Pandacat

Going back to some earlier discussions. Is it true that: 1. Current in-game P51 engine's data are based off an actual plane? If that's the case, are K4's engine data based off an actual flyable plane? The thing you don't really want to do is have one plane based off actual flyable but the other based off written records. That way you can't really kill off repeating challenges on the true performance. The best way is to base on same source of data. If you base P51 off an actual plane then find a flyable k4 and use its data. If you can't find flyable plane, it would be the best to use written records. Written records may not be 100% correct, but since the data come from the same source, they are subject to the same biases.

I don't get it. Why not just give P51 its 72-75" MP and be done with it. Each side gets its best as the history would allow. And there should be no more complaining.

How come I never saw anyone mentioning P-38? It's a widely used aircraft in ETO, especially on ATG role.

I wouldn't worry too much about the balance issue here. Dora still a good match against 72" mustang. Just don't turn burn with it.

We all know that. But how is this related to my question?

Wonder if this tactic works. Never tried myself. In a situation when 109 follows you into a dive, build up your speed first. After, I believe it's 350mph, do a quick pitch up into a zoom. But don't stay in zoom for too long, otherwise it turns into a sustained climb, in which 109 usually wins. Zoom briefly then roll back down toward him. I remember back in IL2 days, AI fw190s use this type of tactic against my spitfires. If I am on its tail, it immediate flips into a power dive. I follow then he stays in dive for a bit until both speed built up to really fast. At the point, spitfire became sluggish in high speed, but Fw suddenly pitched into a zoom. I often find it very hard to follow.

If I use max mil power to climb, wouldn't I kill my engine fast? I remember you only have about 5min on max mil or WEP?

So when I cruise in hostile airspace and looking for target, not yet under attack, what engine settings should i be using? 1. Max continuous 2. Normal cruise setting In post takeoff climb-out, what is the most efficient engine settings to gain max altitude in shortest amount of time? I fly modern jet a lot more. So talking about the usage here, max continuous is more like max mil power in jet. Full mil power and WEP are more like afterburner in jet. Is this a fair characterization? Thanks

If you have difficulty flying DCS p51, most likely the problem lies with you setup or gears. I have come the way you are on right now. WWII planes are inherently more difficult to fly and have steeper learning curves cuz no computers can take care of this or that for you. Start with response curve setups. Check forum, there are many good suggestions. Also, good hotas matters. My old x52pro just won't cut it sometimes compared to Warthog, which has more precision. After that, practice practice and practice. American planes are powerful but need a lot of training. Lastly, make sure you don't take full fuel out on your flight. Nobody needs fully fueled mustang, which can fly for 1000 miles, for some local missions.

It'll be nice to have Vietnam war theatre. Love to drop napalms on Congs.

I am a newbie on this subject. Just wonder why we can't simulate the stick length effect with digital hotas such as X65f. I know X65f is not necessarily a well-crafted product, but if you were to build a new hotas, prolly going digital route might be more viable than a mechanical route. Nowadays, people fly both modern sims and WWII sims. I don't know how a dedicated WWII gear can have much market. So if I want to switch between WWII and modern sims, I need unplug/replug everything. That's just a hassle.

What about rolling scissors? I saw many videos where people used scissors to shake of 109's. 51 theoretically should roll better at high speed.

I don't understand why people are fixated on European theater. Why not pacific? From 1942 onwards, there were pretty much constant air battles. Also the pacific map should be so much easier than Normandy to make. Instead of fields, roads, cities etc, you just have miles of miles of ocean, occasionally dotted by a few islands. You'll have carrier ops in addition to everything else you have in land theaters. It'll be a lot more fun.

No. You are not the only one. I learned the hard lesson of flying with no curves at all. Btw, to the forum administrators. Would it be possible to set up a few sticky threads on hardware setups? Maybe one for HOTAS axis setup etc. In these threads, people can share their knowledge and experience with different gears and different setups, so that the knowledge base is preserved for any future pilots or those who come back after a while? IL2 websites have a done great job archiving their knowledge base. Even though it wasn't an easy game, but new comers can quickly get up to speed if they follow the instructions from more experienced pilots.

