Flight model how is it and how's FFB

[Hiob]

On 6/21/2025 at 2:18 AM, ldnz said:

After a number of hours last night I've found it a joy with a VPForce FFB - responding well to trim and giving plenty of feedback. It feels heavy to me with FFB, and I can't follow some of the extreme negative comments above at all with my setup. I do wish for FFB rudder - its got a huge rudder and with my fairly light springs it feels sensitive to it, but I'd imagine with FFB there would be enough weight in the pedals to completely change that (like it does for the stick)

Well, then get a FFB mod for your pedals.  I would recommend….

On 6/21/2025 at 1:51 PM, Lee Dove said:

Calibrate the curve on the stick. It always defaults to linear.

I’m flying with a Rhino. Can’t use curves. I think the input control vs. simulated controls translation still needs some tweaking. It’s EA after all….

[skywalker22]

12 hours ago, Gunfreak said:

Indeed, that's my major problem with it. Any change in speed starts to throw the tale out to the side.  And if you say you are divining. Because of the speed increase. The aircraft will start to crab.  And no matter how must rudder trim or pedal work you do. You can't compensate fast enough. So by the end your almost flying sideways.

Exactly, well explained.

GVad the pilot talks about this fenomenon here (video posted by @Raven (Elysian Angel) on previous page).

Edited Sunday at 11:24 PM by skywalker22

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

8 hours ago, Hiob said:

I think the input control vs. simulated controls translation still needs some tweaking.

I agree

[aphill]

On 6/20/2025 at 8:08 AM, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

It feels and performs good, but does have some anomalies needing to be addressed.

One of the anomalies is the hydraulic pressure sometimes will drop to zero with the engine running. I have seen it happen on the ground with nothing hydraulic moving.

[dsc106]

GVad the pilot breakdown in the video is helpful, including stalls and inertia, but also the discussion in the comments there. There is discussion regarding the way the rudder is simulated, among other thinks.

I hope Mag3 takes a look. 

A lot of the FM issues people are having do not seem like a major rewrites, but rather tweaks and refinements on an otherwise solid foundation.

I am curious to know if some of the over G issues, or the issue posted on reddit where the aircraft spins out of control oddly, is tied to damage modeling (ie wings not ripping off) or how stalls are modeled.

It does seem like if some of these issues are resolved (and if the sounds are enhanced) - neither of which seem out of reach in EA - the module will shape up very nicely.

[Pappy_Gunn]

A bit dissapointed with  the flight model but I assume they will tweak it.  It handles poorly on the ground in that it is difficult to swing the nose around it doesn't feel like a taildragger.  It doesn't want to turn, you need to input the brakes too much.  Little inertia.  I have all the other DCS warbirds.  The controls are definitely very twitchy at low speed, especially the pitch.  Way too much response at low speeds.  Same with the rudder, unlike on the ground.  It is difficult to trim.  You always have to be on the trim, way more than a Spit or Jug. All 3 axis. Yuge amount of torque low speed carrier approach, but I understand that is historic but I wonder how much.  They have to smooth down the response.  I have my joystick curves set up as per the manual.

[Viking 1-1]

Is that kind of "drift" normal?

When going for a carrier landing on the final turn the plane feels more like it is flying sideways then a turn. Is this the way it was/should be?

[Hiob]

5 hours ago, Viking 1-1 said:

Is that kind of "drift" normal?

When going for a carrier landing on the final turn the plane feels more like it is flying sideways then a turn. Is this the way it was/should be?

The slower you go, the more you have to compensate for side slip in a turn by use of the rudder. Generally speaking, that is normal. I assume such basic flight characteristics are modelled in the Corsair as well.

[Gunfreak]

36 minutes ago, Hiob said:

The slower you go, the more you have to compensate for side slip in a turn by use of the rudder. Generally speaking, that is normal. I assume such basic flight characteristics are modelled in the Corsair as well.

modeled to the extreme actually, it might be right, but it's extreme. Far far far times that of any of the other DCS warbirds.

[Guldendrak]

I'm not a specialist at all, so I can't say whether it's accurate or not, but to me, the flight model feels odd. I enjoy flying my other WWII modules (P-51, Bf 109, Spitfire, P-47, Fw 190D and A), but when I try the Corsair, I just don't feel connected to the plane.

I don't use a force feedback stick as I'm using a Virpil WarBRD, but I still get a much better feeling with the other aircrafts. It's a bit disappointing, because the Corsair is a plane I've really been looking forward to.

