why should I re-write everything that has been written for all these years... maybe you were nothere al these years.. in this community, I have no clue.. but it has all been said and done.. and everyone that has been here knows it,,
I am not going to write anymore.. no reason to.. I was only reminding the gentleman who asked for the fuel loadouts to be fixed and made changleable from tank to tank that this has already been brought up and asked for for many years..
I used this long ongoing discussion as an example..
now you want me to bring it all up again, 5 years of al the data put together again,
no way Jose..
it's a been said, done, and overwhelming proven as histroical fact on how a particular plane used it's fuel out of which tanks, first to last, and how the handling changes..
If you guys want to go through all the documents,, many of which were professionally packaged by engineers and pilots, were submitted for changes in code.. go do it.. you must have not been here while it was all happening.. either that or you were not paying attention..
The End..
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndyJWest
I agree, but I don't think that saying the P-51 is 'porked' without saying how is particularly constructive. You seemed to be suggesting that the aircraft was modelled with the CoG too far back. Moving it forward will increase stability, but reduce manoeuvrability Is that what you want?
As for matching the 'real world', I think IL-2 did a reasonable job when it was written, though there have been disagreements about particular aircraft. It is unlikely that TD are going to do anything fundamental to the basic flight model engine, though they have said that they may look at adjusting particular aircraft provided sufficient documentation is given. Simply saying 'it's porked, fix it' isn't likely to achieve a great deal.
What is it you think is wrong? If you can at least indicate where you think the faults are, perhaps others can chip in with their comments.
|