captain_dalan
-
Posts
2732 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by captain_dalan
-
-
On 8/5/2025 at 10:59 PM, Rudel_chw said:
did you download also the required Mandatory Co-Download, VF-24's Commanding Officer Jet? I don’t see it on your screenshot.I guess it got lost in my messy post
:
null
-
On 11/11/2024 at 5:32 PM, _YaeSakura_ said:
https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3342007/
https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/3342008/
In collaboration with Shmoo42... a heavily overdue joint livery release has finally arrived. VF-211 Fighting Checkmates and VF-24 Red Checkertails(later Renegades) now live, all representing their early 1976 transition to the newest Block 85 F-14As at NAS Fallon.
I guess I'm one of those that didn't get the instructions right. Here's where I dropped the zips:
null
And I don't see any new liveries in my mission editor? Can you offer some advice?
EDIT: NVM, the zip inside the zip caught me off guard!
-
6 hours ago, felixx75 said:
I dare to doubt that and will only believe it when you show me where they confirm this exactly. If it really only gets 54MP at 20k ft, then something is fundamentally wrong. At sea level, you can get 57.5 without any problems and without pressing an extra button.
So if M3 really did implement it the way you think they did, there must be a confirmation somewhere from M3 (which I don't believe, because I don't see any change when I press this button at full throttle - how could I, since the water injection is already activated at full throttle), otherwise it is quite reasonable to assume that M3 implemented it realistically.
Never the less, it is so. From day one. I think I read about somewhere from a 2nd party that it's a design choice. Regardless, just try it yourself. Push the throttle all the way forward. The green light for 3 minutes of water injection left, never turns on. Press the enable water injection binding, you get extra knots of airspeed immediately (about 9 at sea level), and after a while, the green light does turn on.
The two screenshots bellow are taken with water injection off and on respectively:
null5 hours ago, AJaromir said:Anti Detonation Injection - Its main purpose is to prevent engine knocking ( detonation combustion ) and premature ignition. At low altitudes it has secondary effect of increasing manifold pressure ( cool air = more dense ) Principle is: Water has the highest specific heat capacity of all common substances 4180 J/(kg·K). But that's not the most important thing. The most important thing is that in order for water to turn into steam, it needs an additional 2257 kJ/kg of heat. This allows it to cool the engine much more efficiently than a rich fuel mixture, because aviation fuel has almost half the specific heat capacity of water.
In my opinion it is not simulated yet. Because I think there should be "jump" in power at low altitudes, just like in P-47.
There is a jump in power, or at the very least, airspeed. Look at the images above
-
2
-
-
8 hours ago, Invisibull said:
Yes, I do see an increase in speed. The issue is that the increase in power should be primarily the result of the expected increase in manifold pressure, which doesn't happen. It stays the same whether I "enable" the ADI system or not. Aside from the MP, all the other values are pretty much dead on.
null
Could be a number of things then. Maybe the instruments don't show the right values. Or it could be that the plane performance isn't directly "bound" to the pressure parameters. Might be a bug worth reporting on separately.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Invisibull said:
Are you referring to "Enable Water Injection"? If so, I have verified the mapping and when I press it, the manifold pressure doesn't change. That's not to say it's not working, just that that keystroke does nothing. From the real flight handbook:
But do you get an increased performance as a result of pressing it? If so, then the bug isn't the total power/speed ratio, but the instrumentation.
EDIT: when I press it, I get at least 9 extra knots down low.-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, Saxman said:
Correct.
I've been using that for the most part, though to be honest, on the few occasions I push the lever all the way to the top, it doesn't seem to be making a lot of difference performance wise. Is it the fuel consumption or engine over heating that are most effected?
-
Latest test, no video this time around.
Gross weight 12176lbs, 6 rockets and 48% fuel, the closest I could get to that chart.
2700RPM, 59 MP, auto lean = 305 knots ASL, 351mph or 565mkh
2700RPM, 59 MP, auto lean, water injection on = 314 knots ASL (managed to push it to 315 by decreasing the MP a bit to 37-38), or 361mph or 582kmh.
null -
8 hours ago, Saxman said:
For the R-2800-8W it should be Auto-Rich for takeoff, but otherwise leave it in Auto-Lean.
That's the middle position, right?
-
8 hours ago, cw4ogden said:
For me at least, I'm not getting anywhere near 59 inches of manifold pressure.
What is your throttle setting? I get 59 by pushing it all the way forward.
9 hours ago, Invisibull said:...Edit: Just noticed that the empty weight for our Corsair is listed as 9903. Maybe that's where the missing 9 knts are going?
