cw4ogden

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.

Well if you are saying everything is fine with regards to the flight model, as long as you don't use the 3500rpm exploit / bug, I disagree.

The correct answer is it's currently not clear why the flight model is doing some things regarding airspeed / engine management. There are a number of theories, one of which is that everything is fine, and "you just don't understand the principles of true airspeed", or, the other flavor of the same argument "you need to convert Knots to MPH" etc. At the very least War Emergency Power is very bugged, needing a mouse input on the prop governor, which is completely un-bindable. It set's the engine rpm to about 3500, which is inaccurate. The lingering question is how accurate is the Flight model? It feels to me like there is excess drag coming from somewhere. And the engine modelling is a bit of a hot mess still. The trim feels off as well. I don't think the amount of trim adjustment required for minor airspeed changes is accurate. And either the F4U is off, or every other WW2 DCS module is. There's no plausible physics or aerodynamic reason I can think of, for the F4U to be so significantly different.

The pitot static associated needles definitely should not wobble, with the exception of airspeed, which would be associated with transient airspeed changes, or turbulence, not cockpit vibration. Manifold pressure too. Caught my eye as well.

DCS specific test results 2D resizable bar on - cpu bound 215 fps from DCS. I play VR so graphics set pretty low. Off - maybe 10 fps loss - gpu bound VR Bar on 60-62 Bar off 52-55 I tried the tweak yesterday and subjectively, without testing it felt better. With testing, those were my FPS numbers. 3070 ti intel 10900 Reverb 2

Binding for exterior lights on / off / flash is bindable, but not functioning.

Not sure if it is the same thing, and maybe it is as intended, but my wings only fold when the cowl flaps are in a position "other" than fully open. I.e. in the 2/3 open or closed position the wings fold. I've checked and don't see any conflicting bindings.

It's roughly 8 inches forward and 5 inches back per the limits of the D model stick position indicator.

@JupiterJoe Bug still exists. Had this three times in the last two days. I'm with Jupiter Joe that it's also highly plausible this is behind the f-14 rolling friction being so inconsistent.

Unless I'm missing something the D model operator's manual is approved for public release, but will refrain from doing so if it's frowned upon.

If I recall correctly, the start switch needed to be held to a certain value around 8 to 10% N1 to initiate start sequence. We therefore held the switch to around 12% N1 for fudge factor, but as best as memory serves me, if you released the switch too early the start would not initiate.

With the drop of microprose's Sea power, can't help but feel like this is a role (real time Naval RTS), that DCS could do five times better than any competition, but for the lack of user interface and limits on unit control.

Old topic but just discovered in the jester Menu in Navigation submenu you can see the Alignment process summarized in the center of the Jester wheel in white text.

Can anyone elaborate on what this is specifically? - Removed VR-specific bindings, as requested by ED

@MagicSlave Correct. When the LCTs drive to ground, the rotor heads tip forward like a traditional helo putting forward cyclic in. This helps with 4 wheel taxi, to give some inherent forward thrust while taxiing. So in the two wheel landing scenario, with LCTs in auto, you can anticipate needing a bit of aft cyclic to maintain the same pitch attitude, when they drive to ground. Often times in auto the LCT will cycle between ground and retract, even with 2 inches of aft cyclic, in which case you can pitch the nose up just by adding a touch of thrust (collective), as your back wheels are a pivot point. I highly recommended to trainees to use manual, mainly because of that accident. The only drawback to placing them in manual is the possibility the crew might forget upon departure, reach a fast cruise speed, unwittingly placing serious stresses to the rotor system. It's a maneuver that looks tricky, but really isn't all that difficult unless your cockpit is overhanging a huge drop off. We get lots of practice hovering with the Nonrated crewmembers giving us directions, so it's no more difficult than a sling load hookup or precision hovering task. It's actually easier once the back two wheels are firmly planted. The craziest one I ever did was in Korea where we sat on a maybe 15 meter clearing high up near the peak of a small mountain. The Koreans had saws and yard tools to de-vegetate an unmanned mountain EW outpost. So a tree covered mountain where they had lopped off just enough trees to get the back of a chinook in. I think we were there a good 10 to 15 minutes while they unloaded.

@MagicSlave Upon liftoff the LCTs retract to facilitate a level fuselage hover. This is primarily for the triple point cargo hook system, as all hooks need to be level for ground crews to hookup. For a two-wheel "ridgeline" type landing, after landing, the pilot can apply aft cyclic up to two inches, to force the LCTs to "ground" or may place the LCTs in manual to prevent them cycling between ground and retract. There was an accident in Afghanistan around 2006, where cycling LCTs during a ridgeline landing likely caused the aircraft to liftoff and drift forward. On their second attempt to pickup troops, they had a blade strike on the aft head. A second attempt they would not have needed if placing the LCTs in manual was required. It is, or was back then at least, purely pilot preference. They attempted to fly to a safe landing spot but lost the aft rotor system about 30 seconds later.

I do own the Apache module.

@Migparts As previous poster pointed out, the Extended range fuel tanks that are carried internally are piped into the fuel system so there would be no need to refuel yourself. As for hauling fuel as a slingload, as a hack to extend your range? In theory it is certainly technically possible. The reality is you'd lose range from the added weight and added drag. Meaning you could do it, but you'd likely have more range simply not hauling the added fuel. Adding fuel is a diminishing returns thing. One internal tank is the most range for least amount of lost payload etc. Two internal tanks gets you a smaller increase in range for the same amount of added weight, etc. IIRC you can't even fill the third tank all the way for weight or C.G. reasons. So you can imagine the same phenomenon with slung fuel, but with the added penalties of massive parasite drag from the load. So possible, sure. But without running any numbers, at best you might get a very slight increase in range. But more likely, the result of hauling the fuel itself would be less total range.

My voice alerts were working normally, as of yesterday at least.

Looks like in your track file you had backup power on. Can't speak for the tutorial, but in a cold and dark instant action I was able to shutdown normally.