[Insuber]

Originally Posted by klem

insuber

please amend:

Over-modelled CEM- it is unnecessarily complex to have the display of changing settings such as radiators etc act differently in each plane. For example swapping from 109's to Spits, is discouraged by the current situation

to....

Rationalise CEM control movements - .......

I don't think its the CEM itself that is being criticised (it can be turned off anyway), just the different ways it is implemented in each aircraft model, i.e. Axis max/mins, cockpit lever movements and engine management graphics should be visually consistent across different a/c.

There is no problem with an Axis, the visual cockpit lever and its graphic being fully rearward for max RPM, Mixture etc if that is how the aircraft really was.

It IS a problem when an AXIS wound fully forward pushes the lever forward in one aircraft and pulls it rearward in another aircraft. i.e. we should be able to consistently equate a physical Axis direction to real cockpit Lever direction whatever that cockpit lever position is intended to do. Axis forward (or max) = Lever forward. Axis rearward (or min) = Lever rearward. Also equate the cockpit lever graphic to the cockpit lever direction:- graphic up (forward) = cockpit lever forward and vice versa.

Do not try to make AXIS forward always equal, say, RICH if the forward position is actually LEAN. Make it 'axis forward = lever forward' and we will learn what those cockpit lever positions really did.

Anyone who want Axis forward always to equal, say, RICH (even when the lever is Rearward) is trying to fly his HOTAS not the carefully modelled aircraft.

Klem, I tried to understand your suggestions and modified the wording accordingly. But ... There are bugs in my bug list !