ace the only poor guy i see is you...you ask for proof,..why dont you just try it by yourself, or better why dont you proof me wrong?...i bet the reason for it is, that you dont even have the game.
so you tried it with your document you brought up,which you werent even capable of understanding,claiming a difference of first 5 then 11kph.
you claimed that one is not able of seeing the difference 5kph.i totally believe you that you are not able to.
then it turned out that its ten times the difference you first claimed.its absurd that you remained on your argument that one is not able to read a difference of 50kph on the gauge!thats ridiculous..
pilots would not be able to land an aircraft safely if that would be true.maybe you are not capable of doing so, but trust me, many others are.your incompetence has nothing to do with others abilities or inabilities.i suggest to you to buy the game and practise a bit, maybe one day you become capable of reading gauges and a difference of 50kph.

ace, your complicating things more than it needs to be, david never mentioned flying with the aircraft trimmed straight and level on the bubble, of course that would give more speed whether the radiator was open or not, his point was that havng the radiator closed did not effect his speed no matter what the attitide of the aircraft.

you have come here looking for an argument, dont you have nothing better to do with your time??

the graph YOU provided is evidence backing up davids theory, you even argued about that though you was proven wrong, you argued about the numbers being the wrong way round, ive read so many of your posts and this is just another of those where you make yourself look an idiot by being wrong and not being man enough to hold your hands up and say "hey, sorry guys, i was wrong here, maybe i dont know everything".

i was going to put you on the ignore list but you provide me with some comedy in a morning :) no offense meant of course.

+1
i was thinking about the ignore list as well, but somehow this guy is entertaining

haha, good one ;)

Well I can not say I am surprised.. Based on your track record that is, where Tom 'saw' the effects on speed due to the rad being opened.. Where as you did NOT 'see' the effects.. Thus your vision is in question IMHO

Which you never provided by the way..

Simple, it is not my job to re-do all the baseless claims made by people like you

No need, Tom already proved you are wrong.

A bet you would loose

LOL! So what part of me saying the numbers were hard to read did you not understand the first, second, and third time I said it?

Yes 'one', as in you, which is not to be confused with 'all'. I also pointed out that based on past experience, like the Ki61 top speed testing. Where I did take the time to prove a baseless claims was wrong. And based on the analysis of that persons track file it was found that the speed difference, be it too fast or too slow, was due to altitude changes.

Yup, I am only human, and I work at the biggest test range in the lower 48, where we collect test data on everything from a T-72 tank that we blow up to a UAV tracking a soldier walking in the filed.. And based on that experience I know my limitations, and basic human limitations. You may consider yourself a super human, and maybe you are? But based on all my past testing of IL-2 track files from guys you like making baseless claims, I would say chances are your not super human. On that note, real test pilots in WWII had far more feedback than the typical four eyed over weight shut-ins who make baseless claims and provide no proof let alone any results of their testing other than the accuse the sim maker of a porked FM. For example, a real trained test pilot is not only able to read the altitude gauges, like a sim pilot, but he has the added benefit of being able to feel suttle g changes (seat of the pants) while flying, something a sim pilot can not do. That is just one of many types of feedback the sim pilot does not have, thus all the more reason to log your data while you fly on top of making a track file

Even at tens times 11kph, 44kph is still within the noise of pilot error, as noted during the Ki61 top speed testing, I observed swings in speed around +/-50mph (that's +/-80.5kph).. But again, they were not super human like you! ;)

Not at all, based on the resolution of the cockpit gauges and based on what I know about human nature.

Also, your seem to be purposely forgetting that Tom said he noticed the speed change due to rads.. Why do you keep avoiding that fact?

Again, I am not saying your right or wrong, I am simply brining up Tom as proof that there is a chance that your wrong.

But there is a simple way to prove it one way or another!

Do the test, record the track file, and log the data as you fly the test

What is so hard about that?

What are you afraid of?

OMG..

