Quote:
Originally Posted by VO101_Tom
I vote negative just because this sentence. How you dare call them unfair, when You are who garbles the others votes? Ok then, just to understand: If the title says: "Merlin Engine: Negative 'G' cutout too sensitive.", the "NO" means: No, it isn't sensitive. Everything else is just bulls*it  |
As I explained in the bug tracker....
"OK, I accept what you say about the title. I should have named it "Request to devs to re-check the G value for the Merlin negative g cutout point", a bit of a mouthfull but that is what I am asking for
as I described in my first post (in the tracker).
I think it is too sensitive and I want them to check it. Why would anyone not want something checked that someone thinks is wrong? I am not asking for a change of cutout g value, I just think the devs may have go it wrong given they are trying to create historically correct FMs using historical documentation, in this case setting the cutout point to about 0.1g - or is the historical data what your really arguing against?"
and as I said in an earlier Tracker post
"Why do I think it is too sensititve? Years of reading decriptions and reports which make me suspicious, plus I installed a G meter in the A2A simulations Spitfire 1a and my 'perceived vertical rate of change' necessary when pushing over to hit 0.1G in that aircraft
is a world away from the same observation of the cutout point in CoD. And before you ask I did not compare it with A2A's actual cutout point but observed the rate of change of vertical direction necessary to hit 0.1G. It is not scientific but points to the CoD Merlins being too sensitive."