P51 not fun due to so many problems.

Would be nice if the 50 cals could at least do this kind of damage:

Would be nice if the 50 cals could at least do this kind of damage:

Have you seen how detailed this new damage model is going to be? Check out the the posts about it.

Have you seen how detailed this new damage model is going to be? Check out the the posts about it.

I am still very new to DCS. So if you have links to information about this new damage model, would appreciate it.

My experience thus far is only this: I completed the included Mustang campaign only by using the infinite ammo cheat on the last several missions because otherwise I would run out bullets despite landing nearly all of my shots in dog fights. Meanwhile the mustang itself would burst into flames if it was shot between 1 or 2 times. I had assumed it was because of the AI aim was too perfect, but then I watched PVP videos and saw similar issues of damage model irregularities. Tbh that is all I know about it. So based on this, I empathize quite a lot with the frustrations of the OP.

Priming and Start-Up effects are already reported.

What do you need a thorough answer on? I answered about priming and engine effects, pretty sure I have answered about those to you before, not sure how a thorough answer will change anything, the answer still is "it's reported'.

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.

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.

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 basically want more engine failures because if there is one thing people pay to fly aircraft modules for, it is having to sit on the ground for 10minutes trying to start the engine and then having to wait another 5 minutes for the engine to warm up before you can take off. And if you dont want to sit there on the ground warming up the engine well to bad because your engine will fail if you don't.

Yeah, that will be great on a multiplayer combat server where every time you are shot down or finish a flight you have to waste 15 minutes on the ground. So two flights is 30 minutes on the ground. That will attract people to this game over other Sims for sure because everyone has time to waste.

Having to screw around with the engine every time you want to fly will get tedious, repetitive and frustrating.

You basically want more engine failures because if there is one thing people pay to fly aircraft modules for, it is having to sit on the ground for 10minutes trying to start the engine and then having to wait another 5 minutes for the engine to warm up before you can take off. And if you dont want to sit there on the ground warming up the engine well to bad because your engine will fail if you don't.

 

Yeah, that will be great on a multiplayer combat server where every time you are shot down or finish a flight you have to waste 15 minutes on the ground. So two flights is 30 minutes on the ground. That will attract people to this game over other Sims for sure because everyone has time to waste.

 

Having to screw around with the engine every time you want to fly will get tedious, repetitive and frustrating.

Question is the 51 going to get 150 octane at some point? I thought i had remembered reading somewhere it was in the works just never really saw much after that.

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.

The clue is in the name buddy, digital COMBAT simulator. It isn't digital engine simulator. The engines are modelled very well already with some issues needing to be addressed like the heating, WEP and other in flight characteristics that are much more important.

The kind of detail you are asking for is not worth the amount of resources required to create given that people generally want to get off the ground and fly not play with starting an engine.

There is a reason why there is an option on the jets to skip nav alignment. People don't want to sit on the ground waiting for the plane to be ready. They want to fly.

There is a reason why there is an option on the jets to skip nav alignment. People don't want to sit on the ground waiting for the plane to be ready. They want to fly.

If you were right in 100% on this topic there would not be INS aliment at all but there is.

Yes exactly, we could have this option for warbirds too,

"advanced start up" you could turn it on or off depends how hardcore are you.

"easy engine management" puff here we go for ppl who want to fly and dont want to manage engine.

I dont see anything what would extend ground operation in things magic zach is asking.

Just a little more attention to the engine start up,

I always wait for 40C oil temp before take off,

The clue is in the name buddy, digital COMBAT simulator. It isn't digital engine simulator. The engines are modelled very well already with some issues needing to be addressed like the heating, WEP and other in flight characteristics that are much more important.

 

 

 

The kind of detail you are asking for is not worth the amount of resources required to create given that people generally want to get off the ground and fly not play with starting an engine.

 

 

 

There is a reason why there is an option on the jets to skip nav alignment. People don't want to sit on the ground waiting for the plane to be ready. They want to fly.

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.

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.

You are talking as if there is no engine management in the game now. We already have detailed engine management. The kind of detail you are asking for is not worth the amount of time it would take to create.

You say DCS is a FLIGHT SIM at it's core...... yes. That is what I am saying. Not many people want to waste time on the ground priming the engine, turning it over, priming it again etc. There are so many, more important fetures that would have a much larger impact on the game for ED to focus it's resources on. Like improving the spotting system, finishing the damage model, adding more assets to the asset pack. Finishing the FW190A8 and P47D.

You act as if it is easy to build and implement modules and features. What you are asking for is unessesary detail in an already very detailed simulation. If it is the nuances of starting an engine that you are interested in perhaps car mechanic simulator is more you kind of thing.

You are talking as if there is no engine management in the game now. We already have detailed engine management. The kind of detail you are asking for is not worth the amount of time it would take to create.