Ya, that's what I meant. I think it is not a tad too heavy but rather a bit underpowered, especially when fighting against K4.

That's an interesting point. Wonder how heavy the IFF equipment is? I know CG issue does significantly affect P51's performance.

Solty is right about the center fuel tank stuff and curvature. A lot people hate Mustang because the response curve is not set up right. I messed around with my curvature. It's better now but just couldn't get the exact right one. I guess it takes a bit trial and error to figure the right one for you and your sticks. It's the exact same story as when I first started in IL2. Initially I listened to some online "experts" saying all 100% works wonder. I was falling stalling all over the sky and pissed by the game. But later, I tried different curvatures and eventually found the right one for my stick. I was able to shoot more accurately and fly around the edge without much stalling. DCS is more complicated than IL2, so need much more trials and errors. But that aside, I do wish to see better DM, 72" MP and, if possible, adjustable gun convergence. If I have those, I'll golden.

Well, can Dora and 109K keep Spit at arm's length like a jet fighter? There are always tactical situations where even the expert pilots will be bracketed in at close distance. After all, the performance differential between spit9 and German birds is not generational. The whole point of adjustable convergence is that different people have different habits, preferences and tactical acumen. Some people are good at making long distance shots. For them, longer convergence works better. Some people prefer closer range. Some like the destructive power of point convergence, some like to scatter bullets all over the sky like shotguns. From my past experience with other WWII sims, convergence does make a big difference. Take IL2 for example. One of my friend has bad aim but quick muscle reflex. He set his convergence at 100-150, and devastating at scoring kills at short range. Another friend is terrific at killing at ranges well beyond 300. It took me a while to figure out my personal favorite setting at 260. Not only that, different aircraft and weapons have different preferable settings for me. A 260 works well for me in mustang but really bad in Fw190A8. You may argue Il2 and DCS are completely different sim. True. But there are no other options besides 300 to compare with in DCS. So you can't really argue adjustable convergence is pointless in DCS.

+1. Hit the nail right on the head.

Please skip 109T for FW190A series. 109T never been put in production.

Just out of curiosity. wonder how dora would fare in a dogfight with 109k4. Right now K4 is god like in game.

A mountain 30k feet tall? I don't think such mountain exists on this earth. Mount Everest is only 25k. Caucasian range is no way near that.

How do I toggle this mode? I only have fixed (ring), fixed (ring) with k-14 and k-14 only.

If this is the case then it makes a whole lot more sense. However, if this project would take up many months and tons of extra resources to do, I would say just slap a high octane engine onto existing module and be done with it. Honestly, besides the prospect of higher engine output, nothing else would really interest me. Also, time and resources would be more invaluably spent on churning out other game essential items such as WWII environment or even additional modules such as P47 or Me262 or even better, a bomber module such as B17. I mean if you really want to get a pulse of how the community would feel about this, you can post a poll on the following 2 possible scenarios: 1. 1944 standard P51 in 3 months but next aircraft module in 14 months 2. next aircraft module in 9 month, but no 1944 P51 standards See how people would respond.

I like this post. I am also a P-51 fan like many of you, but I don't feel as excited about this project. While I like the attention to details regarding different variants, I am a bit concerned about where this is going. How long is this new P51 model gonna take to make? How much would it be priced at? Would it be another 49.99? I can hardly imagine DCS would give it away free if this new model takes months to build. If that's the case, how do you think many existing p51 owners would feel about it? If it is 49.99, what are we really paying for? 1. New skin which is minutely different from the current one? 2. Different locations of IFF control boxes? Does this really make any different in flying characteristics of the plane? Do people really care? 3. Single antenna? Would this also change FM and handling characteristics of the plane? 4. New engine which could handle high octane fuel and providing higher MP? This is probably where the most meat is at. But, wait. Isn't late PTO mustang and late ETO mustang using the same engine? Isn't the power increase from 67" to 75" derived from the fuel rather than the engine itself? If you can model ETO mustang's V-1650-7 with 114/145 fuel, why can't you model PTO mustang's engine with the same fuel grade? 5. DM? Yes we do really need better DM. But, so you gonna give the new P51 the realistic DM while keeping the existing p51 with simplistic DM? Isn't DM the universal value that applies to all aircraft?