DefaultFace

I would agree with Sith that this is to do with the slats. The 109 was known for having fairly gentle stall characteristics and not having too many sudden wingdrops etc. At low speed you just can't get any more aoa out of the elevators and at high speed the stick forces mostly cause the same. I tried it out with full back trim at high speed and it is possible to make it drop the wing a bit but it takes some doing.

I usually prime 0 times and it always starts...:) Don't let go of the inertial clutch too soon, even if it seems like the prop is going to stop. Often (especially after the last patch) it will catch just when its getting very slow.

Strange. I could swear I remember draining it by accident before and having it not work afterwards...

Not sure where the climb figure you're mentioning comes from but sounds more like an early/mid G model. 3563 fpm comes out to about 18m/s and the K4 definitely does more than that in DCS. Did some digging and found these. Comes out to about 4330 fpm for a K4 with DB605 DB at 1.8 ATA. Looks like they will have fairly comparable performance.

Because there are usually far fewer Mustang pilots than there are 109/190 pilots. And of these few many are players who are new to the P-51 or new to DCS WW2 aircraft. I regularly see Mustangs turn and run, giving up their advantage after less than one turn in even or advantageous energy setups. As it stands a 109 pilot who mismanages his energy will certainly lose to a P-51. If the spit is as good a dogfighter as many people believe it to be (which I really hope it is) it should make a good match for the 109s especially if they get greedy and start bleeding the speed off. All this being said it hasn't been released and most of this is speculation until we've flown it ourselves. Sith and Bignewy's comments are encouraging and i'd be interested in hearing their comments on the relative performance of the aircraft in a dogfight although I can understand why they wouldn't be allowed to comment at this point. Anyway, I'm looking forward to flying both and to getting my a** whooped by the best of the RAF! :pilotfly:

How many times has ED said that the increased power settings are coming? Do we really need to use it as an excuse for everything? Also how do engine settings have anything to do with what amazing said? That second part is also just blatantly untrue.

What saburo said. Not sure if the numbers are still the same but Waagerecht MV is/was ~15 seconds and Sturz MV is/was ~8 seconds. Sturz OV is definitely instantaneous. Only thing im not 100% on is whether waagerecht OV is also an instant or just a very short delay fuse or also instant. If it is I would imagine the only difference would be some sort of fuse setting that gives the bomb a better chance of exploding at a low impact angle. Otherwise can't think of any reason to have it double up. I don't know much about the specifics of the bombs of that time though so consider the last part speculation....

Technically that's one and a half wings :P I'm fine if aircraft keep flying like that but I've seen (and done) much much worse....

Well it would be fairly uneven if only one aircraft responded realistically to damage while the others continue flying with half a wing, leaking out of every orifice and pulling G's with half an elevator as they do now. I certainly don't fault ED for taking that approach.

Hi con, All the gunsights in the WW2 aircraft in DCS are so called 'Reflector Sights'. These gunsights, much like a modern Heads Up Display project an image to infinity essentially eliminating parallax error. ie you can move your head around and still see the crosshair in the 'correct' spot aligned with the guns. Here is an example of what I'm talking about: As for trackir there are a few good tutorials around if you can't figure out where to start.

Hi eekz, the flak stopped working completely at one point today... One of our pilots had to go down and discuss it with the stang guys while we tried to figure it out :megalol:

Definitely fixed in the cold start procedure. Used it tonight.

You can fix it in place by turning off the gyro. Switch is on the right near the target distance indicator.

That's probably true. I guess we'll have to wait an see.

I realize it might be a bit optimistic to ask this but I remembered that all the progress screenshots of the new dm were on the spitfire. Now that we know when it will be released I was wondering if the release will be with a this revamped damage model or with an 'old' style damage model while the others are being worked on/finished? IIRC the idea was to release the dm for all aircraft at once so as to avoid an imbalance/unfairness etc. Cheers, Defaultface

Not sure if this has been mentioned already but you can definitely use bombs and rockets in one go (definitely works with SC50s and both R4m or Wgr21, haven't tested with other bomb types). Just drop your bombs and pull the Rumpflast notabwurf T handle (red left side under the front panel) and Wgr21 switch if applicable and you're good to go. Theoretically one could do it rockets first too but the Flügellast Notabwurf handle doesn't work in dcs so I dot think there's any way of doing it in the sim.

Hi eekz. Sorry to report that im still having the issue. It seems much better and has definitely improced but i still occasionally get a little flicker of an icon out at 12-15 miles. lasts a few seconds, not as bad as before.

What? Mountains at 25 Kelvin? Somethings gone wrong here! :lol:

Alright hopefully I can test it out again tonight or over the next few days. Thanks eekz.

So just an update on the labels thing. I seem to be consistently getting the bug whenever I connect. I know at least 2 others who have seen the issue at least once as well. I can post a track or try and test it more scientifically next time if it will help with the bug hunting.

I agree that those are the big issues with the impostors. Hopefully ED will come up with a creative solution at some point.

Alot of people play on acg without complaining about imposters. They arent that bad once you get a bit of practice with them. As far as no labels days I think that would be frustrating. Part of the annoyance here is getting used to tbe lanels which make it too easy in close and then hopping on to the acg and not being able to see anything since you're used to looking for black dots. That and the labels make spotting at long distances overly difficult, which i would argue that although realism may be somewhere between the 2 options making it easier makes it more fun (for dogfighters). Ive had several times when there werent many people on the server and we all flew around looking for eachother for like 30 minutes before we happened to get within 8k.

Yup thats how it was this evening. On another note both I and =STP= Razorblade had issues with the labels this evening. I had contacts appear at ~ 15NM (30km) and then disappear only to pop back in again at what felt like the normal distance. I also got the feeling they disappeared too early again (before 1km) which made spotting weird. At one point an aircraft dived down and the label disappeared against the ground. If I'm honest I would also reiterate what Slack said and ask if you wouldn't reconsider the Imposters as an option. Sure they aren't perfect but in my opinion they work better than the current solution. It was an interesting attempt and worth a try but I think the Imposters just work better/I find them more realistic. Otherwise thanks for all the hard work keeping the server running etc etc Cheers, DefaultFace

Is defining burden of proof really relevant here? Secondly one could argue with that definition that the burden lies with you as you are asserting the claim that ed is wrong. Or one could argue with the legal definition. Point is it's not relevant, there is a very very long thread on this topic already and the only way it'll be change is if you post evidence.

Sorry meant to write 'virtual pilot' that comment was referring to the 109 in dcs and not any real aircraft.