Merlin-27

Spark plug fouling is not only noticed on the ground :) And I personally don't think EVERYTHING needs to be modeled. I have no use for the relief tube in-game.

Yea I'm pretty sure we all saw it. Lots of the typical studdering and slideshow when tracers were flying. I was chasing someone at one point and they went under water then came blasting out somewhere else. I had no idea about the submersible abilities of the P-51D! :D Aside from that stuff it was great fun.

Thanks for organizing it. Was an awesome fight!

Roger. Np. Were you ever able to replicate my ATC conflict crash? Right now I'm just avoiding the scenario of two P-51Ds taxing for takeoff at the same time while talking to ATC.

I ran the mission and looked around in the ME just because I was curious. Su-27s took off from Guadata no issue. @ around 12:15 first SU is taken out by SAM. Shortly after the two A-10s finish off the convoy. Second SU is destroyed by SAM at 12:21. No crash or errors seen here.

If anyone who uses Teamviewer on their server hasn't tried the free ios app please give it a look. I've been using it for a few days and it is pretty damn cool. I'm still amazed at the performance and capabilities.

Lizard Plane! Now the question is... When the FW-190 detached empennage falls in the forest and no one is around, does it make a sound?

Ok after some deliberation and as a sign of good faith I have returned to 1.2.6. I modified the missions to hopefully give it a chance to stay running through the day. (Sorry Gavagai! Has there been any feedback on FFB? No pun intended)

Check the crash logs. If there is any reference to atc then edit the mission and remove any AI that may be interacting with an airfield. Then re-run the mission. I had a similar situation where I could predict the crash down to the second it occurred. The only concrete thing I could prove on mine was if more than one a/c is taxiing and they both call the tower... 1.2.6 will crash. 1.2.5 has no such issue.

I will be able to get back in the action this week. Looking forward to it!

ENO, I think I might be able to predict your stance on this topic but one thing I like to ask first is this... Shouldn't the release of an update to incorporate a new aircraft be done in a slightly protected environment? There is just so much potential to create havoc. I'm not saying these decisions are easy and I understand there are many things driving it, but I also think it's hard to say that it's not a mistake to bring stable servers to their knees by pushing an update community-wide. And although I love to help fix things and contribute to the advancement of the sim... sometimes I just want to fly and enjoy myself. Am I expecting too much? If I'm way off base just tell me to shut up :)

And by all means I was not trying to say I don't appreciate any of the efforts that are being put forth. Mainly the frustration was with the amount of time without an acknowledgment and a communicated plan going forward. And that is perfect... I just noticed it before returning here to see your reply. Please don't mistake my criticisms for anything but a protective view on a product I love and one I want to enjoy as much success as it possibly can.

Good point...and that makes the resolution even more critical. I did not like the idea of going backwards to 1.2.5 but a stable server is my primary objective.

It worries me as well and I agree with the OP on this. Members of the community have gone to great lengths to identify, test, isolate and report the many MP issues with the latest iteration. I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one involved that has a day job and does not spend all their free time trying to help resolve these problems just to hear crickets in the background. I'd like to imagine ED and crew frantically typing away to resolve the issues that plague 1.2.6 but with NO official response and no remedy thus far... it's a bit disconcerting. Is the energy being devoted to EDGE and in it the magic bullet to solve all of our concerns? If so, I'm ok with that... however some official response would be nice. This appears to be a very critical juncture (specifically DCSWWII:E44) and I'm worried that all of these interested parties that have invested in the future of the product are looking at the current environment which currently has the potential to cast a pretty bleak outlook if they are interested in MP. I can only speak on the P-51D in relation to 1.2.6 as I've pretty much devoted myself to it but hosting a dedicated server was a nightmare...thus my reversion to 1.2.5. The unfortunate part is that I imagine most newcomers will run with the newest update and only see minimal server choices littered with stability issues.

The P-51D has wing fuel tanks... Right? But I agree it is a little too volatile with the full blown inferno the instant the wing is compromised. I'd prefer a little more damage before ignition. I'd also like to see more pieces coming off the plane...without regrowing, of course. (DavidRed calls them Lizard planes when the FW-190 regenerates its tail :D)

ah, I'm happy to see this re-visited. I had mentioned it a long time ago but never heard an official response. From what I know, ground crews hated the higher octane fuels because it meant full spark plug changes every two mission I believe. I don't necessarily think it's a must-have for the P-51D but maybe an option somewhere along the line? and apparently... Disadvantages resulting from the use of PPF 44-1 fuel in fighter aircraft may be summarized as follows: a. Decreased spark plug life. b. Increased rate of replacement of synthetic rubber parts in contact with the fuel. c. Probable increase of spark plug fouling trouble under low power cruise conditions. d. General increased engine flight line maintenance on all three engines probably resulting from the higher power operation. e. Generally increased engine deposits and ring sticking tendencies particularly on V-1710-89 and -91 engines. f. Higher relative toxicity of the fuel necessitates more careful handling.

YES! I agree with most that the P-51D is a work of art... but I hope a few of the little things like this are refined.

If those were both in regular use in 1944 then I'd imagine you could have your ground crew set up your plane with whichever munitions you choose... like the current implementation allows.

3. I've actually seen the airspeed indicator read incorrectly in cold conditions... and the pitot heat switch resolved it. So I do believe it is working. 6. This seems to be a fairly common occurrence in P-51 from what I've read. Would be nice to see it implemented later on.

It's a long flight to move my Mustang from Western Caucasus to Normandy! :D I'd prefer we just perfect the existing weapons (Gunfire FPS-killer) before we add too much else.

Yes I totally agree. Hopefully the final result will follow with the known gun setup of each aircraft at that timeframe. Good or bad I'm just hoping for the devotion to historical accuracy that we have seen from ED.

I can see this being an important issue early in the war but I'm not really sure why so many people want convergence settings so badly. Even if you can prove that there were pilots in 1944 that were able to request a change in the boresighting of their guns, it's very hard to argue with the results of pattern harmonization (even better when paired up with a gyro gunsight). If you are looking to always shoot at very close range and beat up on a sitting duck target, then you are set. If your priority is to get kills, preserve your life, your buddies and those bombers you are escorting you benefit from having Pattern Harmonization. And the myth that you can't inflict significant damage from close range with the current DCS P-51D setup is pure malarky. I have plenty of tracks that show otherwise. Now that being said, I think the ability to change would be a good way to settle this debate. If it is not too much of a difficulty, I think RRG should give the option...then the proof will be in the lead pudding.:D

Been warned plenty of times! ...by the An/APS-13, that is. It works for sure, as long as they are fairly close and you are well above any ground interference.

Ideally, DCSWII:E44 needs it's own forum. I'm guessing it will come in time. There is much to discuss with the upcoming developments and it deserves it's own space with sub forums and such. The scope is pretty huge to be tucked away like this.

You are right. When I arrived home it was crashed...again. I spent some time with it this afternoon and I think I ironed out all of the issues. I had upgraded the server with an SSD the day I left for my trip. I was in a bit of a hurry and forgot a few things that I learned the first time around. It should be all set up and solid now... but let me know if you see otherwise. I flew on it a bit today and I've been watching it. (Still running 1.2.5) Cheers!