Who tested the Flight Model?

[SandMan23]

Flight model is completely awful.  Should have been Top of List in the "Known issues", but not even mentioned. Sounds are not as bad as the flight model, but still awful.  No way you can dogfight in this thing yet.  Only thing to do in this plane is start up fly around a bit and land although not sure how accurate any of that is with current FM state.  Maybe drop some ground ordinance.  Complete disappointment in current state.

Edited Sunday at 08:45 PM by SandMan23

[Slice313]

You’re not the only one complaining about the flight model. The complaints are getting louder with each passing day. I was initially excited about the module, but seeing the situation with the flight model, which is the most important aspect to me, I’ve decided to wait for a few months. We’ll see if anything is done to address the flight model’s issues. 

[Mike Busutil]

I've noticed the good pilots are enjoying the Corsair, flying with friends, making videos, completing the training and racking up mission hours shooting down other aircraft.

Rookie pilots that enjoy auto start and use the throttle like an On/Off switch or push the flight stick around like they are in a dog fight for a simple takeoff/landing are the ones struggling...

Post a track so we can see how you are treating her during a fight.

[Rudel_chw]

12 minutes ago, SandMan23 said:

Flight model is completely awful. 

I trust the opinion of people with actual flight qualifications, more than those of random users:

 

 

[Firebugs]

Pitch:

Curve: 25-30

Y Saturation: 75-85

 

Yaw:

Curve: 25-30

 

Flies a lot better this way, YMMV.  I don't think it's necessarily the flight model as much as it is the input-> output relationship.

[BeforeBroadband]

I get people are frustrated, but can we make sure issues posted in Bug Reports are more substantial than 'this sucks'? That is not helpful.

[Merlins51]

I've been flying it with a VPForce Rhino (FFB stick).  With the feedback from the stick I've had no issue flying or dogfighting at all.   Can't comment on how "accurate" it is, but for takeoff, landing, flight, and combat I've been enjoying the different feel of it from the other props in the game.  

It's very sensitive to incorrect trim settings and I also imagine that without the FFB  its much easier to pull back to much on the stick and have it stall out or do things no intended.

[Qcumber]

1 hour ago, SandMan23 said:

Flight model is completely awful. 

It takes some practice, just all the warbirds. I am still trying to get to grips with carrier landings at the moment. With ground landings it is is somewhere between a P-47 and a P-51 so the FM does not appear to be completely out. 

The term "Dogfighting" is a bit abstract when looking at combat effectiveness. I managed to shoot down an AI 190 one on one first time. No great achievement but it performed pretty well. 

What other Warbirds do you fly?  

[Merlins51]

Honestly, my biggest complaint so far is that dogfighting the FW190 is frustrating if trying to make-believe that it's a zero.  The FW190 is a bullet-sponge, whereas the Zero had no armor or self-sealing tanks and could turn into a fireball with only a few well-placed hits.

[Wizard_03]

They didn't call it the ensign eliminator for no reason. Flight model feels great. 

[motoadve]

I do like the FM a lot, IMHO it might be one of the best ones, this plane requires trim all the time and has lots adverse yaw , you need to anticipate the turns with rudder like many real world airplanes, its a big nose a big motor with huge prop, just changing power will make the nose yaw a lot.

I use a Joystick with extension and FFB, no curves, no saturation, only added 2 on rudder dead zone as per the manual recommendation and flies great.

It seems to be that it does not like sticks without extension, it becomes way too sensitive,  I think this will be solved with saturation and curves.

[BeforeBroadband]

16 minutes ago, motoadve said:

I do like the FM a lot, IMHO it might be one of the best ones, this plane requires trim all the time and has lots adverse yaw , you need to anticipate the turns with rudder like many real world airplanes, its a big nose a big motor with huge prop, just changing power will make the nose yaw a lot.

I use a Joystick with extension and FFB, no curves, no saturation, only added 2 on rudder dead zone as per the manual recommendation and flies great.

It seems to be that it does not like sticks without extension, it becomes way too sensitive,  I think this will be solved with saturation and curves.

