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 13 hours ago 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 9 hours ago 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.