I do plan to get a FFB stick eventually, but I'm waiting to see how good (or bad) the upcoming Winwing options will be. Maybe that will give the Corsair a whole new dimension.

I've tried to change the curves, but sadly I don't get a better feeling and I can't explain why.

Edited 22 hours ago by Guldendrak

[Mud]

I only have an issue with the ground handling (tight turns specifically) and sound.
In the air, it feels just right and not so different from the other warbirds to me.

[Gunfreak]

Since I'm constantly trimming. I would like more physical force feedback when you trim. There's very little stick movement when trimming.

[greyseal494]

On 6/20/2025 at 2:25 PM, Zergburger said:

bro i cant believe they are releasing it with this flight model and trying to keep a straight face.....its a joke

https://www.rxddit.com/r/hoggit/comments/1lfnee6/for_those_wondering_about_the_f4u_flight_model/?share_id=j0cWJbFViQugsH1ce_61t&utm_content=1&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_source=share&utm_term=1

I agree, this is my first big regret on buying modules...isn't the flight model the first thing you want to get right? How could they fly this and agree to release it they way it is? This is not good at all.

[P3CFE]

For what it's worth.

My experience with the flight model after a few flights is good.

I definately needed curves of about 30 on all three axis, but now it feels convincing.

The torque effect of the prop is a bit snappy with throttle I find.

You would expect it to be more lagging, but...im not a corsair pilot.

Now i'm learning to anticipate with rudder, I got it under control ..mostly.

The aircraft is a hand and feet full, but as I understand it, that was the case in real life.

I surely hope that realism of the flightprofile remains the goal and there is no tuning down to make it unrealisicly easy.

Great first release, great machine.

Regards

 

 

[Archaic]

I have the rhino. Still working on settings for it, but the Corsair feels very...elastic. 

[MAXsenna]

I have the rhino. Still working on settings for it, but the Corsair feels very...elastic. 

Like Hiob wrote. Remember to not use curves and keep saturation at default, because changing this messes up the FFB.

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

[Hiob]

7 hours ago, MAXsenna said:

Like Hiob wrote. Remember to not use curves and keep saturation at default, because changing this messes up the FFB.

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk
 

That's generally true. Most likely the Corsair isn't any special in this. So I stand by the statement. However, in its current state, I'm really not happy with the controls implemetation.
I have seen videos that suggest that adding huge curves etc. vastly improve the "issue", and that maybe true, however (not even talking about FFB here) from my pov it is the very sensitive reaction to the virtual controls that is the biggest part of the problem. 
Obviously I have no idea about the real thing, but it feels very different from all the other WW2 modules in DCS and that is currently my only reference.
Also, even if FFB is still a niche, it shouldn't be disregarded completely. 

That's the state of the matter for me right now. But I'm not worried. We are just a couple of days in EA and such are the things that usually get a lot of improvement during EA.

[Hotdognz]

I have the rhino. Still working on settings for it, but the Corsair feels very...elastic. 

That's the same I feel with the Rhino FFB.

Sent from my CPH2333 using Tapatalk

[Hiob]

10 minutes ago, Hotdognz said:

That's the same I feel with the Rhino FFB.

Sent from my CPH2333 using Tapatalk
 

I would describe it as too weightless or lack of inertia. It feels like a kite. Interestingly somebody just said the the same about the P-47 to me on another forum. There is a lot of subjectivity involved in this evaluations. 
I really feel bad for the devs. Must be sisyphus work to get it right.

[Slippa]

I’m using a Warthog with crosswinds like I do for everything. I haven’t messed with curves for the Corsair but I’m gonna have to.

I think it needs work. It’s odd, both on the ground as well as in the air. I agree with people saying there’s a lack of feeling inertia properly, same with speed, it’s weird. I’m almost constantly trimming in the Spit too but that flies and feels a whole lot better. The Jug carries the weight properly and feels big and fat. This feels like it’s made out of an airfix kit when in the air.

Overall I’m happy to have it but it doesn’t belong in the hangar alongside my other props. (Everything but the i16, including the Christen Eagle). This is still in the workshop (EA) and does still need working on. It’s got potential.

[DD_Fenrir]

I suspect - I reiterate that what I am about to say is a supposition - that some flight surface airloads are not yet modelled fully or at all.

There is precedence for this; Spitfire rudder airloads were absent on initial EA, as were - IIRC - the P-47.

It maybe that this feature is WiP.