PL_Harpoon

The compass does not rotate. The thin needle shows your heading.

Create a new mission. Place an F4U at any airport, set it to start from ramp Jump in. Perform start-up checklist but skip priming The engine will start normally.

I agree. I don't use curves on any other warbird. Also, look how the 3d stick or the elevators move during normal maneuvers and compare that to other aircraft. I'd advise against it. You'll need the full range for landings if you want to do them properly.

Had similar opinion yesterday when I first tried it. Now, after playing with it for some time I believe the main problem is not with the flight model per se but more with the way controls are translated to the flight model. With a 20cm extension and a 20% curvature in pitch it begins to feel better. The best way to demonstrate what I mean is to compare the movements of the stick in the cockpit (or the inputs widget) to this: Currently, moving the stick like in the video would cause the aircraft to violently jump around.

In my case (i5-6900K, RTX 2070 SUPER, 32BG RAM, HP Reverb G2) setting textures to medium increased FPS by 100%.

I get that the panels are painted black but it's the same with pretty much every allied aircraft and yet the corsair cockpit looks way darker.

Did anyone try it on lower spec machines? I'm running 32GB/RTX 2070S (8GB). Should I even bother? How does it compare to, say Syria?

Thanks. There are some stutters, probably should've lowered some settings for the recording.

Not to go too much offtopic here, have you considered overpitch? The engines in Mi-8 and Mi-24 seem to have relatively slow spool times which may induce VRS. vsTerminus made a good video about it a while ago:

My first ever video tutorial. Enjoy.

In case anyone's interested. Army Bell OH-58D Operator's Manual.pdf

There definitely is something wrong here. KW - sideslip boost.trk Tacview-20240606-225014-DCS-KW slide boost test.zip.acmi

This is a recreation of a real camo: The only difference I made are "Mi-24P" instead of "mi-24V" on engine cowlings, and tiger emblem on the right side moved slightly forward (because of the rails). I also made some fictional variations on the pattern. Links: Original grey Green Black-orange Desert Pics below

First of all, I think DCS is a great product and the attention to detail is unparalleled, but in my opinion the weather system is one area where at least for me it is quite dated. I don't mean visuals (they're great) but the simulation of the air we fly in. I'll try to break it down: 1. Wind direction - it's too stable. Wind constantly changes IRL - perhaps use an arc and change frequency instead of a single direction? 2. Wind speed - just like above, give us the ability to set min/max and change frequency (freq could use the same value as above for simplicity's sake) 3. Wind gusts - adding them would bring a lot of realism to the game. They should use separate direction arc/strength/frequency. 4. Visibility/humidity - the current fog is in my opinion not enough. Some more options would bring a lot to the sim. 5. Vertical air movement (thermals/turbulences) - we have lots of desert maps in DCS, I'm sure all those cities should produce big thermals, especially at noon. Also things like forests or hillsides should produce up/down drafts. I'd like to point out I'm this is not the same as dynamic weather. All of the changes above could still use predefined, "static" weather presets, which could later be expanded to change over time. Also, I know that when flying at mach 1.5 at 30k ft none of this would matter but the "DCS experience" is much more than just that. Helis, warbirds, even some cold war jets would greatly benefit from those improvements and as for big jets - you still have to take-off or land sometimes. Not to mention the effect it would have on unguided weapons.

To be honest, a delay in firing the guns would be a big thing in real life too. No sane engineer would design a system with 1 second delay between pressing the trigger and firing a gun and even if somehow they would, the pilots would definitely complain about it. In other words, if there really was a delay it would either be mentioned in the aircraft manuals (warning pilots about it) or it would pop up at least once in pilots memoirs as its a pretty big design flaw.

I almost 100% agree with all of this, except First, I'd also add delayed fuses for allied bombs. Not only it would be useful right now but it also might be crucial once the Mosquito arrives. Secondly, Despite the neglect I'm grateful for anything they do for WW2, even if it's just the gun sounds. It's not like the sound designer can stop improving sounds and fix bugs instead.

TBH, given how long it takes to develop a full fidelity module at the moment I'd be satisfied with an AI versions of G6 or Zero.

Cheers

As promised, the video of my yesterday's tests:

Just did a few tests. The result is no surprise: it's a matter of mass. At 20% fuel I was able to perform a safe autorotation with glide speed of 90km/h by a sharp pull of the collective at the right moment and only a slight flare. At 80% the same technique didn't work. The helicopter would just falls like a rock. After 3 attempts I did a simple test at altitude: I started a regular autorotation but pulled the collective at 300m to see how much altitude it takes to achieve the slowest descent rate and what descent rate you can achieve. As I suspected, the rate of descent went from >15 m/s to 5 m/s and it took about 100m to do so. Still, not enough for a safe landing. Then I performed a safe autorotation with glide speed of 150 km/h and with flare at the end managed a safe landing. I have tracks for all attempts, here are some of them. I'll try to record them to a video tomorrow. I've had enough for today Here's a successful attempt at a 90kph autorotation with 20% fuel, Hind - Autorotation 1 - low speed - low mass.trk here's one of the attempt of doing the same with 80% fuel, Hind - Autorotation 2 - low speed - high mass attempt 3.trk here's the test at 300m Hind - Autorotation 2 - low speed - high mass test.trk ...and here's a successful landing with glide speed of about 150kph and 80% fuel Hind - Autorotation 2 - high speed - high mass.trk

BTW, it is interesting that within the same manual, there is another section referring to autorotations. This time there are no specific speed values to maintain and in fact states that:

That's what bothers me. I too can perform successful autorotations with speed of 170kph. The problems starts when I try to do it according to the instructions from the manual I attached above. Try to do autorotations while maintaining 80-90 kph and you'll see that I mean.

Actually, from my experience in DCS it's quite the opposite. During autorotation the descent rate easily falls below 10m/s. At that speed it's impossible get it to safe values by just collective alone, even if you start pulling at 100% RPM. In my experience it works like this: flaring actually increases rotor rpm, so by a combination of flaring and pulling collective you can maintain rotor rpm for long enough to create just enough lift to cushion your landing. Without flaring rotor rpm drops too quickly and it doesn't generate enough lift. Without enough speed the effect of the flare wears off too quickly (and you slow down too much and leave effective translational lift which makes the whole thing even worse).

That's my thoughts too. Nevertheless it's impossible (at least to me) to follow these instructions without crashing.

I'm not sure it's related to gear as lowering the gear is a part of the process according to the manual: