SmirkingGerbil

Well said sir. Truly, ironic and sad in a way. All the effort put into the failings of DCS, yet reaching out to folks, posting questions, etc. could have lead to a much better experience for the OP. Possibly even an interest by a content creator in addressing a "weakness", with new content. Instead pages and pages of how DCS failed, and why. Meanwhile, looking forward to end of day. I will go home, fly a mission I created in ME with the P-47, roll in from 9K feet with a full bomb load, deploy dive brakes, pull back on throttle to reduce torque steer, cut those bombs loose at 3K feet at about the 40 mil sight mark and peel off glancing out the back of my canopy watching 3 large explosions eliminate an 88 AA site. Never gets old!

Bandwagon Upvote! Great feature.

Uhhh, my mom has never been all that interested in aircraft, flying them, much less learning about them in a study level sim. DCS from the ground up, was never meant to cater to people like my mom, nor should it. However, she does like the vids I post blowing stuff up!

As mentioned, button presses, with a Controller column selected, will show you what buttons are mapped, either by default, or using changes setup by the user. So if you forget, easy to find with button push. Easy to map. Clear the entry, push button, mapped. Also, the controls setup incorporates a "Search" drop down in the top menu bar where you select different Modules and modes for modules, i.e. P-47-D Sim or Game. Using the "Search" function for any module, greatly eases finding current mappings, or functions you are thinking about mapping. You can search on "Rudder" or "Toggle" or "Gun" etc. to narrow down what you are trying to find and map. DCS has more in depth mapping aids than other sims I have flown.

DCS 2.5.6.52196 Open Beta 2020-07-15 Visual damage bug still with us, but different damage visuals. Instead of prop missing, with entire cowling gone, I get damaged props (large holes, bent back) with some cowling damage. Net effect though, is plane still responds and flies as if no damage.

That is pretty cool, had no idea! Any instances of OP-FOR using subterfuge and painting wings with stars to try and fool Allied forces?

That is a pretty darn good point, and potentially a market for anyone interested in "improving" that side of DCS, and who has the motivation, skills, and desire.

What can I say? I am dumb. Been flying sims since the 80's. Microprose, IL series, Microsoft, Falcon series, Gunship 2000 (loved it!) etc. Yes, after all that DCS still takes time and effort for me. I mean, you flew the 109 so easily, and I an experienced DCS user, struggled to fully understand how the exhaust back pressure feed from the turbo-supercharger nozzle box, interacts with the Aneroid chamber of the hydraulically modulated waste-gate modulator using oil pressure in the P-47. I look forward to your future contributions then, in regards to easing that type of learning curve in DCS. Us slow plodders could use the help.

"patch o'clock" sorry, just keeping it light. :)

Those 8 hours included learning things like this (thread) about the interaction between the hydraulic regulator, the supercharger, and the turbo-supercharger. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=280389 Those 8 hours included learning that torque needs to be accounted for, and engine power applied smoothly to reduce "nose sway" and instability. Those 8 hours included learning to trim for speed, and engine settings. Those 8 hours included learning to how to map a throttle quadrant to my HOTAS to fly the P-47 effectively. Those 8 hours included more technical errata, I would never get out of any other flight sim or game. DCS is the "game" for nerds like myself that want to understand how a particular airframe does what it does. I am still learning. Those 8 hours got me comfortable in the P-47, but the learning still is ongoing. I am loving every minute of it. Next thing to learn? Nailing the tail dragger landing. Again a combination of engine power, torque, trim, speed, and AOA on touch down. Nothing else comes close. Yet, you seem to bounce from rail to rail on how bad DCS is, what it needs to be better, how hard it is - what did you expect from a "study sim" that models engine torque so faithfully, that it induces "nose sway" during combat, landing, and other aircraft operations? What did you expect from a "study sim" that allows you to understand all the inner workings of the P-47 supercharger, turbo-supercharger, regulator, and air management via the cowling, oil cooler, and inter-cooler controls? Were you expecting the "other title" type of simplicity? Then do like I do, buy the other title, and have fun there just flying, and shooting stuff. Come back to DCS when you want to be fully immersed, and have the mindset to do so. Two completely different genres, nothing wrong with owning both, and getting what you need from both - because the reality is, they serve two completely different markets - why force one, to be like the other? Why force DCS, or the user community into a mold, that is already filled by other titles. DCS stands alone (or one of a few titles) that appeal to nerds that pore through technical errata like myself. Love it for what it is. If you want to "improve" it, contribute like many who post here do. If you don't like the presentation, for $60.00 you can find it in another title.

