Nice FM Update

[Saxman]

14 minutes ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

I haven’t flown the DCS Corsair but I own and have flown all the others. None of them are anywhere near “realistic”. Every DCS Warbird has been dumbed down for the ‘sim’ community to some degree. 
 

It is a simple fact that any single engine prop aircraft requires changing control input with every power and/or speed change. It’s not easy or hard. It just is. 

DCS Warbirds are disappointing in this regard as it removes much of what made those aircraft challenging to fight in and sometimes deadly to inexperienced (and experienced) crew.

Hopefully, Magnitude breaks away from this 
paradigm and creates a faithful model of the Corsair. 
 

I hope the latest FM changes are not bowing to pressure from those who believe engine torque only exists at or below stall speed. 

Watch your side-slip indicator. If you don't retrim or counter with rudder input, any change in throttle position (or even just increases/decreases in airspeed) will cause the Corsair to slip left or right of center and one wing to grow heavier. So it's definitely modeled at all airspeeds.

[theIRIEone]

2 hours ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

I haven’t flown the DCS Corsair but I own and have flown all the others. None of them are anywhere near “realistic”. Every DCS Warbird has been dumbed down for the ‘sim’ community to some degree. 
 

It is a simple fact that any single engine prop aircraft requires changing control input with every power and/or speed change. It’s not easy or hard. It just is. 

DCS Warbirds are disappointing in this regard as it removes much of what made those aircraft challenging to fight in and sometimes deadly to inexperienced (and experienced) crew.

Hopefully, Magnitude breaks away from this 
paradigm and creates a faithful model of the Corsair. 
 

I hope the latest FM changes are not bowing to pressure from those who believe engine torque only exists at or below stall speed. 
 

Reading this makes me think you might've liked the original FM because it represented what you wrote: Throttle up, need to counter torque with right rudder, then also trim rudder again to adjust for new airspeed, same with throttling down - counter with left rudder and adjust lateral trim for new speed..

The new FM still does this to a degree, but not nearly as much as it did before.. It's not quite "on rails" neither though, imho.

Bottom line i liked the old one better but can live with the new one if needed (minus that cockpit shake, probably).

[carbolicus]

If you’re not pedalling away like you’re riding a bike, you’re not doing it right.  Especially with high-powered tail-dragger props, on take-off and landing.

Never flown a war-bird, but the F4U responses to control inputs are very believable to me.  However, the lack of feedback through control feel, I think makes flying a PC sim more difficult than flying the real thing - I certainly find that to be so.  By that I mean that the way the sim responds to control input seems realistic, but your only cues as to what is happening is what you see on your monitor or through your VR headset.

In real flying, besides what you see out the window, you feel what’s happening through your hands, feet and backside (and the sound of the slipstream), which means you can respond more intuitively to all the yawing around you get when making frequent power adjustments as you endeavour to maintain the correct speed and rate of descent on approach.  And this is all the more pronounced the slower you are flying.  Carrier landings are effectively short-field ones.

Whether force-feedback helps I can’t comment, I’ve never tried it.

 

[motoadve]

4 hours ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

I haven’t flown the DCS Corsair but I own and have flown all the others. None of them are anywhere near “realistic”. Every DCS Warbird has been dumbed down for the ‘sim’ community to some degree. 

Are you certain about this from inside information?

To me all warbirds fly great, but find them a bit forgiving, you can get away with a very slow base to final and a steep bank, plane wont stall, landing and taking off in the 109 for sure has to be easier than how it was IRL, the modelling of the 109 landing gear is going to be improved according to a newsletter a few months ago.

Have not tested the new FM for the Corsair yet

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

16 minutes ago, motoadve said:

Are you certain about this from inside information?

To me all warbirds fly great, but find them a bit forgiving, you can get away with a very slow base to final and a steep bank, plane wont stall, landing and taking off in the 109 for sure has to be easier than how it was IRL, the modelling of the 109 landing gear is going to be improved according to a newsletter a few months ago.

Have not tested the new FM for the Corsair yet

If it's the case for DCS, it's the case with every sim that's ever modeled these same fighters. I dunno, they feel pretty great to me, too, from my limited time in an SNJ.

Edited Monday at 08:28 PM by MiG21bisFishbedL

[motoadve]

19 minutes ago, MiG21bisFishbedL said:

If it's the case for DCS, it's the case with every sim that's ever modeled these same fighters. I dunno, they feel pretty great to me, too, from my limited time in an SNJ.

