Nice FM Update

[Gunfreak]

13 hours ago, anlq said:

I bet you can't win a BF109. beside A8 is a less powerful plane than a Dora. I don't know what level of AI you used, but this AI plane is somehow .... stupid. With decent AI, they always try to out climb you at first.  
Edit: I tried against the A8, it's easy. 

If you turn inside the enemy, the AI will break and they'll go into "defence mode" which is a lazy turn. Which means flying the Spitfire, once you've turned inside the circle. You can just keep turning, while you reel ib the Germans until you hit them. 

This works in 1 v 1 fights. The AI also seem to have a offensive mode. Which is much more aggressive. So Paradoxically. It's much harder to get behind and take out the enemy AI if that enemy is in offensive mode, trying to shoot down one of your allied aircraft. Realistically if you're the only enemy the AI has to deal with, it should put up much more of a fight. But the AI doesn't work like that. 

 

I've also observed that if you damage the enemy sufficiently it will maneuver much more then if it's undamaged.

 

I've seen it many times, I pull a 109 or 190 into my gunsights in the Spitfire. Because the AI is now "trapped " in that lazy turn behaviour. If i shoot well the aircraft goes down. If i shoot badly. Damaging parts of the aircraft, but not mortality wounding it(like shooting of one of the aellerons ) the AI will kick into gear and maneuver violently to avoid getting hit. It will roll, dive, tighten up the turn weeve about. 

This is stuff I've seen many times over the years fighting the ww2 AI.

 

In a 1 v 1 the P51 vs 109 seem to give the best fights. They are somewhat similar in speed and use. The Spitfire and I16 breaks the AI as you'll immediately turn inside their turn. 

The Anton is a bit like Orcs. Not much danger unless there's a lot of them.  Same really with the Dora too. Both 190s are easy game for p51 and Spitfire. And the P47 usually handles them fine too. 

[Nealius]

My experience with the AI is that the FM is so deplorable that they're not even worth fighting. I've seen P-47s go pure vertical from 200ft to 2000ft, info bar showing 83KCAS, no stall behavior whatsoever, and just accelerate back to normal 200KCAS flight with no loss in altitude.

[Lidozin]

9 minutes ago, Nealius said:

My experience with the AI is that the FM is so deplorable that they're not even worth fighting. I've seen P-47s go pure vertical from 200ft to 2000ft, info bar showing 83KCAS, no stall behavior whatsoever, and just accelerate back to normal 200KCAS flight with no loss in altitude.

If the aircraft was flying purely vertically, as described, then stall behavior in the conventional sense wouldn’t be expected — because the wings are not generating lift in the traditional way during a vertical ascent. Stall is a function of exceeding the critical angle of attack while attempting to produce lift; in vertical flight, the aircraft is no longer attempting to balance its weight with lift but is instead relying entirely on thrust and inertia.

If, after this vertical segment, the aircraft transitioned into level flight by gradually reducing pitch angle, it would have done so in a partially unloaded state, producing lift below 1g. In that case, as long as it had retained sufficient energy, it could re-establish normal flight once its speed increased above the minimum sustainable airspeed.

This sort of behavior — while seemingly unusual — is consistent with known energy-state transitions and doesn’t inherently indicate that the FM is being violated.
 

Additionally, it's worth noting that low-speed unloaded flight (i.e., with load factor below 1g) is actually one of the most energy-efficient modes of flight for propeller-driven aircraft. This is primarily because:

 Since induced drag is directly related to lift (and increases with the square of load factor), reducing lift demand below 1g sharply reduces drag — especially important at low speeds, where induced drag dominates. Unlike jet engines, piston engines and propellers are well-suited to producing useful thrust even when the aircraft is slow, allowing for continued acceleration or climb, provided excess power is available.

When not fighting against gravity with full lift, the aircraft retains more of its kinetic and potential energy, allowing it to convert between the two more gradually — for example, by accelerating in a shallow dive back to sustainable flight conditions.

