Art-J

I recall the Hip reflections issue shown above was exacerbated by one of shadow settings, though don't recall which one exactly. Might be worth experimenting. I don't own the F-5, so can't comment on it, but wouldn't be surprised if it was a similar problem.

He's got a point, though. If this thread was just about making custom skins look better, than anything goes, including deleting or modding any files necessary. They're custom content after all. But many of the tweaks suggested here are off-topic / irrelevant in the competition which is about stock skins that are all supposed to work out-of-the-box for all DCS customers, without touching any files. At least that's what the current situation is, unless ED does the last-minute update of their official json and template (which with every passing week seems more unlikely?).

Rudel has been showing his once-private work on A6M5 external model for years, and talked about it in their last year podcast, so I agree AI version seems to be a possibility in 2023-24. Flyable one? Nah, I wouldn't count on it, not in upcoming years at least. We've been shown their next projects already: Crusader, some form of MiG-21 refresh and undisclosed "something modern under the tarp". When we add post-release bug-fixing of Corsair on top of that, I suspect they'll be too busy to fit yet another flyable warbird in that schedule. But after 2030? Sky's the limit ;). I don't mind either way. For me DCS is cheaper alternative for MSFS, so I don't need map or unit assets to enjoy just flying particular aircraft. In my opinion there are too many issues with AI warbirds in DCS to make them useful in combat missions anyway. And that's core problem of the game only ED can solve, M3 guys can't do anything about it. Thus, for me, If Corsair comes only with that carrier and Japanese tanks shown in WIP screens - great. If they add something more - even better. I do understand, however, some guys would prefer more thorough package for that 60-70 bucks.

There's nothing "arcade" or wrong about modelling any region as it looks today rather than how it looked 50 years ago. Easier for any dev to get reference data. If OneReTech figured they only had time and resources sufficient for modern Sinai then that's that. The map was never advertized as historic version of the region. Maybe they'll make such version someday, but until then this whole thread belongs in the wishlist section really.

Mach3Ds's screen show exactly why livery duplicate is needed, and is not a "waste of time", contrary to Urbi's twisted argument, which doesn't make much sense really (I'll give him a benefit of doubt - language barrier?). Warlord/Keefyboy's "Flak Eater" skin linked to previously was great in 2017 (DCS 2.0) when it was uploaded to User Files, but it's simply not compatible with DCS 2.8.xx now. This is how it looks in current version and this is why it needs to be redone by whoever wants to do it:

@Mach3DS Go ahead and submit non-generic "Flak Eater" as well. Nothing wrong in having two or more renditions of the same livery to choose from, ESPECIALLY when NM finish is involved and different authors deal with reflective surfaces in a different way. Not to mention the weathering.

^ Or go to ED official YT channel and watch the "2023 and Beyond" video to see the full resolution version this TikTok cut was converted from.

^ I concur. Months ago tried "torture testing" with continuous hefty overboost at sea level (water injected 75" after a dive, down to 71" level flight @ 2550 rpm). As long as oil shutters were wide open keeping the temp below redline, the engine was surprisingly resilient and kept on ticking no problem. Got bored after 25 minutes or so and stopped the test, but I suppose nothing bad would happen as long as the water supply was still available. At the same time partially open intercooler doors were enough to keep carb temp within limits, which was good, because they are the ones that cause tons of drag when fully open. Granted, one might want to repeat the test after recent engine modelling tweaks to see if these observations are still valid.

Thanks for taking a look at the track. It's true I was experimenting with different trim settings every couple of minutes to try to find "the best" combination based on the screenshots you guys provided. I use Warthog sick with 30 cm extension, which gives me a pretty good precision when held in some off-center position (maybe that's why "untrimmed" points less dispersed), but it's obviously not convenient in the long run. That's why I prefer the "trimmed-for-hands-off" approach to avoid touching the joystick at all. But since I use keyboard for trimming (to get shorter input pulses compared to hat switch) it's not easy to keep the variometer locked at zero indeed, even with short taps of elevator trim keys. So maybe that was the source of the problem indeed. I'll try harder next time ;).

He didn't say ED should drop stable version and you're free to use it if you wish of course. The fact is, however, nowadays both versions are almost equally unfinished / buggy, with stable being only marginally better, and thus sticking to it is not as convenient as it was back when OB was introduced years ago.

Brakes should be sufficient to prevent that from happening, especially when rolling slow. Please post a short replay track showing the issue, with ctrl indicator on. It's difficult to advise if we don't see what's happening exactly.

A bug or a necessary gameplay compromise, depending on one's point of view ;). In either case, tried the Mustang and it seems to behave like the Spit now as well, so It might have been intended for all we know. Revised oil system and all.

