PL_Harpoon

Throttle and boost No point in setting rpm to 2550 and then interconnecting it with the throttle.

I'm not sure about this. When you're flying reasonably slow (ca. 150 mph) pulling the throttle to idle with RPM level at max (or better, at the specified 2550 rpm) shouldn't be an issue - the prop RPM will drop anyway. Every manual tells you to set RPM to 2550 prior to landing (usually upon entering the landing pattern) along with all other landing checks. I've been following this instruction on every landing and never had any issue (unless the engine was already damaged)

+1 F10 map without markers is ok-ish, but the ability to move the map on kneeboard would be great. Especially since warbirds need to be flown hands-on all the time.

No. Unfortunately I don't really know how to properly set up mods in DCS.

Keep in mind that engine damage in DCS is randomized to a degree (probably to simulate flying aircraft with different mileage).

TBH, giving the rear seat a dash and a set of controls and adding multi crew would make a TF-51 a perfect solution for those who want to learn with an instructor.

I'm not so sure about it. I've no idea how the Tiger Moth handles (except for what I've read) but I'm sure it's nothing like a modern aerobatics plane (i.e. like an RC aircraft). On the other hand In my opinion the TF-51 is a great trainer for a WW2 fighter. First of all, it's free so you don't have to risk anything if you want to try it out. Also it's relatively easy to fly properly. In my opinion it's not about the aircraft your flying but how your flying it. You can just as easily learn to fly warbirds with a 109 if instead of combat you start with learning coordinated flight, then landing patterns, stalls, flying near engine limitations and so on.

Mine too. I love the Spitfire for its looks and maneuverability but after several MP missions in the Jug in which I returned home with a damaged engine and more bullet holes than a shooting range target and still managed a safe belly-landing I'm beginning to appreciate what a great airplane it is. Not to mention its decent (and straightforward) armament.

If I were to guess, I'd say you forgot to select the main fuel tank.

I'm certain it won't. The other guy is a navigator, you can operate the aircraft just fine without him.

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.