Art-J

What do you mean by "from dead stop" exactly? As in - keeping one wheel locked while the plane yaws around it? I haven't experienced such a strut failure so far despite using toe brakes extensively to check reversed wheel animation bug. Not saying there is no issue, but I'd like to replicate it myself.

Truth to be told, it's never been on/off and this "ramping up" method has been a thing in DCS since the first warbird (at least), as can be seen on Ctrl-Enter input monitor. With a bit of practice it allows rough modulation of brake force by tapping relevant key/button rather than keeping it pressed longer. I'm a MFG crosswinds owner, but I still use brake tapping in Spit and Mossie, 'cause I have a TM Warthog with standard "digital" paddle switch, and not one of custom analog mods. It's more than sufficient for the taxiing job, though, in Russian aircraft modules as well. Ramp-up time itself, however, is preset by ED to some arbitrary value and I understand where OP's coming from. For example, it used to be too quick in Mossie after its initial release but got slowed down a couple of patches down the line and it's OK for tappity-tap now.

Flight handbook AN 01-60JE-1 and Maintenance Manual NA-5865 say otherwise. Screenshot from the latter, courtesy of WW2aircraft.net forum, is shown below. That being said, max load was reduced by Technical Order 01-60JE-14 in January '45 to 400 to improve feeding reliability in high G maneuvers - see the 2nd screen. New planes would have it implemented from the get go, while older ones were to be field-modified. I guess that's where the 400 notion comes from. One might go now into philosophical debate about what flavour of P-51D should be / is the supposed to be represented in DCS (pre-T.O. or post-T.O.) but one way or the other, 500 is also a correct option and thus I dont think ED will bother with changing it.

500 per inner gun (for 2080 total) was a possible max loadout config in some production blocks of -D version so I guess that's the one we've got. It's not the first time DCS manual differs a bit from what is actually implemented in the module. Engine version is another example if I recall correctly? I wouldn't think about it too much.

It's been like it since the beginning of warbirds in DCS (ie. 2012), so I wouldn't hold my breath for it to be fixed, unless one day ED does more of a general rework of AHs in all warbirds together.

As per P-51D.lua file in coremods folder, inner guns have 500 rounds each. Remaining ones have 270 as advertized.

^ Two extra hardpoints under the fuselage for bombs, plus extra hardpoints and racks under the wings for rockets. Soviet and Warsaw Pact derivatives of -F didn't have these until Polish ground-attack Lim5M, 6 and 6 Bis versions also got developed with similar idea in mind.

Granted, all modules have only parts of external airframe visible when the head is moved beyond cockpit limits (as the head is never supposed to be there). It's a common method to save some CPU and GPU power. Cargo cam in Mi-8 is a bit of a accuracy compromise anyway as it's not "realistic" feature in the first place. Thus I don't think they'll do anything about this particular visual issue, but who knows, maybe they could at least add engines cover and landing gear? That shouldn't take away too many frames per second I reckon.

Try clearing the throttle assignment first (rather than clicking on it and assigning it while it's still under red exclamation mark). Clear everything, default key bindings included. Restart DCS and THEN try assigning the throttle axis again.

Once the Spit and German planes get revised landing gear physics as well, we'll see how they behave. Comparison of current "old" gear in some warbirds with new one in others is moot. That being said, I've never found Spitty to be either more or less bouncy than the others. I always go for three-pointers though.

As noted above, both installs should load settings from that single Saved Games folder of yours by default without any extra activity. That being said, I'm not sure they will do it correctly. How old is your older DCS going to be? When 2.9.5 landed, it caused some control bindng issues for me and many others (the infamous "red exclamation mark" issues), forcing me to re-bind a couple of controls. Which means your older diff.lua files you tweaked for that "dated" DCS might not work 100% in the latest one (and vice versa). You'll just have to see if that's the case with two separate old & new installs. Trial / error method and all. If problems do occur, it's still possible to just create a separate Saved Games / DCS folder (with separate controls), utilizing dcs_variant.txt file. Haven't done it myself, but scroll down for relevant instruction in SkateZilla's guide thread:

I see, didn't know that. I still use paddle switch on my warthog. Got used to its digital operation I guess. In Mossie, after all recent changes its brakes are so weak now that I have to apply 100% force to make the damn thing turn anyway, while in Spit the old tap-tap-tap method still works flawlessly. I wonder how the Spit is going to behave once it gets the revised landing gear physics as well.