Could be. At least those pylons we haul around must be worth some extra weight, on top of drag.
3 hours ago, Invisibull said:The button press changes nothing, so it seems to not be implemented yet. As said in another post, the lack of a wire to inhibit travel of the throttle makes it pretty obvious that it's still a WIP.
It absolutely is implemented. I have it on one of my HATs. That's how I got to 317 knots (in the second part of the video) and 320 in a shallow dive to the deck. Make sure your binding is working.
-
On 7/20/2025 at 10:15 AM, JupiterJoe said:
Everything relating to the F-14 was included in scommander2's quotes above.
If we're lucky the Devs may've encountered some long-term problems inherent to the F-14 (like the loop of the sound effect for the ejection seat arming switch, for example), whilst testing of the early A and incorporated those fixes. What's frustrating is someone will come on here any minute and say 'What long-term problems?'. My hope is that whilst they march onwards and upwards with the Phantom and beyond, they at least glanced at the list @scommander2 has kindly collated, to refresh their memories.
On 7/20/2025 at 7:18 PM, scommander2 said:It is a excellent question.
Based on the update, HB is very busy on their on-going projects, therefore, they have not updated any patch yet.
If I am thinking in the bright side, maybe they are also fixing the issues while working on the F-14 stuff at the one shot since the same spots of codes they are working on (sorry that I am coming from my development experience), why not
and hope it is the case.
Well, shall we wait and see?
Thanks.
Ah, good to know. Are they even informed of these bugs? They never responded in the bug report section here on the forums.
-
On 7/24/2025 at 9:55 PM, cw4ogden said:
Not sure how you are calculating that. I get about 330mph true, when converting 283 KIAS to True airspeed and subsequently converting to mph, 20 mph less than the quoted 350 mph, which is also low depending on sourcing.
...
And that's leaving aside how artificial it feels trying to actually accelerate to that speed in level flight. To achieve 283, I'm diving to 300 or so, then holding level flight to see when the airspeed stops bleeding off. I've yet to get it above 265 knots or so without needing a dive to get over the "invisible wall" this module feels like it has with respect to acceleration.
And being slightly out of trim, which I wasn't or slightly slight nose up, which I wasn't, might account for a reduction of few knots at best, not a 20 knot reduction in top speed.21 hours ago, Invisibull said:Yes, that's right - it's right around 330 mph and I agree that you can't seem to get there unless there's at least a slight dive first. The bigger issue, according to the speed trial documentation, is up at 22.8 K' - I should be seeing 250 kts ias (395 mph tas), but I haven't been able to get over 220 kts. That's a 12% shortfall of performance. This is at 11,197 lbs, trimmed out as close to perfect as I can get it, no wind, in high blower, 2700 RPM, 54" manifold and 20C. It's early yet and I have no doubt this will be remedied in short order.
Am I doing something wrong?
My sea level tests:
50% internal fuel. 56-59 MP, 2700RP, experimenting with fuel mixture.
Without water injection, I get 303-304 knots ASL, which translates to 348-350mph or 563kmh. Seems right on the money there, if that chart is correct.
With water injection, I get 317 knots ASL, 365 mph or 587kmh.
I'm still not sure which fuel mixture works best, and to use when, but the numbers appear close to what they should be. I can take her up to 320 knots in a shallow dive.
Why do you think we have such different results? Are your cowls tucked in? -
On 7/18/2025 at 2:50 PM, scommander2 said:
An update from HB from discord at:
https://discord.com/channels/1071433028045377637/1071574236403081287/1395028665775161364
Below, some quotes are related to F-14 for "A" and "B(U)":
Does it mention bug fixes and FM changes?
-
On 7/16/2025 at 1:56 AM, Spurts said:
So, F-14A question. What speed are people getting in a 4x4 (Sparrows and Sidewinders) up at say 50,000ft. I once got up there at ~1.8M and leveled off and slowed down to 1.4M when the charts imply I should have sped up.
Do you mean an absolute top speed possible under given circumstances in level flight (such as infinite fuel burn at a given gross weight) or a particular climb and acceleration profile?
-
They are discontinuing it? A sad day indeed
What if what we have already breaks after the warranty expires..... alas....-
1
-
-
23 hours ago, Gunfreak said:
The K4 has a higher top speed true. So at 30k feet the K4 is much faster. Same is not true at 14k, 8k or sea level.
Can you share (if allowed and available) the data charts? I don't have enough data for full level flight evaluation at all altitudes.
-
On 7/2/2025 at 5:10 AM, fargo007 said:
Look into the p47 please.
I will when I get the time. I don't own the module, nor have I flown it in other sims, so it was never high on my research priorities.
22 hours ago, fargo007 said:It is. I meant to say the FW-190. I just confused them.
And in this video it comes in second to last which doesn't seem correct to me.
I'm sorry, but videos like this one are almost completely irrelevant to the issue. A "five" mile drag race in which a guy firewalls the throttle and finishes at n spot is not a good bug report. If you want to prove a module is over or under performing, you need to fly the numbers and document the differences from published material. We are talking time to climb, speed at altitude, excess power/acceleration and the like.
Finally, personal feelings are even less relevant. Unless you are a WW 2 aviator that flew with the thing, in which case, you should offer your services as a certified SME.-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, fargo007 said:
Ultimately the comparative is the bigger picture.
A BF-109 or even a P-47 easily outrun it. And they should not.
Why not?
I haven't really researched the P-47 we have in game, but the BF-109k is over 30 knots faster then F4U 1-D. And that's just top speed. Produce some acceleration charts and we can analyze those as well. -
3 hours ago, Karon said:
Regardless of this particular issue, if you want to compare empirical data, make sure you have repeated the data gathering at least 10-15 times. Then remove the outliers and check what happens. A single data collection is never sufficient: any tiny unload will accelerate you and, vice versa, and a slight climb will slow you down. Only then can you proceed (and will still be incorrect, but hopefully a bit less so).
2 hours ago, Zabuzard said:Its also always important to check where the data you are comparing with is actually coming from. A lot of these setups cant directly be compared to "I'll hop ingame and just fly it".
I leave it up to others from the team to provide details, but I can assure you there was a lot to learn for the team when dealing with IRL test data - often also contradicting itself. Its a very complex topic that requires a lot of research and knowledge.
Come on guys, are you trying to get the guy banned? You know posting official data is no longer allowed on the forums. And the F-14s are overperforming at high mach and altitude. BY A LOT. Anyone who has really flown this beauty since the last FM update knows it. Screenshots, tacviews, videos, it's all been done. You want a few more?
-
2
-
-
On 6/29/2025 at 6:43 PM, zlm63682 said:
I have duplicated and compared the level flight acceleration test according to the F14AAP1.1 manual, Figure 8-5. Level Flight Acceleration (sheet 8 of 12).
Game settings: temp 15C, 29.92hg, 35000ft alt, 2+2+2 configuration, full internal fuel which brings a gross weight of 63877 pounds in mission editor page, since the AIM54 pallets and fairings (2200 lbs total)weight is not calculated in ME page so the actual gross weight equals to 66000 pounds.Spawned at 35k alt, immediately enter full A/B and maintained alt during whole process, here is the table I made. left column is the indicated mach number ranges, right column is the time spent to travel through corresponding ranges.
indicated mach time spent(secs)
0.68-0.8 22
0.8-0.9 16
0.9-1.0 26
1.0-1.1 39
1.1-1.2 31
1.2-1.3 23
1.3-1.4 21
1.4-1.5 20
1.5-1.6 23
1.6-1.7 29
1.7-1.8 36my observations:
a) In-game F14B underperforms in the m1.0-1.2 range which takes 70 secs while in the manual chart it takes roughly 0.5 mins (30 secs), I also tested a full clean configuration in game and it still takes 49 secs to complete the m1.0-1.2 acceleration, still longer than the manual chart 2+2+2, so it's not about payload drags.b) In-game F14B overperforms in the above m1.6 range, it only takes 65 secs to complete a m1.6-1.8 acceleration, in the manual chart its 1.7 mins(102secs), it's even faster than its own m1.0-1.2.
I think it will be a good idea to look at it.
--------
I didn't include the manual chart because I don't know if I'm allowed to, if you have the F14AAP1.1 you can easily find the right page I'm talking about.
The same is true for the F-14A as well. Above mach 1.4 it accelerates like crazy. Long standing bug, but I guess not considered important enough to fix, just like the manual override for wing sweep.
-
18 hours ago, Gunfreak said:
Don't understand why flight simmers of all people don't understand that different modeles have different features. And it only seems to be related to the Corsair. Like they think there's just one Corsair. They wouldn't go around using speeds for Mk XIV spitfire when talking about a MkIX spitfire. But for the Corsair they do that.
When it comes to what is or isn't wrong with the engine. I have no real evidence one way or the other. But the fact it possible to "break it" by going to extremely unrealistic MP and RPM, makes me think the whole engine simulation is off to some degree.
Would be nice to get an official statement from Mag3. So all this theorising can end.
