DefaultFace

You can find this in the Weapons and aircraft lua files in Coremods/WWII Units. Or at least you used to. For me all the aircraft luas show up as crazy wingdings except for the Mustang so either they changed something with these files to make them not readable for us anymore or I have some sort of weird font setting that I changed since the last time I looked in there. For the Pony: Combat Mix = Ball, APIT, API, AP, AP AG = Ball, APIT, AP, AP, AP CS = API, AP, AP, Ball, Ball If anyone knows how to make the other lua files understandable let me know and I can see if I can find the belt combos for the other aircraft. Edit: Also to answer MZs question, no convergence patterns are changed with the different mixes, I dont think thats even supported. The belts are slightly different between guns but thats just to desynchronise which guns are firing tracers so its not all at the same time.

There are plenty of websites for that sort of thing. No need to look for it here. Oh wait you meant the P-47.... Nevermind :music_whistling:

Only 2 more weeks I'm sure of it....

Zirkus Rosarius. Hans Werner Lerche mentions it in his book.

Yes, my point exactly. They discovered that they could weaken the structure (by removing material => weight saving) and still fulfill the structural design requirements.

Really not sure by what you mean that Ultimate load is a guess? Its usually 1.5x LL. Yes the Brit Mustangs ran higher MP settings, which proves my point that the engine won't blow up when a magic number is exceeded. It quite possibly came at the expense of MTBF though. Also the P-51H you were talking about earlier came about via cooperation with the British during which it was concluded that the Fudge factor NA used was a bit conservative compared to British aircraft, thus the aircraft could be made lighter. Once again it really depends what the limit is that causes the dive speed to be restricted to 505mph. This report suggests that 505 is a structural limit but that things start to get funky as far as compressibility/controllability at that point anyway. Hard to know exactly what that means unless you find out how the 505 limit exactly was calculated, but if its the nominal limit then usually there is some reserve. So like I said going beyond that theres a significant danger of starting to run into some issues, be it loss of control or structural failure. Which comes first depends on a number of things. I'm sure Yo-Yo knows more, maybe ask him. Edit: link http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/mustang/p-51d-dive-27-feb-45.pdf

Yes for good reason. Limit Loads exist for a reason, but there is also a reason that Limit load =/= Ultimate load. You arent supposed to run the engine at Full WEP for more than the rated time either, and you probably wouldn't do it unless your life depended on it, but if its a new engine in good condition you might get away with it. At least once, maybe if you do it alot, or someone else did it with your airplane and didnt tell you it might not work so well.... That and the fact that engineering is basically educated guesswork using data gathered by means of sophisticated trial and error requires a certain fudge factor be involved.

Theres no mystery, it simply isn't done. Especially the Thunderbolt of all aircraft shouldn't suffer from this issue. If DCS is supposed to be the most realistic thing out there with a great FM, Engine model etc etc etc why make justifications for aircraft disintegrating based on a magic number? Its the structural equivalent of engines that explode based on timers. The fact they don't do that in DCS is IMO one of the better features compared to its competitors. From my understanding there is already some implementation of fatigue/structural damage in for the current aircraft but hopefully this will improve with the new DM as well.

From what I read the Paddle prop is only really a D model thing and the test you linked is for a P-47B...? The paddle blade prop is the 13 ft one IIRC. The Curtiss electric 12.2ft prop was only for P-47Gs built by Curtiss-Wright from what I've read. Edit: nvm misread something. 12.2ft was the original prop, which went onto the Gs as well.

The B/C is a little faster, turns a little better and would be a good excuse to get a more representative ETO mustang since the D-25 they gave us was just a 3d model change and nothing else.

I asked Newy on the discord this morning and he said theres no info they are ready to give out publicly yet so I wouldnt count on hearing anything for another week or two.

I mean a 51H is sort of similar to the 47M/N. It didnt really see service in WWII. Not really interesting to fly IMO either as its then so much faster than anything else, and it will turn better than the 51D which can already compete with the 109 in turning fights. The C/D is also a bit faster and turns a bit better but actually flew in WWII.....

Did the N see much service in WWII? I thought they sort of just barely made it into service in the pacific before the war ended. There were only 130 Ms in service so I'd rather see a Razorback. Wouldnt mind a P-51B/C either :D

You mean like the people who ragequit when flying the Mustang and ask for a Spit 14 so they can be competitive? Of course people will complain thats just human nature. I'm sure it will be both better and worse than peoples expectations in different ways. Especially at the altitudes usually flown in DCS where that beautiful Turbo is totally useless. Either way I look forward to trying to make it turnfight anyway :D Maybe we'll get some news tomorrow? Middle of may already and with Supercarrier coming on the 20th I do wonder if it will be pushed back again. Or maybe theyll just drop it on us like a ton of bricks out of nowhere before we know it in true Thunderbolt fashion :pilotfly:

Cobra mentioned on Reddit that they hope to have it ready in January. Also said they were working through the holidays to get that done. IMO that's not worth it for the 3rd year in a row. I think most people here would prefer that the team takes a break and we get it a little later.

Well they atleast mentioned they wouldn't make it for the TWS Auto and Phoenix stuff. Haven't heard anything about the forrestal though. Im sure it will show up in the new year at some point as others have said.

My understanding was its a separate team working on it from the F4U. But yeah you're probably right that its not coming anytime soon :D

Yeah man Hornet TWS and a new carrier all in one patch itll be sweet :lol:

+1 would love to hear more about the crusader.

Is there any way to keep the datalink symbology in the radar without LTWS or does that just not work that way? Without LTWS I only get bricks in the radar whether MSI is on or off?

Often if you aren't diving steep enough, or fast enough the Impact point wont be visible in the HUD. What youll get then is the normal CCIP pipper symbology with a horizontal line across it. If you hold the weapon release button with that symbology the jet will essentially enter CCRP mode for the point that was underneath the pipper when you pressed the weapon release button. Otherwise dive steeper or wait till you get lower/closer to the target and get the pipper without the horizontal line, then it should work as you expect.

Just installed it with JSGME. Shouldnt need to overwrite anything.

Yes thats what I've been saying just in different words :D Like I said in the Wags TWS vid they are referred to as Track files. So the question now is: Is this just a limitation of the Block of Viper that we have and the only way around it is the HOTAS shortcut that Wags mentioned or is there some sort of symbology missing to differentiate the Tank tracks from System tracks with L16. Or are the tank tracks just not supposed to be correlated until they are marked as system tracks?

Still not sure what you are calling a tank track, or where that terminology comes from. But I guess you are calling it what wags refers to in the TWS vid as a Track file. If it is as you say, then the bug isnt that the symbology is missing, just that those are being correlated in the FCR at the moment, and show up as such.