Flight model and other early impressions

as I do in DCS TF51 and P51D

The following quote from the AAF P-51 training manual 51-127-5 (p. 55, first paragraph) is somewhat vague, but interesting nonetheless: "In a normal takeoff, the rudder trim tab is sufficient to make the torque almost unnoticeable."

The thing is, this PMiceli guy talks about bruised egos, while his own ego cannot even accept that he's wrong about this. Makes you wonder...

If you want the newest detailed review, I can offer this one:

Since you brought "Agathos Flightschool's" video up. Can you explain why the "ground friction" or "ground stickiness" is generally off in DCS?

Is this an DCS limitation we have to live with? Or from your view, do you think "ground friction" is correct in DCS?

Since you brought "Agathos Flightschool's" video up. Can you explain why the "ground friction" or "ground stickiness" is generally off in DCS?

Is this an DCS limitation we have to live with? Or from your view, do you think "ground friction" is correct in DCS?

It was deliberately increased a couple years ago to reduce the tendency to skate around, itself a side effect of lack of physical feedback (the tendency to overcorrect mentioned in the video). My controls personally are top notch, and I have an adjustable damper on custom rudder pedals etc... 99% of people do not, and are using something like cheap Saitek/TM controls that feel nothing like the real thing.

I disagree with the decision, and wish they'd undo it, but it's old news. I don't know how much it's related to the sticky taxi though.

@msalama

He read it on wikipedia! It must be true!!!1!1!

It's not a matter of THRUST. It's a matter of static friction coefficient of the surface.

No, it is matter of not enough torque.

I am sure that you knows better that is behind the scene in DCS, of course...

I'm sure that i have no idea, what is going on behind wall, but i noticed that a lot of ppl complaining of lack of torque in prop driven planes in DCS, i thought that those cases are connected :)

From my point of view Yo-Yo's comment was strictly about ground rolling discrepancy pointed in Agathos' video, and asked about later by CoBlue. That is not related to powerplant torque, which is a separate topic in itself.

lot of ppl complaining of lack of torque

Who's that lot? Armchair experts like you and me? Because folks having experience in flying high-powered taildraggers IRL have mostly given thumbs-upses AFAIK.

Who's that lot? Armchair experts like you and me? Because folks having experience in flying high-powered taildraggers IRL have mostly given thumbs-upses AFAIK.

I don't know who are they, typical concerns are that wake turbulence is too strong and torque is too weak.

For me torque and wake may stay as it is right now, i have no issues with that.

If it comes to this initial roll rpm required, it feels for me like plane was sitting in one place for a long time with low pressure in tires, so tires got permanent deformation. This is how feel for me.

I honestly find DCS's simulation of torque & slipstream effects unique among all simulations I have tried so far in a desktop.

Only problem for me with the recent introduction of wake turbulence is that my rig can't run it properly - FPS drop from 60s to 10s or even single digit :-/

I honestly find DCS's simulation of torque & slipstream effects unique among all simulations I have tried so far in a desktop.

 

Only problem for me with the recent introduction of wake turbulence is that my rig can't run it properly - FPS drop from 60s to 10s or even single digit :-/

That kind of physics is not easy to simulate.

i see 2 main solution.

Make walk around this so, abandon simulation and make something which will be close to expected thing but it will no longer be a simulation.

Or wait for better hardware :)

But honestly i haven't encountered any fps drops on my side, I had great fun, poping up ahead of ppl and flipping their planes up side down hehe :P Shame that most servers have this off.

Amongst pilots of all levels in real life and even some aeronautical engineers there is a common misconception, regarding propeller aircraft, of the concept of TORQUE (from the engine shaft to the prop and vice-versa). They erroneously use this term to refer to effects more associated with propeller slipstream, P-Factor and gyroscopic precession.

You have stolen my dreams...

:smilewink:

But sarcasm aside, what's your take on it? Could, or should, it be increased somewhat? I'm happy with the way it is, but being curious like the cat that got killed I just have to ask.

Some folks with RL Mustang experience have said the rudder is too sensitive and effective. Could that be a contributing factor as well?

with propeller slipstream, P-Factor and gyroscopic precession.

Indeed very true, and an age-old misconception too.

But don't forget that torque effects are always present, it is very visible when you try hang on the prop :)

But don't forget that torque effects are always present, it is very visible when you try hang on the prop :)

Sure, and my opinion is that DCS has a ver good representation of all those. In my RL experience regarding this it's when adding/cutting full power at speeds near 0 KIAS in a vertical line. There you really feel torque application a reduction and it's reaction. It is also felt in a Go Around. All this is in an Extra 330, very different from a Warbird but the sampe physics apply.

OK, thanks for the insights Yo-Yo, especially about the wake turbulence. What you're saying makes sense.

I must be honest, i have never seen anything what yo-yo said that didn't make sense :)

Have the same question about the oil. How do you manage the oil temperature?

^ Only by monitoring temp gauge and adjusting oil cooler shutter I presume. Red knob on the right console.

Ok, thanks for your answer. was helpful