DCS warbirds are great IMHO, it has been the only sim that has given me some feel or realism, FFB with extension also helped, but one problem with DCS is that we always fly in calm air, there is no bumpy air or turbulence, low alt wind you can feel it but its like laminar wind, not bumpy at all.

When I fly my warbird IRL and I have calm winds, it reminds me of how warbirds feel in DCS.

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

5 minutes ago, motoadve said:

DCS warbirds are great IMHO, it has been the only sim that has given me some feel or realism, FFB with extension also helped, but one problem with DCS is that we always fly in calm air, there is no bumpy air or turbulence, low alt wind you can feel it but its like laminar wind, not bumpy at all.

When I fly my warbird IRL and I have calm winds, it reminds me of how warbirds feel in DCS.

They do feel better than most, I have to agree. I've been loving them lately.

[dsc106]

Havent flown it yet. I am curious, was the FM changed to accomodate standard hardware, or was it actually improved? I have a long throw center stick and good rudders, and concerned the model may be less accurate now but more palatable to most short throw sticks. If thats the case I would hope they would just have an option in SPECIAL to accomodate either.

OR... has the accuracy and quality of the FM actually been improved, even for those of us running physical setups better matched to warbirds?

[Saxman]

1 hour ago, dsc106 said:

Havent flown it yet. I am curious, was the FM changed to accomodate standard hardware, or was it actually improved? I have a long throw center stick and good rudders, and concerned the model may be less accurate now but more palatable to most short throw sticks. If thats the case I would hope they would just have an option in SPECIAL to accomodate either.

OR... has the accuracy and quality of the FM actually been improved, even for those of us running physical setups better matched to warbirds?

It's improved. Before the Corsair was especially suffering from excessive yaw instability. And I'm not talking about the rudder inputs, it's like the tail was just sliding out from under it in any sort of maneuver, which the historical aircraft didn't experience and was actually noted to be very stable.

[Rolds]

1 hour ago, dsc106 said:

Havent flown it yet. I am curious, was the FM changed to accomodate standard hardware, or was it actually improved? I have a long throw center stick and good rudders, and concerned the model may be less accurate now but more palatable to most short throw sticks. If thats the case I would hope they would just have an option in SPECIAL to accomodate either.

OR... has the accuracy and quality of the FM actually been improved, even for those of us running physical setups better matched to warbirds?

It is this. The first iteration of the Corsair was unlike any of the other warbirds, responsive and dangerous to fly, required a lot of attention. It even had wild stall/spin characteristics, unlike all the other warbirds which end a spin obediently with any application of opposite pedal. The new version of the FM is like a 2000hp general aviation aircraft. Old FM required good technique and I think would have been quite difficult without good peripherals. The new FM probably works just fine with a couple hours experience and a twist grip joystick. I would pay for the module again several times over to get the old FM back. 

[Nealius]

Twitchy, responsive, difficult to handle ≠ good or correct FM. This would be like comparing the Spitfire's FM to the Mustang's and claiming the Mustang's FM isn't good enough. 

[Rolds]

This issue reminds me of something that might be before a lot of people's time. In 2018, ED changed the wheel friction for a lot of warbirds to make them slide across the ground. The move wasn't made to increase realism or improve FM's but to improve accessibility to the module, "The ground handling was changed along with Spitfire ground handling improvements, it does feel 'easier', but the wing tipping was pretty easy before. Its felt this is a better representation taking into account that you lose a lot of that feeling you would have as a real pilot to prevent such issues." Nineline, Aug 9, 2018.

DCS does have an issue with rudders. A lot of people in this day and age don't even have rudder pedals, let alone good ones, and modules need to be sold to keep the lights on. Aligning a plane on a runway with rudder is important, and if you do it wrong in a real aircraft you get a screech and a big kick in the pants and several words from any nearby CFI. But it is hard to do in sim so they make the planes slide around the ground without biting into the concrete to make this task more doable. Same thing with engine torque, and spins, and basically overall ruder use, which plays an outsized role in warbirds. There has to be a balance that works commercially, and I know I will always be in the minority on these things. I liked the K9 better back when it tipped over and smashed a wing if you weren't lined up on touchdown. If you make the skill ceiling too low these things get boring quickly. Too high and no one wants to play. I don't know what the right answer is to these questions. 

