DCS P51 Review!

[jcomm 5,953]

Yes, after the first crashes, mainly due to improper joystick configuration and physical placement in my desk (I have a X51 + Saitek rudder pedals) I finally mastered to properly use the controls.

 

One of the gliders I flew in RL, a Cobra 15, had that type of sensitive touch... Flying in FSX builds a very irrealistic sensation of control deflection, although I am sure that is a programmers option to make it flyable to the common user. X-Plane adds a touch of sensitivity, but those Flight dynamics.....

 

Well, I now have the BS2 too :-))))))))))))))))))))))))

[KingGhidorah 209]

Well, I now have the BS2 too :-))))))))))))))))))))))))

 

I too am a total newby to Black Shark and was messing around with it earlier this evening trying to figure out where to start learning it all. I hope you have a TrackIR. The helmet mounted sight working in conjunction with the TrackIR might be the coolest thing I have ever seen in a PC!!! This DCS system is going to be one fun sim...Probably more than twice the FPS as FSX and better visuals, looks good, feels good, great sounds, "dense autogen" like foliage all the time, immense depth, and a viewpoint/head shake system that rivals EZca. Not bad. :lol:

[jcomm 5,953]

I hope you have a TrackIR

 

 

Nope :-( far from that... Well...

 

Make sure you get this great standalone BS trainer app: http://files.lockon.ru/en/147/

[LAdamson 240]

One of the gliders I flew in RL, a Cobra 15, had that type of sensitive touch... Flying in FSX builds a very irrealistic sensation of control deflection, although I am sure that is a programmers option to make it flyable to the common user. X-Plane adds a touch of sensitivity, but those Flight dynamics.....

 

I'm "really" going to disagree here. One of my common complaints with earlier X-Plane models, was that they had no sense of feel. It was those models, that seemed like a puppet on a string in a vacuum. Basically, the nose moved exactly with the joystick. Small GA to large transports felt the same. X-Plane has much improved since those days.

 

Since the "feel" of desktop simulation has to be provided by what we see on the screen, and the resistance of a joystick spring............the control surfaces & movement of the aircraft can't exactly correspond to the movement of the yoke/joystick. If it did, there would be no sense of airflow against a flight surface. Examples are ballooning in a Cessna with flap deployment. You push on the joystick, farther than you'd expect, to keep the nose down.

That's what gives the sensation of feel.

 

Let's take my (real life) RV6 for example. The ailerons & elevator are very light to the touch. But they easily remained neutral if trimmed. You can feel the force of airflow keeping them neutral. Rudder at high speed was stiff. If the rudder in a model is easily swayed by just pushing on the pedal, then it's wrong. There has to be a delay built in. In other words, you're going to have to push on the rudder, even farther to get the plane to yaw. In real life, it's the force of air moving across the rudder, that would stop you from just kicking the rudder back and forth. I use to do beta testing for various 3rd party vendors for MSFS. We always had to take into consideration, the elements of stick throw, versus deflection, versus aircraft movement. I often found the sensitivity & jumping around in X-Plane, a point of being real annoying. I'd tone it down, or quit after five minutes.

 

I flew the Marchetti SF260 in one of those laser dog fights, against another SF260 & pilot. It was much like the RV. They are easy to maneuver, but never feel over sensitive. However, it's not the sedate feel of a Cessna 172. It's the reason I used auto-pilot a lot on long cross countries, as it doesn't take much of a stick deflection to roll, climb, or descend.

 

L.Adamson

[jcomm 5,953]

Hmmm, I believe I didn't make myself clear... What I was trying to say was not that MSFS lacks inertia, or has too much inertia - no way! As a matter of fact I do prefer FSX's overall inertia programmed to the best add-ons than what I found mostly on the default XP10 models, and even on some of the best add-ons where additional inertia was used to overcome other limitations of the core model in that sim.

 

I was rather talking about controller response vs travel in terms of RL factors...

 

The amount of travel in your joystick is huge when compared to what you should use, for instance, in DCS P-51 ( I had to adjust the throw in the DCS axis menus...). And if you imagine your joystick arm was increased up to the size of a real control column you will see it even better...

 

Control column deflection in MSFS if "projected" to a real size column would be simply HUGE. That's what makes DCS "difficult" to control when we first get our hands on it comming from other sims...

 

I remember that the amount of travel used in two b744 simulators I used some years ago followed completely different approaches - Airline Simulator 2 and Aerowinx PS1. When I reported it to each of the authors each replied with his own reasons.

 

Simon Hradecky (AS2) defended that he was using realistic control column travel, in a way that would make AS2 much more realistically controllable by users using real size Boeing-type control columns, preferably even with sophisticated FF capabilities, while Hardy Heinlin (PS1) defended that he knew the average PS1 user would be using his vanilla joystick, without any FF, on his desk, and the travel would be proportional to the amount of force required depending on the flight configuration / situation.

