Echo38

It doesn't matter in the sim, but IRL you want to treat aircraft brakes much more gently than automotive brakes. Not entirely sure why, but slamming on the brakes in an airplane is generally regarded as being rough on the bird, whereas doing the same in an auto is okay. Part of it is that landing speeds in combat aircraft are generally higher than driving speeds in automobiles, but I was told by my CFI to avoid stomping on them even at taxi speeds.

Isn't that a decrease rather than an increase?

I know a lot of real pilots* do this, but it's still a bad habit. It's just about the opposite of what you need to practice in order to become good at dead-stick landings, and if you're unpracticed in dead-sticking, you're gonna be screwed if you ever lose your engine. Coming in under power, and relying on that power staying on in order to make a safe landing (which is what you're doing when you're using the stick-is-speed-throttle-is-RoC method) gets pilots killed when they unexpectedly lose power. When I was a kid, I knew a guy who took me for a ride in his T-6; a few years later, he died in a P-51 when he lost power on final and didn't have enough airspeed to make the open ground. Ever since then, I hate to see people (real pilots or not) recommend coming in under power and relying on it--which is what people do when they use the throttle to control descent rate. Instead, use both the stick & rudder to control both your speed & descent rate, and that'll teach you good energy management and give you good practice for power-off landings. Power should be used only enough to keep your engine from overcooling, and use a slip to keep yourself from relying on even this small amount of thrust--you want your engine at optimal temp in case you royally bungle your landing and need to go around (in which case you learn so that you can do better next time, with the end goal of never having to rely on power when landing), but you don't want to be counting on any thrust which you might lose. *I believe the habit originated with airliners--when you have that many engines, it's easy to become complacent and rely on always having power. (The traffic patterns probably add to this problem.) And, perhaps, with airliners, it isn't particularly dangerous. But sometimes even airliners suffer complete loss of power, and when this happens, you'd better hope you have a pilot who's practiced at dead-stick landings. The two stories I know of where an airliner had a complete LoP and made it down safely (the "Gimli Glider" accident and the more recent Hudson River ditching), the pilots were glider pilots in addition to airliner pilots. Dead stick? Well, the glide ratio's gonna be different, but other than that, for a glider pilot ... standard! The moral of the story: don't rely on power when landing, especially if you fly single-engine airplanes. Always be ready for a complete LoP. You can't do much about it on takeoff, but you sure as hell can when landing. If you don't bother to practice dead-stick landings, someday you could die early because you didn't.

Sounds like you took off too early and/or at too high a pitch angle. Either way, angle of attack was too high, I think. Ground effect lets you take off this way, but once you get a few feet off the ground, you leave ground effect and suddenly lose some lift, which--since you're already on the brink of stalling--pushes you over the edge. Try keeping the nose lower--it should be just barely over the horizon, and I mean maybe half an inch on your monitor between the gunsight and the horizon. Only when you're airborne and up to about 190 MPH should you try to pitch any higher. The slower you are, the less of a positive pitch angle you can handle without having problems, at any given power setting. Remember, this thing doesn't have nearly as high of a power-to-mass ratio as a modern jet fighter.

To be fair, this is harder than the real thing, but that isn't the fault of the sim--it's the fault of our narrow-FoV computer monitors and our crappy plastic joysticks.

Like the real deal, it takes dozens of hours to become proficient at this. The good news is, just about anyone can become good at it, if they want it enough to put in the effort. Do you? : )

Thank you, Weta, for saying in three lines what I tried to say over half a dozen posts : D

Here you go again--implying that not having the second fuel option is equivalent to having an incorrect FM. Good grief; I give up.

Very cool! I've always suspected that there might be a kludgy solution, but I'm not handy with tools & small parts, so I never opened it up myself. Thanks for the tip. You may think you don't have a problem with them, but the mathematical, physical fact is that you're doing worse with them than you would with wider-set pedals, all else equal. I've already explained why, and I'm not going to argue this further. I'm doing you a favor by pointing this out; it's your problem if you dismiss it, not mine.

This is what I was getting at earlier: adding a new fuel type for an aircraft isn't as simple as changing a number somewhere. It'd be a big job, Endy. That is why--although I would prefer the option of both fuel types, in a perfect world--I am content with simply the one which better fits competitive balance with the opponent aircraft. It's the only logical choice I can see for max-realism competitive dogfighting within the limits of what this world's flightsim market imposes. If ED can someday find the time to do more fuel types, great--I'm all for it. If they can't, I understand. It's a tiny market, hardcore flightsims; I don't think anyone at ED is swimming in gold coins. (Incidentally, unless I am badly mistaken, the real P-51s never operate on 100/150 today, so they'd have nothing to compare to the way they do with a 100/130 model.)

