Art-J

Prop thingy is strictly DCS ST related, so no amount of driver tinkering will help in this case. One just has to play in MT mode to solve it for now and that's that. I would, however, investigate that game startup time issue now, 'cause ST will be discontinued sooner rather than later and we'll all be left with MT for better or worse. Search around "performance bugs" section for hints, tips and tricks. Game and mission loading times should not be all THAT different compared to ST mode.

^ It's all very interesting in its own right from technology development point of view (and I do mean it), but also getting quite irrelevant to topic originally discussed. Moreover it's certainly not a valid reason for this D-waving contest of who allegedly worked in IT on what and for how many years. What's the use of these 40 years if they result in superiority complex mixed with being stuck with single obsession while conveniently ignoring any different aspects and opinions? "Enjoying the chance to educate people"? Yeah.... rrrrright. Could you just please just not look at it from IT geek/nerd perspective for a moment and look at it from average flight simmer perspective for a change? At least if you don't mind getting off that high horse of yours. For average DCS player framerate IS be-all/end-all performance indicator, followed by stuttering or lack thereof and ending with mission load times maybe. Mind you, by "average player" I mean anyone who just fires up DCS client on his machine to do some short SP or MP flying, WITHOUT runnig dedicated server in the background, or live-streaming, or video processing, or crypto mining, or whatever else that would make storage solution (and the rest of his PC for that matter) more busy than usual. I know from my own experience that switching from two separate system & DCS drives to a single one didn't affect performance understood as above in any practical way. Framerate didn't change obviously, but neither did the other two factors, at least I couldn't see it. Who knows, maybe even got "improved" (so to speak) performance on average as that single SSD of a different brand I bought was theoretically somewhat faster than two smaller ones? I didn't know and didn't care, 'cause I didn't notice stuttering and/or load time changes one way or the other, and thus I never bothered to do any benchmarking. Not to say there were no changes - I suspect there probably was something out there, but anything single-digit-percentage is not worth attention. For the same reason buying two new bigger SSDs just to separate DCS from the system didn't make any sense either. It doesn't really matter if a disk costs 50 bucks or 50 cents, why should I throw money away? I tend to choose and buy my PC components as tools for the basic job, trimming off unnecessary glitter and gimmicks. Look, I understand that your're super passionate about storage solutions but whatever you mean by "technically superior" solution and performance, even if very important in previous professional applications you have experience with, here in DCS doesn't matter all that much and thus - well, nobody cares. Unless the person is in a small group of experts and enthusiasts who are crazy about minute details. It's almost like GPU geeks arguing over which new card is better when one card pulls 140 fps and the other pulls 150. C'mon, really? I get it, for them it must be life-or-death confrontation, but normal user is going to be like "Ummm... Yeah, whatever, I need 60". For average guy and not a tech nerd, alternative storage solution must be "practically" superior, not just "technically". Like in real gaming application, not in benchmarks or professional non-gaming applications. Like in not-so-old days of switching from HDD to SSD when even folks who knew nothing about PC/console internals noticed THAT performance increase immediately. Switching from combined OS/game SSD to two separate ones is just not comparable magnitude of change. In either case, OP specifically wrote in his first post that he does have his system and root DCS folder on separate drives, just like you strongly recommend, so what is this storm in a teacup about anyway?

As razo+r hinted, open Normandy map in full mission editor, choose the airplane icon, move your mouse while observing cursor coordinates being displayed on the info bar, scroll and put the airplane where Stonehenge coordinates are (haven't checked how close the ones provided above by Markom are, but I suppose they're good enough?), change the airplane properties to make it flyable by you (airstart will suffice I presume?), launch the mission and there you are - roughly over the landmark. Would create the mission myself but my gaming rig is inop.

C'mon, Pete, "an airshow P-51" is quite a bit of an exaggeration. This pilot model issue is cosmetic only and doesn't affect combat cababilities of the module in any way. Low-tier cosmetic even, I'd say, compared to some of the official skins not being fully converted to PBR standard for example. I suspect that's also the reason why not many folks are vocal about it and why it's a low-priority development item.