 

Edited yesterday at 01:02 AM by Rolds

[Saxman]

30 minutes ago, Rolds said:

It is this. The first iteration of the Corsair was unlike any of the other warbirds, responsive and dangerous to fly, required a lot of attention. It even had wild stall/spin characteristics, unlike all the other warbirds which end a spin obediently with any application of opposite pedal. The new version of the FM is like a 2000hp general aviation aircraft. Old FM required good technique and I think would have been quite difficult without good peripherals. The new FM probably works just fine with a couple hours experience and a twist grip joystick. I would pay for the module again several times over to get the old FM back. 

The difficulty of handling the Corsair has been GROSSLY exaggerated by popular culture. In reality, it was found to be not much more difficult to fly than any other high-powered fighter under most conditions. Flown in a clean configuration (no or combat flaps, landing gear up) it was stable and relatively benign, and gave ample warning of a developing stall. It was also not unique when it came to spins: The P-51 had wicked spin behavior, and was notoriously unstable if maneuvering while the fuselage fuel tank was full.

Its low-speed "dirty" stall (full flaps and gear out) was a unique situation.

[PL_Harpoon]

19 hours ago, =475FG= Dawger said:

I haven’t flown the DCS Corsair but I own and have flown all the others. None of them are anywhere near “realistic”. Every DCS Warbird has been dumbed down for the ‘sim’ community to some degree. 
 

It is a simple fact that any single engine prop aircraft requires changing control input with every power and/or speed change. It’s not easy or hard. It just is. 

DCS Warbirds are disappointing in this regard as it removes much of what made those aircraft challenging to fight in and sometimes deadly to inexperienced (and experienced) crew.

Hopefully, Magnitude breaks away from this 
paradigm and creates a faithful model of the Corsair. 
 

I hope the latest FM changes are not bowing to pressure from those who believe engine torque only exists at or below stall speed. 

How do you know?

I've only flown small civilian underpowered single prop but after years of flight-simming I was actually surprised how little* trimming or rudder work it required. 

In my opinion it's very difficult to assess how realistic aircraft's behaviour is. Even if you give if to real pilots you can have 2 pilots and 2 different opinions on what to improve or how much. You'd have to have someone who is both an experienced fligh simmer and flies the real plane to get accurate assessment.

It is my belief that most aircraft (even the military ones) are relatively safe or "easy" to fly in most situations. 

* until you had to do a crosswind landing. 

[Rolds]

I don't think the experience of flying a 160hp, 1400 lbs c172 (which I've done) offers a good comparison to a 2,000hp 12,000lbs warbird, but the new FM is easy and boring now, and I want the old one back.

For those interested, I tried switching this flag in entry.lua to "true", and it did fly more like the old version... HOWEVER, several bugs were immediately apparent evem in brief testing. It would be nice if this could get cleaned up for those of us who want the initial version back. 

null

 

[Etask]

Flying a 2000hp 12000lbs warbird doesn’t necessarily mean it needs to be unrealistically twitchy, unstable, and capable of doing Extra330-like aerobatics. 

I much prefer the current FM, definitely not perfect, but better than before.
 

 

Edited 20 hours ago by Etask

[AJaromir]

16 hours ago, Nealius said:

Twitchy, responsive, difficult to handle ≠ good or correct FM. This would be like comparing the Spitfire's FM to the Mustang's and claiming the Mustang's FM isn't good enough. 

Again. Most joysticks are much shorter than real stick which is in aircraft. And this most often is the main issue of player's bad experience.

Edited 19 hours ago by AJaromir

[theIRIEone]

16 hours ago, Saxman said:

The difficulty of handling the Corsair has been GROSSLY exaggerated by popular culture. In reality, it was found to be not much more difficult to fly than any other high-powered fighter under most conditions. Flown in a clean configuration (no or combat flaps, landing gear up) it was stable and relatively benign, and gave ample warning of a developing stall. It was also not unique when it came to spins: The P-51 had wicked spin behavior, and was notoriously unstable if maneuvering while the fuselage fuel tank was full.

Its low-speed "dirty" stall (full flaps and gear out) was a unique situation.

GROSSLY exaggerated?
Are there any sources for that claim?

Because looking at accident rates and certain other stats, i feel like there is a lot of truth to the "Ensign Eliminator" label given to the F4U-1D... Only the F4U-4 managed to tone things down, the 1D's reputation is apparently quite fitting according to what i'm reading...