If I focus on a single part of your argument and ignore the rest, then it usually means that I only object to that one part. Again, our ultimate preference is the same: both options, realistically modelled. Our disagreement is one of the viability thereof, and also my objection to the specific reasoning you used ("only having 100/130 fuel is the same as having wrong performance"). I'm not an expert on the FW 190D. If the MW50 was standard--that is, if it were unusual to find an FW 190D without MW50--then, yes, I would be disappointed if the MW50 were not modelled. But that isn't so with the P-51D; that isn't an honest comparison. The P-51D used 100/130 fuel as standard. It may have also used 100/150 fuel as standard, but it did also use 100/130 as standard! You're comparing something non-standard with something standard, and then implying that they're the same thing. This is my primary objection to your argument--even though I share your desire of having the option for both fuel types. Argue for both fuel types--I would like that, too. But argue it honestly.

Again, I agree--in a perfect world--that every historical loadout should be available in the sim, and I most emphatically insist that everything that is featured be modelled as accurately as humanly possible. However, this is not such a perfect world--because of the limitations on resources (development time & budget, namely), we can't have everything. So if, due to budget constraints, it comes down to a choice: do we model the P-51D with 100/130 or with 100/150? The choice is clear; since both are historical & realistic, we choose the one which makes for a better competitive match for the FW 190D. In my book, "artificial balance" only becomes a problem when something is modelled incorrectly. Pitting an accurately-modelled 100/130 fuel P-51D against an accurately-modelled FW 190D may be artificial balance, but I see no problem (as long as they are well-matched) because the two are modelled accurately. 100/150 would be a nice "third option," but is not necessary for the pair to be modelled accurately. As I said before, even the choice of FW 190D instead of Me 109G (or, heck, A6M Zero) is "artificial balance," but I don't hear you complaining about that. If I were the Lord High Master of All, I think you'd be happy with how I'd clap my hands and do it. All historical options available, all perfectly modelled. But this is Earth, and there are tiresome things like budgets and a tiny flightsim market that the developers are dealing with. Sure, maybe you're right--maybe I'm naive and they're simply too lazy to model the results of the second fuel type in the P-51D ... but I seriously doubt that, given the evidence of how thorough the simulation has been so far.

That isn't at all the same. Realistically modelling an aircraft with the worse of two configurations it used IRL is quite different from adjusting the modelling to something that never was. One is an accurate portrayal of a certain scenario during the actual war, and the other is simply incorrect and unrealistic.

Are you certain? Most of the T.16000M users I spoke with thought that they didn't have the problem, until I had them carefully test it. It was there; they just didn't notice it until I asked them to do the slow & precise test. The exact percentage of outer dead zone varied from individual stick to stick, but on mine it's 12.5 mm rear (and that's where you least want one!), 8 mm front, etc. I suppose it's possible, since the amount varies, that you got super-lucky and yours doesn't have the problem, but Thrustmaster tech support told me after the second replacement that it was a feature and not a defect (ha!), which would indicate that they all have it. At any rate, I've owned three different T.16000M sticks and they've all had the problem to varying degrees, and I've known about half a dozen other VFPs who had the T.16000M and they all had the problem as well. It's still a good joystick, relatively speaking (which is why I recommend it--unfortunately, there isn't a better stick on the market for under $400, AFAIK), and it's approximately as good as the $100+ CH Fighterstick. They each have different problems, but are fairly equal in overall abilities (button count aside), despite the T.16000M being half the price. But be aware that this outer-edge dead zone (especially the one in the back) can hurt you even if you aren't aware of it. I do prefer the T.16000M over the Fighterstick, but I do notice that I have a harder time with stall fighting with the T.16000M because of the shorter throw. On the upside, the shorter throw's easier on your wrist, and the center precision is better on the T.16000M. Also, the CH spring action is ridiculous, and the Fighterstick also has the outer-edge deadzone problem (albeit with smaller percentages). I recommend avoiding CH pedals. Much too close together for a fighter. See here: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1793752&postcount=9

The best part about this is that it'll help your engine stay cool. Power stalls in the P-51D are a great way to make your engine overheat and die in seconds.

I'd recommend the T.16000M, then, with the caveat that it's got its share of bullcrap. Hollywoodvillain and Sokol1 have (between the two of them) fairly thoroughly summed up its good and bad points. Overall, I can't think of a better choice for under $100, unless you place a higher priority on having a decent amount of buttons than you do on having a decent degree of precision. My gunnery accuracy figure with the T.16000M was ~three times my gunnery with the X52. (Again, I've never used the X52 Pro, just the X52, so perhaps the Pro outdoes the T.16000M? Dunno.)

Logitech 3D is garbage for precision. Unacceptable for competitive dogfighting. That goes for damn-near all Logitech joysticks, although I've been told that their most expensive one was okay (but they're no longer producing that, and it was super-expensive anyway). Unfortunately, there isn't a mass-produced simming joystick in the world that was made by a hardcore simmer, or by anyone with an in-depth understanding of hardcore simming & real aviation. For this reason, there are no really good simming joysticks commercially available, unless you're lucky enough to have gotten one of the limited-production ones which pop up from time to time from a small shop (invariably, I think, the basements of serious-simmers who are handy with tools). So the idea is to get the joystick which sucks the least, more than trying to find one that's good. They've all got large problems--even the $500 Warthog has a few shortcomings.

