Solty

Yes. When I first lunched the game after downloading it. Same when i downloaded the asset pack. Both are in my module manager.

I can't run my Normandy. Each time it loads and either stays on splas screen or on the map view or black screen and windows manager says that the game stopped working and I have to kill the process. I hit repair and nothing changed. I did what Big said and nothing...

My map doest want to load and the game doesn't responds after a while of loading.

I have just installed the new patch and launched the game but NO Normandy. Only available terrain module in the module manager is Nevada!:huh:

ALL OF IT!

I think arglmauf makes a good point. You want to stay away from dogfighting most of the time and especially get a wingman. You do not have to do anything fancy to win in 2v1. But since you are asking about it, well basically you need to be sure you want to engage and estimate your opponent's energy. Sometimes you won't use flaps at all, and sometimes you need full landing deflection. It depends on a situation. In most standard engagements you will use 10-20deg just to keep the turn. I usually manipulate my flaps constantly and adjust them to the situation. You might need all the flaps to win scissors at low speed or you.might need just 20deg to pull deflection. If you use too much you can bleed your energy and disadvantage yourself, but if you don't use them at all you can stall and loose your firing opportunity. In most fights you won't need more than 20. First of all learn standard maneuvers, Immelman, split S, chandelle, scissors, rolling scissors and spiral. Learn to judge the opponent's energy state. Finally practice gunnery. You must take shots with accuracy because most of the time your opponents won't give more than one opportunity to shoot. Each plane is different, even tough some basic principals are always aplicable, some skills, maneuvers and tactics that make you victorious in the K4, may doom you in the Mustang.

Probably Normandy. That depends on the population though. I don't want to be alone there.

YoYo himself, as quoted above, has already said what is the standard that the P-51D should be achieving. I checked again today and got the same data as the last time. The plane is slower than referential data.

No it is not. The old version P-51D, still 1.5 version, the plane was capable of what I said before. 61'' 3000rpm from YoYo himself, back in the day. So, there you go, the plane doesn't fly as it should and nothing you say can change that. The K4 is flying perfect compared to the real life data, so no, DCS is not moddeled after old planes, there must be a bug that prevents the plane from achieving its full potential, that especially affects 67' There was a very similar issue happening to the Mustang in 2016! Here is what YoYo said about it, when he fixed it! https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2696329&postcount=25 But the bug is back! And it makes the plane slower. At what altitude? With 67'hg that would be only possible just above 1500 ft or 500 m. Also, what version? Maybe its different between 2.0 and 1.5?

To me the most important are sparks from hits, smoke, vapour, tracers, fire all connected to a new DM.

Ye. It is weird how it just went silent. I'd really like to hear more from him.

Planes are not magic. There are testing conditions to be met and hard data presented by the USAAF and North American. Airplane, depending on engine and design, fly differently at different altitudes. There is usually increase of speed the higher you go, except when your engine looses power due to lack of a supercharger, badly managed mixture etc. Overall it is not a matter of opinion, the Mustang was flying 375mph at SL and now it is not. I hope YoYo addresses that sooner than later.

You know, the issue would be less pronounced if we had compression on the virtual stick like the old 109 had in beta.

Of course you are going slower lower. This is a Sea Level (SL) sustained speed test. Again, your first fault is to dive, that way your engine is cool and gets cooled with more efficiency. If you want a proper test you need to accelerate to that speed in level flight. That way the radiator opens more. There is no magic to "make them go fast". Keep engine cool, dive with coordinated flight and it will make any plane go faster than its max sustained speed ON SL. The chart is not lying at SL it should be 375mph with WEP and 364mph in military power. That's the data that was used to create DCS Mustang and it is what we should be focused on.

I didn't say it was a test. Your lack of understanding of the simple difference between a "test" and a "video for reference", which I have pointed out, is astonishing. :wallbash: My first vid is a test of max sustained speed. Otto's video is nowhere near so accurate and precise. This new vid, is and was a video for reference. Many a times during my flying in DCS, 109s are capable of outdiving everyone and flying level to their base. Even without a wing they are faster.:doh: PS. Type to me when you want to meet to fly.

LOL. I chased him to his base. But my video recording stoped. Anyway. You just showed that you do not care about the reality of it. Just about your own agenda. Not to mention that after such tight loop the 109's energy should be realy diminished, but energy retention and drag seem to be better than any other plane in the game. You want to prove me wrong, not to prove real life data. Sad. Whatever you will do, the 109 is currently faster than the P-51D and there is no denying it. People who know how to fly it can pull away in dives and be never caught because they are actually faster and I was caught by 109s when I was runing in the same maner. I was higher, dove, he dove behind me about 1km. And 1 min later I had him right behind me at 200m guns blazing. We can meet. But what is my guarantee that you know how to fly the thing? I would much rather find someone with experience like David Red or Dark Riders or anyone that flies the thing coordinated. That guy in the video for that matter, would be good. If you claim you can't outrun the P-51D, you are doing it wrong because it is clearly possible.