Plus, wouldn't the relatively high wing loading make for a lot more vicious stall behavior compared to well balanced fighters like the P-51, Spitfire etc?
 

[Saxman]

1 hour ago, theIRIEone said:

GROSSLY exaggerated?
Are there any sources for that claim?
 

Well for starters there's BuAer's own report.

The flight manual itself describes the stall behavior as "not abnormal."

1 hour ago, theIRIEone said:

Because looking at accident rates and certain other stats, i feel like there is a lot of truth to the "Ensign Eliminator" label given to the F4U-1D... Only the F4U-4 managed to tone things down, the 1D's reputation is apparently quite fitting according to what i'm reading...

The problem with the stall in the landing configuration wasn't the stall behavior itself. It was the pilot RESPONSE to it, and how applying too much power too quickly could induce a fatal torque roll. The landing gear bounce issues are another matter entirely and not aerodynamic.

1 hour ago, theIRIEone said:

Plus, wouldn't the relatively high wing loading make for a lot more vicious stall behavior compared to well balanced fighters like the P-51, Spitfire etc?

The F4U's wing loading was LOWER than the P-51 at about 28lbs/sqft. The P-51 wing loading was about 40lbs/sqft (the F4U-1A even had better power loading, at .19hp/lb to .15). The Spitfire's wing loading varied heavily on the version, but typically around 24lbs/sqft.

Edited 18 hours ago by Saxman

[theIRIEone]

15 minutes ago, Saxman said:

Well for starters there's BuAer's own report.

The flight manual itself describes the stall behavior as "not abnormal."

The problem with the stall in the landing configuration wasn't the stall behavior itself. It was the pilot RESPONSE to it, and how applying too much power too quickly could induce a fatal torque roll. The landing gear bounce issues are another matter entirely and not aerodynamic.

The F4U's wing loading was LOWER than the P-51 at about 28lbs/sqft. The P-51 wing loading was about 40lbs/sqft (the F4U-1A even had better power loading, at .19hp/lb to .15). The Spitfire's wing loading varied heavily on the version, but typically around 24lbs/sqft.

That is interesting, specially since it directly contradicts the fact that the US Navy initially deployed these aircraft to land based squads only, and that the Hellcat was deemed the "simpler" aircraft to land on the carrier..

Also i read that max wing load for Corsairs at 45.6lb/sq ft rather than the quoted 28lbs/sq ft... Hmmm..

Either way the toque roll you mentioned when dirtied up, and applying too much power too rapidly, was a real danger in the old FM.. right now it's "meh" in comparison, to be honest..

Edited 17 hours ago by theIRIEone
Spelling

[AJaromir]

3 minutes ago, theIRIEone said:

That is interesting, specially since it directly contradicts the fact that the US Navy initially deployed these aircraft to land based squads only, and that the Hellcat was deemed the "simpler" aircraft to land on the carrier..

Also i read that max wing load for Corsairs at 45.6lb/sq ft rather than the quoted 28lbs/sq ft... Hmmm..

Either way the toque roll you mentioned when dirtied up, and applying too much power too rapidly, was a real danger in the old FM.. right now it's "meh" in comparison, to be honest..

If you are taking off without load and from the very far end of carrier, you probably won't notice. But imagine you have loaded bombs and rockets and half of carrier deck is full of aircrafts. That means much shorter take off area. Don't forget to properly set take-off trim.

[GTFreeFlyer]

On 7/28/2025 at 11:43 AM, carbolicus said:

Whether force-feedback helps I can’t comment, I’ve never tried it.

 

Just to answer this… No, it does not help with any feeling in regard to keeping the ball centered or holding your altitude more constant.  I fly with the Moza AB9 and Simshaker driving a bass shaker attached to my chair.  Pilot IRL too.

However, I can’t fly without the FFB or simshaker anymore.  It just adds so much more to the VR experience, and all the little feedback you get for everything in game is amazing.  I can feel my bombs come off the racks, landing gear “cah-chunk-ing” into the uplocks and downlocks, etc.  You’ll even feel the bumps on ground during slow taxi.  And the gun… oh, the gun   That’s what FFB is good for.  
 

