Shahdoh

You can only take control of an aircraft you previously controlled in the track, not just any aircraft.

We do not know WHY they did not apply settings like I have in RL. And I have no need to explain it either. I am only using what DCS has given me. If they choose to change it, so be it. I have never claimed them as accurate, only what it is and has been in DCS. On top of that, yes, the settings are not the BOOK settings, the book is safe, keep the thing running for a long period of time, standard. Those settings are pushing the engine to the edge, you know, like they do in racing...

Exploit? Manipulating the controls available to the pilot. How is that an exploit?

I believe that did not translate well. If you mean, how have I attained higher top speeds. It is by minimizing the drag created by the coolant radiator. You can close it down a bit (but not completely) and run hotter temps without breaking the engine. Also, by reducing the RPM to about 2700, the pitch will increase, better utilizing the 67 MP you can get with WEP on. I did notice in the RL specs at sea level, they showed that they ran at only 60 MP, 3000 RPM and the doors were 5 inches open for coolant and I think wide open for the oil coolant. If in DCS those settings were used, the speeds would be comparable. In the racing settings above, its possible, yet fragile. Probably why many do not choose to use them in combat. It would be for emergency escapes only. Also, these settings only work at sea level, the higher you go, the less the drag from the coolant door matters and RPM needs to be 3000.

Well, ya got me there didnt ya. Obviously I cant not exactly reproduce your chase, let alone have it from 2 years ago. Though I do have a racing community that can all vouch for what I say and for how long I have been racing. I hosted a racing series in 2015 and a small handful of other pilots were capable of getting the Mustang up to 330 knots in the flat. But, there is no video of those tests and of course tracks don't work that many versions ago and have long been deleted. So, you can continue to not believe me. That is your choice. But I have no reason to lie here. The speed of the Mustang has been what it is for years. We obviously come at this from different perspectives. You from the combat role and mine from racing. I only spoke up because you "sensed" a performance increase in the Mustang. And I am only saying that performance capability has been there all along. My times and the speeds I achieve are the same as they have been. Believe it or not.....

Your talking about what you feel it SHOULD be and I am telling you how it HAS been in DCS for years. Apples and Oranges.

Also, watch your own video again, you got up to 620 kph on the dive in. but, after flying level in the chase, it backed off to under 600 kph. Only with lowering the nose and descending did it get back up to maybe 610 but then would drop off again once you leveled. Edit again: And this matches speed comparison tests I have done for years versus the 2 aircraft IN DCS.

Yes, you can pull Real life data and that I will not argue. But I am telling you, in DCS, the Mustang has been faster than the Dora for years, IF managed properly. I have my own hard evidence to back it up as well, and can tell you, the Mustang has not seen a speed increase in all those years.

You said it was faster? I have yet to see the Dora get up to 330 knots at sea level without a dive. Mustang has had that capability since 2014 when I first started paying attention to its top speed. Again, no dive in, from take off, no higher than 200 ft, accelerate and maintain 330 knots. no winds. Best I have seen in the Dora was 325.

Now are we talking failed damage model? Which we know is a thing that they are working on to improve, or some supposed buff to the Mustangs speed/performance which I evaluate constantly for my racing performance and have not noticed any??

Will repost here what I did on the video: Mustang has always been faster than the Dora down low. Maybe just more people are learning how to make that happen. I have raced the Mustang in DCS since 2013. The Mustang has not gotten any faster on the tracks I have raced on for years now. In order for it to be faster than the Dora, it has to be managed. Clean up the drag, manually control the coolant radiator, trim, RPM settings, etc..

Thanks Shadow KT As for ED, would be great to get recognition that this is indeed a problem. Or will this need to be submitted again under a different category/title?

Shahdoh KT, I believe you on the NAV Wind explanation. Where can one find the explanation of what a NAV wind is referring to though? It would help many if this information was more readily available. In any light, you have pointed out a major inconsistency and hopefully they will be able to correct it soon.