I have FFB with extension as well. The only part that took me time to get used to is the monstrous torque. It's also very sensitive, so I can imagine a short stick or controller must make this thing feel very squirrelly without dialed in saturation and curves. 

[Nealius]

The only thing about the flight model that seems suspect to me is the lack of roll inertia. The roll movement stops exactly when my stick movement stops. Everything else in the air seems fine. The larger prop and relative light weight of the airframe compared to the P-47 makes you really feel the torque as I would expect we should. Most of the FM complaints I've seen are from people hamfisting it into departures and 20G maneuvers that it shouldn't be able to get in in the first place, and if they aren't supposed to get that far past the envelope then why bother coding aerodynamics that literally wouldn't exist in real life? 

[Saxman]

3 hours ago, BeforeBroadband said:

I get people are frustrated, but can we make sure issues posted in Bug Reports are more substantial than 'this sucks'? That is not helpful.

My observations:

• There's no real feeling of power from the engine. Acceleration seems anemic both in level flight and in a dive.
• Controls as currently implemented are VERY twitchy. The Corsair had light control forces, but the level of bounce it's getting with small control inputs is absurd.
• It bleeds energy extremely quickly. Corsairs were noted for good energy retention, but as implemented even short climbs can leave it drained of E and wallowing.
• Even with curves set, light back-stick has her wanting to snap over. Weirdly enough, this seems to be a bigger issue in Instant Action and air-start missions, and handling is much more benign when doing a Cold Start free-flight.
• Low-speed handling is kind of ugly. Despite its reputation, the Corsair handled well at low speeds. Roll rate was good and it was quite maneuverable, at least on par with the Hellcat, and superior to the Mustang. As-implemented low-speed roll is mush, and low speed turns just exacerbate the note above about even light inputs trying to flip her on her back.

[BeforeBroadband]

^Guys, please.

It does seem very twitchy at all speeds. Perhaps that's accurate, but I would like to 'feel' a little more inertia. The acceleration felt slow to me too at first, but I think that's a combination of constantly having to get it back in trim and forgetting the airspeed is in knots, whereas most of the warbirds are MPH or KPH. I can't speak on the other issues, as I don't have the numbers. This thing has major potential. I'm hopeful we'll be in a happier state once it gets a proper update or two.

Edit: Your note about it bleeding energy quickly. Part of that may be the fact that something seems off about the way the elevator input transfers to the plane. You pull what you think is a little, only to look at the G-meter and see you're pulling 4.5 Gs!

Edited Monday at 05:24 AM by BeforeBroadband

[BIGNEWY]

Folks if you can not be respectful and constructive please do not post here on the forum. 

Thread cleaned

[Hiob]

7 hours ago, Nealius said:

The only thing about the flight model that seems suspect to me is the lack of roll inertia. The roll movement stops exactly when my stick movement stops. Everything else in the air seems fine. The larger prop and relative light weight of the airframe compared to the P-47 makes you really feel the torque as I would expect we should. Most of the FM complaints I've seen are from people hamfisting it into departures and 20G maneuvers that it shouldn't be able to get in in the first place, and if they aren't supposed to get that far past the envelope then why bother coding aerodynamics that literally wouldn't exist in real life? 

I don't have issues with the flight model per se. I think the "problem" is more that literally 3mm movement on my input device results in a 4G pull. The translation between input and virtual stick seems a bit excessive. 
Nothing that can't easily be fixed in early access though. Other than that I'm sure there will be lots of tweaks to particular items of the fligh model. As always.
 

[Nealius]

35 minutes ago, Hiob said:

I don't have issues with the flight model per se. I think the "problem" is more that literally 3mm movement on my input device results in a 4G pull. The translation between input and virtual stick seems a bit excessive. 

That's not a problem unique to the Corsair. The Tomcat and Phantom had similar issues on release as well. 

[Saxman]

9 hours ago, BeforeBroadband said:

^Guys, please.

It does seem very twitchy at all speeds. Perhaps that's accurate, but I would like to 'feel' a little more inertia. The acceleration felt slow to me too at first, but I think that's a combination of constantly having to get it back in trim and forgetting the airspeed is in knots, whereas most of the warbirds are MPH or KPH. I can't speak on the other issues, as I don't have the numbers. This thing has major potential. I'm hopeful we'll be in a happier state once it gets a proper update or two.

