Echo38

I have no inside knowledge at all, so take this with a chunk of salt, but my impression is that Luthier was generally responsible for the good parts of CloD, while 1C/Maddox & Ubisoft were generally responsible for the bad parts of CloD. I really don't know. The guy seems like his heart's in the right place, so I'm very interested in seeing what he can do with a good sim engine.

Here we go! There's three things that I edited for each aircraft: the min & max FoV (i.e. the max & min zoom), the restrictions on how far back you can look on each side (I can only see ~180 degrees behind me now, instead of being able to turn my virtual head past 180 and do a full 360 rotation), and the centered location of the virtual camera (where my virtual head is located when I first spawn). Here's how, respectively. Go to DCS World\Config\View. Make a backup copy of View.lua, then open the original View.lua with Notepad. Scroll down to the two lines that start with the following: CameraViewAngleLimits[A_10C] CameraViewAngleLimits[P_51D] This is the part where you change the min & max FoV, respectively, of these two aircraft. Replace the two entire lines with the following: Now scroll down to the two lines that start with the following: CameraAngleRestriction[A_10C] CameraAngleRestriction[P_51D] This is where you change your rotation angle restrictions. I don't know what the first value does, but the second value is the number of degrees you can rotate horizontally, and the third value is how far you can rotate vertically (I think it's expressed as a fraction of 180 degrees, so that 0.5 equals 90 degrees, but I'm not sure). Note that the degree value is how far the center of the camera can go, not how far you can see at the edge of the camera; depending on your zoom level, you can see a bit farther past this degree value (at low zoom levels, quite a bit farther). Replace the two entire lines with the following: Now go back to DCS World\Config\View and open up SnapViewsDefault.lua (again, make a backup copy first) in Notepad. Scroll down to the part where it says: function p51_snap_views Replace that entire section (from that first line, to the "end" line) with the following: The A-10C section is in a different format (actually, the P-51 is the odd one out, with all other aircraft using the same format as the A-10C). Scroll to the line that says: Snap[11][13] = {} Replace that entire section (all of the lines that start with "Snap[11][13]" , minus the quotes) with the following: This should finish the job. Try it and see how you like it. If you don't like exactly where I put my camera, or the exact angle of the lens, you can try fiddling with the values until it's somewhere you like it. IIRC, you have to restart the mission between attempts, but it doesn't take too many attempts to figure out what each line does. Let me know if something seems wrong; I wrote this post today without checking to make sure I grabbed the right lines, because checking each line would mean checking it in the sim, editing the next, restarting the mission, and repeating those three steps for each value. As this post has already taken me 45 minutes to write, I'm sure you'll forgive me for not spending another 45 minutes fiddling around in the sim. ; ) So--assuming I didn't screw up somewhere in this post--if you don't like my values, play with them and see what happens, until you're happy with them. I don't have any other modules, so these are the only two I've done. Note that every autoupdate to the sim will regenerate these files, so after you've gotten them the way you like them, back them up. Every little patch, you'll have to restore them from the backup. (The sim seems to automatically back them up and throw them in a new directory, but I like to be sure.)

Yeah, the 360 thing. I've edited my files so that neither the P-51D nor the A-10C do it. I'll post my complete explanation after I finish writing it out.

Gav, I edited my DCS files so that my min and max FoV are approximately the same as the Rise of Flight default, and I also got rid of the "Exorcist head spin" effect. There's no way to get my pan speeds & acceleration to match my R.o.F. settings, but other than that, it feels about the same. With a higher min FoV than the default, I can quickly switch to max zoom while scanning and still retain a modicum of situational awareness. Aircraft are still harder to spot than in R.o.F., but not as much as with default DCS settings. Lemme know if you wanna try my settings.

This man speaks wisdom! Actually, however, I'd really like to see the P-38 done by Eagle Dynamics. Call me cynical, but--although I have high hopes for Luthier & his team--I really don't trust anyone other than E.D. to get things up to P-51D quality. I've been doing flight sims since I was four years old, and I've consistently seen a discrepancy between announced intentions and actual results. E.D. is, to date, the only exception. I'm hoping Luthier can become another, but until then, P-51D is my standard.

I can't imagine a more unpleasant and boring occupation in the air than flying a goddamn bus.

There were others, you know, who did that.

Yeah. Everyone knows that the extra weight's bad, but less well known was a bigger problem: the drop tanks altered the airflow under the wing. The Lightning had a very benign stall in the clean configuration; with tanks, however, there was a sharp wing-drop tendency. That's what killed MacGuire. Some P-38 pilots would intentionally stall the ship during turns, to quickly slow down for a tighter circle. Clean (and with flaps at maneuver, too), the '38 could perform even an accelerated stall without any wing drop. MacGuire apparently didn't know the aerodynamic effect of the drop tanks (my guess was that it was his first time turning with an Oscar with his drop tanks still on, though he'd done it plenty of times before without 'em), and so he entered the unexpected spin. P-38s were escorting the Fortresses all the way to Berlin and back, long before the P-51 was fielded. However, the P-51 was the better long-range escort because it had much greater internal range. They both had to deal with drop tanks, but the P-51 could much better afford to lose them than the '38. And since the Mustang had better overall range as well (except when the P-38 was carrying ferry tanks, which were unfit for combat missions), fighting at cruise settings wasn't something that P-51 pilots ever had to do, AFAIK.