Look, it isn't incorrect. There were P-51Ds that ran 150 fuel, but there were also P-51Ds that didn't. That they're simulating one of the ones that didn't doesn't make it wrong or a less-detailed simulation. It may be "artificial balancing," but no more than choosing the FW 190D as the opponent instead of the Me 109G or FW 190A. Your implication that the 130 fuel in the P-51 is historically incorrect is perplexing; there are two valid, historical options for the P-51's fuel, and ED has chosen the one which best makes a competitive match with the FW 190D. Such is the only logical choice for a hardcore, 100%-realism simmer who also enjoys competitive dogfighting. Now, if they were pitting our lower-grade-fuel P-51 against an opponent which crushes the 130-fuel P-51, then you'd hear me hollering quite forcefully. Doubly so if said hypothetical opponent were modelled at its historical peak (or--I shudder--above). Other, lesser sim/games have done this in the past; however, I highly doubt we'll find that to be the case here when our FW 190D comes. Yo-Yo has spoken. If we could have everything, I would prefer to have the option of choosing fuel grade in the mission editor. (This would allow us to experience a challenge faced by the late-war Luftwaffe, and would also allow a better VFP to handicap himself by giving his opponent the better airplane.) However, such an option would involve a ton of extra work on ED's part--not exactly a whole new aircraft, but still far from a simple tweaking of a few lines of code. This isn't a world where we can have such unnecessary luxuries, so the choice is simple: a historical portrayal that isn't balanced, or a historical portrayal that is balanced. The better choice seems clear to me. In Yo-Yo I trust!

Although, as Sokol pointed out, the T.16000M has its drawbacks, I must agree with Hollywoodvillain's assessment of the X52 (non-Pro); its center precision is unacceptable for competitive dogfighting or any other high-precision activity. Never used the Pro, so can't comment on that. You might be able to get more detailed info with a search of past posts of mine using X52 and T.16000M as keywords; I believe I've written a very thorough comparison of most of the mainstream "mid" joysticks at least once on this forum.

Bear in mind that the springs in our simming pedals are absolutely nothing like the cables, balanced mass, and airflow on the real pedals. I'm not particularly adverse to the suggestion that Yo-Yo re-examine something, but I'm fairly convinced that the primary problem is our plastic-and-spring simming pedals.

"Patch placebo effect." Had it myself a few major versions ago, when I'd been out of the sim for a while. Came back to try out the patch, bungled my landing horribly due to being out of practice, assumed the F.M. had changed. It hadn't. : )

It looks to me as though the only way this is going to work is if ED is carrying RRG for the time being. All of the first-tier aircraft are to be free, except for the ED ones, and AFAIK the only source of income for the project is the pledges--which are essentially only "buying" the P-51D and FW 190D, both of which are made & owned by ED proper. Since ED owns those, pledges for the P-51D and FW 190D are essentially sales (again, because pledging doesn't get you any other aircraft that you wouldn't already have gotten otherwise for free) for E.D. So, either all the pledge money would be going directly ED for those two ships (which would mean no funding for RRG, right), or else ED is essentially giving RRG this sales money, which otherwise would have gone to ED for these two aircraft. Am I missing something? This is confusing; I can't see how this business model is viable, unless ED is "loaning" the P-51D & FW 190D sales-pledges to RRG for the time being. In other words: assuming only first-tier goal is met, the only things that aren't free are the P-51D & FW 190 ... both of which are ED's. So, where's the source of income for RRG, if ED isn't allowing RRG to have the money for the sales of / pledges for these two fighters? I'm afraid I now have serious doubts about this project, not only because of the promise of so many free full-sim aircraft (which seems to me improbable to keep), but also because of the sudden & unexpected announcement that Mr. Maddox is heading quality control--if the aircraft specifications are anything like those in his previous projects, this is not for me. I really wanted this project to be true, but I just can't see it happening now as promised. : / I guess I should know by now that things that sound too good to be true end up badly. http://www.splitreason.com//Product_Images/139b8015e6a3-xl.jpg

Looks like the A-10A: DCS Flaming Cliffs and Su-25: DCS Flaming Cliffs sub-forums should be in the Flaming Cliffs section, rather than the DCS section. Couldn't hurt to move 'em, right?

I'm guessing they're holding off until they can customize new effects for the P-51. Contrails & touchdown tire smoke look considerably different on WWII fighters than they do on modern aircraft, because of the differences in speed & mass and so on. In most cases, I don't see any touchdown smoke on real WWII fighters, unless they come down too fast or too hard. Similarly, contrails also appear less often and more subtly on WWII fighters, from what I've seen.

Oh ... Anyone know if Eagle Dynamics themselves will make any more WWII fighters after the FW 190D? Or is that going to be the last one by E.D., and the rest are under Mr. Maddox's care?