Etask

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".

850w is definitely enough (when buying a good reliable PSU). Even if you sum max W consumption of all components it’ll be below 850w, and anyway even when gaming the computer is not gonna run at max power draw all the time. SSD I would go for something even bigger. Personally I like to have Windows on a separate drive (I have a 1tb drive just for OS and some apps) and another drive for games. 2tb might be ok if it’s just for DCS and you don’t have too many modules, but space gets filled up pretty quickly especially with the latest maps. Also consider that on a 2tb drive you will have about 1.8tb of real capacity. Motherboard is fine, but if you can find a good b850 (like the msi b850 tomahawk) for not too much more, you might consider it. Video card is a tough choice, if you need 24gb of vram there are not too many choices, actually it’s the only choice in that price range. Again, if it’s just for DCS it’s a good card, but it doesn’t avail of latest tech you can find in newer cards. 64gb cl30 RAM is a good choice, dcs is very ram-hungry, the more you throw at it the better, especially if playing in multiplayer. I use all my 96gb at times. I’m not particularly familiar with monitors, but the one you suggested seems to have some very good specs….even too good for just DCS, I mean you don’t really need 240hz for playing dcs or flight sims, and anyway you will not reach 240fps at high settings in 5120 x 1440 (it’s almost as demanding as 4k). You might find a less expensive monitor but with the same size and resolution, but lower Hz (144hz is already more than enough, and even less will be perfectly fine). With the price difference you could upgrade the above components.

Looking forward to try it out, thanks for sharing!

Not saying the current model is perfect, but spinning in previous FM was not more dramatic, it was just very weird, like any kind of unusual or extreme manoeuvre, where the aircraft had a very unrealistic behaviour, kinda like being in a no gravity environment. Somebody posted a video a while ago of what I mean. It was very annoying. In the previous FM it was not “turning the airplane over” either…maybe there was a bit of extra yawing moment but not so much roll. Agree the effect could be added. I’ve tried the P47 for comparison, at slow speed fully configured, going from idle to full power there is a lot less yaw and more roll compared to the current F4U. It is not particularly hard to counter it, and it feels more realistic than in the Corsair.