Jump to content

P51 not fun due to so many problems.


Snapage

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 357
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Imagine what a 3cm shell would do.. Hope to see that realistically implemented in DCS.

 

for example this...

MK 108 vs spitfire.

Some ppl will argue that single 30mm isn't enough to knock out plane, mayby in 1% cases hit in wing tip, anywhere else it is over.

ffKKSTt.jpg


Edited by grafspee

System specs: I7 14700KF, Gigabyte Z690 Aorus Elite, 64GB DDR4 3600MHz, Gigabyte RTX 4090,Win 11, 48" OLED LG TV + 42" LG LED monitor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Engine limits are always a fun discussion I always like to point to this article on that subject:

 

QZtPLMn.png

 

353-hinchey-14nov44.jpg

 

I dont know where this 5minute total use of wep limit was found.

For example British version of mustang was cleared for 80" MP, so 74/75" or 80" was simply choice in engine life time not imminent engine fail in flight.


Edited by grafspee

System specs: I7 14700KF, Gigabyte Z690 Aorus Elite, 64GB DDR4 3600MHz, Gigabyte RTX 4090,Win 11, 48" OLED LG TV + 42" LG LED monitor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
I dont know where this 5minute total use of wep limit was found.

For example British version of mustang was cleared for 80" MP, so 74/75" or 80" was simply choice in engine life time not imminent engine fail in flight.

 

Not only the WEP but what about him flying at 600mph indicated at 1000feet? In DCS the P51Ds control surfaces fall off at only 590mph-505mph indicated air speed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not only the WEP but what about him flying at 600mph indicated at 1000feet? In DCS the P51Ds control surfaces fall off at only 590mph-505mph indicated air speed.
It's not a good idea to use '40s IAS indicators for any kind of scientific-level study, unless on the subject of their varying inaccuracies.

Hardware: T-16000M Pack, Saitek 3 Throttle Quadrant, Homemade 32-function Leo Bodnar Button Box, MFG Crosswind Pedals Oculus Rift S

System Specs: MSI MPG X570 GAMING PLUS, GTX 1070 SC2, AMD RX3700, 32GB DDR4-3200, Samsung 860 EVO, Samsung 970 EVO 250GB

Modules: Ka-50, Mi-8MTV2, FC3, F/A-18C, F-14B, F-5E, P-51D, Spitfire Mk LF Mk. IXc, Bf-109K-4, Fw-190A-8

Maps: Normandy, Nevada

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

& remember Pilots get excited in the heat of battle.

Was it 15 minutes, or was it 10, or 5 ?

Holding your breath for 5 minutes makes it seem like a long time.

 

An example from Russia, but it could be any country, and any war...

"During the Battle of Kursk, VVS Il-2s claimed the destruction of no less than 270 tanks (and 2,000 men) in a period of just two hours against the 3rd Panzer Division. On 1 July, however, the 3rd Panzer Division's 6th Panzer Regiment had just 90 tanks, 180 less than claimed as destroyed. On 11 July (well after the battle), the 3rd Panzer Division still had 41 operational tanks"

Cheers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

& remember Pilots get excited in the heat of battle.

Was it 15 minutes, or was it 10, or 5 ?

Holding your breath for 5 minutes makes it seem like a long time.

 

An example from Russia, but it could be any country, and any war...

That's a very good quote to show how pilot recounts aren't always on-point like some think. Going to pocket that.

Hardware: T-16000M Pack, Saitek 3 Throttle Quadrant, Homemade 32-function Leo Bodnar Button Box, MFG Crosswind Pedals Oculus Rift S

System Specs: MSI MPG X570 GAMING PLUS, GTX 1070 SC2, AMD RX3700, 32GB DDR4-3200, Samsung 860 EVO, Samsung 970 EVO 250GB

Modules: Ka-50, Mi-8MTV2, FC3, F/A-18C, F-14B, F-5E, P-51D, Spitfire Mk LF Mk. IXc, Bf-109K-4, Fw-190A-8

Maps: Normandy, Nevada

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a very good quote to show how pilot recounts aren't always on-point like some think. Going to pocket that.

 

So what is conclusion here 90% of p-51s were lost due fatal engine fail due to prolonged use of wep.

