Art-J

^ 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.

@einarabelc5Wrote my post before you added your last paragraph. Now we know what the issue was. Well, as a software guy you should understand: new feature added to program -> new program build number. And since Open Beta is by definition the newest build made available to public customer -> it IS always the newest build number at the moment and thus only it can have that new feature. The only other solution would be to have beta and stable version updated to the same build together (meaning the same bugs and problems in both)... but that would defy the purpose of having the beta in the first place. ED tried it for some time a few years ago, with obvious catastrophic results. It's all logical - whenever any new content is added to the game, it ALWAYS goes to open beta only as that's the only one with latest build number. So not much to remember, you make it a bigger problem than it really is. Also, how could your stable version module manager display info about new product (even with relevant disclaimer) if the stable is the older game build and thus it doesn't even "know" there's a separate version out there? Granted, questions like this, from inexperienced customers, always pop up on the forum whenever new module is released, I'll give you that. I guess maybe ED could make that folding news-info tab (the one which shows on the left side of the main screen on newsletter Fridays) appear on any other release day as well, with info about module X just being released for open beta. Could be useful for novice DCS users indeed, especially if they made a pre-purchase months ago and don't need to visit the store page. For all the others, though, info about latest open beta number requirement is always displayed on the store page (not sure how it looks on Steam).

^ Not wanting to state the obvious, but just to be sure - you're on the latest Open Beta build and you checked in the module manager if the plane is ready for download and install, right?

Double check if you're typing in correct command and number, but it's also possible you just can't install it. Although reverting back to older builds is possible as you already know, ED don't keep every version on their servers - after few months they remove the older to make space for more recent ones. I haven't checked when 7.4.9632 was released, but it might indeed not be available anymore.

I don't think it's primarily a problem of "egos involved", but rather of all ex-Belsimtek devs working directly for ED now, which, as predicted years ago when merge was done, caused all Belsimtek modules to fall near the bottom of priority list of fixes and support. Imrovements coming were hinted in January and Huey guys got their partial revision of FM at last (which, judging from the relevant posts seems to have caused new accuracy issues next to fixing the old ones) but it only shows it's going to take few next years until major overhaul of F-86, MiG-15 and F-5 happens.

You can find threads about this map in its 3rd party developer's section of the forum: https://forum.dcs.world/forum/1058-dcs-sinai-map/