 

You say DCS is a FLIGHT SIM at it's core...... yes. That is what I am saying. Not many people want to waste time on the ground priming the engine, turning it over, priming it again etc. There are so many, more important fetures that would have a much larger impact on the game for ED to focus it's resources on. Like improving the spotting system, finishing the damage model, adding more assets to the asset pack. Finishing the FW190A8 and P47D.

 

You act as if it is easy to build and implement modules and features. What you are asking for is unessesary detail in an already very detailed simulation. If it is the nuances of starting an engine that you are interested in perhaps car mechanic simulator is more you kind of thing.

ED is already developing DM and spotting system so no point talking about it anymore, now it is time for start up bug fixes and more start up nuances.

ED is already developing DM and spotting system so no point talking about it anymore, now it is time for start up bug fixes and more start up nuances.

The only time it is not worth talking about is when we actually have it, it is finished and has no bugs.

We have a long way to go.

You are talking as if there is no engine management in the game now. We already have detailed engine management. The kind of detail you are asking for is not worth the amount of time it would take to create.

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.

You say DCS is a FLIGHT SIM at it's core...... yes. That is what I am saying. Not many people want to waste time on the ground priming the engine, turning it over, priming it again etc. There are so many, more important fetures that would have a much larger impact on the game for ED to focus it's resources on. Like improving the spotting system, finishing the damage model, adding more assets to the asset pack. Finishing the FW190A8 and P47D.

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.

You act as if it is easy to build and implement modules and features. What you are asking for is unessesary detail in an already very detailed simulation. If it is the nuances of starting an engine that you are interested in perhaps car mechanic simulator is more you kind of thing.

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.

The only time it is not worth talking about is when we actually have it, it is finished and has no bugs.

 

 

We have a long way to go.

Bugs will never ever be solved so this is not an argument.

We can talk about it, there is forum thread about DM so talk there, Here is thread about missing engine start up simulation also every topic about p-51 include WEP sub topic.

I can say, that I have seen HUNDREDS of Merlins starting up and not on Youtube, where can be the most ridiculous and fabulous startups. Tricky startups are very rare. The most startups are like "Prop clear - starter - small puffs of smoke - running". The longest and greatest startup with a lot of flames, long priming, black smoke and great sound was a Griffon. I was lucky and could record Hi-Q sound and video. It was a first start in that season, and I did not see anything like this as the plane started up during the show. The startups were absolutely even.

 

Overprimings with flames are not so rare, but you can see it now in DCS at least for Spitfire, and we are going to to expand this effect for all planes.

Warm and cold engines in DCS are very different. First of all, if you take a look at the oil pressure gauge you can see a very big difference for cold and warm engine. Then, if you try to apply full power with the cold engine you will be in trouble very soon.

The only thing that I can admit is a throttle work during warming up. But it was a feature that was 1% of the whole features and requred 20% of the time... I hope I will return to it a bit later.

 

Please, do not forget that there are a lot of things much more important for the combat sim, and the first one is a new plane in the game... :) Or bugs that seem neverending.

 

Props in DCS give much more fun at startup then in parallel Universe where you have always the same sequence... any time, regardless of weather, and pilot's skill...

 

Modelling (truly modelling not scripting!) unsteady modes of the engine is much harder than other aspects of FM, but despite of it we are trying to do our best in actual conditions. Do you know many sims where fuel disturbancies due to longitudinal accelerations affects the gauges?

 

So, my clear answer is - yes, in DCS the piston engine model is the best regarding other simulations, but, of course, it's a bit undemodelled in comparison with the real engine. Our resources are not infinte.

 

But we, time to time, return to our old models to improve something. As we have spare time.

What bother me is 3 things

Air/fuel mixture traveling with speed of light.

Primer is not working properly

Magic combustion just before engine going in to stop about 200-300 rpm present in p-51 and spitfire(looks like copy/paste from p-51 code in to spitfire code)it is happening when tanks are dry, just magic.

I can say, that I have seen HUNDREDS of Merlins starting up and not on Youtube, where can be the most ridiculous and fabulous startups. Tricky startups are very rare. The most startups are like "Prop clear - starter - small puffs of smoke - running". The longest and greatest startup with a lot of flames, long priming, black smoke and great sound was a Griffon. I was lucky and could record Hi-Q sound and video. It was a first start in that season, and I did not see anything like this as the plane started up during the show. The startups were absolutely even.

 

 

 

Overprimings with flames are not so rare, but you can see it now in DCS at least for Spitfire, and we are going to to expand this effect for all planes.

 

Warm and cold engines in DCS are very different. First of all, if you take a look at the oil pressure gauge you can see a very big difference for cold and warm engine. Then, if you try to apply full power with the cold engine you will be in trouble very soon.

 

The only thing that I can admit is a throttle work during warming up. But it was a feature that was 1% of the whole features and requred 20% of the time... I hope I will return to it a bit later.

