Qcumber

What length of extension would people advise for flying warbirds? I am considering 225 mm. https://ebay.us/m/jyb9RQ For Thrustmaster warthog with Thrustmaster base. I am considering the Moza AB9 at some point.

Have you checked that your oculus developer account is still active? This sometimes needs reactivating. You can activate it through your phone app.

I wonder if this is related to the long nose. Any yaw or pitch wobble might be exaggerated from the pilot perspective as they sit behind that centre of mass. In most warbirds the pilot sits over the wings and at the centre of mass so the pilot will remain still relative to the nose (at the fulcrum of a lever). In the F4U any wobble around the centre of mass will mean that the pilot and nose will move in opposite directs to each other (pilot and nose are at opposite ends of a lever; the centre of mass is the fulcrum). This would make any wobble look much worse from the pilots perspective.

It takes some practice, just all the warbirds. I am still trying to get to grips with carrier landings at the moment. With ground landings it is is somewhere between a P-47 and a P-51 so the FM does not appear to be completely out. The term "Dogfighting" is a bit abstract when looking at combat effectiveness. I managed to shoot down an AI 190 one on one first time. No great achievement but it performed pretty well. What other Warbirds do you fly?

I just compared Marianas WWII and modern in the F4U. They both have the same performance. Good (stable 72 FPS in VR) out to sea but terrible over land and at low altitude (40-50 FPS).

Whilst frametimes are more stable for me I am still getting worse performance than other modules.

I have compared tracks on Marianas WWII and modern with an FU4 flying over Guam. FPS is 72 over sea at 6000ft. Moving closer to land FPS drops to about 60 FPS. At lower altitude it drops to 45-50 FPS with ground stutter. WWII Marianas looks great, and I am very pleased that it has been released, but for me there is no performance improvement. Update (25 June 25): I am finding that performance is better for me in VR without using QVFR. I need to do more testing.

I need to check if this version is compatible. Last time the columns needed updating. I will take a look when I get a chance and update the spreadsheet.

My impressions of this map after flying for a while is that it simply looks great. I am not noticing any significant differences in terms of FPS compared to the modern map. But FPS below VR headset refresh is much smoother for some reason. So the overall experience is much better. Edit: after more testing there is no difference between maps.

There are only three settings so there is no difference using an analog lever. It looks like an error!?

Please post your settings. You may be using too low a resolution.

Yes please. Not just for PTO. It works in the ETO too.

Looking forward to that. I love the Catalina. There's one at Duxford which I see regularly.

That must be so frustrating but the way you describe it sounds hilarious Sorry for laughing!

Yes. It appears you have to keep the revs up or the engine dies.

According to Reflected's overview of the cockpit, auto-rich should be used for starting and auto-lean for most other situations. Full back is "off". That was the mistake I kept making too.

The Corsair was consigned to use by Marines and Royal Navy at first. As I understand it, the delay in providing assurance for carrier ops meant that by the time the kinks were worked out Navy politics had decided that the Hellcat was a more sensible option as they had organized a better supply line etc.

I had to add a curve to the pitch. I might try adding to roll too.

Thanks. I'll take a look there.

I have not really seen any significant improvement in performance over the previous map. I was hoping the performance would be more like Normandy or Syria.

I think it is a fast aircraft on paper, similar to a P-51, but the comparisons are not really meaningful. The P-51 was high altitude and the F4U was designed for low to mid altitude operations.

Just want to say the WWII Marianas map looks great. Especially with water set to high. A big leap from the original map. Corsair is great too. Cockpit is to a good standard. In VR there is a good sense of immersion. It's annoying that the navy layout is so different to the air force standard but I can hardly blame Magnitude 3 for that! A minor gripe is that performance is a little bit worse than I hoped, but I suspect this will improve with optimisation and updates.

My initial feeling is that it turns much better than a P-47 or FW190 and retains energy quite well, but I don't think it is up to the same performance as a 109. In the words of Harry Hill, there's only one way to find out....FIGHT!

I agree with you there. I was referring to an air start. You have to quickly adjust trim settings otherwise it is twitchy, which might explain why people need to warbirds are finding it difficult.

Yes. Constant trim adjustments. Once you get used to it, it's OK. I noticed that jumping into a flying start with the F4U the trim settings are all over the place. That might explain why people are finding it so "twitchy".