System specs: I7 14700KF, Gigabyte Z690 Aorus Elite, 64GB DDR4 3600MHz, Gigabyte RTX 4090,Win 11, 48" OLED LG TV + 42" LG LED monitor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what is conclusion here 90% of p-51s were lost due fatal engine fail due to prolonged use of wep.
What are you saying? Can you reword that

Hardware: T-16000M Pack, Saitek 3 Throttle Quadrant, Homemade 32-function Leo Bodnar Button Box, MFG Crosswind Pedals Oculus Rift S

System Specs: MSI MPG X570 GAMING PLUS, GTX 1070 SC2, AMD RX3700, 32GB DDR4-3200, Samsung 860 EVO, Samsung 970 EVO 250GB

Modules: Ka-50, Mi-8MTV2, FC3, F/A-18C, F-14B, F-5E, P-51D, Spitfire Mk LF Mk. IXc, Bf-109K-4, Fw-190A-8

Maps: Normandy, Nevada

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are you saying? Can you reword that

 

Pilots could not count to 5 min so they often in heat of battle used WEP for 5 min+ and this is certain death for engine.

System specs: I7 14700KF, Gigabyte Z690 Aorus Elite, 64GB DDR4 3600MHz, Gigabyte RTX 4090,Win 11, 48" OLED LG TV + 42" LG LED monitor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay..

Hardware: T-16000M Pack, Saitek 3 Throttle Quadrant, Homemade 32-function Leo Bodnar Button Box, MFG Crosswind Pedals Oculus Rift S

System Specs: MSI MPG X570 GAMING PLUS, GTX 1070 SC2, AMD RX3700, 32GB DDR4-3200, Samsung 860 EVO, Samsung 970 EVO 250GB

Modules: Ka-50, Mi-8MTV2, FC3, F/A-18C, F-14B, F-5E, P-51D, Spitfire Mk LF Mk. IXc, Bf-109K-4, Fw-190A-8

Maps: Normandy, Nevada

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was like that.

US testing facility

Engine nr.1 4minutes on wep till engine fail

Engine nr2 6min

Engine nr3 10min

Engine nr4 3min

Engine nr5 9min

After long discussion stuff of US testing facility allowed v-1650-7 for 5 min operation at increased MP with reasonable safety margin.

System specs: I7 14700KF, Gigabyte Z690 Aorus Elite, 64GB DDR4 3600MHz, Gigabyte RTX 4090,Win 11, 48" OLED LG TV + 42" LG LED monitor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was like that.

US testing facility

Engine nr.1 4minutes on wep till engine fail

Engine nr2 6min

Engine nr3 10min

Engine nr4 3min

Engine nr5 9min

After long discussion stuff of US testing facility allowed v-1650-7 for 5 min operation at increased MP with reasonable safety margin.

 

?

 

The standard test in the US was to run the engine at WEP for 7.5 hours and check for damage...

image.png.838caeacaddd897635f0c646cf9dd46c.png

image.png.8c5dc29fa86a8bf72818c10f8d19b38a.png

and in the UK they managed to get a merlin to run for 100hrs at wep (in this doc it broke after 27 but they did make it to their 100hr target)

image.png.13d23175090ae0d5871dd97c746f3425.png

unknown.png

unknown.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny how i never fly multiplayer much yet the other Day i joined a server i think from france in dcs and downed 3 k4 and 1 A8 within 10 minutes or so of being on the server with Dcs p51. Its not hard and i never touch wep.

:pilotfly:

 

For every ones complaint their is many out and about making things happen with chosen equipment.

I7-8700 @5GHZ, 32GB 3000MHZ RAM, 1080TI, Rift S, ODYSSEY +. SSD DRIVES, WIN10

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny how i never fly multiplayer much yet the other Day i joined a server i think from france in dcs and downed 3 k4 and 1 A8 within 10 minutes or so of being on the server with Dcs p51. Its not hard and i never touch wep.

:pilotfly:

 

For every ones complaint their is many out and about making things happen with chosen equipment.

 

Than this thread is not for you.

I don't use wep in MP too, since i'm loosing engine way too often because of WEP.