As a demographic group we've fallen low from what we used to be. I mean, many don't understand the differences between indicated, calibrated and true airspeed, even less so ground speed. How can we expect them to understand engine variants and management. The tragic thing is, the confidence that ignorance manifests itself with.
-
3
-
-
My 20000ft test run from this afternoon. 75% internal fuel (11700lbs gross). 2550 RPM, water injection on, fuel mix lever all the way back, blower to high, manifold pressure 57. Managed almost 350 knots true speed and about 260 indicated before the water light went on. That's 646km/h. Pretty close to the cheat card numbers. Only 5 knots or 10km/h short. Might need to play a bit with it some more.
-
8 hours ago, Rudel_chw said:
I dont mind the fun and I’ve watched a lot of their tutorials, my gripe is that in many of them the instructor looks as if he learnt the craft or weapon the day before or even he is learning as he records the video .. honestly I prefer to learn from someone that is at least truly experienced on what he is teaching.Eh, I never treat them as instructors. But then again, I am usually self taught, and like to learn by doing as much as possible
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, MAXsenna said:
It's on sale with a 50% discount right now.
Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk
Aye, had some miles to drop on it as well!
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, razo+r said:
It's the official WWII assets pack that you need.
Ah, good to know, THANKS! I guess that's next on the shopping list
-
1
-
Nice FM Update
in F4U-1D
Posted
Don't let some of comments around here fool you. Your observations are correct, though your conclusions may not be. However, it's only so because you come from a different time and different world. I was there too. You can see from the list of sims I played over the years on my profile. Your only "sin" here, is that you expect the AI's to play by the same or similar rules that you do. They unfortunately, DO NOT. I have fought AI's that had both of their wings missing, and they still managed to climb at steady 45 degrees nose high, 75 knots, all the way to 60000ft. They could have gone higher as well, however I COULD NOT FOLLOW them. Me, in my completely untouched, pristine plane.
The AI's in DCS are like the Agents in the Matrix. They cheat. The system is ALWAYS giving them all the energy they need to continue flying. An AI in DCS will NEVER STALL. EVER. Under any circumstance. If to planes entered a double Immelmann in DCS, one at 170 knots, the other at 320 knots, who do you thing has better chances of completing it? If your answer was the one at 320, you would be wrong. If your answer was the one at 170, you would also be wrong. The correct answer is the one flown by the AI. Also, the AI in DCS ALWAYS has power/thrust to ratio greater then 1. If you initiate a climb at say 150 knots more then the AI that's on your six, the AI will follow you into that climb without any problems. More then that, it will actually catch up with you. You see, as your planes loses power as you climb, and thus you start losing airspeed and eventually stall, the AI wont. It's follow you into low orbit if it needs to.
So ignore all the comments that advise you to use energy tactics, unless they mean single strife/slashing dives and then bugging out. It won't work. Some planes are more guilty of this then others (when controlled by the AI), but as a general rule, they all follow this principles. Planes like the MiG-15, MiG-21 and F-5 are particularly notorious of this. They will, out climb and out turn ANY plane in the game if you play by their rules. Fortunately for jet plane users, these planes often have at least some form of advantage that compensate for the AI behavior, be it weapon system, or raw performance. Those who fly WW2 planes, aren't that lucky.
Bottom line, IF you want to compare plane performance, do it by using either AI's as controllers for both planes, or humans for both planes. Unfortunately, I own neither the Dora not the Kurfürst, so I can't evaluate the relatives strengths and weaknesses of these relative to the Corsair in DCS. However, when I compared them in the hands of the AI at veteran skill level (avoiding using Ace levels, they are the worst when it comes to breaking the rules of physics), I got this:
As you can see, the Corsair soundly beats the Dora, and while not quite as good as the 109, it still pulls a roughly 50% win ratio.
The 190d isn't all that hard really. The AI controlled Dora is very close to your own Corsair in performance, and you can generally out turn it in horizontal if you are patient enough. However, you can make things a lot easier for yourself, if you do some out of plane maneuvering. The Kurfürst is whole other can of worms though. I have no idea how to fight that when AI controlled. I have seen it go less then 74 knots and out turning me, I have seen it out accelerate me, and catch up with me, even when I started at 350 knots, and he started at 170. The examples I mentioned above, are actually from me experimenting with a veteran AI in the 109. It also out turns you at EVERY speed. I think we may have a case of an F-5, Mig-15 or MiG-21 in the warbirds here.
But if you need some help in taking down Doras, here's one way that I do it:
Hope some of this helps. Don't give up. A day may come, when the AI finally plays by our rules as well. When that day comes, I'll start playing WW2 campaigns. Alas..... But it is not this day....