SmirkingGerbil

Ahh yes, the auto jettison prop feature. Flown many missions sans prop. Does quite well.

Yes. What is going on here isn't unique. I was active in another forum for a few years, similar gripes, similar diatribes. Similar amount of time and effort spent. Always the same people, or group of people. Very emphatic, very dogmatic, after awhile, they were just ignored. It was the "Boy who cried wolf syndrome". Pretty soon, we would see who posted, and just walk away. Sad actually. That is what it comes to though.

Apologies, I missed that context, you are absolutely correct - just another highlight of the contradictions by OP throughout. Which is why I say "You lost me . . . " to Vert. Hard to keep track of it all. Again, apologies for missing that bit of context.

Yet earlier in this thread, after I indicated the time I took to become familiar with the P-47, your response to me was how easily and quickly you took to the 109, as if my effort was out of proportion as a "DCS veteran". But you can't even be bothered to check options and video settings, or post a question on the forums, about removing the pilots body - so in effect you claim the pilots body is a "bug" of some sort? You lost me, and I think most long ago.

Yikes! Don't use the paddle with holes drilled in it, those hurt! Yes, tail wheel smack was recommended by someone somewhere, so after last update, I tried that first and it works. I am duly embarrassed and going forward I will focus on a 3 pointer! Not sure why I was having so much trouble before, but now, I can put her down using the speeds, flap settings, engine controls as recommended. My vid is three weeks old and has all kinds of bad habits in it, so you will have to overlook that.

This bit me for awhile also. For me, Track IR used F7 to load profiles. Once I changed Track IR to use keys like my playback buttons (Pause, Play, fast forward, etc.) All good. You might have F7 mapped somewhere that is active while DCS is running.

Great summary. Been dinking around since 2011, all these years, I still get hours and hours of enjoyment out of DCS while other titles fade, and end up in the dust bin. I understand what the OP is asking for, as you mention, anyone that has been here any length of time understands ED is working its way to many of these things. They have addressed these very issues openly, and often. Having flown and played many many titles (FPS, role playing, strategy etc.) DCS is the only one to still be installed and still have legs after all this time to keep my attention. I guess I am too emotional in response to these threads - but having personally been part of the initial Kickstarter dust-up and ED wading in and saving it while taking a financial hit, has endeared this company to me. I hope the OP gets what he thinks we need, hate to lose folks from the DCS family with such a cloud of negativity. It really is a wonderful community and product.

Bold, my emphasis, but there you have it. "Ideally you wouldn't even need the manual". The entire gist of this thread. I suggest that OP ask for a sticky, submit to the community for developers and content creators to create this GUI/Video driven interactive environment. Work with ED team, and content creators to develop this environment. I look forward to the first few efforts, curious as to which topic they will cover first?

Agreed, same approach, based on tutorials and advice for tail draggers, as dozens of times before. Came in for a couple of landings, made sure to smack my tailwheel down first because I have trouble with a three point, and she dropped the front wheels down with just a smidge of a bounce, and settled in nice and steady at a 80 to 90 mph drop to tarmac. That same sequence before would induce a hop a good 15 feet (?) in the air, causing me to break something when I came back down every single time. Maybe I am just a bad pilot, hopefully the FM wasn't dumbed down for dummies like me, but I sure did crack a big smile when I didn't smear down the runway leaving a trail of parts!

Having a blast, this vid is from 3 weeks ago, the difference in landing now is night and day, plus some form of cylinder head temp modeling has been added, though I don't think you can damage the engine with overheating. IF this isn't enough to get you to download after waiting 6 years, I don't know what is:

You raise some good points, honestly better than the OP IMHO. DCS (as admitted by some of the most ardent defenders) has some holes in it for entry level seeking folks. However, I am "flabbergasted" by how folks who point out these shortcoming seem to always focus on how difficult it is to get that initial starting point information. Started "flying" in 2011, the KA-50. Talk about a tough module to take on for your first aircraft. The difference between 2011 DCS and 2020 DCS content wise is night and day. Yet, from 2011 - 2012 I was able to find all the information not in the manual (yes, I referenced the manual) I needed, it wasn't that difficult to fill in the gaps. 2020 DCS has so much content available now, through dozens upon dozens of content creators as compared to 2011/12 it is mind boggling. I am flabbergasted that new users keep insisting it is difficult to find this information. There is some kind of disconnect here. Honestly, I am at a loss as to why there is such a chasm between those who navigate and pick up on DCS and manage to amalgamate the information, and those who have difficulty - or maybe they don't have difficulty, but they don't like HOW they have to amalgamate and synthesize it?

Well said sir. Truly, ironic and sad in a way. All the effort put into the failings of DCS, yet reaching out to folks, posting questions, etc. could have lead to a much better experience for the OP. Possibly even an interest by a content creator in addressing a "weakness", with new content. Instead pages and pages of how DCS failed, and why. Meanwhile, looking forward to end of day. I will go home, fly a mission I created in ME with the P-47, roll in from 9K feet with a full bomb load, deploy dive brakes, pull back on throttle to reduce torque steer, cut those bombs loose at 3K feet at about the 40 mil sight mark and peel off glancing out the back of my canopy watching 3 large explosions eliminate an 88 AA site. Never gets old!

Bandwagon Upvote! Great feature.

Uhhh, my mom has never been all that interested in aircraft, flying them, much less learning about them in a study level sim. DCS from the ground up, was never meant to cater to people like my mom, nor should it. However, she does like the vids I post blowing stuff up!