This makes unloaded low-speed flight a perfectly valid and sometimes optimal maneuvering regime, especially when trying to recover from steep climbs or regain speed after vertical maneuvers — assuming the aircraft has sufficient power to avoid settling into an unrecoverable descent.

It would also be possible to replicate the same maneuver manually, starting from identical initial conditions. If the aircraft’s configuration and power allow, entering a vertical climb followed by unloaded low-speed flight and gradual pitch-down can result in a smooth transition back to controlled level flight — just as seen in the AI’s case.

[Nealius]

P-47 stall speed with flaps up is 99kts or thereabouts. Going vertical for a 2000ft altitude gain then nosing over for level flight without losing much more than 100ft in the process at 83kts with flaps up, two bombs, and two bazooka rocket racks is a violation of physics. 

[anlq]

7 hours ago, Nealius said:

P-47 stall speed with flaps up is 99kts or thereabouts. Going vertical for a 2000ft altitude gain then nosing over for level flight without losing much more than 100ft in the process at 83kts with flaps up, two bombs, and two bazooka rocket racks is a violation of physics. 

I was angry seeing an AI P47 climbing like an UFO in front of my Corsair's nose. 

[Mr_sukebe]

26 minutes ago, anlq said:

I was angry seeing an AI P47 climbing like an UFO in front of my Corsair's nose. 

Have you tried putting in setting for the AI aircraft of "afterburners" - disable?

If not, give it a go.

Apparently, the AI Warbird pilots can and will happily use WEP, and don't have the same time limits that we as pilots do.  The "afterburners" setting, when disabled with a warbird, now prevents AI using WEP all the time.

[GUCCI]

4 hours ago, Mr_sukebe said:

Have you tried putting in setting for the AI aircraft of "afterburners" - disable?

Huh, I don't believe I ever saw this option. Is it in the menu or LUA magic? Always frustrated when I'd play warbird campaigns that had you as a wingman, and everyone was outclimbing you to the desired formation altitude despite using the operational climb settings, this might help with that! thanks

[Mr_sukebe]

1 hour ago, GUCCI said:

Huh, I don't believe I ever saw this option. Is it in the menu or LUA magic? Always frustrated when I'd play warbird campaigns that had you as a wingman, and everyone was outclimbing you to the desired formation altitude despite using the operational climb settings, this might help with that! thanks

It’s a fairly new action that can be added for AI whilst putting together the Waypoint details 

[MAXsenna]

Huh, I don't believe I ever saw this option. Is it in the menu or LUA magic? Always frustrated when I'd play warbird campaigns that had you as a wingman, and everyone was outclimbing you to the desired formation altitude despite using the operational climb settings, this might help with that! thanks

Mission Editor. Personally, it should be in the General Settings as an option, so mission creators can enforce or forget about it.

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

10 hours ago, Mr_sukebe said:

It’s a fairly new action that can be added for AI whilst putting together the Waypoint details 

I totally missed that, thanks for pointing it out.

[dsc106]

No one should ever be sharing their opinion on the FM without listing their full hardware setup. If someone is on a CM3 with 200mm extension and someone else is on an X56 joystick, then people are not talking about the same thing. And we will all go in circles.

If Mag3 wants to make an accessible version of the FM - and by accessible I mean tuned to cheaper, accessible short throw hardware - there should just be an option in special.

but the default model should be tuned towards accurately modeling the characteristics, with the assumption of a long throw stick.

my rig is torn apart so I still can’t test this, but if people continue to discuss please share your physical hardware and keep in mind the drastically different experience you will have.

i am concerned the FM has been made to feel more accurate for people on standard short throw hardware, at the expense of fidelity for those with long extensions.

 

[Nealius]

I'm on a 20cm extension and have no complaints regarding any "expense of fidelity." It feels comparable to the P-47, P-51, and A-8 on the same hardware. 

[Gunfreak]

6 hours ago, dsc106 said:

No one should ever be sharing their opinion on the FM without listing their full hardware setup. If someone is on a CM3 with 200mm extension and someone else is on an X56 joystick, then people are not talking about the same thing. And we will all go in circles.