It’s not for getting your plane trimmed, although in some DCS modules you will notice the center position of the stick move based on your trim, which is accurate to IRL.  I also get a feeling of how fast I’m going based on stick force required to deflect the control surfaces.   Perhaps when someone makes feedback that pushes your butt left or right, we’ll be able to use that to help keep the ball centered.  Sure, motion platforms can tilt you for this, but your brain also interprets a roll motion at the same time.  We need G-forces to sense small changes in vertical acceleration to hold altitude more accurately.  It’s a no-brainer thing IRL to hold altitude, but in any sim it’s always a challenge as you have to constantly look at your VV gauge.  Easier when you are in close formation as you have a visual reference for vertical velocity.

The M3 Corsair holds altitude well without touching the stick or throttle once you have the trim dialed in, but you still can’t leave it unattended for long and go grab coffee or a bio break.  Make sure to keep an empty cup nearby if you need true realism

Anyway, hope that helps in case you are considering FFB in your future… I say go for it

[Saxman]

26 minutes ago, theIRIEone said:

That is interesting, specially since it directly contradicts the fact that the US Navy initially deployed these aircraft to land based squads only, and that the Hellcat was deemed the "simpler" aircraft to land on the carrier..

Because that's not remotely true. It's a myth that keeps getting propagated and quite frankly needs to die already.

They sent them to the Marines because the carrier forces were rebuilding most of the first half of 1943. Enterprise and Saratoga needed repair and refit after the battles of 1942, and their air groups were depleted. The first Essexes didn't arrive in the theater until the end of the spring/beginning of summer, with major carrier operations not resuming until August. The Marines, however, were in combat NOW and desperately needed new fighters. Every airframe available, with the exception of VF-12, VF-17, and VOC-1, was being rushed to the Pacific as fast as Vought could get them off the assembly lines to rearm the Marines. Corsairs were chosen because they were what was available in sufficient numbers, first.

Those three excepted squadrons all completed their carrier trials by the end of April. VF-12 ultimately relinquished their Corsairs, but VF-17 continued operating from Bunker Hill throughout the spring and summer, including a stint helping train the first FAA pilots (so no, the British did not "figure out" how to land the Corsair on a carrier, they were taught it by Tommy Blackburn and his boys!). No further Navy squadrons were outfit because every airframe was earmarked for the Marines, and Vought couldn't produce them fast enough (which was a problem throughout the War, leading to Brewster and Goodyear production under license with the Brewster Corsairs being deemed unsuitable for combat).

When Bunker Hill was ordered to the Pacific in September, VF-17 was embarked, fully expecting to go to war from the carrier. It wasn't until they arrived at Pearl Harbor in October they were ordered ashore, not because of carrier suitability, but because of logistics. The Navy was concerned about resupplying more than one fighter type at sea, and didn't have the supply lines in place to support the Corsairs. Because the Marines already had the logistics established, VF-17 was redirected to Espirtu Santo to take advantage of the Marines' established supply lines.

The Corsair was never sent to land-based squadrons because of their difficulty or not of landing on a carrier. It had everything to do with timing, availability, and logistics.

[AJaromir]

17 minutes ago, GTFreeFlyer said:

in some DCS modules you will notice the center position of the stick move based on your trim, which is accurate to IRL

Actually this is true for most of the existing aircrafts and there is no WWII aircraft for which it would not work like that because all flight controls surfaces are mechanically connected with stick and rudders. Trim tabs works in a way of shifting aerodynamic neutral force position of flight control surfaces, resulting in shifted neutral force position of stick and rudders. The only exception might be aircrafts with fly-by-wire system or aircrafts without trim tabs - aircraft on which the entire rear stabilizer mounting is readjusted.

 

You may see this videos about all kinds of trim systems:

 

Example of mechanism where the whole stabiliser mounting is shifted:

 

Edited 16 hours ago by AJaromir

[Rob]

2 hours ago, theIRIEone said:

Plus, wouldn't the relatively high wing loading make for a lot more vicious stall behavior compared to well balanced fighters like the P-51, Spitfire etc?
 

Wing loading is total weight divided by wing area, so depends on fuel, ordnance, pilot, etc.  The Corsair has roughly 33% more wing area, but is only 17% heavier (empty*), so assuming the same weight of ordnance and fuel, the Corsair will have a smaller wing loading. 

(* assuming the numbers I found online are accurate, with 235 sqf, 7635 lbs for the Mustang, and 314 sqf, 8,982lb for the Corsair).

45.6 lbs/sqf for the Corsair would correspond to the maximum weight (approx. 14330 lbs divided by 314 sqf = 45.6).

Edited 16 hours ago by Rob