You lucky SOB . I've moved to different flat recently and still won't have access to my gaming rig for two weeks at least, ain't got controller either. It's difficult to stay patient when so many goodies are getting released for both DCS and Il-2GB

Wooden lining on windscreen frame was fixed (removed) relatively quickly, in Dec 2014. Cockpit retexturing happened together with Mustang and Kurfy in 2018. Infamous "bar" reduction happened shortly after Anton got it, so what, approx. two years ago? There were no Dora-specific audio or visual updates otherwise (apart from recent "global" DCS ones like prop animation, muzzle effects, gun sounds etc.), this is the first one in a looong time. Combined with Doughguy's custom skins it certainly makes Doora more fun to fly again.

^ Oxygen system works allright. It's just the pilot model that's missing the mask.

Yup, others stumbled upon variations of the same issue. It's been discussed here:

Keep in mind that by definition tracks in DCS have never been backwards-compatible, especially if an update is a big one and contains many changes to this or that module. I don't think the replay system improvements introduced in 2.9 were meant to change that, they were supposed to increase replay accuracy but within the same version number. If some of the older tracks still work after an update or two, it's an exception rather than the rule. Expect them to become broken eventually.

I'd say it makes ALL the difference about "how much or little it happens". I used to have DCS on a moderate-size, separate SSD to the system one (and moving it there from a HDD was indeed a revolution). Ran out of space there eventually. Bought much bigger SSD and now system and DCS sit and work on it together because that's the only place where I can put them. But the point is - this switch made no noticeable performance difference whatsoever. Thus, even though I know it's not an "optimal" setup, and in a perfect world the game should be on a separate drive, buying yet another DCS-dedicated SSD just to get an extra single FPS here or there (if any), or a handful of stutters less, makes no sense, especially when drives big enough for modded DCS are anything but "increadibly cheap". Diminishing returns and all that. My old'ish CPU and 3070 are much bigger performance limiters than my SSD nowadays.

"Airscrew" term seems to be the norm in your manuals, docs and videos from '30s and '40s. You chaps don't use it anymore in "modern" times? Just curious.

If anyone wants to cheat by "mulitplying" himself, he can do it on external site without much hassle by using his PC, PC at work and his phone, for example. 3 different IPs. There's no registration required on strawpoll, is it? Seems like a poll here would be more "secure" then.

A shot in the dark, do these intermittent engine failures happen more often when playing in MT or in ST mode? Maybe it's similar issue to scripted campaign flags and triggers randomly failing in MT while working OK in ST?

Even Dave Hadfield in his latest cool Spitfire onboard vid posted on his YT channel calls the prop lever a "pitch" one, even though I'm sure he knows how CSPs work in warbirds he flies . I suppose for RL pilots this thing is so basic and "obvious" that they don't give a funk about nomenclature, 'cause they know what they mean anyway. It can, however, cause confusion amongst less experienced enthusiasts who want to learn about it. Game manuals should describe it correct though, that's for sure.

Bingo. It's used in real life CSP planes to slow down on approach as well. It used to work in DCS Mustang too, last time I tested with a stopwatch, but it was a year ago at least. Max RPM vs min RPM deceleration and glide distance difference was noticeable. Unless ED messed up something in the meatime, should still work in current version like Graf says, but I ain't got access to my gaming rig to repeat the test.