If Mag3 wants to make an accessible version of the FM - and by accessible I mean tuned to cheaper, accessible short throw hardware - there should just be an option in special.

but the default model should be tuned towards accurately modeling the characteristics, with the assumption of a long throw stick.

my rig is torn apart so I still can’t test this, but if people continue to discuss please share your physical hardware and keep in mind the drastically different experience you will have.

i am concerned the FM has been made to feel more accurate for people on standard short throw hardware, at the expense of fidelity for those with long extensions.

 

Flight model is more then stick to control surfaces modeling. 

I flew with a 20cm extended stick. Never needed curves. Changed to a 10cm extended force feedback stick, never needed curves, including on the Spitfire. The Corsair was more reactive than a Spitfire on the controls. Which doesn't seem very likely as its been described as a stable aircraft and I've never read any pilot use the same adjectives for a Corsair that they would use on a Spitfire (like the aircraft reacting to your thoughts) a common description of the controls of a Spitfire. 

[Saxman]

25 minutes ago, Gunfreak said:

Flight model is more then stick to control surfaces modeling. 

I flew with a 20cm extended stick. Never needed curves. Changed to a 10cm extended force feedback stick, never needed curves, including on the Spitfire. The Corsair was more reactive than a Spitfire on the controls. Which doesn't seem very likely as its been described as a stable aircraft and I've never read any pilot use the same adjectives for a Corsair that they would use on a Spitfire (like the aircraft reacting to your thoughts) a common description of the controls of a Spitfire. 

Not in those terms, but pilots also commented on the Corsair having very light controls and being able to deflect the stick with just two fingers.

[Mr_sukebe]

If any of you chaps have tried disabling "afterburners" for AI warbirds.  Did that make a noticeable difference?

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

12 hours ago, Mr_sukebe said:

If any of you chaps have tried disabling "afterburners" for AI warbirds.  Did that make a noticeable difference?

My initial findings are kind of mixed. I'm not seeing much difference, if any, at all. But, just initial. I'll keep testing.

Edited yesterday at 03:48 AM by MiG21bisFishbedL

[Lidozin]

On 8/7/2025 at 5:30 AM, Nealius said:

P-47 stall speed with flaps up is 99kts or thereabouts. Going vertical for a 2000ft altitude gain then nosing over for level flight without losing much more than 100ft in the process at 83kts with flaps up, two bombs, and two bazooka rocket racks is a violation of physics. 

The 99-knot stall speed for the P-47 (flaps up) applies to level, 1 g flight, where the wings must generate lift equal to the aircraft’s full weight.

Stall is fundamentally an angle-of-attack phenomenon, not a specific speed. The published stall speed is simply the speed at which that critical angle of attack is reached in a 1 g, steady-state condition.

If the aircraft is unloaded — for example, near the top of a zoom climb or during the pitch-over from vertical — the required lift is much less than its weight. That means the wing can maintain the necessary (lower) angle of attack at a much lower airspeed, so you can see IAS values well below 99 kts without stalling.

In your example, if the P-47 went pure vertical, then pitched over into level flight, it would be in a near-ballistic or very low-g state for part of the maneuver. In that state, the “stall speed” number doesn’t apply, and the aircraft can regain speed with minimal altitude loss — even with bombs and rocket racks attached — as long as there’s enough initial energy and thrust to carry it through.

[AJaromir]

1 hour ago, Lidozin said:

Stall is fundamentally an angle-of-attack phenomenon, not a specific speed. The published stall speed is simply the speed at which that critical angle of attack is reached in a 1 g, steady-state condition.

That's correct. If you know this, you can achieve the point when the stall is impossible. Even at 0 airspeed. I call it "decellerated stall"

Edited yesterday at 02:29 PM by AJaromir

[Lidozin]

4 hours ago, AJaromir said:

That's correct. If you know this, you can achieve the point when the stall is impossible. Even at 0 airspeed. I call it "decellerated stall"

Ballistic trajectory. An arrow, for example.

