KenobiOrder

As RIO, using STT buttons. The problem only occurs online.

Two years later and this still has not been fixed even after being reported? And 4 years after the initial report. Just think about it, one of the most combat relevant flight features of this aircraft is still wildly off nearly half a decade later. This is extremely frustrating. Its almost as if they entire reason people pay out the wazoo for the advanced flight models is for things like this to be correct.

There seems to be something going on with the single target track behavior. regardless of the procedure used (ie: using RWS or TWS etc) and then going to STT, there is a very high failure rate. Oddly enough though, this seems to only happen in multiplayer. In singleplayer, I have no issues locking on to targets in STT without fail 99% of the time, regardless of the behavior of the target. In multiplayer, STT locks seems to almost never be successful, leading me to suspect this is some kind of multiplayer issue.

Any update on this? This is still a huge problem. If you do any sustained climbing or turning in the P-51 right now it overheats.

A hot day is 39C or 103F. Even at these conditions the engine remained in spec until 38,000ft. Coolant was slightly out of range but appeared to be keeping the oil in range anyhow. We should not be seeing anything close to this in turns or climbs at a mere 20C. Or at military power.

just did another climb test to get more details. Max available power, like in a time to climb test. didn't make it past 27,000ft. Engine quit. Coolant temps are out of spec just a few minutes into the climb around 5000ft. The only reason it didnt die soon was due to the supercharger stage shift. Once in high blower again the oil became rapidly out of spec. Around 20,000ft you could just barely hear strange engine noises. Engine died at 27,000ft.

I am referring to time to climb tests or max climb rate tests where the speeds are listed. Usually around 160-170mph. It also kills the engine just from doing a sustained turn. Completely ridiculous. It also did not used to happen.

That shouldnt be happening either. Doing a prolonged WEP climb was something these planes were put through when the performance tests were done. Aircraft that had major cooling issues were known for it, such as the early Yaks. If any of these planes had cooling issues so severe that low speed turns and climbs are rated speeds could not be done, then it would have been noted in the manuals and combat reports and it isnt.

That doesn't mean it is correct. This is very obviously an error as if it were the case the Mustang would not have been able to engage in dogfights involving prolonged sustained turns. I have never seen so much as an iota of evidence that the cooling system on the mustang suffered this problem. And none of the other planes in this game have this issue. It also overheats in climbs at the rated climb speeds.

Last patch changed something in the cooling system. In extended turns and climbs are mil or WEP the plane overheats. No other plane appears to do this. Extended climbs means simply climbing at the climb speeds noted in reports, about 175-165mph. The airplane can no longer participate in turn fights since it kills the engine rather quickly after about 5 turns or so.

If it had been reported I think there would be a reported tag on that SL speed thread. Also this appears to be a speed issue at all heights, and if it has indeed changes then I find it quite weird that the same speeds are popping up.

It doesnt seem like it was reported to me. The original thread was only about SL speed from what I can tell and Yo-Yo never specified what was meant by the "changes" or as grapejam stated: whether or not the current state is as intended or not. So we cannot be confident that anything is being fixed when it was never acknowledged as a bug.

Well for starters, pretty much all American flight tests are corrected to standard conditions. So we know the conditions. It is presumable that DCS uses these same conditions as a baseline since everyone uses these conditions as a baseline. DCS standard conditions fyi, are the default conditions in the game. I would hope that would be obvious.... Secondly, noone is missing that the chart uses 67inches of boost. That is the whole point actually. IN DCS, at 67inches in level flight you will get the same speeds listed in Yo-Yo's chart for MILITARY POWER. IE: In game WEP = the speeds he gives for MILITARY. You are correct that his chart syncs with the test he compares it to (which btw is the same test grapejam posted....) BUT IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE FOR MILITARY POWER. SO TO SUM: The in game plane IS achieving the speeds Yo-Yo posted for MIL------BUT AT WEP. It goes even slower at MIL.

To answer your question, I think we are all aware here of the difference these factors make. The tests were conducted in the DCS standard conditions, which is what Yo-Yo most likely did his chart based on. However, I also did tests at 15C and got the same results.

:thumbup:

44-1 should most certainly be done, but things like this should ONLY be done when they are historically justified. For example, you shouldn't put a SPIT 9 up against a K4 109 or D9 FW190 unless you give it the higher boost it would have had, or simply do a Spit 14. You also shouldnt do a P-51 without 150 grade vs a K4 either. So if ED does some balancing it needs to have a historical basis. If ED were doing a Early pacific WW2 theatre it would be pretty silly if they added Hellcats and Corsairs simply because the Zero was too OP in 1942.

So after running quite a few tests, I got exactly the same results as you. The plane at WEP is getting the same speeds that Yo-Yo listed for MIL power. Also note that Yo-Yos chart closely corresponds with the MIL power tests....which would make sense. I think there is an issue with power or something on the P-51.

I pushed the wrong quote button

It isnt a matter of opinion. DSR is a form of AA, and AA reduces both contrast and clarity to make the image appear more smooth. You literally lose the dot in the interpolation of the image.

Interesting find. Ill do some testing and see if I can validate your findings.

DSR does not do anything, I wish people would stop propagating this. its just multisampling, so it reduces contrast and blurs the image. It makes it worse not better. Your encountering placebo effect if you think otherwise. As to whether I tested my theory, yes. I can now EASILY spot a Su-27 head on at 6nm, and a Bf109 at 3.7.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Description=4k%20monitors&Submit=ENE

Im just going to point out again that there is precedent for Yo-Yo's FM in this regard. Pretty much every single issue that has been pointed out in this game and admitted later as a flaw (dora and 109 climb rates for example, damage modeling etc) had historical documentation to demonstrate that the game was wrong, or performance calculations from other sims or trained individuals to contradict it. Your taking issue with the turn performance he has modeled for no other reason than you---and you alone---have some cockamamie numbers youve assigned to these planes that every other person in this thread has shown you to be wrong----in two separate threads now. The Fw190D's performance in this game regarding turn is completely fine. It is perfectly consistent with its relative performance vs the P-51D in every other sim to date. Yo-Yo isnt doing anything different----funny how every other person to make FM's for these planes got the same basic turn performance. I guess they are all stupid and only Hummingbird knows the secrets of the FW-190D.

This is for only part of the foil.....not a wing. And therefore irrelevant. Go get a FW190 wing tunnel test of the entire wing etc and then you might actually have something.

Perhaps you should re-read that thread, Yo-Yo explains quite clearly (about a billion times) why you are wrong regarding this. Bring all the documentation you want, we can all just refer back to that thread where you get soundly debunked. Honestly there is no point in debating this what-so-ever. The facts of this matter were explained several times ages ago. The Dora turns worse than the P-51, it has a worse CLmax than the P-51, particularly at the appropriate speeds for a sustained turn. Yo-Yo's FM in this regard is backed up by the fact that it is in perfect agreement with every sim going back a decade or so. No Dora out turns a P-51D at any comparable loading. It should be exceedingly clear at this point: especially since the pre-patch 2300BHP Dora was STILL incapable of turning with the P-51.