airdoc

+1 Internal damage modelling in the P51 is currently the most advanced in any sim I know of. Weak spots are the wing breaking only at one point and always catching fire, cockpit visual damage, pilot wounds, etc. It's largely the visual damage model that suffers in the P51. I think that the dora has been so bad in the DM up to now, because it wasn't internally modelled. Hopefully with the introduction of the dora module, this will be remedied. But it would be nice to get an official response to this issue, since a lot of people have raised it.

Hi Wraith, WT is in my opinion more of a flying arcade game, rather than a simulator. Even the old IL2 has better flight models. I'd agree that terrain is probably the best looking in a game out there, but maps are pretty small, as far as I know. I don't think that the devs of it would invest in seriously developing the flight models, because only a small percentage of their players would be keen on it. I think that a significant portion of their players, don't even have a joystick. That said, WT may serve as a pool for attracting people who want to make the jump from an very basic FM to a detailed study sim, such as DCS. cheers

At 54% saturation you 'll be losing some elevator authority. If you plan to fly the mustang for aerobatics or formation flying, then it's sufficient, and will give you much better control. But if you plan to dogfight with it (after all it's a mustang!) then you 'll be losing a degree of elevator control, which will become apparent at high speeds (350-400 mph+). At those speeds, you can use full elevator deflection nose up, without the aircraft falling in a high speed stall. You can't use it for a prolonged period, otherwise the pilot will have a GLOC, but it may make the difference in a dogfight. If the elevator in the mustang wasn't meant to fully deflect, then it wouldn't have been engineered that way :) Also, i 'm not sure if the ground tail-wheel lock feature will be implemented without full nose up elevator. When it comes to curves, as Thor said, If you can fly adequately without any curvature at all, it would be ideal, but it would usually take a rather long stick for that (like the stick in the real P51 is). Introducing curvature helps a lot in formation flying, and some pretty delicate maneuvers (i.e. aiming).Higher curvatures will give you better precision at small degrees of deflection, but will make the high-speed stalls appear more abruptly. You have to find your own sweet spot on this. For my own setup and way of flying, around 30% curvature suits me the best.

Sith said in another post that it is going to be the +25 lbs boost iirc

Does this mean what i think it means Cobra???

Thanks Wags, @Sith : i think you can change back your avatar now mate :)

hmmmm.... Although at my level of pledge at $100, I 'm only losing the 262, so this change doesn't really affect me, I have to admit that I see the point raised by others. There are approximately 1400 backers at the 1$-40$ range, 900 of them being at 40$. That's about half of all backers. Assuming that a significant proportion of them (40$) already own the P51, the new rewards give them in addition just the Dora. So these guys are essentially stuck with getting 1 additional aircraft for roughly the same price they would buy it in retail, whereas they were promised in KS to get full access to all flyables. That defeats the whole purpose of being a backer in my opinion. These guys are already customers of ED, bought the mustang, and also supported another project in which ED were initially involved in, and are now in charge of. They are returning customers and now they are left with no choice of a flyable aircraft, whereas they could have used their 40$ to buy the module they wanted when it got released. If not allowing a choice of which module to get is a result of ED not having time to organise a matrix reward system, then it's understandable, but in any way, i think that it will make a lot of people unhappy. On the other hand, i think that almost everyone would be satisfied with a 20$ per aircraft price+choosing which aircraft to get depending on the pledge level.

My 2 cents for engine management : -keep in mind that your throttle controls directly manifold pressure ONLY. There is no such thing as 100% or 90% power as in IL2. Always try to keep the MP below 61 inches (the red bar). If you exceed it, you can blow your engine up, even at normal temps. Remember that MP changes as your altitude changes (lessens at higher altitudes). WEP is not needed below 4000ft or so, because you can achieve the max MP without it anyway. WEP can become useful at higher altitudes, where you need all the MP you can get in a fight (and you still can't make it to 61 inches with throttle fully forward). -Monitor your oil and coolant temps all the time and remember that temps are dependent on MP, RPM, rad settings and airspeed. Before a dogfight, I always open the rads manually at low-medium altitudes, and this takes some time in the P51 (it's not a single click for each radiator). If you see the temps rising above the limits, it is time to come back on the throttle and/or RPM a bit. Try to come back on the throttle when your airspeed drops significantly (i.e. at the peak of a zoom climb it drops to 120 mph or so and this causes the engine to overheat very quickly if the engine keeps running at max settings). -Prior to the engine seizing from an overheat, you will hear a different engine sound. This has been modelled. Learn to identify it. If you hear it, come back on power ASAP and increase your airspeed.

I can't be completely sure about it, my guess is that he is probably using the Shift+F4 camera that is attached to the nose and then he used the numpad keys to twist it looking at the back. Another possibility is that he used one of the standard external cameras which he unhooked from the plane and then hooked it back at that point. I don't know about the HUD, but it seems reasonable to suggest that it could be possible.

