Hey everyone,

I was on the fence for quite a while about DCS: P-51D, but when I saw it go on sale, I figured why not. I've been a huge fan of the A2A P-51D, and I wanted to see how good of a job ED did with this plane.

I have to say, I'm not a fan. I think ED should stick with jet engines. The modeling of the Merlin engine is such a disappointment, especially after coming from A2A's plane.

Maybe 4-stroke internal combustion just isn't ED's thing.

The plane feels so dead to me. The engine once started, just doesn't feel alive. I can start it, put the throttle all the way back, and the plane runs fine at or below like 700 rpm. It won't stall, at all. A2A's start-up has so much more... depth and personality.

Anyway, I'm not an FSX fanboy or anything, I actually prefer flying in DCS (love the shark/toad/hog) but now I know why I didn't purchase the P-51 for so long. The video's I saw of start-up all looked bad to me, and go figure, it is.

Yeah, EA's P-51 is bad but ED's P-51 is great

Haha, corrected that, I think I had some Battlefield 3 still on my mind. Just recently started playing that again.

DCS Models the P-51 really well....

Never used A2A's.

Yo-Yo explained why this effect is not modeled; they had a timetable and priorities. It's not a problem with the developer's ability to model idle rpm/throttle balancing, it's a matter of which feature do you want to see most in the time that there is to develop it. Since ED has a lot on their hands, sometimes such decisions must be made.

The engine model takes care of a lot of realistic failures of the engine in combat, mistreatment of a cold engine, etc.

I just saw that post myself.

"You are right, there is lack of necessity to balance the throttle at low temperatures to maintain idling. It all could be done if we had enough time before the project was released. As the plane is a combat horse we focused at various misfunctions that is interesting in combat after combat damages or misusing.
There is not hard to make a magic with the mixture dependable at low rpm but it requires time to write equations, code it, testing, etc. Instead of it lack of power and acceleration is done for the cold engine, risk of engine damaging, etc.
What is more important - prop governor and MP regulator malfunction or throttle balancing at idle? Or guns freezing? Or electric system true modelling?
Comparing two sims it's necessary to estimate all functionality the sim gives."

*Yo-Yo

It makes sense, and in my case I guess I was hoping for that kind of detailed "engine management" myself. I like how in the A-10C or the Ka-50, if I miss one button, or configure my weapons/avionics incorrectly, I'll be in trouble. I wanted that kind of feeling starting the P-51D, but in regards to engine management and not so much avionics/weapon systems, which the Stang doesn't have.

Then again I don't feel too bad since I got it for $10.

I'm sure not a fan of how it flies...or how any of these a/c fly. Why are they so damn squirrelly? I need to find some way to adjust the joystick, but these russkie programmers must hate me because these are the worst sims to get into, and I love sims.

I like the modelling of the K14 gun sight that is very cool.

Are they ever going to model the rear approach radar?

Already in the game...and works

Now they just have to do the IFF then.

Nowhere in there did Yo-Yo mention avionics... just the above which is a small number of possible things that can go wrong when you're flying a combat aircraft... er.. in combat.

I feel like I've wasted money on A2A's planes or any FSX product for that matter but I've never been a civil simmer. Don't think I've bought anything for FSX since A2A's mustang and flew that for only a couple of hours before I got bored.