Any thoughts on new neg G cutout post beta patch?

[jimbop]

I'm not qualified to comment on whether the current settings simulate reality but I can say that flying the Hurricane is really easy now. I was getting the hang of not getting close to neutral G pre-patch and post-patch you just don't realise there's a possible cutout problem any more. I get the feeling it is too easy now but as above, not qualified to comment.

Reality every time please!

[unknwn]

"First, I can tell you that it does not require negative g to make the engine suffer from a shortage of fuel supply; a significant reduction of g down to, say, 0.3g can be enough to make the engine misfire. This can be experienced towards the top of a wing-over but I would estimate that the reduction in g needs to be maintained for 2 seconds or more before there are any effects. Undoubtedly, if the reduction in g was greater (to less than zero g) and particularly if the bunt was abrupt then the effect could be instantaneous. I have never, though, experienced any misfiring in turbulence; albeit, were the turbulence severe enough to produce g spikes to less than zero g, I would not rule out the possibility of the odd cough from the engine. Of interest to you I am sure is that on recovery from an episode of fuel starvation the engine recovers through a short period of over-richness shown by, I would estimate, up to a second of black, sooty exhaust before normal combustion is resumed."

This quote could indicate that previous values were right but engine misfire shouldn't occur instantly like it used to. It should take 2 secs of G reduction (~0,3G) for effect to occur while instant cut out should occur when higher negative G is reached.

[winny]

Here's the opening sequence from "The Battle of Britain"

The Hurricane does a barrel roll and you can hear the cough and see the smoke.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNOKXfZTEAE

It seems pretty quick to me.

[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".

[III/JG11_Simmox]

meh
doesnt feel or look as good imo
gotta have a decent balance between real and virtual i say,for the sake of gameplay

my limited time in the spit or hurri now shows me i dont half to half roll to follow the 109 when it pushes down to escape now.just push past his line then straighten up,and back to full power,no stutters or cough,nothing

id expect a carby fed engine to be bilging black rich unburnt fuel and take a small time to recover from the drown,after such a sustained -G on the engine
but it clears instantly as soon as 0 G is recovered

fix the climb rate on the 109 and i couldnt care less about them pommie planes

[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.

[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