British FM killing the fun of the game for allied pilots.

[ATAG_Dutch]

Originally Posted by VO101_Tom

Interesting.
I will check the 109, because the overheating causes deadly performance loss in the 109 too, the difference, that the full open water radiator can handle the engine heat. (It is not correct either, i think, it will be change soon. With the radiator air drag.)

Tom, the tests were run from a dive and I waited for the aircraft to slow to a constant speed. There was no overheating when temp effects were on, as of course there weren't with temp effects off. The loss of speed wasn't due to overheating being the cause of a power loss. Temps were normal but rising fast. The Spit had already slowed down to 270 well before 120 degrees on the rad temp, or over 95 on the oil, in fact on the second screenshot, you can see that the rad temp is about 110......

[Osprey]

@Tom, I don't disagree with what you wrote, it just wasn't the right answer for what your replyee (is that a word?) was suggesting.

Temp off, 290mph @ 11lbs - great - 20mph too slow is better than 40mph too slow, and especially since the 109 is n too slow. If all of the tests come out similarly we should ease up on the 'full switch' concept.

[Crumpp]

FM whining killing the fun of the game for all pilots.

Can you add that to the poll??

Honestly, there is not much point in discussing FM performance when most only pick and choose what they think is the best for this "red vs blue" crap.

This "red vs blue" is toxic.

It seems to work with just 'temp effects' turned off.

FWIW....

You guys sound like real airplane owners complaining that their airplane won't meet manufacturers specs for performance.

Remember, those performance are based on a standard day AND correct operation of the aircraft systems.

It might help to see how the AI is working the engine.

You should see the same performance if the system is operated the same as the AI.

[ATAG_Dutch]

Originally Posted by Osprey

If all of the tests come out similarly we should ease up on the 'full switch' concept.

Snapper just ran a quick test with the Hurri 100oct and got a 10mph improvement, but it was just a quick test. And I agree completely re 'full switch'.

[kristorf]

Osprey,
I said we nearly all bought it, implying just that, that nearly all the squad got it in anticipation of flying coops, not that we thought about it and then changed our minds.

I also said that mission building to me is harder than turning base metals into gold but I am sure you ment well posting it, many thanks.

[Longywales]

Originally Posted by ATAG_Dutch

Longywales, please could you try it again with just the 'temp effects' turned off? Leave CEM on, turn off temps. That's how I got the result above. Thanks

Yeah, same results with temp off...it must be the temp effects causing the fault then....

Maybe you guys at ATAG could make a server with temp effects off for the time being

[ATAG_Dutch]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

You should see the same performance if the system is operated the same as the AI.

Honestly? Well it's a good job you're around to tell us these things.

Well here's a thought. It wasn't any AI which controlled the aircraft in any of the test data available, it was a human being. Consequently a Human being ought to get the same performance from the aircraft modelled in the game.

The limited tests performed so far seem to indicate that this is not the case, and some error in the game's temperature management systems are robbing the aircraft of performance when temperature effects are enabled.

This may also be the case for any aircraft in the simulator, and I eagerly await tests results from others who know how to get the best from other aircraft modelled in the game.

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by kristorf

Osprey,
I said we nearly all bought it, implying just that, that nearly all the squad got it in anticipation of flying coops, not that we thought about it and then changed our minds.

I also said that mission building to me is harder than turning base metals into gold but I am sure you ment well posting it, many thanks.

Well fine, but that is not clear at all, the meaning is different. You really mean that most of you bought it and were disappointed with the lack of co-ops.

However your main point was that there is no co-op, not that you aren't an FMB user. I stated that there is, and it works in the same way, it's just not provided by 1C but rather 41Sqn_Banks. Did you not specify that you have someone capable of building missions? If so then what's really stopping you guys?

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...&postcount=140

[kristorf]

I think constant disappointment in the game has stopped us at this time mate, peeps tried for ages to get it working, but with performance issues and other 'assorted' issues it was decided to put it back onto the shelf until/if it is ever sorted.
I don't think this was an easy choice, but the head sheds had to take into account that not everyone could afford some of the upgrades needed to get decent performance etc (taking into account the req specs on the tin) and that we could (at this time) continue with 1946 until such a time comes around.

BTW, next time your on comms with Nitrous (Queeney) say hello for me

[ATAG_Snapper]

Originally Posted by Longywales

Yeah, same results with temp off...it must be the temp effects causing the fault then....

Maybe you guys at ATAG could make a server with temp effects off for the time being

Good thought.

We need to see if other aircraft (notably 109's, 110's) are adversely affected by switching Temp Effects off. I don't have the hours (ie competence) to extract maximum performance from these two aircraft -- hopefully somebody here can and will report back.

So far, this is an interesting development.