Etask

Finally! Haven’t had a chance to try it yet, but if it’s been fixed it’s great news!

Well, this is not looking good. I wanted to get the oh58 when it came out and now I'm glad I didn't. Too bad because it's a nice bird. Developer's behavior is going to affect current sales, and set a bad mood on current owners. A quick word does not cost anything, time or effort wise. Unless something is extremely wrong. It is what it is, in one word: disappointing. I will stop here as I don't want to go off topic with 3rd party developers in general. I'll be very careful where to drop my $ from now on. Hope to be proven wrong and receive good news from Polychop.

Unfortunately I stopped flying it as well. Honestly it’s becoming quite annoying, it’s been released for a while now; I understand early access but this thing CANNOT be taxied, bug has been reported several times and the fix is not “high priority” apparently. Makes no sense not being able to taxi an aircraft in a sim like DCS. I really wanted to support the devs but start regretting getting this module so early. Would be nice to have some clear communication whether this issue is actually being worked on and if a fix will be released soon. And next would be nice to get some work done on the flight model.

Would also love to get an update, it's the module I've flown the most in DCS.

That’s it, nice recap. Will this issue be addressed in the short term? I need to do runway starts to avoid taxiing and it’s quite an immersion-killer.

I don’t own the Spitfire, maybe I’ll do the free trial to see how it feels.

Well, I agree with you, didn’t wanna “argue in the contrary”, we’re here for the same goal. It’s just that sometimes people consider bugs things that are not bugs (not just in the Corsair, in all modules). Opening (yet another) thread saying this thing flies 200mph at max power and is severely underpowered is not gonna help anyone, devs are just gonna disregard it. It is frustrating because I would also love this module to shine, not just because I’ve paid for it…but because I truly love this aircraft. And to be clear, I also think it flies slower than it should.

I agree with all the above. While true that control setup and stick length will play a role in how the aircraft feels, it just doesn’t feel right (to me). I just tried one after each other a few dcs warbirds, P47, P51, bf109, Mosquito etc. and none of them is as twitchy as the Corsair, particularly in pitch… Just try to do the same, same joystick different modules, the Corsair is objectively more twitchy. However twitchiness is only part of the issue; thing is the flight model seems a bit artificial, it doesn’t give me that nice feeling of a heavy bird floating in the air, I can’t really feel it’s mass and inertia…I know it’s a flight sim and comes with limitations but the other modules do a better job in replicating that feeling. And I hope they’ll fix ground handling asap as currently you can’t even taxi to the runway if there’s x-wind.

Well, I am not looking past 8000ft PA discrepancy, nor I am saying the flight model is correct. I did actually say it does need work. My point was, if people complain about the speed while not realising we are talking about different speeds (indicated vs true) and different units (knots vs mph), it just creates a lot of confusion. First message in this thread: ”this thing barley does over 200 mph, even stripped down with no fuel..” it is simply not true. This thing actually does well over 200mph even at full load. If we wanna talk about that 5-10% difference and other oddities in this module I am open to it, it definitely needs work and tuning; however let’s not spread wrong and misleading info.

Are you talking about INDICATED airspeed? From the website you posted: https://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/f4u.html SUMMARY Run #1 Run #2 Indicated Airspeed, knots 261.5 264 Vo1/2, m.p.h. 295 298 Pressure Altitude, ft. 23825 22840 Engine, r.p.m. 2696 2698 Manifold pressure, in. Hg. 51.9 54.0 Throttle Setting Full Full Atmospheric Temperature, °C -32.5 -30.2 NACA Standard Air Temperature, °C -32.2 -30.2 Carburetor Air Temperature, °C 28 30 B.h.p. (from torquemeter) 1715 1740 True Airspeed, m.p.h. 431 423 So, about 261 knots INDICATED @ 23k feet which = 431 TRUE airspeed. There’s a lot of confusion in this thread. The module needs work both in flight model and other aspects, but let’s try not to make up issues where they don’t exist.

Agree with the above…full rudder, full differential braking, lots of power, almost impossible to taxi it. edit: mission has wind. Definitely a bug.

The original flight model was FAR from being AWESOME. And I don’t particularly like the current one either.

I fly the P47 all the time, never blew up the engine. And I never use takeoff assistance in any of the warbirds I own. I have no problem in taking off, landing or managing the engine in any of them. Yet the Corsair feels very weird, both in flight model and engine management (FM feels easy and artificial to me). I agree with Saxman, having an engine that blows up every time you exceed POH for a few seconds is far from being realistic, quite the opposite actually. And I’m not suggesting it should be easier or more “arcade” to manage. I’m suggesting it should have a more flexible, less rigid implementation; possibly with some power deterioration before the engine just dies. But as you say, it’s still WIP so I hope it’ll get adjusted. BTW, I love the F4U and I’m glad that Magnitude brought it to DCS, just trying to give some constructive feedback.

Totally agree!

Engine damage modeling is a great feature, but I hope it's not been implemented in kinda an "artificial" way. Have not tested this update yet but saw many people complaining. If max power rating is 5 min, it's not that the engine will die at 5min 1 sec. Or if you exceed engine temp limit by 1 degree, the engine will not blow up straight away (well, actually it might blow up anytime even if within parameters, but that's not my point). Again, I have not tested it yet, but I hope it does allow for some "flexibility".