Magic Zach

I gotta refer to Jafa's sound mod for 51 and Spit. The backfire sound samples he's got are really believable.

I wonder, what about the backfire sounds? The default backfire sound doesn't fit at all. Maybe it's planned to be changed in the future as well, alongside the Mustang's exterior sounds?

Interesting. It might be time to break old habits

Loss of lift and/or increase of drag is what first comes to mind

Something similar happens when I turn off the ignition/magnetos. Engine will die, then sputter and keep the cycle going for another few seconds. However this happens only when the mixture is still in run, and not [cut]off. Actually if the magnetos are off, and then mixture is in run, if I throw the throttle forward the engine will sputter endlessly, never coming to rest. I'm not advocating for anything, just mentioning something that might be related to Graf's comment

Thanks for the reply! It means a lot [emoji4]

For one, coolant and aftercoolant reliefs would be a good indicator that you're hitting your temperature limits. Sounds worth it. Also, having such a well done dynamic for the early stages of an engine's time running would give a huge improvement to the first impression of the aircraft, and straight up add more depth to the aircraft. Heatblur put a ton of passion into their F-14, and many love it, some just for the high level of detail and previously unknown features like having different cockpits each time you spawn in, an AI RIO, as well as a GUI to interface with him, giving him a personality to seem somewhat human, etc. To see this level of detail in a warbird, including its engine as a whole, would be on the edge of monumental. Again you have asserted yourself as the correct and only opinion representing the whole of the DCS community. Stop doing that. What you call waste, others would call quality time in an aircraft. Your view isn't everyone's view. Recognize this. For the other points, I don't exactly disagree. Spotting system is in need of a revamp (and supposedly is being looked at, according to the recent interview with Matt), damage model needs a 2.0, and adding more WWII Assets is always welcome. I'm not saying that coming back to the engines shortly should be a top priority, just that it should be something tacked onto the list, for down the road. Not sure where you got that from, but if that's the impression I was giving, it's not what I meant. And while yes, DCS is detailed, as technology improved, it should and does improve with it, and the details as well. Your argument as an “unnecessary detail” could have been said for the F-14's humanlike personality of Jester, but for the first two months (and still on occasion on groups still) there were videos and positive or straight goofy chat about Jesters quips and comments on a pilot's flying. This is the kind of impression and details that can capture people's love for it. These details may have seemed unnecessary from the start, but they've payed off. As would further peculiarities of piston engines. Such things would make the warbirds feel even more believable and touchable, more particularly while on the ground.

Lol honestly I wouldn't want to be the guy to record the frontal sound samples for that. Maybe if I had a really long stick and superglued the recorder on the end [emoji12]

DCS is a flight simulator at its core. If you want just combat, without much regards to simulation, I recommend other games that skimp over simulation in favor of the combat environment. They'd suit you better. You're not describing the DCS community. You're just describing yourself. And perhaps DCS isn't the game for you, though regardless I encourage you stay. Graf is actually on to something there.

Sounds a lot like you didn't come to DCS for the simulation aspect. However, I did, quite literally by Googling “P-51 flight simulation”, and was brought to ED's doorstep.

Tie the tail down. Limit the periods of these settings to 10 seconds tops, allow for cooldowns in between these high RPM/throttle sessions. At least that's what I'd do

Read my whole post. There is a lot more than just “need fire and poofy startup” in there. This...this exactly is what bothers me the most about getting answers from moderators and the like. I ask a series of inquires or things I've noticed that I'd at least like a comment on, and 95% of it is dodged. This happens often. And I'm not saying you specifically, but the community managers and other ED folk active on this forum in general. In brief, I want to know if inaccuracies/missing features of the engine are noticed and/or acknowledged by the ED team. This goes far beyond just visual effects.

You've literally quoted/targeted a part of my post and did not give a thorough answer like I asked.

I am not changing the topic, I am adding to it. I will talk about issues that I think need to be addressed. You made this thread and asked for further input, and I gave it. Don't step on me like this again.

