cw4ogden

Maybe it's been delineated somewhere, but it would be helpful to know what set of performance charts the flight model was designed around? What I've seen from my testing is the module is slower at tops speeds than essentially any F4u variant. But overall sluggishness aside, It's hard to test the fidelity, as a user, when you don't know what the module should be able to achieve, speed wise, etc. On a more general note, what's missing in DCS sim validation is the direct back and forth between programmer and tester. I understand that would break the immersion for some, peeking under the hood, but most DCS testing is done in an information vacuum. We're left to speculate, hypothesize and invariably fight amongst ourselves, often over easily answerable questions. My speculation / first question would be are the "speed problem" and "exaggerated need for trimming linked?" Is excess drag on the trim surfaces the cause of both?

I get your point, and I'm not trying to be rude or inflammatory. I want it fixed. I want the product I purchased to live up to the fidelity level we've come to expect from DCS. Currently it doesn't. I'm willing to help that process, but it's maddening to put hours of effort into testing, only to have someone else chime in half-cocked that everything is hunky-dory. Your comment summarized is "Did you consider the nuances of aviation airspeed?". And the answer here and in other similar threads is yes. The nuances of of true versus indicated and knot versus miles per hour were calculated, and it's still coming in slow. My grievance isn't with you individually, it's DCS forums thing. No matter how much data you provide, there's always contingency who argue in the contrary. Almost like disagreeing for the disagreeing's sake. And it results in the inability to even substantiate something is a bug, like where we are with the F4u. This hasn't even been acknowledged as a bug yet.

So you ran performance numbers obtained below 15,000 feet through a calculator set at 23,000 feet and by this logic everything checks out?

Even with diving I still do not achieve historically accurate speeds. Trying to get there in level flight is a joke.

No where does he mention 23,000 feet for the 261 knot reference. "2,500ft all they way up through 15,000 ft" If you are willing to look past at least 8,000 feet pressure altitude discrepancy, then yes everything is ok. I tested at 23,000 with 50% fuel, full blower, 2700 rpm all cooling flaps closed, mixture rich, and maxed out at 243kias which translates to about 402mph true. Not bad, but not correct either. Those results were achieved with a dive from 24k to 23k, then waiting until the speed stops decaying. It's even worse with a level acceleration coming in at around 236kias. At sea level with a dive I can get about 289kias which is about 332mph true. With about 275kias achievable in level acceleration. Aside from the OPs hyperbolic post, no one is saying it's off by a huge amount. But it's missing 5-10% of top speed as a rough estimate.

Engine / AC performance is not listed on the bug tracker, which implies Magnitude is in "the flight model is correct" camp. I disagree. This kind of testing isn't difficult, but it also shouldn't be the responsibility of the player base to validate. And the lack of feedback means the community inevitably will resort to incessantly fighting over it. It's one thing to ask your player base to be your partner assisting test and development. It's another thing entirely to ask them to do it in an information vacuum, and to let the arguing just rage on, often untethered to reality. We're to the point people are explaining away the F.M. problems with gobbledegook. No offense to Rudel but "it does 280 mph on this race:" is gobbledegook. It's irrelevant that the plane flies "faster than 200mph" if it doesn't achieve historically accurate speeds. Which it doesn't. Period. Post a video and prove me wrong. The Prop RPM explanation - pure un-adulterated gobbledegook. 'You just aren't flying it right' - a serious contender for the gaslighting gobbledegook award. We have the performance charts, so where is the track file demonstrating the F4u is correct? It's broken at sea level, and that's as much as I'm willing to test in a vacuum.

Still Broken.

Bumping. It feels to me as if the module can only turn about 90 degrees to the left or right before it hits an invisible turn wall. I am unable to do a 180 degree turn at all. Anything after about 90 degrees and the module steers back the other direction.

For me at least, I'm not getting anywhere near 59 inches of manifold pressure.

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.

Still feels slow after first patch, at sea level at least. Max manifold pressure I can obtain is 53 maybe 54. Tried making the throttle a slider but I don't think it's axis related. 2700 rpm, water injection on, All cooling systems closed, 50 percent fuel - Max level speed 283 knots

Still a problem year and a half later.

Which exist, and which I'll be more than happy to test after a patch or two. It's a great module, don't get me wrong. But the answer to his question and the answer that will surely send you chomping at the bit to argue more is: we don't know. Have you done the testing?

Agree that is a bug, but the OP is asking why he and many others can't achieve performance numbers they should be able to. And while some may be attributable to a layperson understanding of the concepts, the answer to his question, is we don't know for sure. There are still too many fixes needed to be in a position to do much beyond speculate.