Nealius

This is complete fiction. I have every warbird (except the I-16) and every single one of them, including the Corsair, reacts to torque above stall speed. First you make a claim relative to stall speed and now you've changed that claim to be relative to 120kts. Which is it? Furthermore, we don't have any warbirds with greater than 2,000hp. The P-47 and F4U have engines that are rated to 2,000hp (no more) but the hp you actually get is going to vary greatly depending on altitude and power settings. All the other warbirds we have are in the 1,700 range and that's at WEP. Additionally, the criticisms using that "Taming the beast" video as evidence are blatantly ignoring the context in order to fit their own confirmation biases. First, that's a British clipped wing corsair. Then someone jumps in the standard non-clipped module and attempts to make a comparison but it's an invalid comparison because they're in the wrong aircraft. Second, in the real footage of landing practice you can see that there's no stall strip installed on the starboard wing (19:55), which further invalidates any attempted comparison to what's in that video to the DCS module. Third, the pilot interviews don't specify what timeframe these happened. Most likely it was pre-stall strip installation. Which brings me to the fourth point, the "flipping on it's back" is NOT caused by torque alone! It's caused by a combination of torque and the port wing stalling before the starborad wing, which is the whole reason we have that stall strip in the first place.

What's strg?

Reproduced on Caucasus without scripts or mods. Once they taxi into launch position they change to a normal 3-point attitude (but still have half the wheels sunk into the deck). Both server and client tracks. AI spawns at 5 minutes after mission start (I overestimated the mission load time for testing). server-20250731-111245.trk Essex-AI-20250731-111317.trk

Looks like a one-off issue. After a reboot they (mostly) appear to work normally though sometimes I still get kills not registered. Say I kill 5 vehicles I only get 2 kills in the log, but it's quite random. I can try to grab a log/trk next time but the mission does run MOOSE scripting.

Mosquito as well. The tachometer needles, and sometimes the altimeter, are spastic but the boost gauges are rock steady.

With spoilers out, speed brakes out, NWS on, and full aft stick using the horizontal stabs as massive air brakes, I typically have zero issues maintaining centerline and stopping quickly with minimal wheel brake use.

The exaggerated talk of the Corsair's supposed difficulty in carrier landings also comes from before they fixed the oleo struts and added the stall strip to the starboard wing, correct? By the time the -1D came about I assume much of the initial quirks and difficulties had been mitigated enough to make it a pleasant aircraft to fly.

M3 made two: US F4U-1D and British MkIV (clipped wings). They are separate aircraft in the mission editor. Victoria Cross was awarded to a Canadian pilot flying a MkIV off of the HMS Formidable, who was killed while bombing a Japanese vessel in 1945. As part of these strikes HMS Victorious was also involved. I occasionally see references to "500lb" and "1000lb" bomb in squadron diaries but no official designations. We can infer that they probably did use US ordnance but we can't infer that they did not use British ordnance as well. Particularly considering photographic evidence of other BPF carrier aircraft loaded with British GP bombs and rockets rather than US bombs and HVAR. 1. We have a British MkIV represented, in British Pacific Fleet colors, specifically the same squadron(s) involved in the above mentioned strike mission in 1945. 2. MkIV, launched from British carriers, used bombs in the Pacific in 1945. Ergo "Navy-specific" and "aircraft carrier doctrine" are irrelevant.

I got curious about the British Pacific Fleet and the Corsair's escapades there and, though my sources are mainly modeling forums, I've read that the BPF Corsairs were set up to use both American and British bombs. It would be cool if we could get the British bomb capability.

When running missions on a dedicated server clients see the AI on deck in a 2-point attitude (and main gear partially sunken into the deck):

Gun camera box(?) and the cowlings as well. The cowl flaps in particular if fully opened will completely disappear at the first LOD level. It's hard to get any decent screenshots/videos since the holes appear at such a short LOD distance:

Any such head restriction must be an option so the players can choose to fly without it. If servers have issues with cheating then they can enable or disable as they please.

Twitchy, responsive, difficult to handle ≠ good or correct FM. This would be like comparing the Spitfire's FM to the Mustang's and claiming the Mustang's FM isn't good enough.

That's not my question. My question is if the throttle range is okay, as I am not getting the manifold pressure I should be getting according to the throttle setting.

I'm not following how the water-injection via detent thing works. For example in combat at 3,000ft MSL or so I have the throttle at max forward (past that detent) yet I'm only pulling 45-50" (-ish, can't tell because of the spastic needles). I should be getting 56.5 according to the manual.

Has anyone been having issues with the IJA assets? So far I've noticed two things: 1. The Type 89 can put 50 rounds into the side of a Sherman and the Sherman takes 0 damage. 2. Hits on the IJA vehicles are registered in debrief but kills are not.

Warbird dumbo here, what is "ADI" in these contexts? It certainly isn't Attitude Display Indicator...

AI behavior seems unadjusted for the newer frag radius as well. AI P-47s are fragging themselves and killing the pilot with low-level 250lb bomb drops during CAS.

I'm curious if the newer (encrypted) sound engine can allow for sound changes based on oil/intercooler flap positions. The older system (pre-encryption) didn't allow for much finesse with tuning sound variables.

Was removal of the tank/bomb pylons a field modification or was that a different variant than our -1D?

This statement is accurate when it comes to exaggerating visual/audio feedback for the pilot to make up for lack of physical feedback from flying, which is entirely necessary when pushing an aircraft to the edge of its envelope. However for general, cosmetic items that do not function as flight envelope feedback exaggeration is unwarranted. As a modeler myself, I also disagree with exaggeration in that context but that's a different discussion altogether.

Why does this update require an OS restart?

+1. Especially the elevator trim. It's not granular enough for fine-trimming.

I was about to post this as well. Railroad crossings completely break AI unit pathfinding.

Typically there would be one tanker at 6,000ft. The CASE I stack would look like: 2,000ft - 1xx Modex squadron 3,000ft - 2xx Modex squadron 4,000ft - 3xx Modex squadron 5,000ft - 4xx Modex squadron Not sure where the Prowlers/Growlers would be as 5xx. They wouldn't have the same number of aircraft up as the other squadrons would, so I wouldn't be surprised if they were across the circle in the same stack as the tanker. CASE III situations I don't know. There's also "trick-or-treating" which I assume is the tanker coming down to meet the aircraft that needs fuel, but I've never seen a clear description of that.