When he said "wing tanks," he meant the on-board tanks inside of the wings, not external drop tanks slung underneath.

This is true, but in the case of the P-51's stall and turn, it was neither forgiving nor a top performer. It was reasonable for the aircraft's weight and speed category, but not a top performer in stall & turn. The P-38, for one, had better stalling and turning abilities (climbing, too). And the P-38 was far from the only high-speed fighter which had superior turning abilities to the P-51. Most pilots I've read or heard talking about their fighters felt that way about their ship, regardless of what it was. It isn't just a P-51 thing. Lots of P-38 pilots were convinced that the P-38 was the best fighter, lots of Me 109 pilots felt the 109 was the best fighter, etc. The "lesser" birds (e.g. the P-39) often had a large number of pilots who disliked them, but with the "hot ships," the pilots usually loved them, as far as I can tell. Some exceptions, of course. When you find a pilot who flew different high-performance aircraft and preferred one over the others, that's when their enthusiasm becomes more relevant, but even here, opinions varied wildly. Some pilots who flew both the P-38 and the P-51 loved the P-38 more, while others liked the P-51 better. This is one of the reasons why the "which plane is better" thing goes on forever. However, there are "hard" areas where fact is fact; any given aircraft, flown to its limit, does certain things better or worse than others, and these things are not a matter of opinion. For example, max climb rate, at a given max horsepower rating, weight, and air temperature. It's an absolute, as long as the conditions are constant. A governor also needed to be adjusted (this wasn't something that could be done from within the cockpit). Filling the tank with high-grade fuel didn't increase max HP rating by itself, but rather allowed the engine to safely run at that rating after the governor was altered.

The P-51 had several things going for it that other aircraft didn't, from a pilot's perspective. Firstly, it had the range to get you there and back, without having to worry about running out of fuel. I remember hearing stories of P-38 pilots doing the Berlin escort, trying to fend off sparse Me 109 attacks while remaining at max cruise setting, so that they'd have enough fuel to reach Berlin and return home. Fighting at max cruise, and while still carrying full drop tanks? P-51 pilots didn't have to worry about that, and that alone made it a better long-range escort than any other mass-produced fighter of the war. The other big one was that it was generally easier for the pilot to manage the systems & engine in the P-51 than in other aircraft. The P-47, F4U, and F6F had manual supercharger control, IIRC, and other controls which were automated (or unnecessary) in the P-51. The P-38 had a similar level of automation to the P-51, but there were two engines to deal with. For this reason, the P-51 was regarded as easier to manage compared to other front-line U.S. fighters, even though its actual flying qualities (stall, turn, climb, etc.) were inferior to others. The important thing at the time was getting large numbers of pilots up in the air with their engines running reasonably well, not so much making sure that they were able to effectively push their ships to max Alpha in a dogfight. Still, as a flying airplane--ignoring the engine management and fuel range, and not getting into the complex issue of max speeds under various conditions--the P-51 was generally inferior to most of the other front-line U.S. fighters. The P-38 had better climb and turn, the F4U had better turn and roll, etc. And virtually all of them had better stalling characteristics. The P-51 was not a bad dogfighter, but it was not a great one, either, compared with a number of other fighters. The Mustang gets the spotlight more than other fighters (Corsair, Lightning, Hellcat, etc.), mostly because the P-51 was revolutionary as a logistical fighter--one that was easy to train pilots for, easy to produce & maintain, and one that could efficiently get to Berlin and back. But the P-51's reputation amongst its more casual admirers as a super dogfighter is undeserved. Compared to a P-40 or P-39? Sure. But when compared to a number of other high-speed fighters of the era, the P-51 was only adequate at dogfighting. Disclaimer: several generalizations in this post. For example, "better climbing" can be a bit of a grey area. Max climb rate can vary so much under different conditions, such as altitude and boost rating (which itself is somewhat dependent on fuel grade). Mostly, this a simplified amalgam.

I'm with Nealius. Last time I flew combat (haven't in the latest version), firing the .50's didn't do anything noticeable to my FR, but when firing at low altitude, when the bullets hit the ground, that's when it becomes unflyable. On one occasion, at least, I've flown into the ground because I'm suddenly "blinded" by the freeze.

You can tell by the way he's hunched forward that he's feeling the discrepancies in the zoom & FoV, as well as the differences in ergonomics. But, none of that's the fault of the sim, and is rather the fault of the sizes, shapes, and positions of the monitor and joystick (a problem that can't be solved without many thousands of dollars being expended by the simmer).

About half an inch of throttle ... just started her up yesterday, three times. Ran on the first try, each time, which is unusual for me. After reading some suggestions here about the inch-cracked method not working, I'd decided to give it a go with half an inch instead of one inch or idle. So far, so good; I don't even need to jiggle the mixture lever anymore with this method. give it a shot.