Meanwhile, enjoying the P-47 immensely. Mapped to my TM HOTAS, total hands off operation for all combat operations. Dive flaps, cowling, inter cooler, oil cooler, bombs (toggle), guns (toggle), K-14 controls, prop, mixture, boost so on and so forth. Took me about 4 hours of testing, and reading the manual. Another 4 hours of watching Greg's You Tube series to understand technical errata, and Chucks Guide (manual). 8 hours, over about a week off and on of putzing around. About an hour a day, with plenty of "Instant Action" and already built in "Training" content right in DCS. 8 hours, probably the amount of time spent by OP opining about how horrible DCS is to get started in. No one wins in this thread, especially the new user. In fact if I were a new user, and came onto this thread, I would be very put off. Not by the thread itself, but how difficult the OP makes DCS seem. The only thing positive in this thread, is the folks tirelessly showing all the content that is available. Hopefully folks find this, instead of the overwhelming negative outlook. :thumbup:

I am not a mechanical engineer, so my thoughts on this are probably flawed. However, my assumption would be, yanking the throttle to zero power, would still yield some combustion gases albeit greatly reduced. So immediate effect would be some back pressure however slight (due to throttle closing off charge feed to engine), until the boost regulator via the exhaust pressure feed detected this, and compensates by modulating or opening the waste-gates a bit. By looking at the regulator diagram, it would appear a small increase in exhaust gas pressure would drive the pressure bellows down, and moving the metering pin down, allowing pressurized oil to enter the lower part of the servo, driving up the piston, emptying the upper servo chamber due to current pin position, and open the waste-gate. I would imagine this would happen in short order??? Just a guess, based on my limited understanding.

Thank you. This makes sense, as under normal conditions we wouldn't put the boost lever ahead of the throttle. The conditions you describe are what other documentation mentions. I would think that the Boost Regulator would indeed open the waste-gates to reduce back pressure, but as you mention, throttle pulled much further back from boost lever would still create adverse conditions for Turbo. I think I followed it correctly this time.

That first vid you link, is when they flew over Evansville IN for our 4th of July celebration a few years ago. You can probably see me on the levee! They do a pass over the LST docked, then further west over downtown proper, there were two of them. They thundered past us in formation (2), and it was glorious! Evansville built half of all P-47's and we also kicked out more LST's than any other inland port. Also responsible for about 50% of all .50 cal munitions production. We were known as an "Armory City" - you can still see all the old ammo storage bunkers outside of town.

I think I am following your reasoning, that there is no relationship (direct connection) between throttle and turbo behavior. Turbo is controlled by boost lever, and regulator function. Sorry, I had to read your post a couple times, and I hope I have understood it correctly. Thanks for the illustration.

Tinkickef - you bring up great points. After the throttle plate (depending on how far opened or closed) manifold pressure will adjust accordingly. Being a "car guy" I have witnessed this for years, but it is a simple thing that is often overlooked. Thanks for the reminder. :thumbup:

randomTOTEN - sir, I owe you one! That video was awesome. Just watching the disassembly and the connection of the exhaust pressure tube into the regulator ( cleaning) made a lot of things fall in place! Of course, I forgot about the Propeller (pitch) control on the quadrant, and propeller pitch will control engine speed and thus the supercharger (engine coupled/driven impeller). So I have my answers, and some great references! Much appreciated. :thumbup:

Already some great resources here regarding how the fixed gear impeller (supercharger) is driven directly by the engine, and is also fed by the turbo-supercharger (turbocharger) just forward of the tail. No need to rehash airflow etc. However the one thing I am not clear on, is the interaction of the turbocharger and supercharger (engine coupled impeller) as controlled by the Boost lever. Or more specifically is there any interaction, or control of the engine driven impeller (supercharger) by the boost lever? Does the boost lever only control the turbocharger (turbo)? Is the throttle lever essentially the supercharger (impeller) control? I did find a couple interesting diagrams that show a schematic of the P-47 supercharger and turbo-supercharger function. Attaching for reference, but the diagram only shows the boost lever affecting the turbo-supercharger (turbo). The attachments show the complete schematic of the P-47 induction system and a hydraulic regulator detail, which is shown in the induction system schematic as controller of the waste-gates, and thus the turbo-supercharger. The diagrams are relative to the following paragraph I copied from a site describing this turbo - Fig. 17 diagram of a typical hydraulic regulator. There is a tube leading from the nozzle box to the top bellows. The bottom bellows is evacuated and serves to prevent the top bellows from acting in response to atmospheric changes in pressure. Inside the top bellows is mounted a spring, one end of which is connected to the junction between the two bellows, and the other end to the range-shifting control lever. This lever is connected by linkages to the cockpit boost control. The purpose of the spring and control-lever assembly is to allow the pilot to vary the pressure on the spring for different nozzle-box pressure, corresponding to different engine powers. This spring tension just balances the pressure in the top bellows to the point where the servo-valve ports to the servo piston are closed. As pressure changes occur in the top bellows, they act on the servo valve and shift its position, thereby opening ports which direct oil under pressure into one side of the piston. The piston then moves under the unbalanced oil pressure, and moves the waste gate with it. The servo piston continues to move the waste gate until the pressure in the nozzle box has been corrected. When corrected, the pressure in the bellows restores the servo valve to its closed-port position, and stops the piston motion. The regulating process, described above, occurs in a very short space of time, a few seconds at most. Therefore, in actual operation, as soon as the exhaust pressure starts to change, the hydraulic regulator starts to move the waste gatem a direction to counteract this change. That is, for a given setting of the cockpit boost lever, the regulator always acts to maintain a constant exhaust pressure, and the actual exhaust pressure varies from this constant value only temporarily during those few seconds required by the hydraulic regulator to move the waste gate in a direction which restores the pressure. My understanding then, would be that the Boost lever, controls the waste-gates, and the regulator in turn adjusts waste-gate operation due to changes (increasing or lowering) ambient pressure. So my logical conclusion (yikes! Correct if Wrong!) is that the throttle essentially controls the supercharger (engine coupled impeller), and the Boost lever controls the waste-gates (via regulator) which in turn affect turbo-supercharger operation (along with the regulator measuring nozzle box back pressure)? Thoughts, knowledge, corrections??

Very nice, the before and after sliders are really helpful to see the amount of work you have done.

Have a friend, an ex Delta operator, or among themselves a "pipe hitter." He told me a illustrative example once, of the difference between Delta and say a 75th Ranger SERE graduate - or any other of a number of SOF (Special Operations Forces). A General, wanting to understand the difference between Delta and Rangers asked a Ranger to knock a hole in a wall. The Ranger asked where, and how large, once the General described what he wanted, the Ranger started throwing himself at the wall, and bashing through the drywall and supports until a man-sized hole was made that one could walk through. Upon seeing a Delta operator, he showed him the work of the young Ranger, and asked if he could do the same, maybe even faster. Demonstrating to him just what a Delta operator was made of from the General's viewpoint. The Delta operator looking a bit perplexed, surveyed the area, and found himself two young Rangers, fresh, and not recently beat up from bashing holes in the walls. He directed them as to what he needed, and then watched as they proceeded to knock a hole in the wall, not far from the original demonstration in half the time. I keep thinking of this "parable" watching the back and forth here. :music_whistling:

Well said, Mission Editor, and Combined Arms alone have created hundreds of hours of play for myself. All kinds of scenarios to practice, make mistakes, blow stuff up, rinse repeat. I think ME is one of the most unsung bang for the buck parts of DCS. We are hitting a wall, the "500 page manual" is the problem. I don't even think he understands you are a content creator, and one of the folks that has put a lot of time into improving content and DCS. Until some sort of awareness or acknowledgement is reached that reading 500 pages (ish) per module, watching You Tube videos for more than a few minutes, asking questions on the forums (not demands), and practice, practice, practice is required - we have all hit a wall. I hope he can get something from DCS eventually.

