PL_Harpoon

Like I said, it all depends on the aircraft. Radial engines work slightly different than water-cooled ones. Also each specific engine has different limitations. The best way is to look up the specific aircraft manual and check its operating limits. For example in P-47 you can kill the engine by overboosting it, even if all temps are ok. You can give us an example (a track file would be best but even a video or just a description could work) and we may be able to help you.

Two things. 1. It depends on a specific airplane. 2. There are no hard limits and it's all very dynamic. There's also no such thing like a cooldown timer or anything of that sort. Generally you have to watch all your temp gauges but this does not guarantee you're 100% safe from engine damage. The safest practice would be to not use WEP at all after exceeding max WEP time, don't exceed max temp on any of the gauges and keep the engine within the limits specified in the manuals.

I'm not trying to be contrarian but I'm sure ED would be willing to listen to you if you had any data to back up your statements.

It definitely has. I've done it a couple of times. Also, all the original manuals I've seen (including the "N 01-65BC-1A Pilot's Flight Operating Instructions for P-47D-25,-26,-27,-28 -30 and -35 airplanes" which is the most relevant for us) tell you to set the RPM to 2550 for landing, so using lower RPM settings cannot be mandatory unless you already have a damaged engine. If you have a damaged engine the safest approach is to perform a power-off landing anyway (my opinion).

Well, this is straight from Chuck's guide, p97:

The required setting may have (and probably did) changed with different variants of the aircraft. Also look for the primary sources. Greg's videos, Chuck's Guides and most likely even DCS manual are based on the original manuals. As grafspee has shown in the original manual for the specific variants we have in DCS you're supposed to connect throttle and boost levers prior to takeoff.

That's a good thing in my opinion. Pre-ordering is just a bad practice. I am looking forward to the Mosquito though.

Not (hopefully) yet.

Yeah, can't wait for mine to arrive. In the mean time I found that playing at PD 1.0 with no anti-aliasing and no super sampling gives me the best visibility at long range (even though the game looks worse up close).

At least in my experience it's better at high G turns that the Mustang and Dora.

It is possible to replicate the RL if you want to use a fixed resolution and a fixed screen size with fixed dpi. Trying to have the same effect on all possible screen/resolution combos is literally impossible. And I'm not saying DCS does a bad job of it. Actually it is quite fine currently, much better than before. But it's good that threads like this one crop up from time to time to remind ED that it can be even better.

The effect can be easily shown with MsPaint. 1. Draw a slightly angled horizontal line: 2. Select the area around it and shrink it vertically: As you can see, some pixels disappeared. That's roughly how the image is rendered without supersampling. With supersampling the pixels don't disappear but the whole line blends with its surroundings.

Well, according to this site (https://p47tbolt.tripod.com/jugevolution.htm) there was almost no difference between the D-30-RA (with the dorsal fin) and D-40 variants. It appears to me that in order to fire rockets all you need is a single panel in the cockpit and a couple of wires to the wing pylons. These modifications could be done (and probably were done) by the ground crews. The problem in DCS is that it doesn't really allow for aircraft mods and that's probably the reason why we have 3 different variants.

I agree. My point was to see if bringing the Spit XIV would really make the game more historically accurate. It would be great if we could have 109Gs.

@Fri13 You're missing the point here. Currently, especially in VR you can easily spot other planes at 5-10 miles (especially against the sky) but they become very difficult to spot at 2-3 miles, sometimes impossible. You can't even pretend it's realistic. I haven't done any testing (or reading) on the subject so everything below are just my observations. At long distances the aircraft model is replaced by a single pixel impostor. In VR, especially at PD of 1.0 a single pixel is quite big so it's easy to spot. With higher PD this might be more difficult as neighboring pixels are "mushed" together. When you get closer the impostor is replaced by the actual model (at least a low poly version of it) and if for example. the render engine decides its size is smaller than a pixel it will flicker on/off. At that point supersampling (or larger PD) should help cause that airplane would have been rendered on higher resolution. Take that with a grain of salt though as it's just my conjecture.

Start by closing the cowl flaps. They should be fully closed at speeds above 225 MPH.

I've made the mod for the Mk VIII gunsight reticle pattern. I didn't like the "thick" lines of the vanilla ones and DCS does a poor job of simulating reflective sight intensity (it just changes the opacity). I also made the AAF pattern (the size the circle is the same as the small circle on the "ladder" pattern). To install just put the selected .tga file in the Eagle Dynamics\DCS World\Mods\aircraft\P-47D-30\Cockpit\IndicationTextures folder. Just remember to backup the original file. The mod passes the integrity checks (checked on the SoW server). The first picture is the vanilla one for comparison. P-47 MkVIII Gunsight mod.zip

can you post a track file of the problem? My guess is that you have some axis assigned to the left wheelbrake.

I don't think you should use rudder for aiming anyway. For me at least it always seems to produce more problems than it solves.

So, the conclusion here is: be carefull of the throttle position at low-medium altitudes. Don't exceed MP of 55" without water injection and 64" with water injection. Also, don't run on WEP at more than 5 minutes. If you follow those rules you should be safe from detonations.

That was easier than expected to be honest: 55 without water injection. Just ran 5 tests, in all the engine held for 30 min. With water injection 64 is quite safe - at least within 5 minutes. Out of 5 tests one resulted in damage after 6 mins. In the others water ran out before anything else happened. I guess the engine limitations (5 min for WEP, 15 for MIL) are mainly to increase the lifetime of the engine.

I performed some tests to see how the engine damage is modeled. The premise was simple: start at 8000 ft, go full boost (60" MP at 8k), full RPM (2700), no water injection and see how long it takes for the engine to die. I was expecting the engine to die at somewhere between 5 and 15 minutes as this settings is somewhere between Mil (52" MP) and WEP (64" MP). Here are the results: SETTINGS TIME OF DEATH (min) radiators neutral ~9 radiators neutral ~8:40 radiators neutral ~2 radiators neutral ~2:20 radiators neutral ~1:30 radiators neutral ~26 radiators full ~14 radiators full ~4 radiators full ~6:20 radiators full ~6 First thing that surprised me was how inconsistent results are. One time I was able to fly for 26 minutes while at other times the engine died after less that 3 minutes. Those shorter times are troublesome. Also, there was no warning before the engine died. Every time the CHT was within limit (around 190), the carb air was below 50 deg, and engine oil was around 90. Another thing, setting radiators to full also didn't change anything. Or at least didn't prevent the engine from blowing up within the first 5 minutes. Lastly, the summary screen showed two types of damage (seemingly at random): "engine overheat" or "engine degraded". Am I missing something or does the engine damage model need some further tweaking? Here are track of some of the attempts. PS. Random system damage was off during most of those tests (meaning turning it off didn't improve the results). P-47 engine test_rad-neut_overheat@2_no water.trk P-47 engine test_rad-neut_overheat@2.20_no water.trk P-47 engine test_rad-neut_overheat@1.30_no water.trk P-47 engine test_rad-neut_overheat@26.40_no water.trk P-47 engine test_rad-neut_overheat@9.trk P-47 engine test_rad-full_overheat@4_no water.trk

@grafspee Could you share any sources or some more info about the subject? This whole concept is completely new to me and I'd like to know more.

And the Spitfire is not a strictly mid-war airplane.

Just for reference, here's a video from 1943 showing the operation of the cowl flaps: Not sure which variant it is though.