Source? I'm ready to believe that about FC3, but I'm highly skeptical of this claim regarding P-51D. (I'd love for it to be the case, but I'm not seeing it.)

Very. We'll have to get on TS3 sometime soon and trade info. You teach me about ergonomics, and I'll teach you about flying : D

Actually, I should have said "climb and tumble," or perhaps "climb and dive." With a fighter, I don't think jumping is involved at any speed. As soon as you're mostly-out-of-the-cockpit, the "wind" is going to pretty much pull you out, as I understand it. That's one of the reasons it was so dangerous, and why so many pilots got hurt (even when they didn't hit the stabilizer). At very slow speeds, you can just slide off the wing as you leave the cockpit (assuming the aircraft is roughly level), but at higher speeds, it's going to be difficult to exit the aircraft in a controlled fashion. (This is based on my research and my observations of footage, not first-hand experience.) DCS currently doesn't model injuries to the virtual pilot from striking the aircraft while bailing out, but I do believe I've noticed several bailing-out animations, based on the aircraft's speed. Not sure; it's been a while since I've flown the sim, 'coz of my (real-life) hand injuries. Anyone else notice this, or was I seeing things?

No ejector seat, just climb and jump. There was an emergency canopy release lever; pulling this would unlatch something beyond the normal canopy latch, so that the slipstream would take the entire detachable canopy away from the aircraft. In DCS, the bail-out key (by default: Ctrl+E, three times quickly) releases the canopy and begins your climb out of the cockpit, after which--if you haven't hit the ground by this point--the virtual pilot will automatically open the 'chute. Which is a bad thing, because you can't choose to open lower to avoid enemy fire, but you can't die in your virtual chute due to gunfire, so I guess it doesn't matter so much at present.

CA_1.5.5 is the Combined Arms module, not the P-51D module. The download page is confusing; the link closest to the P-51D text is actually the link for the CA text above it. You need the download link below the P-51D text, just next to the Black Shark text. If you're downloading the correct file, it will say P-51D_1.2.5 [blah blah] .exe Enjoy the Mustang.

Except without realistic systems & engine management. : / Well, I suppose I shouldn't bash it too hard; after all, it was old LO:MAC which first brought me into Eagle Dynamics sims. But I can't go back after trying DCS: A-10C and P-51D; anything less than max-realism is a big disappointment to me in a flight sim. Well, whatever pulls your prop ... have fun!

An aircraft engine is supposed to stay running at idle throttle position. This does not mean that it always will. Old engines (both ones which are themselves old, and newly-constructed ones of old design) can be pretty fussy about when they stay running and when they quit. Real aircraft are supposed to be shut down by cutting the mixture, not the throttle. This has been true since the Great War, although--since aviation was new then, and humanity had much to learn about the subject--many fliers back then cut the ignition instead. This was a bad practice, never done today with any aircraft engine, nor during the Second World War, to the best of my knowledge; this is because doing so leaves unburnt fuel in the cylinders, which is dangerous. And, as far as I know, it's never been a remotely normal practice to try to shut down the engine by throttling back to idle, because (as others have already pointed out) idle setting still lets fuel through. DCS: P-51D models a perfectly-maintained, pristine aircraft, as if it had just come out of the factory. This explains much of the discrepancies you're seeing between the real surviving warbirds' behavior and what happens in the sim. Even so, I'm not sure that the current simulation is entirely accurate--I'm not an engine expert, but it does seem to be slightly too predictable compared to the real deal. As for the video: why did the pilot have the throttle friction set so low? I can't think of any good reason why you'd want the throttle friction to be so low that it'd slide back to idle as soon as you took your hand off of it. It doesn't allow you to make any measurably finer motions than if the friction's set high enough that it'll stay put.

Call me when FSX gets some decent fluid physics.

I remember reading about one of the SR-71s which had some sort of control failure during high-speed level flight; it pitched up violently, stalled at Mach 3, and broke up. The G-force killed one of the pilots, but the other was somehow thrown clear of the aircraft with only injuries. Do note that I don't recall the source, so this story may or may not be true. But a stall is indeed quite possible at that speed--at any speed, as others have pointed out--if you've got the elevator and enough force to deflect it sufficiently. Good luck surviving, though--when the airfoil suddenly goes from "going really damn fast" to "airbrake mode," it's going to slow the aircraft down much too quickly, even if the "vertical G's" are low (which I'm guessing they won't be, even if the wing has lost lift). Edit: found what looks to be a scan of a newspaper, mentioning the incident: http://www.wvi.com/~sr71webmaster/losses0003a.JPG

I can see a P-51D in DCS at 10 miles (in my air-start duel mission, the pair starts that far apart), but only if I know almost exactly where to look and am at my maximum zoom (which is somewhere around 80% of default max zoom, since I edited my files to lower my max zoom). Even then, conditions have to be right--if he's below the horizon, I can't see him. As I indicated earlier, the problem lies with our hardware rather than with the sim ... specifically, our narrow-FoV PC monitors having to try to simulate ~170 degrees of vision, and the other problems inherent to a PC monitor.