 

This is what I was trying to say. MSFS (and in some way ELITE too, when you're not using dedicated hardware like on their FNPT sims) IMO correctly transpose to non FF hardware some sort of hinge forces feedback when you try high-G maneuvers. In DCS while hinge forces are calculated (and apparently in a very sophisticated and effective way) those users with either good FF or real-size control columns will benefit a lot more from it...

 

And of course, I agree with all your points regarding X-Plane10's performance in this area... that's why I ended up in another World :-)

[gpbarth 12]

I fly the A2A P-51 on FSX, and have no complaints about it's realism. I have a friend who flew P-51s during the war (his CO flew Big Beautiful Doll), and he has nothing but praise for the realistic performance of the A2A Mustang. As so when I came across the DCS P-51 and read all of the stuff about it, I had to check it out.

 

In conclusion, I don't think I'm interested, and I'll tell you why. I fly for the fun of flying. I am a licensed pilot who loves to fly all of the A/C I can find. I like cross-country flights. I love flying a Lear 45 from my base airport (KSFB) to Lehigh VAlley (KABE) where my kids live. I love filing flight plans and using ATC, whether it's Radar Contact or VATSIM. I love IFR flying.

 

That being said, DCS is a gaming platform. Its main purpose is multiplayer flight - dogfighting or attacking ground targets. It may be super-realistic and have the best detailed planes. But it is a game more than a sim. FSX (and now Prepar3d) are simulators. No one wants to strafe an industrial plant or a supply train. They want to fly a simulation of a small aircraft, like a Piper Cub, or maybe a small twin, or that Lear 45 or a 737. I personally like flying the A2A P-51 because I always liked the aircraft and wanted to find out what it was like to fly one. I also like the A2A B-17 and the B377. I don't care to drop bombs on anyone, just fly the vintage aircraft.

 

The DCS P-51 may be better than the A2A version. But I don't need .50 cal machine guns, rockets and bombs to fly around Central Florida. And my multi-player set-up is for AVSIM/Squawkbox for ATC, not for dogfights and ground attacks.

 

We are different types of simmers, and the aircraft we fly fill two different needs. I'm not into military war scenarios and most of you guys aren't into IFR long-distance flying and approaches.

[KingGhidorah 209]

Gpbarth:

 

Have you seen the A-10 and KA-50? I would say that both FSX and DCS are "simulators", with DCS being no less (and perhaps even a bit more so) than FSX. I also think you might be painting the people using DCS with too broad a brush. I've been flying VOR to VOR and waypoint to waypoint and instrument approaches in FSX for years now, with all the good payware and addons. With appropriately equipped planes, you can do that in DCS too, amongst civilian traffic too, just not over the same diversity of places and distances as of yet. DCS seems to perform better and look better straight out of the box. I'm getting 40-60 fps out-of-the-box in a situation where with the same visual quality I would be getting half of that in FSX, and that is after months and years of always looking for the next performance tweak. DCS and FSX can peacefully co-exist, and I'm very happy to say that they do now on my system. If somebody wants to fly the P-51 like a GA plane that's cool. I've done that myself in FSX and just my opinion, it isn't half the rush I got from taking out the ZSU AA gun before it got me. Plus, I have two more planes waiting for me to come up to speed in the form of a Thunderbolt and Hokum helicopter and I know those are going to provide me with every bit the depth that the NGX did.

[jcomm 5,953]

We are different types of simmers, and the aircraft we fly fill two different needs. I'm not into military war scenarios and most of you guys aren't into IFR long-distance flying and approaches.

 

I can't blame you... Been there for almost 25 yrs, and also in X-Plane, etc...

 

For serious IFR trainning / proficiency (although I do not own an IFR rating) I use ELITE... Yes MSFS FSX is IMO the best overall civil simulation platform ever developed for the PC. X-Plane10 is progressing and has lot of ongoing work from LR and 3pds, but none of these platforms provides me with the realistic flight and system/engine models that I found in DCS p-51 (and no, I never flew such an aircraft and in RL am "just" a glider pilot - old one... :-/

 

Anyway, I fly the p-51 just for leisure. I have tried a few combat missions of course, but that is certainly not, for now, my focus, although I admit I found it interesting, more from the flying techniques required in dogfight than from the fact that I can hit the trigger...

 

I look for the best flight dynamics, engine, systems models in the 1st place. I found it all in DCS World...

 

Ah! And BTW, I use Silent Wings for my virtual glider flights :-)

[gpbarth 12]

I'm just not into combat sims anymore. And I like the cross-country scenery and the realistic clouds and weather I get from FSX and REX. And also the EZDok and TrackIR set-ups. And I like flying some of the big iron (as I said in my other post).

 

And the A2A P-51 Civilian model lets me fly the Mustang cross-country, too, with full IFR capability. Yes, it's two different groups. I might try DCS, but I have also found that you need to purchase several different software packages to make it work. What exactly is needed to make DCS functional?

[jcomm 5,953]

What exactly is needed to make DCS functional?

 

If you download & install the basic free version you have the "World" scenery to make yourself at home before deciding to buy any payed module.