I left for few days and the thread has already been derailed. Thank you. But I cannot make a 109 video. I do not own the plane and I am not planing to buy it, I need the money to buy Normandy. It would be a bit harder to make it fly very stable as it has no trim outside horizontal stabilizer, but it is doable. As a reference I can show you my chase of a 109. He pulled away due to his better acceleration and we both flew at full power over sea level. You can clearly see he is outruning me even though I am flying coordinated and full power. ------------------------ LOL, there is a word for it hypocrisy. Let me respond with the same you told me. In fact I will quote you. BTW Tracks are unreliable.

I made 3 flights, each time got to 590kph sustained (366MPH). Plane should be flying at 375mph and remember that real-life test was with wing racks on, so around 3 mph shaved off. You can see in the video that I am gaining and loosing altitude, like 2 or 4 meters and it impacts the speed quite significantly, so his quite noticible sideslip and uneven flying contributes a lot to the max sustained speed of the plane. But from my little "test" you can see that 590kph or 366mph is the maximum the current P-51D with 67'hg can reach. But you can also observe the slip indicator and horison to be sure the airplane doesnt drift. Max I have reached was 591kph and lowest was 589kph. Conditions: Temp:15C; Pressure:760mmHg Power: 67'hg RPM:3000rpm Weight:4427kg/9760 pounds Max Sustained Speed reached: 590kph 366mph

Response in Bold. PS. Both Otto's tests do not show the sustained speed at WEP. They merely point out that his flying in the 109 makes the plane bleed speed faster. He cuts off the footage when the plane is still decelerating and has not set on one SUSTAINED SPEED.

Your test is severely flawed. Firstly you show us IAS (should be TAS use Ctrl+Y to switch), secondly you do not tell us conditions (temp, pressure, weight, power), thirdly both airplanes are not trimed for level flight and finaly you are suppose to get to the max speed by acceleration and not by dive. Not to mention that each of those tests should be done at least few times to be sure. ----------------------- This is my post with full tests of the P-51D in game. Seems to be still relevant but I will make new ones just to be sure. https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3062437&postcount=34

@ Those that claim higher power means very little. You are starting to sound like British generals of WW1. You just heard about the Machinegun but it sounds usless and probably would have only bad effects and even if it had good ones like the aleged firepower it can be dealt with using the mad minute technique proving it usless in your eyes. It's always the same debate, claiming that P51 players just should get better at it and that it all can be equalised by tactics... If that was the case nobody would go out of biplanes. Try flying with that power. It is a game changer for P-51D. Everything gets strenghtened climb, acceleration and top speed, the plane becomes "lighter" to handle. Your insistance on the lack of any big impact shows that you have never flown in any other sim. Listen, take MW50 out of your 109 and try to go to combat then and see if you don't spot the difference. I am not saying you will be helpless, of course not. Sure you will have plenty of kills with it, I assume, judging by your confidence, that you easily get stats of 5:0 and 9:1, but I can assure you that without that MW50 you will be much more careful and try only the easiest of aproaches, because if you mess up, that P-51D will eat you alive. Unless it is flown by a complete rookie.

Firstly, 67' that reaches 375mph is not optimistic, it is an actual test, not a calculation. Secondly, that P51D reaches the 375mph with wing racks attached. There is another test of a P51B reaching 380mph with 75hg and wing racks on and 388mph with them off, but what is interesting is that P51B is going only 364mph with 67'. This means that there is an increase of 16mph from just the power and additional 8mph from wing racks. It is a common misconception that D is less aerodynamic than B due to the bubble canopy. But D version sports few refinements like better wing racks and better gun ports that cut less speed. If we add that 8mph to the rackless P-51B we get 372mph at 67'. The main reason why D version is suppose to be worse aerodynamically is due to early P-51D having stability issues due to lack of the tail fin. Now with our block that doesn't matter and with refined wing racks and gunports the P51D reaches 375mph. Add more power let's say 75' that would push it to higher sustained numbers. 391mph maybe? Who knows but I think its plausible that rackless P51D could easily achieve that 388mph of the P51B with the same power and I think its quite safe to assume so.

Our version, in DCS, has 1.8 ata boost max and 9-12159 propeller.

WTF is this quality vs quantity doing here? Bf109 is the most produced fighter of all time and cheap at that. Way cheaper than P51D. Me262 was underdeveloped and pushed into service too early with massive engine problems. P-51D is capable of 8h flights and is still able to maneuver with both 190 and 109 which both can't fly even half the time. Its also faster than both. Is it a way better fighter? No. But for the one big strategic advantage it has, there are lots of tactical ones too. If I was to choose IRL, 190 over 109 any time due to better roll and dive with amazing armament.

+1 Feuselage fuel tank is there and COG really changes when you fill it up. Still the airplane is quite mild although requires highest speeds for maneuvering. I don't know how and where Sniper got this info. We will loose the radar though. That's a bit less weight, other than that we will loose metal elevators if D20 or lower is chosen. Every pound counts with the stang as it is a tad too heavy but if one chooses to take less fuel it becomes quite good at maneuvering.