radiators have no influence on speed

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by GOA_Potenz

Hey ACE the othe day i was driving my van on the motorway and i couldn't tell if i was a running at 50km/h or at 100km/h

Come on mate you are pulling in no sense argue, everybody can notice a 10/km/h difference, you have a bloody withe mark on the speed gauge to read your speed and the resolution on todays computers are mostly 1680 x 1050 or 1920 x 1080 or even higher, so resolution isn't a problem to read the gauges, also you have a lovely label that tells you the speed, but there's no way that anybody miss a 50km/h gap so please stop this argument, your graphic show that 50km/h gap from closed to open.

regs Potz

Already covered that mate.. here is a re-post of what I said earlier wrt 'real' life vs. 'sim' life

Originally Posted by ACE-OF-ACES

On that note, real test pilots in WWII had far more feedback than the typical four eyed over weight shut-ins who make baseless claims and provide no proof let alone any results of their testing other than the accuse the sim maker of a porked FM. For example, a real trained test pilot is not only able to read the altitude gauges, like a sim pilot, but he has the added benefit of being able to feel suttle g changes (seat of the pants) while flying, something a sim pilot can not do. That is just one of many types of feedback the sim pilot does not have, thus all the more reason to log your data while you fly on top of making a track file

Which covers the difference between 'real flying and 'sim' flying..

Which also apply to your example of 'real' car driving vs. 'sim' car driving..

With a little difference.. That being blue sky vs. ground clutter.. Which driving a car, be it real or sim, you have more 'reference' points along your path that give you a 'cue' to how fast you are going.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by Hatch

No not really,

It was probably an informal test as it also states that they were using plain data.
It says "nicht umgerechnete messwerte" .
Which tranlated would be something like the "data was not thoroughly calculated".

They refer to another paper? with reference number VB 10918 L42
They also caution because of the non standard height at which the test was conducted.


Ah I saw Flanker35M's post too late

Thanks for the info! S!

[GOA_Potenz]

ACE you will not give up??? it is starting to be a bit annoying

first you talked about resolution, now about real life, the car thing was just an irony mate
a 50km/h or even a 10km/h gap will be readable in the gauge in now days resolution standars

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by GOA_Potenz

ACE you will not give up??? it is starting to be a bit annoying

Facts have that affect on some people!

Originally Posted by GOA_Potenz

first you talked about resolution, now about real life, the car thing was just an irony mate a 50km/h or even a 10km/h gap will be readable in the gauge in now days resolution standars

Agreed.. 50 is much easier to 'see' than the 10 I was talking about at the time I thought we were talking about a +/-10

But now ask yourself..

Why is David and a few 'others' not able to 'see' a change in speed due to radiator settings, where as guys like Tom and SYN_Repent are able to 'see' a change in speed due to radiators settings?

Which group are we to belive?

I say belive, but I really should say which group are we going to have 'faith' in?

Because nothing has been provided by either group to support thier claims one way or another

Which brings us full circle

Where from the get go I have ask people to provide some proof, in the form of a track file for review, and better yet, to log the data (altitude, speed, etc) to a log file while flying

Than we would NOT have to base it on 'faith' or some sort of sick cheerleader prom night popularity contest

Is that too much to ask before someone accuses 1C of having a FM with a bug in it?

I think not

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Oh one thing I forgot to mention..

Before this 50kph value becomes some sort of fact I think it is important to point out that the data is from a 109G and we are talking about the in game 109E! And I am pretty sure the radiators changes a lot between the E and G model.

And don't forget what Hatch pointed out! That the data is from a non standard radiator test!

What does that means?

Well maybe it means a standard radiator only causes a 25kph (or less) difference, or maybe it means a standard radiator will cause a 75kph (or more) difference. We don't know.

But I think we can all agree that radiators will have 'some' affect on speed, how much we really don't know.

We can agree to disagree as to if someone can 'see' a speed difference of 50kph or less!

But here is what we know to be true

Some people do 'see' a speed difference and others do NOT 'see' a speed difference

How do we decide who is right?

I know how and it does not require a burger king campaign on picking between a werewolf or vampire!

[CaptainDoggles]

If I was a moderator on these boards I'd make a rule that any thread claiming facts about the flight model without presenting evidence gets locked.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

If I was a moderator on these boards I'd make a rule that any thread claiming facts about the flight model without presenting evidence gets locked.

Problem with that is the folks making the baseless claims would than make baseless claims that 1C is trying to hide something by locking thier posts!

All in all is it too much to ask to provide a track file for review when making a 'claim'? Is that too much to ask? I get it that some here may not know how to log the data to a file.. But come on how hard is it to recored a track file?

[CaptainDoggles]

Originally Posted by ACE-OF-ACES

I get it that some here may not know how to log the data to a file.. But come on how hard is it to recored a track file?

Speaking of which: I'm trying to write a script to log positional data to a file. Do you know how to get something like this to execute, client-side?

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by CaptainDoggles

Speaking of which: I'm trying to write a script to log positional data to a file. Do you know how to get something like this to execute, client-side?

Do you mean 3D world space? XYZ stuff? I did see an example of that by fearlessfrog at SimHQ awhile back.. I think Ataros reposted it here somewhere.. As for general data logging Atarso has a good example here

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...338#post342338

Im at work right now, if you dont find that 3D space stuff by frog let me know (PM) in that I have a script at home with some of that code in it

[CaptainDoggles]

Originally Posted by ACE-OF-ACES

Do you mean 3D world space? XYZ stuff? I did see an example of that by fearlessfrog at SimHQ awhile back.. I think Ataros reposted it here somewhere.. As for general data logging Atarso has a good example here

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...338#post342338

Im at work right now, if you dont find that 3D space stuff by frog let me know (PM) in that I have a script at home with some of that code in it

Yeah ideally I'd like to write World XYZ and heading data for aircraft from an ntrk recording to a text file.

Can't figure out how to execute the script when the ntrk runs though.