The pitching is probably because you are overdoing it with elevator control. Remember that any maneuver during final approach should be gentle (that includes throttle and rudder). Could it be that you are trying to compensate for the nose-down pitch that occurs as you deploy full flaps? When it comes to landing, each pilot has his own preference on how to perform the approach, so you 'll probably get different responses in your questions. My preference is to go on a semi-power stall approach, and trim the elevator continuously nose up on final, while adjusting the power,so that I can achieve about 700-800fpm vertical speed and chop the throttle almost a second before touchdown (sometimes i chop it after touchdown). This is a more controlled approach and smoother on touchdown, but has poorer forward visibility (it's similar to the method used in carrier landings) and requires you to configure you aircraft earlier in the descent for landing. It's also trickier in the case of a go around (nose up trim will cause the aircraft to stall on sudden power increase). With this method, once you are close to the touchdown speed (around 110 mph), the aircraft is with full flaps down and slightly nose up, throttle manipulation allows you to be in direct control of the rate of descent and not of the speed. If you go in with the standard approach method, the higher speed on final allows you to be in a neutral or slightly nose-down pitch, which provides much better visibility of the runway, but you generally have to time your flare more precisely and tune it with the speed bleeding so that you won't stall or hit hard on the runway. Regardless of what approach fits you best, for the bouncing, it all comes down to practice. hope it helps

I flew on DOW server for a few times the past couple of weeks and I like what you 've done. Hopefully, when the Dora is released missions will be even more fun. About visibility, unfortunately the only way that I can spot enemy aircraft is by using the F5 external view, unless the enemy aircraft is against the sky or clouds. When the background is terrain, I have trouble seeing it even at distances less than 1km. I 've experimented with various settings, but didn't see any significant change. DCS is particularly problematic in this aspect. Hopefully EDGE will improve things.

I surely support the concept of smart scaling in DCS. I had no problem spotting targets in IL2, CLOD or BOS (the pre-release version, after the LOD fix). DCS is the only sim where i have significant trouble spotting enemy aircraft, even at 1km distance. Now with DCS WW2 coming up and VEAO adding their warbirds, DCS would have to find a way to improve aircraft visibility if they are to attract online players. Warbirds have no radar capabilities and the ability to spot an enemy aircraft is of paramount importance. I hope they introduce a fix to this.

Promising news about the Tempest :) thanks for the links Krupi and Friedrich!

This would be a great thing to have in DCS WW2, but is there an air-worthy Tempest somewhere? If I 'm not mistaken, VEAO only model aircraft for which they have access to (i hope they would bend the rules for that if they were to model a Tempest). An airworthy Mossie does exist though, so I hope you are right Krupi :)

This is a video I stumbled upon that explains the causes behind the left-turning tendencies in propeller-driven planes. You may find it interesting. It's simple, short and to the point.

There is no way that the Dora can get above 950km/h during a dive in il2 1946 without the aircraft being torn apart in the current version (4.12.2). Maybe the test you are referring to was done on older versions.

is that new smoke and tracer effects in the video??

Yes, you 're right that it has an excellent climb rate, but i don't think that this can compensate very well for the 60-70 km/h difference in max speed. This speed difference means that if the spit ends on a 109 or 190's six, all the enemy has to do is start a dive until max speed and then level off flying straight. The spit will never be able to catch them. At a 60 km/h velocity difference, the enemy gains about 1 km of distance per minute. Agreed, the Mk. IX will still be a good adversary for the german planes under certain circumstances, but it will probably need an energy advantage or an element of surprise. by the way, thanks for the boost info SithSpawn.

Well, it seems as if we 'll have both the Mk.IX done by ED and MkXIV (done by VEAO). :)

thanks for posting this. The Spit seems seriously underpowered compared to the rest. Do we know what boost level will the Mk IX have? +18 or +25? Does the +25 make any meaningful difference?

I guess I mis-interepreted your point, sorry. I completely agree with what you say as well.

I don't mean to sound critical, but I 'd have to disagree somewhat. I think that precise rudder input is important regardless of the aircraft torque. Agreed, high torque requires yaw manipulation with the rudder, but it is the dogfight (and formation flying for some) where rudder input becomes paramount. i.e, during fast acceleration, as happens in a dive while booming&zooming, even if the torque remains the same, the increased airspeed will cause a significant degree of side-slip (very pronounced in a Spit) which will require the pilot to compensate with rudder if he is to aim precisely. There just isnt enough time to trim properly. And then there are all those deliberate micro-side slips just before aiming; or the combined aileron and rudder input when breaking off suddenly etc. In a dogfight, rudder is probably the most important control surface.

I wouldn't mind not having T-shirts. But I 'd like to get the hard copy of the manual for the Spitfire. Unless this put financial strain on ED, in which case I could do without it. I 'd like to have alpha & beta access, given that it doesn't cost to the project development. Even if this means that I have to sign a NDA. What I 'd like to see the most however, is the SDK being released to the community. What DCS lack the most right now is maps. Releasing the SDK to talented persons will make me optimistic about the future of this sim. Even if moderate quality maps are made, I 'd consider them a welcome addition.

If ED is taking over the project, that means that they are getting funds from our investment. If they are not getting over the funds that the backers paid for, then, yes, they don't have to explain anything. But the work presented in the 109K, has already been done with the backer's resources, unless i am mistaken. And probably other things as well (like the P47), which has now being taken over by ED. What ever aspect one is looking at it from, an official explanation about what happened and what the features of the new DCS WW2 form will be should be given to the backers. At least that's my point of view. Because they are the ones who made this whole project plausible in the first place.