Thanks to @Racoon and @Yo-Yo for all the data. I watched Racoon's track and I still don't know how you guys manage to get up to and maintain 340 for any longer period of time. Tested the plane again with ~20 000 lbs weight and the results were puzzling (replay track attached): a) If I fly off-trim on purpose, like in Racoon's screenshots, I can indeed get up to 340 for a short time; b) If I want to trim the plane for coordinated, hands-off flight, I need to use ~2.2 div down for elevator, ~1.6 div right for aileron and about 0 for rudder. That, however, will inevitably cause the speed to drop to ~335 at best, maybe a bit higher shortly when I dive a little. Must be some form of a trim drag then. Not a big problem, just curious what's going on. Mossie speed test 2.trk

I don't remember the details precisely either, but as an example, both Fw-190 taxi & takeoff tutorial missions have been having full takeoff assist forced on forever, same for landing missions IIRC (unless it changed within last year, I haven't played them in quite a while), so it's definitely buried in the mission files... somewhere.

Keep in mind special options can be forced in mission file, and/or by server hosts, and override your own settings. If that's the case on MP servers you're using, I think you can't do anything about it really apart from talking to server admins about it.

^ All logs created by DCS are stored in C:\Users\[your user profile]\Saved Games\DCS\Logs\ folder.

^ Yes, most DCS players with sufficient tech knowledge understand and know it very well. It's also mentioned in DCS manual for the Mustang If I recall correctly. That being said, for years a simplified / compromise solution has been implemented in Mustang and Spit - diluting cold oil before startup would actually work in DCS. Obviously not a realistic behaviour, but a necessary "lesser evil" in a situation when the sim doesn't model persistent airframe and engine status from previous missions like civilian sims do, and it doesn't feature a "pre-warmed" engine option like Il-2GB series does. Thus it's been the only way available for us in DCS to keep the oil pressure within limits at very cold starts. So the question is: a) do the symptoms described above mean the devs decided to go for full realism during recent grand modelling overhaul and it's intended behaviour now, or; b) is the realism compromise still supposed to be in, but there's a bug which just makes oil dilution inop at any condition? It's never worked in Thunderbolt module, now we know it stopped working in the Spitfire, maybe I'll find some spare time to load the sim and check the Mustang today.

Ha! That was it then. I was also making sure to cancel slip by trimming and watching the needle... as that's what one expects to do to minimize drag in any airplane. Quite puzzled to see the sideslipping (?) Mossie being faster than trimmed one, what's up with that? Or could it be aileron trim modelling issue as well? Shouldn't be, but anything's possible at this point. I'm asking because I can see on Racoons's screens (thanks for these BTW) aileron trim zeroed, while I have to keep two full notches to the right all the time in most flight phases to fly hands off without Mossie wanting to roll left. It's been that way since module release.

Nah, generic option would suffice allright, if only it worked properly - after all ED somehow did it well in P-47 module, which has 3 variants and they're all managed from the same single tab in controls menu without any issues whatsoever. Mustang and Spit, however, require manual copy-pasting files from one variant folder to the other to make controls work. Imacken did a great research job on it, using Spit as an example. It's been pretty much a ~5 years old issue (when D-25 and CW Spit were added) and if it wasn't fixed already, means it's low on priority list and I wouldn't count on it being tackled anytime soon.

...on the other hand, it's not "updating" problem, because all of us updated just fine and we're already on the latest version. I'd rather put it in performance or general section, but it doesn't matter now. BigNewy keeps an eye on this thread and that's what matters.

Was Reflected's vid recorded before recent cooling system revisions in all V-12 warbirds? Maybe they broke all oil diluters - will have to check the Mustang as well.

Not discrediting Yo-Yo's arguments, and not fussed all that much about the whole topic, but I'm genuinely curious how to get to 340 on the deck, 'cause I haven't managed to do it either, while trying on Normandy 2 map. ISA conditions (15/760), about 20000 lbs of weight, full boost, full RPM (I also tried 2850, didn't make a difference), radiators closed, rudder trimmed as well as I could, same with elevator for level flight. Hitting about 333 TAS (as reported in F2 view) was all I could squeeze out of this plane.

https://forum.dcs.world/topic/328651-afterburner-sound-inside-the-cockpit/?do=findComment&comment=5243833

The author himself answered on the previous page that his Su-22 work is not "cancelled", you won't get a better confirmation than that. Silver_Dragon just removed note about Su-22 project "by SVKSniper" from his unofficial DCS Roadmap, because Sniper has joined Aviastorm, but it has nothing to do with the project itself. What Sniper does in his spare time and what he wants (or is allowed by NDA) to reveal to us is his business, but the project doesn't seem abandoned to me.