[captain_dalan]

On 8/4/2025 at 4:53 PM, anlq said:

I used to like the F4U corsair until flying this module in DCS. It is slow like a snail, handling like a brick. 
I used to love this plane in IL-2. But flying this plane in DCS is like a pain in the a$$. Acceleration is a misery, turning is a gambling. Although I can land this plane on carrier for the first attempt and never failed. I owned all the other warbirds and flying prop planes is fun to me, except this Corsair. 
how come a fast, strong plane named whistle of death is like this ? I tried dogfighting with P-47 and it was a struggling to keep up with that P-47.
I don't really understand. I may refund this plane if it is possible.
 

Don't let some of comments around here fool you. Your observations are correct, though your conclusions may not be. However, it's only so because you come from a different time and different world. I was there too. You can see from the list of sims I played over the years on my profile. Your only "sin" here, is that you expect the AI's to play by the same or similar rules that you do. They unfortunately, DO NOT. I have fought AI's that had both of their wings missing, and they still managed to climb at steady 45 degrees nose high, 75 knots, all the way to 60000ft. They could have gone higher as well, however I COULD NOT FOLLOW them. Me, in my completely untouched, pristine plane. 

The AI's in DCS are like the Agents in the Matrix. They cheat. The system is ALWAYS giving them all the energy they need to continue flying. An AI in DCS will NEVER STALL. EVER. Under any circumstance. If to planes entered a double Immelmann in DCS, one at 170 knots, the other at 320 knots, who do you thing has better chances of completing it? If your answer was the one at 320, you would be wrong. If your answer was the one at 170, you would also be wrong. The correct answer is the one flown by the AI. Also, the AI in DCS ALWAYS has power/thrust to ratio greater then 1. If you initiate a climb at say 150 knots more then the AI that's on your six, the AI will follow you into that climb without any problems. More then that, it will actually catch up with you. You see, as your planes loses power as you climb, and thus you start losing airspeed and eventually stall, the AI wont. It's follow you into low orbit if it needs to. 

So ignore all the comments that advise you to use energy tactics, unless they mean single strife/slashing dives and then bugging out. It won't work. Some planes are more guilty of this then others (when controlled by the AI), but as a general rule, they all follow this principles. Planes like the MiG-15, MiG-21 and F-5 are particularly notorious of this. They will, out climb and out turn ANY plane in the game if you play by their rules. Fortunately for jet plane users, these planes often have at least some form of advantage that compensate for the AI behavior, be it weapon system, or raw performance. Those who fly WW2 planes, aren't that lucky. 

Bottom line, IF you want to compare plane performance, do it by using either AI's as controllers for both planes, or humans for both planes. Unfortunately, I own neither the Dora not the Kurfürst, so I can't evaluate the relatives strengths and weaknesses of these relative to the Corsair in DCS. However, when I compared them in the hands of the AI at veteran skill level (avoiding using Ace levels, they are the worst when it comes to breaking the rules of physics), I got this:
 

As you can see, the Corsair soundly beats the Dora, and while not quite as good as the 109, it still pulls a roughly 50% win ratio. 
 

On 8/5/2025 at 7:26 PM, anlq said:

Have you tried dogfighting the other planes like BF109 or FW190 ? 
Max speed in a straight and level flight is nothing. 
I'm not a rookie, I have years of experience dogfighting in IL-2. 

The 190d isn't all that hard really. The AI controlled Dora is very close to your own Corsair in performance, and you can generally out turn it in horizontal if you are patient enough. However, you can make things a lot easier for yourself, if you do some out of plane maneuvering. The Kurfürst is whole other can of worms though. I have no idea how to fight that when AI controlled. I have seen it go less then 74 knots and out turning me, I have seen it out accelerate me, and catch up with me, even when I started at 350 knots, and he started at 170. The examples I mentioned above, are actually from me experimenting with a veteran AI in the 109. It also out turns you at EVERY speed. I think we may have a case of an F-5, Mig-15 or MiG-21 in the warbirds here.

But if you need some help in taking down Doras, here's one way that I do it:
 

Hope some of this helps. Don't give up. A day may come, when the AI finally plays by our rules as well. When that day comes, I'll start playing WW2 campaigns. Alas..... But it is not this day....