Shahdoh

Well, for starters, it helps to know that you do not control the pitch on the current allied aircraft (Spit/Mustang at least), you control the RPM. The systems on the aircraft control the pitch. Realizing the difference will go a long way in understanding the aircraft better.

I see the chart, and agree that DCS does not follow that curve. What I am saying is that ED makes the decision as to why it is the way it is. I am just using what is provided to me. Realism simulation, as you pointed out, is a VERY deep rabbit hole. ED is the one making the decisions on what is economically viable for how far down that rabbit hole they want to go down. We can make requests, or point out facts. They still have to implement it if they deem it worthy and the accuracy that THEY are going after. So, on the point of realism, having a mission (scaled down for playable numbers) of say only 4 109k4, maybe 8 190's versus 30 Mustangs and say 100 bombers would be playable? Many that scream for realism would balk at the unbalance. Yet at that time of the war. Those are equivalent ratios the Germans had to deal with when those aircraft were available. The point I am trying to make is enjoy what you are given, report with what you dont agree with and hope, but dont expect, that things will get implemented. If you do not enjoy it, there are plenty of other things out there to experience.

Are you aware that you can also manually manipulate the radiator flaps on both the 109 and 190 for increased speed as well? With the same consequences of overheat and engine failure. If the pilot, has within his controls, the ability to manually manipulate them, expect them to be. I expect ED to have all of this information and this is what they have given us. At this point it has to be proven otherwise. Yes some charts have been shown and reasonable deductions made as to what would happen for this or that. Again, I expect ED has seen this data and made their choices as to how they want it to be. If they finally decide to change it, based on accurate information, so be it, but until then, it is what it is, a piece of entertainment software that you paid minimal money for, not a reality simulator.

Also, stable JUST upgraded to the same version as Open Beta ( 2.5.6.49798 ).

It is VERY faint, so easy to miss. I believe it was a bit darker in the past, but could not say how long ago that was.

They are in the middle of updating the damage model for the WWII aircraft first. Some things have slipped through and this has created some weird, unrealistic conditions. All we can do is report things, but moreso, wait until they fully release the new damage model to see what they have come up with.

I agree, this is SIM behavior and I have done nothing but explain THAT side of it. I enjoy racing aircraft in DCS. There is a small community that enjoys doing the same. With that, we use what is given to us to the utmost potential, thus, these settings have been discovered YEARS ago. IF ED chooses to change things to more realistic behavior, so be it. In the meantime, this is, what it is. Still, will also say this, the manuals are written for what is safe and PROVEN. I am sure there are plenty of pilots, ESPECIALLY in a wartime condition, threw the book out the window and did what they thought they need to to survive. Sometimes it works, sometimes it gets them killed. There are manual modes for a reason for cooling, if something could be pushed a bit further, that is the pilot's choice.

This is a new (or reworked) engine failure from some type of abuse to the engine. Even with random failures turned off, the WWII prop aircraft have always had the possibility of engine failure from pushing engines beyond their operational limits.

Another thing to keep in mind with dynamic weather is that it works by pressure equalization. So, weather only transitions in one direction, worst to best. In order for it to transition the other way, new pressure systems would need to be introduced and pretty sure no one has figured out how to do that yet.

The 109 animated prop is VERY faint, but it is there on my OB. In certain lighting conditions, it is hardly visible at all. Many, including myself, will claim this more realistic. Though different graphic setups may show differently and we all see things differently as well so your mileage may vary.

Skins like that (all the stripes/patterns) make for a true challenge for any livery maker. It is not for the feint of heart in that it is a ROYAL pain to match up those up on ALL the separate pieces you have to deal with in a template. Good luck finding someone up to the task! It is a beautiful skin.

And that is exactly why those types of extreme settings are not seen in combat servers, because you simply do not have the time to monitor them as closely as you need to, to "Ride the razors edge" of performance. Though, it IS there if/when you might need it. Regarding the long term wear issues being implemented. True, would indeed be more realistic, but then would have to expect realistic repair times. Oh, and by the way, that would then lead to realistic health conditions. Get wounded? can fly for X amount of time, if ever again.. I mean you want realism right? So, back to reality, in that this is just entertainment software, so it is just "easy" that we all get to jump into fresh aircraft with healthy bodies and go out and attack someone else also "at their best".

By single mission, do you mean like per sorte? Go out once, then rearm and refuel for another? Then yes, the effects are cumulative. But if you exit the aircraft and respawn it even, or restart the mission, then no, nothing carries over. You always have a fresh aircraft whenever that aircraft is spawned in.

