Any thoughts on new neg G cutout post beta patch?

[Winger]

Just as usual.The slightest whining in the community about a probable wrong performance reducing thing on an allied plane and it gets fixed immediately (no matter if it actually WAS historically correct or not).
And the 109? Ist STILL much too slow, can be outturned (as its supposed to) outclimbed and outspeed by the Spit. Thats just not right DEVS!!!
I have been sick of that from the ROF devs but seemingly this here is not a bit diffrent...

Winger

[Moggy]

Originally Posted by Winger

Just as usual.The slightest whining in the community about a probable wrong performance reducing thing on an allied plane and it gets fixed immediately (no matter if it actually WAS historically correct or not).
And the 109? Ist STILL much too slow, can be outturned (as its supposed to) outclimbed and outspeed by the Spit. Thats just not right DEVS!!!
I have been sick of that from the ROF devs but seemingly this here is not a bit diffrent...

Winger

And we still do not have the Battle of Britain Hurricanes or Spitfires...the 12 lb'ers!

My point is this, if you feel that upset about the 109s...why not make a new thread about it, present some evidence and make your case? Whining about it on a thread not even related to your point is well pointless isn't it?

[Winger]

Originally Posted by Moggy

And we still do not have the Battle of Britain Hurricanes or Spitfires...the 12 lb'ers!

My point is this, if you feel that upset about the 109s...why not make a new thread about it, present some evidence and make your case? Whining about it on a thread not even related to your point is well pointless isn't it?

Neither do we have the E4 wich was actually the 109 wich was present in the majority of numbers in the BOB.
I dont make a new thread because i feel that this thread here is just the right one.
A thread that has a feature as topic that directly affects the performance of one of the planes (and therefor actually effectively REDUCING the relative performance of the opposite plane) IS in my opinion related to my concern.
But hey. Why dont you just ignore what i write instead of flaming me?

Cheers!

Winger

[Viper2000]

Firstly, life would be a lot simpler if people actually read the original thread (yes, all of it!) before throwing fuel on the fire in here; it's only about 10 pages long, and a lot of this stuff, such as the BoB video, has already been posted there (by me, on page 1 as it happens) and discussed at length.

Secondly, if we want this sim to be accurate then the performance of the Bf-109 is totally irrelevant in a thread discussing the performance of the Merlin engine.

I for one don't care about "balance" issues in the slightest; I want all the aeroplanes to be simulated as accurately as possible, and the relative performance that emerges from that is just the relative performance that emerges - I'm interested in flying the aeroplanes, not playing top trumps to decide which aeroplane is "best".

[winny]

Originally Posted by Viper2000

Firstly, life would be a lot simpler if people actually read the original thread (yes, all of it!) before throwing fuel on the fire in here; it's only about 10 pages long, and a lot of this stuff, such as the BoB video, has already been posted there (by me, on page 1 as it happens) and discussed at length.

And look what happened, they 'fixed' it...

Any thread on this subject is valid as long as the 'fix' still exists.
Due to ill informed people everyone now has an unrealistic Merlin. The weight of evidence in both threads is overwhelming.

I'm a Spitfire fanboy, no apologies, but I don't want an unrealstic advantage.

Just a tick box for "Laws of physics within Carb - on/off" would do.
Or "Carb gravity field generator - on/off

[Viper2000]

I don't think that anybody in the original thread was asking for anything other than realistic performance; in fact the thread is basically devoted to trying to work out what realistic performance should be, rather than stridently crying out for any sort of "fix" at all.

If people were asking from an exemption from the laws of physics to make things "easier" for then they were doing so elsewhere.

I don't see much point in duplicating threads every time a patch or a beta patch comes out. It's a lot of wasted effort for all concerned, and it risks the loss of research work in the event that somebody decides to clean away old threads.

[Moggy]

This thread has nothing to do with 109s does it? Re-read your post again...what are you really offering to the topic? I'll show you what I mean, earlier in the thread myself and Banks posted about what the RAF were telling new pilots about negative G cutouts in the RAF Pilot Notes General.

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

Now compare it to this...

"Just as usual.The slightest whining in the community about a probable wrong performance reducing thing on an allied plane and it gets fixed immediately (no matter if it actually WAS historically correct or not).
And the 109? Ist STILL much too slow, can be outturned (as its supposed to) outclimbed and outspeed by the Spit. Thats just not right DEVS!!!
I have been sick of that from the ROF devs but seemingly this here is not a bit diffrent..."

If you're going to add something, make it relevant to the thread and show some evidence. If you don't have evidence, then it's just opinion isn't it? There are people genuinely trying to make things as authentic as possible and your post really doesn't help. Imagine if I had posted something similar on a 109 thread about engine management...

"Just as usual.The slightest whining in the community about a probable wrong performance reducing thing on an axis plane and it gets fixed immediately (no matter if it actually WAS historically correct or not).
And the Spitfire? Ist STILL much too slow, can be outturned, outclimbed and outspeed by the 109. Thats just not right DEVS!!!
I have been sick of that from the ROF devs but seemingly this here is not a bit diffrent..."

I'd be flamed to hell wouldn't I and quite rightly so! If you're going to contribute then please contribute but do it sensibly, every titbit of information will help make this a better sim for everyone.

[III/JG11_Simmox]

yea yea i heard ya the first time

but i dont think your right here
fact is WE are the ones going to have to put up with you guys in your supermarines and hurri;s
and the fact is well known,you allied guys cant be trusted to keep *ACCURACY* accurate

its a community thread and people are voicing there concerns on what yet again appears to be the FEW getting the goods on the majority.

it was changed without a consensus ,vote,raise of hands,nada,and now we know that its not all that impressive to the players.


oh and there is a thread on 109 FM quite interestingly enough.didnt make the patch though did it?
how rude

[Moggy]

Simple question then for you 2...what are the current negative G cutouts set to for the Hurricane and Spitfire with this beta patch?

[Winger]

Originally Posted by Moggy

Simple question then for you 2...what are the current negative G cutouts set to for the Hurricane and Spitfire with this beta patch?

Cutout at -X g, no cutout at +X g. Like stated in the patchnotes...

Winger