 

If you buy any of the available modules you get an extra SU25t.

 

I spent years simulating long haul flights starting with ATP, then AS2, then fs9, then FSX. I bought the best add-ons for fs9 and fsx (leveld 767, pmdg 744s, etc...). Then I tried Xplane8, skipped 9, bought 10... I allways had and kept ELITE - my good old companion... Poor scenery, great for IFR/IMC...

 

I also have Silent Wings (and also Condor, but I prefer SW...) for virtual soaring...

 

What I was really missing in MSFS and in XPlane was the realistic / detailled flight and overall modelling.

 

Yes there is the combat component I also do not "die for"... but, I can fly the Mustang just for sight seeing, and some navigation exercises using the Map (no navaids available for it, although you have sophisticated avionics for the other models...).

[LAdamson 240]

I can't blame you... Been there for almost 25 yrs, and also in X-Plane, etc...

 

For serious IFR trainning / proficiency (although I do not own an IFR rating) I use ELITE... Yes MSFS FSX is IMO the best overall civil simulation platform ever developed for the PC. X-Plane10 is progressing and has lot of ongoing work from LR and 3pds, but none of these platforms provides me with the realistic flight and system/engine models that I found in DCS p-51 (and no, I never flew such an aircraft and in RL am "just" a glider pilot - old one... :-/

 

Anyway, I fly the p-51 just for leisure. I have tried a few combat missions of course, but that is certainly not, for now, my focus, although I admit I found it interesting, more from the flying techniques required in dogfight than from the fact that I can hit the trigger...

 

I look for the best flight dynamics, engine, systems models in the 1st place. I found it all in DCS World...

 

Ah! And BTW, I use Silent Wings for my virtual glider flights :-)

 

And I must like combat, because I paid big time to do the "Fighter Pilot for a Day" laser gun dog fights in the Marchetti SF260's. I had three kills, and the other guy got me three times. I don't care much about IFR flight (went through training in '94) because I much prefer mountain flight. Don't do the VORs either, because I'm a real life GPS/synthetic vision fanatic, who has spent many years pouring over CFIT (controlled flight into terrain) facts. The mountainous area where I live is heavily dotted with CFIT sites. But, I do enjoy simulated cross country flights, and always like to see scenery get more realistic. I'm seriously nostalgic about earlier piston engine aircraft, whether military or civilian...........including fighters, bombers, GA, and airliners. Therefor, I'm very open to numerous sims.......with good flight dynamics, scenery, and well done graphics.

 

L.Adamson

[KingGhidorah 209]

I might try DCS, but I have also found that you need to purchase several different software packages to make it work. What exactly is needed to make DCS functional?

 

I didn't find that the case at all, in fact, rather the opposite. It was FSX that needed a third party purchase to get decent weather, to get decent camera movement/head shake capability (Ezdok) and of course FSUIPC to be able to flexibly map controllers, enhanced texture packages, etc...

 

It appears that very comparable facilities are already built directly in to DCS. In FSX I too am very much dependent on EZdok, TrackIR, FSUIPC and other things, and I'm very pleased by what can be achieved in DCS, without having to turn to a 3rd party program to do so. So you can basically be up and running with just the investment in one or all of the 40 dollar airplane modules themselves with the following caveat--the people who are recommending that you get a TM Warthog joystick/throttle system are right! I originally scoffed at that idea, since I already had a deskfull of controllers for FSX, (and an old joystick that wasn't being used) but now I too am a member of that club. Not so much for the P-51, but definitely for the A-10 and Ka-50. My desktop almost looks ridiculous with all the levers and buttons now available to me on both sides of my chair, but such is the nature of flight simulation.

[jcomm 5,953]

My desktop almost looks ridiculous with all the levers and buttons now available to me on both sides of my chair, but such is the nature of flight simulation.

:lol:

[gpbarth 12]

Well, you guys have almost talked me into trying DCS, if only to find out how much better the P-51 is than the A2A model.

[jcomm 5,953]

if only to find out how much better the P-51 is than the A2A model.

 

Beware of the huge differences between the two platforms... Your first flight in the DCS P-51, namely the takeoffs and the landings will feel... strange...

 

Then, when youy go up and start testing such basic things as roll / yaw coupling, pitch stability (being extremely detailled up the point of modeling reversibility when the fuselage tank is considerably filled and the CoG brought considerably aft of the CoL..., or when you notice the aircraft presents neutral pitch stability when you increase te AoA and a positive one when you decrease it...), when you start testing the prop effects, not only the torque, but those "perfect" asymmetric slipstream effects asking for proper rudder and rudder trim settings, etc... Then, you will find yourself in a completely different reality...

 

One thing I have to say though - the A2A p51 Civil models aspects that I could only find modelled in MS FLIGHT (with it's upgraded flight dynamics...) such as the "negative" torque when you reduce power and notice a right bank tendency due to the fact that the airstream is now the main component driving the prop, and thus causing an opposite reaction from the mechanical friction, and prop drag... Of course this is also modelled in the DCS p-51d :-)