It's the other way around - dcs_updater.exe (there's still only one, located in Bin folder) controls which of dcs.exe launches. Albeit since 2.9.xx landed, it always launches MT version by default anyway. At least in standalone game, I recall it's a bit more convoluted for Steam users. Dcs.execs themselves cannot launch dcs_updater.exe, and they never did. Just use standard start menu (or desktop) shortcut - if it wasn't tinkered with, it should link to dcs_updater.exe by default and that one should search for updates the first time it runs every 24 hours.

Keep in mind neither standalone version repair nor Steam version file integrity check remove or fix mods located in Saved Games folder. Your screenshot looks like you still might have some of them active. Temporarily remove/rename the whole Saved Games/DCS folder, launch the game and see if the problem persists, just to make sure.

I recall long ago It used to pick up where it left (based on temporary contents of "_dowloads" folder) if connection was broken. Doesn't it do it anymore?

^ Re. module IP ownership I think you're reading too much into this. If you take a look at previous patchnotes, you'll notice that all ex-Belsimtek modules are referred to as "by Belsimtek" or "by ED" interchangeably every now and then. It doesn't mean anything anyway, as Belsimtek didn't go out of business but got incorporated (back) into ED. Their 5 old modules all suffer from partial neglect simply because they don't bring all that much revenue anymore (IMHO).

If approach training only is your objective (I don't know, just asking), but scenery could be of secondary importance, have you considered trying out NTTR map? It has enough elevation difference between northern and southern airbases that you can set up a thick cloud layer exactly on the same level as some of them. Bandit648's weather mod will also give you extra flexibility in moving cloud base beyond stock mission editor limits, albeit I don't know if it allows to drop them enough for Syria elevations.

Even though I'm primarily a warbird enthusiast myself, I don't think ED's "fooling" anybody. WWII, together with Combined Arms and Supercarrier have always been sort of side projects for ED (just like TC and FC are for Il-2GB franchise) and they've been honest about it. All 3rd parties with exception of M3 and Octopus are not interested in such content either, 'cause majority of DCS customers have always been and will always be more modern aviation entusiasts. Which is fine - ED is just a company that focuses on their specialty they have most practical experience with (while also enjoying lack of competition - no, Falcon BMS doesn't quite count). Which inevitably means progress on WWII side will always be rather slow and info which can be shown in newsletters (ie. WIP screens and clips) will be ready only every half of year or so. There will be "crickets" if there's simply nothing ready to be shown - simple as that.

Either you do actually have simple flight mode turned on by mistake or something got fubared in your DCS install and requires full repair and cleanup. Or the latest hotfix patch broke the module somehow but I haven't had a chance to test it yet. In either case, none of what you describe should be happening.

I haven't reinstalled (or moved) Windows or DCS in 5 years, all my DCS start menu shortcuts are still there and thus I haven't used the cmd typing method for even longer. So excuse me for simply not knowing them like the back of my hand and not being able to spoon feed spoiled brats. At least I remember there's a thread with official guide (the one linked above) and If/when I have to use it again someday, well, tough luck, I will do my homework and try to figure it out one more time like anyone else. Honestly glad to see you've got the problem sorted though.

@A.F. Couldn't investigate your tracks closer without my gear plugged in, but at first glance there seems to be nothing in-your-face-obviously-wrong in breakers and switches setup in both of them. That's pretty strange indeed. I flew 109 only once in 2.9.6, but I don't remember if it was before or after hotfix. Prop worked allright, however, cold started and all... For now, why not trying the standard DCS troubleshooting drill: a) Disabling / temporary removal of all custom mods incl. the ones in Saved Games ('cause repair and cleanup doesn't affect them). Even mods which are supposedly unrelated to 109; b) Run slow repair and cleanup procedure; c) If repair doesn't help, (even though it should in theory) - reinstall the 109. Let's see what happens then. P.S. - Last minute thought - have you tried testing the prop mechanism before engine startup, as the procedure in the module manual suggests? I don't think it should matter at all, but who knows... I do it as a habit and as I said, never had prop problems so far.

Might as well check if "game flight mode" (or whatever it's called nowadays) is turned on by accident. In simulation flight mode prop automation should work the same in cold- and hot-started missions.

I don't know, but it seems to be hardcoded. Otherwise all the guys who have complained about too radical gamma changes when looking around or zooming would've figured how to tweak or disable it by now.

Mind you, It already does happen (and there have been many complaints about it), although not by THAT much. I don't think analog adjustment would be easy thing to implement, but digital one in 0.1 steps, as in options screen now, that's more realistic wish.

It's a known issue with the new launcher. Hopefully will be fixed in upcoming patch, but for the time being you might consider disabling the launcher if you don't really need it.