Edited by grafspee

System specs: I7 14700KF, Gigabyte Z690 Aorus Elite, 64GB DDR4 3600MHz, Gigabyte RTX 4090,Win 11, 48" OLED LG TV + 42" LG LED monitor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

?

 

The standard test in the US was to run the engine at WEP for 7.5 hours and check for damage...

 

I'm referring to engine lost after shorter then 5 min WEP in DCS in p-51. Im trying to say that 5 min WEP had to be safe for engine.

Engine which lasts 10 times longer then DB is so fragile in DCS.


Edited by grafspee

System specs: I7 14700KF, Gigabyte Z690 Aorus Elite, 64GB DDR4 3600MHz, Gigabyte RTX 4090,Win 11, 48" OLED LG TV + 42" LG LED monitor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
Apparently, the moderators did not like my previous comments. I am not trying to be mean ED, ... it is just that the P51 with no disrespect intended, is not modeled well.

 

Snapage, I have seen you flying on Burning Skies and you are a good pilot and everything you mentioned above is dead on. I almost always fly the P51 solo and it is very hard to score kills in. ... very hard (and far harder than the K4 or Dora) If you fly it as 362nd does with 4 or 5 guys, .... it is, ... ehh (but then so is any plane with a pack of 4 or more). As a solo weapon, ... it is horrible. The very badly modeled 50 cals do nothing. I have put long burst after long burst in Klever, DarkRaiderss and a few others and nada, nothing ... zilch. In fact, they often engage MW-50 and take off as if nothing happened to them and then outpace me! Several times, someone has taken a wild pot shot at me and my entire engine goes out. As Campbell likes to joke, the engine hit box for the plane is bigger than the entire airframe :)

 

I don't fly it on BS much because my time is limited, but I long ago switched over to the Dora which in DCS 2.5.5 has an unfair advantage. I can run away from a Stang, outshoot it, out climb it, out roll it and take far more damage. The only thing I cannot do is out turn it down low in a low speed horizontal turning contest. (but then what experienced BnZ pilot is going to engage in that any way?) ED badly needs to fix the airframe modeling, DM and 50 cals.

 

The P-51 is the first WWII module we did, it was released back in 2012 I believe. It was released and the only combat was P-51 vs P-51. It was using tech that brought you the Ka-50 and A-10C... air combat like you see in WWII was a new area for the team.

 

The Emergency Power has been reported, but in general, the cooling system on all Warbirds is being redone, only the Anton has the new system. The issue with control surfaces flying off so easily is reported, but there is control stiffening, the issue is the surfaces come off without any movement of those surfaces, so there is zero room for escape, even with the lightest of hands. SO why don't you really feel any stiffening of controls, because your plane already fell apart and you are a giant ball of wreckage about to make a new hole in the ground.

 

The .50 cals are modelled fine, what isn't modelled fine is the damage model, hence the reason for the new DM, but I will be honest, I rarely ever see a good quality track of someone hitting an enemy aircraft with good hits and not ripping it up. All my testing, and especially now with the new DM show me two things, the new DM is awesome, and should look and feel more responsive, two, you can still hit a lot of fat on an aircraft and not hit the meat, meaning if you throw some .50 cal rounds through a part of the aircraft, and there is nothing essential in that location, you just get little holes.

 

Guess what... a wild pot shot can still kill you, even with the new DM, why? Cuz that's how bullets work when they hit something critically important, your game is over. Some of my favourite moments in DCS Air combat are wild shots that result in a kill, and if you don't think it's possible in real life, then you are wrong, you won't find those guys taken out by a wild shot, mostly because they were taken out. It was also a big reason for the recent changes to AI aiming... it was hard to test the new DM when the AI would just headshot me every time.

 

DCS MP air combat isn't anything like the air combat these models saw during the war. Everyone uses historical examples, then compares it to non-historical action in DCS. Don't expect that ED can fix everything when the engagements are flown a lot different than what was actually seen. Yes, the improved cooling system and the damage model will help improve DCS, but it won't help improve mission building and player skills. There are always going to be wild cards, and always going to be someone better, always.