Edit: Your note about it bleeding energy quickly. Part of that may be the fact that something seems off about the way the elevator input transfers to the plane. You pull what you think is a little, only to look at the G-meter and see you're pulling 4.5 Gs!

That could definitely explain it. And could also be why even light back-stick tries to throw it into an accelerated stall.

The rate of roll also looks like it's off. During head-to-head tests run by the Navy, the Corsair's rate of roll was found to be equivalent to the Fw-190 at about 150 degrees per second. In DCS it clocks around 60, not even half what it ought to be.

[Kovacs]

15 hours ago, SandMan23 said:

Flight model is completely awful.  Should have been Top of List in the "Known issues", but not even mentioned. Sounds are not as bad as the flight model, but still awful.  No way you can dogfight in this thing yet.  Only thing to do in this plane is start up fly around a bit and land although not sure how accurate any of that is with current FM state.  Maybe drop some ground ordinance.  Complete disappointment in current state.

After adjustment, following the instructions in the manual, the flight becomes very pleasant and the fights interesting (trim must be adjusted well in all phases of flight)! There are undoubtedly things to be improved. As for the sound, that will also evolve I hope.

[Nealius]

1 hour ago, Saxman said:

The rate of roll also looks like it's off. During head-to-head tests run by the Navy, the Corsair's rate of roll was found to be equivalent to the Fw-190 at about 150 degrees per second. In DCS it clocks around 60, not even half what it ought to be.

All information I can find (second hand because the linked primary sources are dead) has the F4U-1 listed as having 70deg/s at 150mph and 84deg/s at 200mph. I've seen a lot of figures thrown around from 130deg/s to 150deg/s but 100% of them are from simulation or arcade game forums.

[Saxman]

16 minutes ago, Nealius said:

All information I can find (second hand because the linked primary sources are dead) has the F4U-1 listed as having 70deg/s at 150mph and 84deg/s at 200mph. I've seen a lot of figures thrown around from 130deg/s to 150deg/s but 100% of them are from simulation or arcade game forums.

This comes from a 1943 evaluation between the F4U-1, F6F-3, and Fw-190. I don't remember off-hand if any specific numbers were given as far as deg/s, but the results were explicit that the Corsair's rate of roll was equal to the Fw-190.

[BIGNEWY]

2 minutes ago, Saxman said:

This comes from a 1943 evaluation between the F4U-1, F6F-3, and Fw-190. I don't remember off-hand if any specific numbers were given as far as deg/s, but the results were explicit that the Corsair's rate of roll was equal to the Fw-190.

It would probably help the team if you have the data for any claims being made, just like us at ED we can not just take peoples word for it, we have to see some data to compare and check. 

Please also include short track replays from your tests. 

thank you  

[=475FG= Dawger]

With regard to Pitch sensitivity, it all comes down to the philosophy incorporated in programming the interface between what the human player inputs and what the elevator (or HSTAB in a fast jet) does and how fast. 
 

One philosophy is to program elevator movement rate for controls according to an ‘average’ pilot strength and produce schedules or algorithms of elevator movement rates according to this ‘average’ pilot strength and airspeed. This will make the elevator movement slower than the human input at any airspeed above zero.

Another philosophy is to make the human movement of the controller translate directly to corresponding elevator deflection no matter the speed.

It sounds like the Corsair has the latter.

If it does, I suggest a three foot extension on your joystick. 
 

 

 

 

NOTE: I haven’t flown the DCS Corsair

[Nealius]

39 minutes ago, Saxman said:

This comes from a 1943 evaluation between the F4U-1, F6F-3, and Fw-190. I don't remember off-hand if any specific numbers were given as far as deg/s, but the results were explicit that the Corsair's rate of roll was equal to the Fw-190.

I've seen similar evaluations but the F4U was not included in them. The only consistent claims of it being on par with the Fw-190 is from one pilot's memoirs.

  

13 minutes ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

If it does, I suggest a three foot extension on your joystick. 

20cm works fine for me.

Edited Monday at 02:06 PM by Nealius