I'm considering buying the A2A P51 Mustang and it's the civilian version that interests me. I already have a Military P51 in DCS. So why buying another military P51 for FSX which is a civilian oriented sim ? I would like to hear from people who has both the DCS P51 and also the A2A P51. I wonder if I could use what I have learnt in DCS (apart from purely military stuff) and use it in FSX with the A2A Mustang ? I mean it's the same plane. If not why not ? Both are supposed to be very realistic. Well I have heard that the DCS P51 is more realistic than the A2A one because of limitations in FSX. In what way would I get less realism with the A2A version compared to DCS ?

I like the civilian because it has a GPS, and it simulates owning a restored civilian P-51. The cockpit is slightly different as well. Variations are a good thing, in my opinion. The best part of the A2A birds? You can fly them anywhere.

 

I also own the DCS P-51, and the military A2A P-51. Note that there are a few differences in the startup procedure between the A2A and DCS versions. I do not have the knowledge or vocabulary to break down the specific differences in the flight model of DCS vs A2A Accusim. Maybe someone else can.

 

You can't go wrong with an A2A Accusim purchase. Period. Good luck.

Hello,

 

As well as people chiming in here, if you want to ask real world P-51 Mustang pilots you can post on our forums here;

http://a2asimulations.com/forum/index.php

 

thanks,

Lewis

I would venture to say that they are going to feel quite a bit different.  Flying in DCS has a much different 'feel' to it; responses to control input are different, handling is different, etc.  Combine that with the different start-up procedures, and it's likely that it will feel both a bit strange and familiar at the same time.

 

However, as you've stated your interest in the civilian version, then that's reason enough right there to check out the A2A one; flying it as a very high performance GA (owned by a very rich version of yourself) is a thrill.

 

 

I would venture to say that they are going to feel quite a bit different. Flying in DCS has a much different 'feel' to it; responses to control input are different, handling is different, etc. Combine that with the different start-up procedures, and it's likely that it will feel both a bit strange

 

Why is it so when it's the same plane ? Is it because the level of realism is different ? Or because the civil version is very different from the military. At least the startup procedure should be the same in order to make sense for me.

I'm considering buying the A2A P51 Mustang and it's the civilian version that interests me. I already have a Military P51 in DCS. So why buying another military P51 for FSX which is a civilian oriented sim ? I would like to hear from people who has both the DCS P51 and also the A2A P51. I wonder if I could use what I have learnt in DCS (apart from purely military stuff) and use it in FSX with the A2A Mustang ? I mean it's the same plane. If not why not ? Both are supposed to be very realistic. Well I have heard that the DCS P51 is more realistic than the A2A one because of limitations in FSX. In what way would I get less realism with the A2A version compared to DCS ?

jfri,

 

I wrote the Avsim review on the A2A Mustangs and I'm not so sure about you comment - about FSX limitations. A2A worked outside the FSX box for much of the coding. That is one reason it is efficent with the FPS. Probably other efficiencies also. I recommend you read the Avsim.com review as part of your research.

 

Ray

Why is it so when it's the same plane ? Is it because the level of realism is different ? Or because the civil version is very different from the military. At least the startup procedure should be the same in order to make sense for me.

 

Easy enough to explain.  The two simulators have different flight modelling.  They each try to approximate both the technical aspects and the feel of flight, but they do it differently.  I'm not an expert on DCS (although I do own it and fly within it occasionally), but from what I understand, the flight modelling is more advanced.  You are never going to have the same plane in the two different sims fly exactly the same, at least not without a large amount of effort.  Nothing about this is bad, it just means that if you were quite expert in controlling the P-51 in DCS, it might take a bit of getting used to in FSX.

 

 

jfri,

 

I wrote the Avsim review on the A2A Mustangs and I'm not so sure about you comment - about FSX limitations. A2A worked outside the FSX box for much of the coding. That is one reason it is efficent with the FPS. Probably other efficiencies also. I recommend you read the Avsim.com review as part of your research.

 

Ray

 

Ray, while I do understand that the Accusim engine works outside of FSX for some things, namely systems, I didn't think it used any sort of external flight modelling (such as the Majestic Q400 does, for example).  Which means that yes, there would be certain FSX limitations that do come into play, albeit much less than on a plane coded purely within the FSX SDK.  Please correct me if I'm wrong!

Ray, while I do understand that the Accusim engine works outside of FSX for some things, namely systems, I didn't think it used any sort of external flight modelling (such as the Majestic Q400 does, for example).  Which means that yes, there would be certain FSX limitations that do come into play, albeit much less than on a plane coded purely within the FSX SDK.  Please correct me if I'm wrong!

Jim,

 

The limitations of FSX that kept all the developers from coming up with the realism that A2A packs into their latest models is the part I am talking about. That was always the excuse, was it not? Can't do it, FSX limitations. A2A: Bulls**T, here is how it is done.

 

Ray

Why is it so when it's the same plane ? Is it because the level of realism is different ? Or because the civil version is very different from the military. At least the startup procedure should be the same in order to make sense for me.

I have both, the difference is that the DCS model is more sensitive, easier to stall & overcorrect, thus harder to fly, the A2A model is much more forgivable, more stable, easier to land etc.

IMO the DCS flight dynamics are a little "exaggerated" on the sensitivity part. I've never flown a P-51 IRL, so I'm not qualified to say witch one is more realistic.

I wish DCS will do a common GA airplane, preferably a C172, that many IRL pilots have flown, including myself, then we would know for sure witch one have the more realistic Flight Dynamics & feel.

I think A2A's 172 is spot on, on the realism :wink: 

The Mil and Civ P-51s do handle differently...different weights, different CGs.  The Civil P-51 is a bit lighter, due to not being weighed down with armor and weapons, thus has a lighter feeling in handling.  Heck, flying with aft tank empty gives much different handling than with aft tank empty due to CG shifting. 

 

I don't have any real time in a Mustang so I can't vouch for 'authenticity' either, but Dudley, A2A's chief test pilot and CFI who has 1000s of hours in P-51s says it is good, so I would say it is pretty realistic.

 

Cheers
TJ

Jim,

 

The limitations of FSX that kept all the developers from coming up with the realism that A2A packs into their latest models is the part I am talking about. That was always the excuse, was it not? Can't do it, FSX limitations. A2A: Bulls**T, here is how it is done.

 

Ray

 

Out of curiosity tho, did you try the P51 on DCS?

 

If you install DCS World, you can fly the TF-51 (which is a two seat version of the p51) for free!

No. Not the P-51. I installed DCS and tried a couple of the 'beta' fighters and one of the choppers maybe 2 years ago. I thought the feel was over sensitive for me as a GA rw pilot and I didn't take the time to learn all the switches, positions, layout, and capabilities of a foreign fighter doing air to air combat.

 

I read most of the articles in PC World magazine in their coverage and tutorials for DCS.

 

I did volunteer to write an Avsim review but never got a response from them.

 

Regards,

Ray

I see. Well, as i said, you can try that for free if you ever want to try again