Can anyone tell which is the Dynamic weather briefing and which is the static? There is a difference but how many could tell which is which. Yet in game, the winds are in opposite directions: Whether you want to say the wind is coming FROM or TOWARDS the indicated heading, it should be consistent. Or at least identify which is which clearly.

NoJoe, you missed the point that the Briefing is saying the same exact wind directions, yet, they are opposite each other in the game environment.

If the Laste was using the same information in the briefing, it would be getting incorrect info, thus displaying the wrong correction. How accurate is your bombing aligning up as directed? If still off, this could be the reason. Again, see for yourself, ALL objects are reacting to the wind the same way. So that would mean ALL objects are reacting incorrectly. Better reason is that the briefing is incorrect.

Several examples given showing 165-185 gig for their whole install. 1Tb will be plenty provided you don't have to much else on the drive. keep 200+ gb free and you will be good to go.

Take GR advice with a grain of salt... My install with about 80% of the available A/C, NTTR and Persian Gulf is up to 182 gig. That does not include optional liveries and such that are on another drive, totalling another 15 gig. Rudels advice for a 512 is more spot on for future growth.

In my own test using his track file converted back into a mission. I place both windsock and fire/smoke down at the location of the vehicles and also Batumi. For Static weather, the briefing showed the direction that the wind was blowing TOWARDS and all items affected by the wind. Chutes, flags, windsock and smoke all reflected that direction. For Dynamic weather, briefing showed the same direction for the wind, but all objects shown showed that that was the direction where the wind was coming FROM. Same objects, Flags, smoke, windsock and chutes. From this experience, I would say the briefing was wrong that it is displayed the exact same way as static, but the wind is from the opposite direction instead. Also, be aware, Dynamic Weather, the wind speed and direction is NOT the same across the whole map. The briefing will show you the report for where that aircraft is at spawn in. When I moved the aircraft over the tanks to start, the dynamic winds had shifted from 239 to 243. Not enough to reverse, but showing that there is a difference to be aware of.

Of course need to be on the ground to do so. Or, in the mission editor, there is a tab for it after you have an aircraft selected. Be aware, many skins are tied to a specific country so if you do not see the skin, select the country is was created for (Cant change the country once the mission has started). To get around that bit, someone created a tool to remove the country tag on all liveries: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3302607/

Do windsocks and smoke producing objects show the same effect? or do they show the correct wind direction. Maybe put a wind sock down by the tanks to show as well that different objects are affected differently.

It can definitely be problematic. I have successfully been able to get vehicles across the map but it is a test of patience. There are many things for them to get hung up on. I used both on road waypoints to get them across most parts, but then switched to off road to get them around cities and other map objects, being careful to have them track through the clearest areas. Many times "off road" does seem to ignore SOME objects but not all.

Well, I don't have that aircraft, but those techniques should definitely help with the other taildraggers. That is an older aircraft (also 3rd party) so it appears to have some unique attributes to contend with and from what others are saying about it, need good brake control. What do you use for brakes in your setup? Edit: To my surprize, it looks like the I-16 does indeed use independent left/right brakes. That is good news and should help a lot. If you find that they are to sensitive, on the toe brake axis, choose axis tune, then select SLIDER and put in a reverse curve (usually around -20 works well for me). This will desensitize the initial movement of the toe brake, giving a better feel usually, while still leaving full brake power in the later half of the movement.

As mentioned above and trying to clarify. Rudder effectiveness at low speeds is practically nil. To help with staying straight, smooth yet quick power application (don't take forever to get the power set), will help keep the torque controlled. Also, keep the tail planted by pulling back on the stick UNTIL the airspeed is high enough to have effective rudder control. This speed will be aircraft specific so just be aware. Once you have that control, need to let the tail up smoothly and stay on the mains before the aircraft tries to lift off to early, resulting in a stall. A bit more airspeed (above the aircrafts stall speed) and an ever so slight pull and the aircraft should lift off cleanly. Good luck!

Boom and Zoom has never meant to FLEE the engagement. Many just assume that is the case. It means to extend from the engagement to a safe point to reevaluate the encounter.