To add to what Gunfreak said, I'd just like to remind that this May we'll be celebrating 7th anniversary of WWII Asset Pack release and out of 10 AI planes planned for Normandy 44 back then, throughout these 7 years we got 4 (and even these are still not quite fully finished yet). Granted, noticeably more planned ground and naval units were added, so at least there's something to place on the terrains down below. Moreover, out of 21 official 3rd parties making content for DCS currently, only 2 work or plan to work on anything WWII related. To sum it up, I suspect we may get an early Spit or Hurri, even flyable ones at some point in the future (Mr Grey indeed mentioned BoB planes a few times and he does treat DCS as a bit of a MSFS-style but-more-detailed warbird collection). However, If anyone here expects anything remotely close to half - fleshed out BoB experience to ever come to DCS in next 2 decades, he's delusional. WWII stuff has always been a bit of a "sidequest" for ED and it will most likely remain so. Mr Grey might be an avid warbird enthusiast, but he's first and foremost not a business - idiot. He can fly them in real life because he's knows a thing or two about making money. He knows who majority of DCS customers are (modern combat aircraft fans), what sells best on this platform (modern combat aircraft) and he'll not change it.

Off my gaming rig for two weeks so can't test now, but shortly before I did create a simple solo sling loading mission in current Open Beta, for a quick refresher just like you, and it worked allright. When I was bringing up the R863 radio menu (are you sure you're using that one? I think neither intercom menu nor general comms menu will do the job) and flew close to the cargo, the F6 sub-menu did show up, with all subsequent selection commands. I was using hovering auto-hook method, though. Not sure if connecting from ground level method still works, I just didn't check that one.

^ "Can be cargo" window in cargo's properties is ticked by default whenever the cargo is placed on the map in current DCS versions so I'd think he's got that set up correctly. I'd double check if cargo belongs to the same coalition, though. That's easier mistake to make.

We already have a -66 engine, just with standard boost ratings. Wouldn't mind having an e-wing option, though!

Razo+r covered the takeoff sufficiently. I would only remind that in both Fw-190s' tailwheel lock-unlock point is located at about half-stick-back position, and not stick-neutral like in P-51. As for the taxiing from the ramp part, rudder just doesn't work at these slow speeds. Thus, you have to rely 100% on differential brakes, because Dora doesn't feature pedal-steerable tailwheel like the one in the Mustang (and neither does any other warbird in DCS for that matter).

Understood. This new cooling model for all warbirds, albeit implemented quite a while ago, seems to have its own quirks and issues, but since most of the DCS players usually fly them at lower alts in warmer conditions, strange problems just get noticed and reported only now.

I'm off my gaming rig for days so won't be able to replicate, but If that's really the case (oil press depending more on coolant temp than oil temp) then re-posting it in bugs&problems section should follow. Replay tracks are a must, though, without them the thread will be ignored.

K-4 can't carry gunpods and rockets. Selector in the cockpit is a result of incorrect cockpit layout being modelled for this module decade+ ago. Also, as explained elsewhere, warbirds damage model wasn't designed with rockets in mind (maybe with exception of more relevant R4 and Wgr 21?) and won't quite react to them as expected, or won't react at all.

This reminds me of my uni thesis supervisor, who recalled memoirs of one of Polish aircraft designers observing test pilot performing perfect loops with his MiG-15 or 17 (or more likely their licensed Lim derivatives) and asking the pilot afterwards about how did the aircraft not break the vertical plane of the maneuver because of precession of the engine. To which the pilot replied that it did want to do it, be he was counteracting accordingly with correct control inputs all the time. Granted, it's just a memo, but the fact is every spinning thing subjected to Newtonian physics is affected by precession, it's only the question of how strong the effect is and how/if it's balanced by external factors.

^ It's all true of course, but I think in this case the video was not designed to aim at "low knowledge gamers" but more at people who are just not so "high horse"-obsessed/anal about rivet counting and procedures. Throughout all the DCS in it's current franken-form, with multiple unit and gameplay limitations and simplifications, we all have to use imagination a bit and make do with what we've got. More often than not, "close enough" is good enough, both in SP and MP missions. Can't be otherwise, because the only alternative would be no missions at all. So I'm fairly sure once the module releases, lots of people will still perform simplified "faux-Wild-Weasel" sorties with -E, 'cause we will never get a -G or any other "proper" WW airplane in DCS anyway.