Any thoughts on new neg G cutout post beta patch?

[41Sqn_Banks]

Originally Posted by Moggy

The 2nd edition is where I found the information about negative G cutouts, starts on page 49. I took a few scans and posted them here;

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...2&postcount=92

Yes I know, I have the 2nd edition as well. Problem is that the 2nd Edition is always critized that it wouldn't fit into the time frame

[Moggy]

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Banks

Yes I know, I have the 2nd edition as well. Problem is that the 2nd Edition is always critized that it wouldn't fit into the time frame

LOL uh huh, despite the fact...it actually does!

[effte]

So we have a pilot with Hurri experience stating around 0.3 G, and a POH warning that it will happen at 0.5 G.

Now, consider the fact that the POH was intended to keep 19-year-olds from getting themselves into trouble. Which source is likely to err on the conservative side?

What we had before was almost certainly incorrect. Engines coughing due to turbulence - I don't think so! This had a huge impact on game play, as aircraft misbehaved during normal flight.

What we have now may be incorrect in the opposite direction, as engines perhaps should start coughing after prolonged reduced G and not only during actual -ve G. However, this has next to no impact on game play. The tactical advantage still goes to the pilots of the fuel injected planes, as the tactic employed should be a negative G push - in which case the Merlins will still flood and lose power if the unvary Allied pilot follows. I think we can be fairly certain that LW pilots didn't gently reduce the G load when they found a spit on their tail, waiting for the spitfire carb to empty and produce a lean cut.

Oh, it does have an impact but of course under non standard circumstances. So it should be there if it was there.

[Viper2000]

I suspect that the problem is that IRL there would have been a lag between application of reduced or negative g and engine misbehaviour, such that flying around in bumpy air wouldn't cause problems. The model that we had in the last general release version had no lag, so going below 0.5 g for 0.01 second or something would cause engine trouble.

So at the simplest level what we need is the g limits from the previous patch, plus a lag so that misbehaviour only starts if the limits are exceeded for a length of time.

Since the lag was a function of the degree to which the limit was exceeded, the best solution would be to model the rates of fuel flow into and out of the carburettor as a function of g and just let the simulation sort itself out; that way you'd naturally generate both the lean and rich cuts without the need to hard-code behaviour...