As mentioned, button presses, with a Controller column selected, will show you what buttons are mapped, either by default, or using changes setup by the user. So if you forget, easy to find with button push. Easy to map. Clear the entry, push button, mapped. Also, the controls setup incorporates a "Search" drop down in the top menu bar where you select different Modules and modes for modules, i.e. P-47-D Sim or Game. Using the "Search" function for any module, greatly eases finding current mappings, or functions you are thinking about mapping. You can search on "Rudder" or "Toggle" or "Gun" etc. to narrow down what you are trying to find and map. DCS has more in depth mapping aids than other sims I have flown.

DCS 2.5.6.52196 Open Beta 2020-07-15 Visual damage bug still with us, but different damage visuals. Instead of prop missing, with entire cowling gone, I get damaged props (large holes, bent back) with some cowling damage. Net effect though, is plane still responds and flies as if no damage.

That is pretty cool, had no idea! Any instances of OP-FOR using subterfuge and painting wings with stars to try and fool Allied forces?

That is a pretty darn good point, and potentially a market for anyone interested in "improving" that side of DCS, and who has the motivation, skills, and desire.

What can I say? I am dumb. Been flying sims since the 80's. Microprose, IL series, Microsoft, Falcon series, Gunship 2000 (loved it!) etc. Yes, after all that DCS still takes time and effort for me. I mean, you flew the 109 so easily, and I an experienced DCS user, struggled to fully understand how the exhaust back pressure feed from the turbo-supercharger nozzle box, interacts with the Aneroid chamber of the hydraulically modulated waste-gate modulator using oil pressure in the P-47. I look forward to your future contributions then, in regards to easing that type of learning curve in DCS. Us slow plodders could use the help.

"patch o'clock" sorry, just keeping it light. :)

Those 8 hours included learning things like this (thread) about the interaction between the hydraulic regulator, the supercharger, and the turbo-supercharger. https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=280389 Those 8 hours included learning that torque needs to be accounted for, and engine power applied smoothly to reduce "nose sway" and instability. Those 8 hours included learning to trim for speed, and engine settings. Those 8 hours included learning to how to map a throttle quadrant to my HOTAS to fly the P-47 effectively. Those 8 hours included more technical errata, I would never get out of any other flight sim or game. DCS is the "game" for nerds like myself that want to understand how a particular airframe does what it does. I am still learning. Those 8 hours got me comfortable in the P-47, but the learning still is ongoing. I am loving every minute of it. Next thing to learn? Nailing the tail dragger landing. Again a combination of engine power, torque, trim, speed, and AOA on touch down. Nothing else comes close. Yet, you seem to bounce from rail to rail on how bad DCS is, what it needs to be better, how hard it is - what did you expect from a "study sim" that models engine torque so faithfully, that it induces "nose sway" during combat, landing, and other aircraft operations? What did you expect from a "study sim" that allows you to understand all the inner workings of the P-47 supercharger, turbo-supercharger, regulator, and air management via the cowling, oil cooler, and inter-cooler controls? Were you expecting the "other title" type of simplicity? Then do like I do, buy the other title, and have fun there just flying, and shooting stuff. Come back to DCS when you want to be fully immersed, and have the mindset to do so. Two completely different genres, nothing wrong with owning both, and getting what you need from both - because the reality is, they serve two completely different markets - why force one, to be like the other? Why force DCS, or the user community into a mold, that is already filled by other titles. DCS stands alone (or one of a few titles) that appeal to nerds that pore through technical errata like myself. Love it for what it is. If you want to "improve" it, contribute like many who post here do. If you don't like the presentation, for $60.00 you can find it in another title.

Meanwhile, enjoying the P-47 immensely. Mapped to my TM HOTAS, total hands off operation for all combat operations. Dive flaps, cowling, inter cooler, oil cooler, bombs (toggle), guns (toggle), K-14 controls, prop, mixture, boost so on and so forth. Took me about 4 hours of testing, and reading the manual. Another 4 hours of watching Greg's You Tube series to understand technical errata, and Chucks Guide (manual). 8 hours, over about a week off and on of putzing around. About an hour a day, with plenty of "Instant Action" and already built in "Training" content right in DCS. 8 hours, probably the amount of time spent by OP opining about how horrible DCS is to get started in. No one wins in this thread, especially the new user. In fact if I were a new user, and came onto this thread, I would be very put off. Not by the thread itself, but how difficult the OP makes DCS seem. The only thing positive in this thread, is the folks tirelessly showing all the content that is available. Hopefully folks find this, instead of the overwhelming negative outlook. :thumbup:

I am not a mechanical engineer, so my thoughts on this are probably flawed. However, my assumption would be, yanking the throttle to zero power, would still yield some combustion gases albeit greatly reduced. So immediate effect would be some back pressure however slight (due to throttle closing off charge feed to engine), until the boost regulator via the exhaust pressure feed detected this, and compensates by modulating or opening the waste-gates a bit. By looking at the regulator diagram, it would appear a small increase in exhaust gas pressure would drive the pressure bellows down, and moving the metering pin down, allowing pressurized oil to enter the lower part of the servo, driving up the piston, emptying the upper servo chamber due to current pin position, and open the waste-gate. I would imagine this would happen in short order??? Just a guess, based on my limited understanding.

Thank you. This makes sense, as under normal conditions we wouldn't put the boost lever ahead of the throttle. The conditions you describe are what other documentation mentions. I would think that the Boost Regulator would indeed open the waste-gates to reduce back pressure, but as you mention, throttle pulled much further back from boost lever would still create adverse conditions for Turbo. I think I followed it correctly this time.

That first vid you link, is when they flew over Evansville IN for our 4th of July celebration a few years ago. You can probably see me on the levee! They do a pass over the LST docked, then further west over downtown proper, there were two of them. They thundered past us in formation (2), and it was glorious! Evansville built half of all P-47's and we also kicked out more LST's than any other inland port. Also responsible for about 50% of all .50 cal munitions production. We were known as an "Armory City" - you can still see all the old ammo storage bunkers outside of town.