Any thoughts on new neg G cutout post beta patch?

[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

[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]

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

[bw_wolverine]

To me it sounds like this is a situation where the game can't really appropriately simulate the effect of the carburetor and a 'fudge' has to be made.

Setting the effect to 0.5g, etc as per actual notes is probably not going to give the accuracy that people want. I doubt the game is simulating where the fuel is in the tank, etc etc. It's probably just saying "0.5g is achieved, make engine stutter". More factors are seemingly involved than can be accomodated if I understand what I've been reading here and elsewhere to be correct.

So, the change is made to make it only -g that induces the effect and we've got some people saying that it's now too much the other way.

I'm sure a happy medium will be found.

DISCLOSURE: I at first thought that the change was BAD ("should be realistic levels! Don't change it for the n00bs!, etc.") but after considering the fact that this kind of effect in the engine is based on so many little mingling things, I'd rather they spend more time on getting frame rates improved, adding FFB, and making trees hazardous to plane health than agonizing over the intricacies of the engine to make a carburetor fault behave perfectly.

Make the plane perform as close as you can to real. Whether or not the cut out starts at .5 or at -.1, I don't really care.

[Viper2000]

Downloading the patch now. I didn't fly the beta, so this will be interesting...

TBH I'm expecting the correction to be somewhat too far the other way.

I don't think that a significant fudge has to be made, because the sort of behaviour that analysis predicts isn't exactly going to tax a modern CPU; I suspect that the main issue is that coding up this sort of thing is a bit of a pain and there are other priorities.

But I have great confidence that we'll get there in the end.

[IvanK]

Originally Posted by bw_wolverine

To me it sounds like this is a situation where the game can't really appropriately simulate the effect of the carburetor and a 'fudge' has to be made.

Setting the effect to 0.5g, etc as per actual notes is probably not going to give the accuracy that people want. I doubt the game is simulating where the fuel is in the tank, etc etc. It's probably just saying "0.5g is achieved, make engine stutter". More factors are seemingly involved than can be accomodated if I understand what I've been reading here and elsewhere to be correct.

So, the change is made to make it only -g that induces the effect and we've got some people saying that it's now too much the other way.

I'm sure a happy medium will be found.

DISCLOSURE: I at first thought that the change was BAD ("should be realistic levels! Don't change it for the n00bs!, etc.") but after considering the fact that this kind of effect in the engine is based on so many little mingling things, I'd rather they spend more time on getting frame rates improved, adding FFB, and making trees hazardous to plane health than agonizing over the intricacies of the engine to make a carburetor fault behave perfectly.

Make the plane perform as close as you can to real. Whether or not the cut out starts at .5 or at -.1, I don't really care.

Absolutely spot on Wolverine.

There is room to tweak this still further. The Changelog text was an unfortunate (maybe a language issue) use of the term "some users found this confusing" this lead to all this they are dumbing down the sim to placate some users opinion. That is just total BS. The Devs are working their hardest to get things as accurate as they possible can. I am sure you will see a little more adjustment in this area.

[klem]

Originally Posted by Targ

This is directed at people that were thought it was off and to sensitive.

What are your thoughts on it now?

First of all we no longer have a ridiculously overmodelled reduced G effect for the Merlins.

Secondly we do have an engine cut on heavily reduced or -ve G which hits performance and is a lot nearer to the truth than the original. I haven't had the opportunity to pitch it against a diving 109 yet.

Lets think about what might be right. We all want that. Someone posted reduced/negative G notes from the pilots General Flying Notes, well these are not specific Merlin notes. I set a lot of store by a current Hurricane I pilot's actual flying experience and opinion and frankly there's a lot of guessing and wishful thinking going on here from people who have never flown one themselves. Even carefully calulated assessments may not be correct although Viper's calculations are detailed, explanatory and pretty close to what our friendly pilot has said. Just how much nearer to the truth do you think you are going to get without specific Merlin notes and performance charts?

So much for what might be right.

But, is it now modelled correctly? I don't know, I suspect it might be a little off (pure speculation), and I was surprised when Luthier said:
"* Completely removed overload assessment from carburetters. Rolls-Royce engines will now cut if overload is negative, and will not cut if it is positive. (old values were sneezing at .5G, and cut-out at .25 which we felt were dead on, but this apparently confused most of the players)"

His original values of 0.5G and perhaps 0.25G weren't that far off what we have been hearing from good sources. So why did we have problems? One or two people may have touched on the answer. If the onset delay was not included or modelled reasonably we may well have had problems because the starvation and rich cut were not instantaneous but they appeared to be instantaneous in level flight assuming there was some turbulence.

Currently we have a workable Merlin engine model. The engine does cut, as IvanK has demonstrated, and more sensibly than it did before. No it won't STOP if only due to windmilling and if I understand Viper correctly he is saying that there may still be combustion occurring at some level. The 109s still have an advantage diving away.

In the longer run 1C may have time to review how they are modelling this and perhaps find a need to revise it, just as they may need to look at the 109 pilot's gripes, but meantime the Merlin is reasonably on track.

At the moment there are now many other issues that need sorting (which may well include any performance issues for the 109).

I really hope that during the following patched they do find a good tweak for the Merlin that is fairly representative for the realistic behaviour. With the current patch the behaviour is just like old IL2. Back then it was alright but now completely different story.

Also the 109 needs an overhaul. I did many repetivite flights and I think the performance is not quite right on some points. I cannot yet tell what exactly apart from the speed issue. However my perception may be falsified by the uber-AI capabilities which also needs to be addressed in one patch or another.

But with the new patch the dev team showed what they are capable of and if this continues like this CoD will be a benchmark for flightsims for the next 10 years as the old IL2 was in its time.

[IvanK]

Please read this related post from the realism thread:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...9&postcount=33