Please read and respond. If it doesn't ask too much, I'd appreciate a thorough response, as I haven't gotten any from my threads regarding issues for the Mustang, and I consider this a rare opportunity to get the attention of someone out of ED in their own forums. My dynamics I desire largely refer to aesthetics of details, startup, and warmup. For example, the Mustang does not require any level of finesse to start. I could start it in DCS, first try, sound muted and blindfolded. And I will add that engines are not constantly warmed up in a ready state. If I start my Mustang in -10C temperatures in DCS, the coolant, carb and engine temperature will attempt to reflect this, as some gauges can't get to such extremes. This may seem like an obvious point, but I've seen arguments saying that the engines during the war were kept in a warm and scramble-ready state, and I'm going to clear that this is very much not the case in DCS. I'm not suggesting that this become a feature, just to make references to videos more clear. If anything, the Mustangs in videos are in a warmer state than in DCS, as some may be doing multiple flights in a day for air shows. There is too much consistently and reliability in engine start. And I do realize that engines today are in different conditions from War time, but being the museum pieces they are, they are kept in best condition. Additionally, priming is wonky. It hardly requires any to start in most situations with standard weather conditions. Examples: [9 minutes in] You cannot deny that something is missing. The Merlin does not have a consistent start like it does in DCS, regardless of conditions. I can't describe what exactly is happening to make even starting a warbird require some level of skill, but I can recognize that something isn't quite right with the dynamics (or lack thereof) of the Mustang (and Spitfire's!) startup. And cutting to idle poses no risk of losing the engine whatsoever in DCS, also regardless of weather. Additionally there is the warmup. In DCS, when these birds start, they run seemingly without any level of roughness, and at a constant speed. At idle (both fully retarded throttle and the slightly forward position under 1000RPM), immediately after startup, the DCS Mustang is smooth as butter. Meanwhile in real counterpart, the engine will throttle, pause, throttle, pause, throttle, pause, of it's own accord, without the pilot jockeying the throttle. You can see this in Kermit Week's P-51D part 2 and 3. And in his video, even after flying, the Merlin would still throttle and then make a short pause after having flown, and cut to idle. I haven't noticed in Kermit's video if the manifold pressure and/or RPM gauges bounce with the uneven tempo of the engine, but if they do, seeing this represented in the cockpit and via sound as well would be excellent. Another thing that bothers me is the aesthetics, or lack thereof. Largely being the missing overprime flames (which were on the Spitfire up until this last update, and are currently missing in the Spitfire as well, there is a bug thread on this...), starting smoke (this would especially be important for the R-2800 of the P-47 and F4U), engine fire tuning (this is probably more related to DM than Mustang), coolant and aftercoolant pressure relief added (or if they are, make them bloody visible, one Mustang pilot had his coolant doors in auto on the ground, and upon takeoff his coolant relief popped and it sprayed his windscreen, so it's very much visible on reality, I've quoted this pilot and others in my coolant/aftercoolant relief thread...), and the shaking and momentum added to gauges. The gauges currently are unaffected by the shaking of the aircraft. Two that actually do have somewhat dynamic are the manifold and RPM gauges, which bounce with changes of the throttle and RPM, but not the shaking of the aircraft and their own momentum. The most extreme example ai can give is actually the fuel gauge in the Spitfire, of which when the button is pressed, the needle with shake and bounce around the reading. Please respond in thorough. I've never gotten a clear response from anyone regarding nearly all of the issues I've listed here.

You guys want to start a separate post about this WEP, or continue it on a pre-existing one? I'd like to see more items that we'd wish to see for the Mustang, or a different item get some discussion

Obviously I was talking about the Mustang in the post you quoted, but ok.

Just that it was a fairly odd sub variant to do. I would have preferred a 5, 10, 15 or 20 for history and numbers' sake

Are we really getting a D-30 Thunderbolt? Was this a prominent variant of the Thunderbolt? I'm underwhelmed by the decision of adding the P-51D-30. The D-25 was a step on the right direction though, but the D-5 or D-10 was a much more prominent variant of the Mustang in the ETO. So now I'm wondering if this is the same for the Thunderbolt?

This isn't so much a Mustang issue as it is a damage model issue, which is widely known to be lacking. Of course, there is a revamp in progress

I've stopped playing DCS WWII for the time being. While I trust ED has done their best to follow documentation of the flight characteristics to create the flight model, I have doubts over using documentation of tests in uncontrolled environments with old tech from the 40s. I am told very frequently, right and left, that the Mustang could out-turn the 109 at all but low speeds. I'm thinking that either the Mustang in DCS needs to have some fine tuning (or even an overhaul in FM), or the arm strength of the 109 pilots can get another look. If the P-47 was having wind tunnel trails being done, I imagine that would be the most aerodynamically faithful warbird yet, to the real life counterpart. The Mustang getting similar treatment may reveal some things. The engine isn't alive. It's static. There's no dynamics given to it. It's half-heartedly simulated, and I think that (Spit too) would hugely benefit from a look at the details and nuances of the Merlin. I think A2A did a good job (it's a dev not a game, don't delete this, moderators), and I can only imagine what ED could do if they put as much detail into engine modeling as they did flight modeling. The exterior model is very old, it could use a sprucing up. It's not as bad as the Ka-50 though... 150 grade fuel, still waiting for that. I'm not expecting a significant boost in performance, but regardless.

I can confirm this, this exactly. Primed 14 times, there was an orange illumination on the cowling, but no actual flame. However, the fire from normal engine operation is still there. I can the regular exhaust flame, just not the overprime flames.

You have been very helpful here in this thread, and very open! I've never seen you around here, and to drop a hotfix via dropbox (a very casual thing to do, and I like it lol) and mentioning an audio slider on the way, as well as other things is very appreciated by me. Seems like a strange thing to point out, but I'd like to say thank you for being here and engaging with us [emoji4]

I just had a look at Phil's video, and holy cow the Spit sounds very different!! If my update isn't corrupted, I don't know how but somehow I missed that. As for the Mustang, I admit I only listened to external sounds. They seem to sound the same, but I haven't jumped into the cockpit. I'm eager to give them a listen myself [emoji4]

Maybe my update has gotten corrupted? I disabled my Mustang and Spitfire sound mods before updating, and when I heard about this, I flew the Spitfire in it's Caucasus free flight mission, with Mustang AI. The only difference that is more or less obvious is the length at which sounds will extend to the rear of an aircraft, particularly during a flyby. Essentially I can hear the Spitfire for longer when it flies past. The Mustang sounds the same as ever, no change.