 

German aircraft are really good. Doesn't mean the Spit and Stang arent, but if you give the German aircraft the advantage, and virtual pilots with many hours of practice, something that they didn't have going for them late in the war, it's not surprising it's looking different. WWII wasn't air quake, again I know that we need to offer more reasons to escort, and more content to get to this historical battles, but don't think that any kill will be an easy one unless you are lucky enough to squeeze off that wild pot shot. German aircraft will use the cannons all they want, why? Because they don't need to save them for those bombers headed their way, so why not throw everything at you, historically they weren't doing that, those cannon rounds were saved for the priority targets. If you want good missions, the B-17s bombing a specific target should be the mission, and Stangs escorting and Germans intercepting. But air quake will always take the best of the best and in a perfect scenario like DCS, the 109 and 190 are deadly fighters.

 

So in conclusion... yes, the P-51 is old and needs love, and its all reported, it just takes time, every time I test the new DM and cut off the tail like I was using a laser, I say... damn it needs some work, but it's getting there, we are holding the DM because of how important these issues are. Emergency Power is going to be addressed, cooling is a big part, and I will ask if we can bump the Stang on the priority list for integration. But don't think that a perfect module will make you an Ace, that still takes practice, and there is ALOT of good virtual pilots out there.

 

PS much of what I see on War Emergency recommends not running it for long (as low as 5 minutes duration), but I think performance should start to suffer if used too much over a total detonation of the engine, but again, will ask about it.


Edited by NineLine

64Sig.png
Forum RulesMy YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**

1146563203_makefg(6).png.82dab0a01be3a361522f3fff75916ba4.png  80141746_makefg(1).png.6fa028f2fe35222644e87c786da1fabb.png  28661714_makefg(2).png.b3816386a8f83b0cceab6cb43ae2477e.png  389390805_makefg(3).png.bca83a238dd2aaf235ea3ce2873b55bc.png  216757889_makefg(4).png.35cb826069cdae5c1a164a94deaff377.png  1359338181_makefg(5).png.e6135dea01fa097e5d841ee5fb3c2dc5.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

p-51 manual says it pretty clear no more then 5 min of single WEP, but it is telling us the use of WEP for more then 5 min is not 100% engine death, its only telling the pilot is risking engine damage. It is not telling us that max duration of WEP for single flight is 5 min.

System specs: I7 14700KF, Gigabyte Z690 Aorus Elite, 64GB DDR4 3600MHz, Gigabyte RTX 4090,Win 11, 48" OLED LG TV + 42" LG LED monitor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

?

The standard test in the US was to run the engine at WEP for 7.5 hours and check for damage...

Just to add to this fine comment. I had a long discussion in the past regarding testing of new engines and how it was done prior and during the war by various countries. US is famous for its 150-hour type test. Scope of my research was Japanese testing which is kind of similar. You can read it here: http://www.enginehistory.org/Piston/Japanese/JapaneseEngTesting/JapaneseEngTesting.shtml

 

Especially take a notice of endurance tests and how it was comprised of multiple runs of engine at idle, take-off rating, idle, rated rating, etc. Such tests lasting 100 + hours cover entire scope of engine operation even in extreme conditions.

 

As for the US, from the mid-1930s through WWII, some version of AN-9502 dictated how aircraft engines were to be tested by the U.S. Army Air Corps/Forces and the U.S. Navy. These tests typically began with calibration runs where the engine was run in a test cell under the same conditions that would be used during endurance testing, with data collected at all conditions and power settings. Then the 150-hour type test began. Like Japanese testing, this consisted of running at various power settings in repetitive cycles.

 

The difficulty arises because AN-9502 was constantly changing, and often the exact tests were negotiated between the procuring agency and the engine manufacturer. I have never seen a complete copy of any version of AN-9502.

 

MIL-E-25111 ultimately replaced AN-9502 around 1955, and was used for reciprocating engine testing until it was retired.

AMD Ryzen 5900X @ 4.95 Ghz / Asus Crosshair VII X470 / 32 GB DDR4 3600 Mhz Cl16 / Radeon 6800XT / Samsung 960 EVO M.2 SSD / Creative SoundBlaster AE-9 / HP Reverb G2 / VIRPIL T-50CM /
Thrustmaster TPR Pendular Rudder Pedals / Audio Technica ATH-MSR7

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
p-51 manual says it pretty clear no more then 5 min of single WEP, but it is telling us the use of WEP for more then 5 min is not 100% engine death, its only telling the pilot is risking engine damage. It is not telling us that max duration of WEP for single flight is 5 min.