Ok, just did a 2nd test, this time with a nearly full loadout on the mustang, 65% fuel, 6 rockets and 2 bombs. Same take off conditions, this time the temps DID go over the redline a bit, nearly maxing out. But I stayed level and got the airspeed over 200 and temps stabilized. 200 mph is really a critical speed in keeping the cooling in line. Get under that and yeah, there will be cooling problems. But again, it has been this way the whole time I have flown the mustang (since 2013).

Just took off in 23C temps in a P51, was at warmup temps, radiators on AUTO and the main coolant door was fully closed before throttle up. Throttled straight up into WEP (67 MP) and took off. Temps got up TO the redline, but stabilized and all was fine. No different than what I have experienced in the past. /shrug Edit: And yes, on today's OB version.

Again, in my experience, the lower the RPM from 3000 at 67 MP, the more likely the engine will fail. Down to 2700, those chances do not rise very significantly, below that, the failure chances ramp up significantly. Also, around and below 2700, the MP DOES start to drop. Other factors like current speed and G'loads also seem to play a part when operating in those extreme settings. Should this be happening sooner? Maybe, but I do not have the data to refute that. I use what is provided to me and it has been this way since 2013 at least.

That matches my experience as well. only helps in top speed. As previously mentioned, trying those settings at lower speeds seems to stress the engine more, resulting in more failures.

To a point, yes, the real manipulation is manually controlling the coolant radiators to minimize the drag they create and riding the upper edge of the temperatures, just low enough to keep it running, for racing anyways. In combat, you usually have many other things to be looking out for than monitoring your temp gauges.

How about another button to simulate when you have 2 hands on the stick. And with that button activated, no other controls (that would require that 2nd hand) could be manipulated. The button activation would allow for more pull and is direct feedback on when it is in use.

If you want to populate your mission with aircraft the clients will use, check out SWAPR (Sweet Automatic Player Replacement script): https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=3999732 Hardcard has written a brilliant script that does what no one thought was possible. It does have some issues now and then, but he works hard at correcting or at least minimizing the problems as much as possible. Good luck!

Thing to keep in mind with Dynamic weather, is that it is tied to the CLIENT and not the SERVER if doing this for multi-player. If only SP, then no worries. But the point is, if you have Dynamic weather on a server that is up for a number of hours, a client just logging on will see what the dynamic weather is for the start of the mission, while someone that has been on for 2+hours will have seen that weather change over that course of time. This COULD be something quite different, depending on the conditions of the dynamic weather in use. Now if its like a squadron mission where everyone jumps on at relatively the same time, then all is good. Everyone will see the relatively same weather (though clouds are still not generated EXACTLY the same). But for a consistent server up 24/7 and clients popping in and out constantly, a great variation in weather will be noticed. Again, just things to keep in mind when designing your missions.. Good luck.

In my experience in RACING the DCS Mustang since 2013, there does seem to be a stress factor involved as well as the temperature modelling, though this seems pretty inconsistent and is hard to nail down. I have better reliability of the engine if I set it to my race settings (2700 RPM / WEP on for 67 MP) and leave it alone, then if I try to continually tweak the RPM's throughout the race. If at those settings, without carrying the speed in which you get the most value out of it, places more stress on the engine, and I see more failures that way. At other times, trying to prove the point of stress, I can manipulate the RPM from minimum to max, harshly and the engine will not break. So, from this, it seems more of a random factor, loosely tied to the stress placed on the engine from extreme settings. To the comment about needing full open radiator on take off with max power and rpms, can only say ambient temperatures might play heavily into that. I have taken off with 67MP and 3000 RPM with radiator on auto, also manually set to near closed, just fine. Cant remember exactly, but I believe the weather was set somewhere in the 60-70F degree range. Your mileage may vary. Using those "race" settings in combat have a limited use, since the reliability of the engine drops sharply. Though there are some damage model changes between release and open beta, the base performance of the mustang has remained the same for many years now in my experience.

Well, the clean prop files are still attached to that other thread, can use those on custom skins at least. (if you havent already..)

And as far as the prop should not have the yellow tip blur on the pilot side, you are correct. But the Mustang was the first WWII model, and does not have the files to support different effects (front/back) like the newer models do. They would need to update the *.edm model and then add the graphics to support it. Hopefully we will see it down the road.

I think the issue is more that you can see blur BEYOND the yellow tips. That should not be. There are other flaws in the Mustang prop blur that show up under different lighting conditions. I have cleaned up many of the issues and submitted them to ED, but no response or changes have occured. See this thread : https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=230270