Katj

Can you post a track where a DCS Anton survives 160 hits from .50 cal?

Well, there is stuff behind the pilot that is likely to soak up some .50 caliber bullets. But regardless, I'm just saying that the Anton is sturdier than the Zero, not that it's immune to .50 cal. In DCS you need deflection to bring it down quickly. But a good burst in the front half of the fuselage is likely to turn it into a fireball. Put another way it's enough energy to heat up the Anton about 1 degree celsius. Where that energy goes is very important.

The Anton can really take a beating in DCS. I'm not exactly sure how it compares to the real thing but by all accounts it was way more rugged than the Zero. The latter had a tendency to burst into flames rather easily, in part because of the non-self sealing wing fuel tanks. Meanwhile the A8 doesn't have fuel in the wings, and the fuselage tanks are self sealing. Anyway, the way to quickly bring down the Anton with 50s in DCS is to shoot at the engine and/or cockpit, which requires some deflection shooting. Just peppering the tail or wings does very little for the most part.

I take it to mean propeller efficiency, not fuel efficiency. I assume the tips of that large propeller get to a very high mach number and produce too much wave drag. Increased engine output at 2700 is not necessarily enough to offset this. And mach number will, as I'm sure you know, increase with altitude.

If I look at the P-47D charts they are very dissimilar in that the P-47 is supposed to always run rich mixture except for lean cruise. Now, I realize that what lean and rich means does not necessarily translate between aircraft, but it still tells us something. Also at WEP the P-47 could run 64" for around 2400 HP. Quite a bit more than 59 ", in my opinion. The turbo supercharger of the P-47 would help it maintain manifold pressure at higher altitudes, but I don't see why the Corsair would necessarily lag behind down low. Anyway, I'm not saying the Corsair is awful or anything, I'm just curious what the reasoning behind this design decision was. I'll have to compare to the hellcat charts as well.

How strange. Why did they run the Corsair at such low boost numbers? It seems to me that a rich mixture would increase knock resistance and allow higher boost. The sameish engine ran much higher boost in the 47.

I don't think it's working. The reason I think I really am CPU bound is that even if I dramatically lower the resolution and eye-candy, I get very slim gains in fps. I'm running 5800X3D, 3080, G2. While MT works great in 2D, I get no gains at all in VR. I have tried pretty much all the settings in nvidia control panel, dcs, openxr toolkit, openxr companion app, BIOS, windows, (etc?). No joy.

I find it very useful when flying multiplayer.

Thank you for the confirmation! I think the community has put forward a strong case and it is nice to see that you listen.

Not likely! How can one not be hyped? This Long Island beauty will likely be my greatest DCS warbird love. I don't want to speculate regarding a potential release date, but I would like to point out that lately the DCS WWII people have been churning out roughly one new module per year. As far as I can tell the Mossie got it's own forum section the same year it was released (2021). So, while this certainly doesn't prove that a release is coming soon (as in before 2025), it might be an indication that it's not six years away either.

Nevertheless, the genie is out of the bottle. I would be happy with just some bullets like: - Eagle Dynamics (not third party dev) are bringing the F6F to DCS - Exact variant yet to be decided - Very early stage of development - Whatever else they can share at this stage I do however understand if they feel like this would be an underwhelming "announcement" of a new module. It's just that we're in a weird place right now information wise. It's basically just a rumour, but we still have this forum section. Please forgive my demanding demeanor. It's not that I'm impatient, I'm just on the hype train.

Now that there's a forum section and all, could we please have some more official information? What little is available to us is very scattered. I'm not even necessarily looking for more info, but it would be nice if some of it could be gathered in one place. Just a forum post would be great.

I haven't had a chance to try it yet, but it was only the A that was mentioned in the changelog with regards to performance. Was the B tuned as well?

They changed the wing sweep scheduling to minimize drag, but you can still achieve max lift by doing manual sweep full forward with the handle and flying something like 400+ knots. I haven't really tried this a lot though. The upside vs slow full flaps fight is that you don't risk breaking the jet.

Yeah I know that it overperforms a bit in the supersonic regime, especially with some loadouts and some altitudes. I did some testing and presented the results way back in this thread. The overperformance is less of a problem because you spend so little time at high supersonic speed anyway. Also that acceleration through mach is relatively worst at the altitude you should punch through mach. If you want to climb high you should do so at Mach 1.4, anything over that is kind of useless. But, @IronMike You say that this is a drag issue. It's clear from the charts that excess power should be at a minumum at about mach 1.05, and then start to increase pretty rapidly. But in DCS you're hitting a wall way up to Mach 1.2. Is this just a drag issue that you have no control over?