I think I found the source of your problem.. You think my statement about being able to detect a change in speed was targeted at 'real' test pilots! That is not the case! I am talking about sim pilots, like yourself! You do understand the difference don't you? You do understand how the body is able to 'feel' changes in motion in real life.. Right? Granted they can fool the real pilot at times like in the case of JFK Jr. But a trained test pilot knows how to make use of both is internal feedback and the gauges feedback during a test. That and they typically don't test on days where there is more gray clouds than blue sky. The sim test pilot has none of that internal feedback, just the gauges. And while the sim pilot is ZOOMED into the speed gauges, he is not able to watch the altitude gauges.. Hence the need to log your data while your flying. Any of that sinking in yet?

Trust you?

The guy who made the claim that the 109 is not affected by changes in the rad.. Even though Tom said he did notice a change
The guy who provided no track file of his test for review
The guy who provided no real world data on how much the effect should be

Is that the guy your asking me to trust?

Or should I trust myself

The guy who has extracted the flight data from hundreds of track files and did not find one person that was able to maintain altitude well enough to not cause a +/-50mph swing

Emmmm.. Sorry, Ill have to go with the later

Again, maybe you are better than all those people, maybe you are super human, but we will never know for sure because you didn't provide a track file of your test, let alone log the data while testing.

So forgive me if I put you in the 'suspect until proven super human' category for now.. But based on my experience I have to.. Its nothing personal!

Thank god I was not drinking milk when I read that!

I mean really, this coming from..

The guy who made the claim that the 109 is not affected by changes in the rad.. Even though Tom said he did notice a change
The guy who provided no track file of his test for review
The guy who provided no real world data on how much the effect should be

And I suggest you learn to take constructive criticism.. Because if you think I am being hard on you.. Imagine what kind of questions someone from 1C would request from you when making such claims as you did. Ill bet you the 1st thing they would ask of you is for you to provide a track file. Just a thought!

Hardly

What I am asking for is the minimum equipment for most if not all FM error claims by the community at large

That being, provide..

1) A track file for review
2) The real world source your using as a reference

So, let me see if I understand you correctly..

Even though david said (mentioned) on page 8, i.e.

Are you saying that was not david who said that.. Or are you asking me to ignore the fact that david said that?

My point is two fold

1) Tom noticed a change
2) 50kph (31mph) is too small of a change for most people to notice

So.. Who should we belive? Tom or David?

Or should we make changes to the FM based off a home coming queen type of vote.. Where we count up the number of people that say they saw no different vs. the people who said they saw a difference and go with the majority?

Keeping in mind most people who complain about speed errors don't even know the difference between TAS and IAS

Or is there a better way?

Personally I think it would be best hat if someone is going to say there is an error with the FM than it is that persons responsibility to provide a minimum amount of proof to support his claim.

In the past with IL-2 that min amount of proof consisted of a track file and a link to the real world data they were using as a reference

TWO THINGS DAVID DID NOT PROVIDED!

Is that too much to ask?

I think not, only because I don't want a change on the FM based on some sort of cheer leader home coming queen mentality

But that is just me!

Your mileage may vary!

If stating the facts is what you call looking for an argument, so be it. Just know that I and many others don't see it that way. Other like me that want 1C to focus their efforts on fixing real problems, as aposed to chasing down every baseless claim made by the masses

Yes, Theory!

I am glad that you agree with me on that much!

So, let me see if I understand you correctly..

Even though I said on page 8, i.e.

Are you saying that was not me who said that.. Or are you asking me to ignore the fact that I said that?

Now..

Lets see if your man enough to admit you were wrong! LOL!

Now that is funny.. This is the guy who just said that "I" came here looking for an argument and that I have nothing better to do!

Seems you were just projecting when you said that!

Nice try Repent, but you have shown your true colors!

Ace, you've got to lay of those energy drinks.

Enh.. not a big deal really, I do this same sort of stuff at work

Hey.. since you decited to chime in.. Tell me.. Who do you belive?

David who says no change is noticed
Tom who says a change is noticed

And on that are you all for making FM changes based on a popularity vote here in this forum where most who complain about speed errors give you a blank stair when you ask them if they are talking about IAS or TAS

Or are you the type that prefers 'real' proof of the error first

I don't know, I stopped reading most of it like 4 pages ago.

Agreed..

But Ill put you down for a vote for David..

In that not knowing for sure falls into the catagory of no proof is required when making baseless claims

Yet you still felt the need to chime in.. Huh, and they call me a troll!