 

In my report about this I have asked that the engine show signs of damage well before it implodes, I agree it is too matter of fact right now, and could be shown better. We have some new effects and such I hope they can use for this.

64Sig.png
Forum RulesMy YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**

1146563203_makefg(6).png.82dab0a01be3a361522f3fff75916ba4.png  80141746_makefg(1).png.6fa028f2fe35222644e87c786da1fabb.png  28661714_makefg(2).png.b3816386a8f83b0cceab6cb43ae2477e.png  389390805_makefg(3).png.bca83a238dd2aaf235ea3ce2873b55bc.png  216757889_makefg(4).png.35cb826069cdae5c1a164a94deaff377.png  1359338181_makefg(5).png.e6135dea01fa097e5d841ee5fb3c2dc5.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team

 

Hope I have not hurt any feelings.

 

No, I only ever ask that you convey your opinion in a mature and constructive manner, remember there are real people working on this product, and while they have thick skin after all these years, we should try to communicate with them like they are standing right there with you, its easy to get carried away with the comfort of keyboard communication.

 

You had a decent message, just poor delivery, to get heard, say it nicely :)

 

All that said, the core is far from being ignored, as I said, the AI have been tuned and continue to be tuned, a crap ton of work is going into the DM, and it is very complex. Vulcan will come with the new graphics engine, this is no small task, and of course, this will bring VR improvements. We have a dedicated server tool now, VOIP in progress, new clouds and weather, better lighting, new FLIR (WWII dudes don't care), dynamic mission and campaign, and on and on... as our commander and chief spoke elsewhere, 50% of the devs at ED are working on core changes, additions and improvements.

 

DCS World is an incredibly complex and large sim, and I don't ever say anything bad about other sims, but for the most part, everything we do is 10x more complex than most others do, yes I would love to see the WWII dev team grow, it is quite small right now, but what we do with what we have is incredible. So I get frustration over speed of change, but we try and make everything worth the wait.


Edited by NineLine

64Sig.png
Forum RulesMy YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**

1146563203_makefg(6).png.82dab0a01be3a361522f3fff75916ba4.png  80141746_makefg(1).png.6fa028f2fe35222644e87c786da1fabb.png  28661714_makefg(2).png.b3816386a8f83b0cceab6cb43ae2477e.png  389390805_makefg(3).png.bca83a238dd2aaf235ea3ce2873b55bc.png  216757889_makefg(4).png.35cb826069cdae5c1a164a94deaff377.png  1359338181_makefg(5).png.e6135dea01fa097e5d841ee5fb3c2dc5.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to add to this fine comment. I had a long discussion in the past regarding testing of new engines and how it was done prior and during the war by various countries. US is famous for its 150-hour type test. Scope of my research was Japanese testing which is kind of similar. You can read it here: http://www.enginehistory.org/Piston/Japanese/JapaneseEngTesting/JapaneseEngTesting.shtml

 

Especially take a notice of endurance tests and how it was comprised of multiple runs of engine at idle, take-off rating, idle, rated rating, etc. Such tests lasting 100 + hours cover entire scope of engine operation even in extreme conditions.

 

As for the US, from the mid-1930s through WWII, some version of AN-9502 dictated how aircraft engines were to be tested by the U.S. Army Air Corps/Forces and the U.S. Navy. These tests typically began with calibration runs where the engine was run in a test cell under the same conditions that would be used during endurance testing, with data collected at all conditions and power settings. Then the 150-hour type test began. Like Japanese testing, this consisted of running at various power settings in repetitive cycles.

 

The difficulty arises because AN-9502 was constantly changing, and often the exact tests were negotiated between the procuring agency and the engine manufacturer. I have never seen a complete copy of any version of AN-9502.

 

MIL-E-25111 ultimately replaced AN-9502 around 1955, and was used for reciprocating engine testing until it was retired.

 

I smell the pacific......

I7-8700 @5GHZ, 32GB 3000MHZ RAM, 1080TI, Rift S, ODYSSEY +. SSD DRIVES, WIN10

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...