 

 

 

Please, do not forget that there are a lot of things much more important for the combat sim, and the first one is a new plane in the game... :) Or bugs that seem neverending.

 

 

 

Props in DCS give much more fun at startup then in parallel Universe where you have always the same sequence... any time, regardless of weather, and pilot's skill...

 

 

 

Modelling (truly modelling not scripting!) unsteady modes of the engine is much harder than other aspects of FM, but despite of it we are trying to do our best in actual conditions. Do you know many sims where fuel disturbancies due to longitudinal accelerations affects the gauges?

 

 

 

So, my clear answer is - yes, in DCS the piston engine model is the best regarding other simulations, but, of course, it's a bit undemodelled in comparison with the real engine. Our resources are not infinte.

 

 

 

But we, time to time, return to our old models to improve something. As we have spare time.

I want to focus on the things I have mentioned in this thread:

The WEP being unreliable.

Pilot death on crash landing.

P51D guns effecivness.

The control surfaces falling off without any indicatition apart from speed guage.

As requested, my opinion/thoughts on the subject:

a) re. WEP - can't comment, as I don't have enough experience with it;

b) re crash landing - it's been a while since I last belly landed the Pony, but I don't recall my pilot ever getting killed if only I did it as slowly and smoothly as possible, flaps down, nose up, mags, mixture and fuel off. That's only in single player mode, though, I don't do MP at all so I'm not sure if this aspect is wonky over there;

c) re. guns effectiveness - when I started playing DCS 5 years ago, being warbird-oriented I immediately noted it's damage modelling was uhm... rudimentary to put it mildly, compared to other 2 WWII offerings on the market (even 3 actually if we count in the old famous one). More suited for modern missile combat than oldschool gunnery. So... I've been just playing and enjoying DCS strictly as civilian flying simulator ever since. What's the point in banging the head against the wall when you know some things are just not implemened yet? Don't use the tool for the job it's not designed for - that's my policy. I've got 2 other dedicated tools for that, published by 1C Software Company.

Of course, when the new damage model brings DCS to the competition level (or hopefully surpasses them) I'll surely start playing the game as a fully fledged combat sim. Until then, although I understand some people are desperate to try to make WWII combat work in DCS, I consider it being excercise in masochism;

d) re. loosing wings - with stick force gradient in pitch channel of 6 lbf per G (and lower with rear tank filled) plus structural failure limit of 12 G (figures as in DCS manual), Mustang is similar to Spit i.e. pilot is more than capable of tearing his wings off when pulling too hard at any high speed. It's exacerbated by the general change in philosophy of stick force modelling introduced by Yo-Yo 2 or 3 years ago, switching from virtual stick gradually "stiffening" under force method (employed by other simulators and DCS long ago) to virtual stick displacement matchinig physical stick displacement with force-limit cutoff point. Both implementation methods have their advantages and disadvantages - it's true that in "ours" loosing wings is unfortunately easier as we don't have much of a G feedback apart form the G-meter in cockpit (or nothing at all in the Spitfire) and greyout/blackout sometimes doesn't come soon enough to warn you.

I guess one has to learn by trial and error what kind of high-G turns and maneuvers are too risky in DCS, though I wouldn't mind having some more visual/audible clues about G-buildup if we can't feel it sitting in front of the computer anyway.

You can help us and estimate this necessary speed, for example, at 600 rpm using simple math. I guess there will be no problem to find manifolds area. :)

 

Do you mean the bursts of combustion as the plane is going out of fuel?

 

 

And, by the way, we had a model for petrol evaporation based on real physics, but expand this time and mixture parameters dependant modelling to time-space dependant process is not a trivial thing, and I can say that this work can be comparable with the whole engine modelling, including carb, oil system, cooling and other interesting things... And the number of people who can enjoy it and understand is absolutely uncomparable to the efforts.

This delay in cut off valve is probably due to some reservoir of fuel left after cut off valve, but this delay is in real plane, no instant reaction to cut of valve.

I m talking about burst of combustion when you are shutting engine down, After switching to cut off position engine instantly goes quiet then rpm starts drop, but at around 200-300 rpm engine is suddenly bursting to life again, then goes quiet again and again when about to pass 200-300 rpm burst of combustion again. Sometimes this cycle can be quite long before engine stops. Both spitfire and p-51 has this, i run out of gas during flight, i managed to land and this thing happen to me when engine rpm were droping to 200-300 rpm burst of combustion happen even when i was gliding from 30k ft to the airfield.

And i m not asking to make any hard or unnecessary simulations, it can be done much easier i think

I m talking about burst of combustion when you are shutting engine down, After switching to cut off position engine instantly goes quiet then rpm starts drop, but at around 200-300 rpm engine is suddenly bursting to life again, then goes quiet again and again when about to pass 200-300 rpm burst of combustion again. Sometimes this cycle can be quite long before engine stops. Both spitfire and p-51 has this, i run out of gas during fligh

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