How do you think I learned? Or those of us who have put in the "time" so to speak. No one was over my shoulder, ever. I have no friends who play DCS, I don't know anyone here well enough to ask them to look over my shoulder. I have literally put in more time than you list, and read the 600+ page manual for the A-10C, and now reading through the manual for the P-47. You Tube Videos are a part of the staple, I have them bookmarked and put in a folder in my browser and will revisit them. Seven hours is just the start. I guess we are at an impasse. What you want, you have made clear, but as to whether DCS will fill that void, or someone will guide you through this as a new user interaction is anyone's guess. Good luck. I hope you find what you need to enjoy DCS. Sounds like you have invested a lot of time, I hope it bears some fruit and eventually enjoyment for you. :thumbup:

Sticky for me, LeCuvier reference to Lua mod.

DCS literally has "Instant Action" and "Arcade" mode. See attachment. Also, Mission Editor coupled with "Game" Settings can create any scenario you wish without all the realism or difficulty.

As far as a "free P-51" and the "other sim", for me there is no contest. I fly the WWII warbirds in DCS for the complete immersion. As an original kickstarter for the WWII warbirds that started under another group, and ED/DCS saved: the Anton, and now the P-47 (which I waited anxiously for) after 6 years are Bar None! Superior to anything in the other sim. I played the other Sim since first titles many years ago, and continue to do so under the latest titles that releases "Battle" maps. Also purchase the premium maps, or the "premium" planes to fly them. While I enjoy them in the other title for simplicity, and run and gun - there is absolutely no comparison, or thrill, or immersive equivalent learning all the details of the P-47 and how to operate it with actual action/reactions occurring due to various settings with the throttle quadrant which is fully mapped to my TM HOTAS. Two completely different animals, own them both. Honestly I don't understand the resistance to using one game, and enjoying it for what it offers, and enjoying DCS for it is without pitching for "changes" that reduce the complexity and immersion. Which leads me to your next observation "What are you so afraid of . . . " Over the years, I have witnessed two titles specifically that started out as catering to the "realism" crowd. One of them became wildly successful. Enjoys a large global user participation, and creates some very stunning visuals. The one in particular was a armor sim, and focused on actual data from real vehicles, and released them based on those specifications. Meaning there was no real "balancing" and every nation's fans had a line they liked and used the strengths or weakness to be effective in combat. Played that game for years, especially during a hiatus with the A-10C. Then with a surge in popularity, inevitably the posts started, slow at first, but then the squeaky wheels became more and more vocal. Dominating every topic regarding "balance", "ease of use", "play-ability". At first the devs stood firm and emphatically stated things like "If you don't like the play style then learn to use it, we will not change them!" Then the "wish lists" for additions that you could turn off and on, that literally changed the shape and outline, and different reticles etc. After about two or three years of a lot of "input" by a small but vocal community, the devs did a 180, and the changes came. 1.) Endless "Balancing" or "Nerfing" of certain lines. 2.) Historical performance was "fudged" to help certain weaker vehicles. 3.) Original vehicles that had survived "Balancing" and "Nerfing" soon became noncompetitive. 4.) Then the maps made for brawl fests, and catered to premium play started. They literally lost a good chunk of players in certain regions, income became a problem, and dev projects that were of high interest by all kinds of players languished or died. They lost thousands of players by some estimates, but of course when you have globally many more than that they absorbed it, but the game emptied out of the "realism types". I uninstalled it 3 years ago, and haven't looked back. Perusing the forums now and again confirms the "old players" worst fears - pure fantasy and geared toward the new next "Premium release". DCS is unique, it stands alone as an immersive platform. I have literally seen games changed due to the never ending chorus of "make this easier", "we want this feature - even though it didn't exist!" - as always some obscure reference no matter how sketchy for some prototype was used as justification. So back to the original theme. DCS becoming easier to enter, sure. Easier to learn, sure. Adding switches or modes that allow online "Air Quake" easy mode to become a serious possibility - no. If you want that, play the other sims, there are plenty. Not saying that to be a jerk, it is what I actually do. I do Quake mode for run and gun in the other sim. I do DCS to learn every button, dial, startup sequence, menu, profile, lever, button, flap, brake, toggle, light, fusing, Height of Function nuance there is - give me more - don't change the core immersion. I found my way through DCS as it stands, many have, it didn't stand in the way. Could the introduction be better yes, but changing things to make AAR "easier" is that slippery slope scenario. Found my way through the KA-50 in 2011/2012 and DCS is much better now than then. Besides, learning the Mission Editor will open up a whole new world for using your new aircraft in ways that are just as interesting as "the other title" End of diatribe! :megalol: