is this: push forward the propeller lever, and then push forward the throttle. If you're already at max RPM & max MAP, that's the best thing to do for speed, whether climbing, level, or diving. (Engine heat's another story, of course.) For the sake of the engine, you don't want your prop lever significantly lower than your throttle, barring bizarre exceptions. (E.g. Lindberg's P-38 cruise thing ... and TBH, I don't have a good source for even that one.)

And all the colored boxes below everyone's names--that will make these go away as well, yes? ; )

Some say it's there to help people with unconventional monitor aspect ratios, but I don't understand how it could possibly help them, or be necessary/useful for any other reason. If there needs to be such an adjustment, it should happen "behind the scenes," during the loading screen.

Just remembered another: speed itself. Even with the engine off and the propeller removed, speed alone will affect yaw, because the P-51's vertical stabilizer is not quite aligned with the fuselage. On an aircraft with a perfectly-aligned stabilizer, speed alone won't cause yaw, but will still affect the other three yaw factors I mentioned. On an aircraft with a not-aligned stabilizer, however, speed alone will affect yaw even without the other three factors present.

Thank you, it does make sense. Right--hence the order I put the two actions in. Guess the second one's I mentioned isn't necessary, though. Although it's not gonna hurt the engine if you do it as I described, it does make it easier to not have to work the propeller lever in the dive.

I don't understand what you mean; pulling back the propeller lever reduces RPM, and over-rev'ing is excessive RPM, so how wouldn't it have an effect? I don't have any off-hand, but I could swear I've seen a number of period sources recommending slightly pulling back the prop lever in steep dives to prevent over-rev.

In combat, generally speaking, RPM should always be at max. You only would drop it for specific reasons, such as having to throttle back for an extended period to cool your engine (in which case you'd also want to lower the RPM to match the lower throttle, for energy efficiency), or in a very steep dive (in which case you'd slightly pull back the throttle and then slightly pull back the propeller lever, to prevent over-rev'ing). Other than that, you should just about always have max RPM in combat.

There are several things that cause yawing: P-factor, gyroscopic effect, and propwash vortex. Probably a couple others I'm forgetting. P-factor is based on pitch; gyroscopic effect is based on rate of pitch change, and propwash is based on power setting. All are affected by speed as well. It's a complex dynamic.

This is true. Still, the tactic itself (tightening your turn by keeping your stick where it is and dropping 10 degrees of flap, rather than pulling back harder on the stick) is a valid one that doesn't occur to most people. It's a good tip to use under certain conditions, I think. (TBH, I haven't ever done it in this sim--it was the P-38 I used it with, in lesser sim-games. Not sure how much it helps our P-51.)

A-10C: easy to fly, difficult to manage the systems & avionics P-51D: difficult to fly, easier to manage the systems Ka-50: easy to fly (for a helicopter, that is), difficult sys & avionics UH-1H: difficult to fly, easier to manage the sys Mi-8: no idea, but I'm guessing it isn't too dissimilar from the Huey relative to the other aircraft listed. In short, if you're a "stick & rudder man," you'll want the P-51D. If you're a techie who isn't so crazy about spins & tumbles, you'll probably prefer the A-10C. If you like helicopters & all their challenges, go for the UH-1H or Mi-8.

Squirrel's right; if you're both in the same airmass, you'll both be "feeling" the same wind, barring small differences for gusts. Relativity and all that. So it will take exactly the same time for him to gain 1000 feet separation from you, regardless of whether the pair of you have a 100 MPH headwind or a 10 MPH tailwind. Regarding the gear: the F4U had landing gear specially designed to function as an airbrake; it was to be dropped before diving to allow a steep dive at a slower speed. However, the P-51 did not have such gear, and--damage aside--dropping the gear before/during a dive would only make you dive slower, not faster. Also, dropping the gear under any conditions will make you more likely to buffet and stall, not less--the clean aircraft has better stall characteristics than with gear extended. Addendum: minor CoG stuff aside, there's no notable difference between a taildragger and a tricycle gear fighter, once they're off the ground. They fly the same--they just taxi, take off, and land differently. Any tactic which applies to a taildragger fighter will also apply to a tricycle fighter, all else equal. I definitely concur with the keeping the ball centered while extending, though! Nothing like a slip to help the enemy catch up to you.