Lixma 06

There used to be an ultra setting available in-game but it was removed. Don't know why.

It can be done with the Track-IR software - you just need to dial in a hard limit in whichever plane (x,y,z,etc) is causing the 'break-through'.

This can happen if there are two instances of Opentrack running simultaneously.

+1939

If you mean the awkward way your head/neck 'twists' when looking backward then you can fix it by moving your seat position (not FOV) an inch or so forward. Try it - it makes a huge difference! I think the devs were trying to be helpful because of the armoured head-rest but in practice it's a nightmare.

IIRC the F-16's FBW system adjusts the controls' gain/sensitivity depending on flight regime - e.g. during refuelling the sensitivity is reduced.

I'd check if your controls haven't been reset (curves etc) during an update. DCS has been really flaky with controls suddenly resetting to default over the last few months.

I have a sneaking suspicion that all these seemingly minor yet long-standing graphics issues (shadows, lighting etc) will be taken care of once Vulkan rolls out; and so ED might not be inclined to spend time on a fix that may only be temporary.

Seeing that VEAO's module is kaput may as well offer up a digital prayer to ED or any 3rd parties that might fancy it. Choose your own flavour but I'd prefer an Allison engined version (we already have two Merlin-powered planes)

+1 I was playing a WW2 sim this weekend (no names; no pack drill) and the ability to hang your head out of the cockpit is a really immersive feature. Hope DCS will eventually implement the same. e: back on topic....yes there are certain 'sweet spots' where you can break through the canopy. Not limited to the Mustang.

Because Theodore is a scoundrel he forgot to mention the manual he speaks of is for the actual P-51D....not the DCS version. http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/P-51D-manual-5april44.pdf

Sorry, my mistake; I see what you meant now.

You were at 24000ft trying to do a very slow loop at 300kph. What were you expecting to happen?

I can't disagree with any of that. I've been doing a lot of 1v1 stuff, flying the Dora against the Mustang, trying various tactics/techniques etc. But when you're 1.3km away and still getting shredded by .50s it gets old fast.

The reticle projected onto the REVI glass is constrained in a circular area. Shouldn't the reticle be visible out to the edges of the glass?

You can probably find combat reports of any type of aircraft out performing any other type in certain situations. The trouble is it's almost entirely subjective. These are not carefully controlled flight tests - they are the clipped accounts of men who were fighting for their lives. How good was the enemy pilot? What was the condition of his aircraft? How much fuel/ordnance was he carrying? What was the enemy's initial energy state? What was yours? etc.....etc.... You cannot build a flight model out of memories. WingsOfAtlantis's post not only cherry picks quotations and takes them out of context, he also conveniently omits the vast amount of available pilot reports and test data that paint a completely different picture to the one he's promoting. Here's an example.... WOA would have you believe a Fw-190 could out-turn a Hurricane based on a single report. Well here's a whole raft of combat reports claiming the P-51 could easily out-turn the Fw-190. http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/combat-reports.html Therefore both the P-51 and Fw-190 could turn inside the Hurricane! Who knew? But, the biggest red flag is this.... So - not only do you have to ignore a huge amount of contrary data, both contemporaneous and modern, you need to accept WOA's revolutionary understanding of flight physics. Step aside Kelly Johnson, Kurt Tank, Reginald Mitchell.....this is a new era! Sadly after many years this amazing scientific revolution has been unable to gain much traction..... https://ww2aircraft.net/forum/threads/mw-50-bf-109s-vs-fw-190-a.32158/#post-880392

MAC is arguably a bigger development task right now - converting DCS modules, shrinking maps, creating a new interface etc.

e: also the left wing underside is a different colour to the rest. don't know if that's intentional

OK.

Shouldn't there be an increasing amount of air-frame buffeting as the aircraft approaches the speeds at which stuff begins falling off? I've noticed that despite the huge speeds during a dive the ride remains very smooth. I honestly have no idea whether realistically there should be some sort of buffeting/vibration at these 'terminal' velocities, hence the question.

Yeah, it's more out of academic interest rather than any practical (combat) value. I've been speed testing the 51 under various throttle, RPM, oil, and radiator settings but I was never sure whether 'un-listed' MP/RPM combinations were actually harming the engine.

So a Spitfire can't turn with a Hurricane - but a Fw-190 weighing an extra ton with almost double the wing loading can? Is this the thesis here?

If I were to run at, say, 2550rpm 41" (appx. halfway between m.cruise and m.continuous) would that be safe to run without causing damage? Or doesn't it work like that?

Eject (or crash) - hit Escape - Briefing - Fly. It doesn't reset the mission but you will re-spawn in the correct place.

+1 ED please consider it.