Any thoughts on new neg G cutout post beta patch?

[Moggy]

This thread has nothing to do with 109s does it? Re-read your post again...what are you really offering to the topic? I'll show you what I mean, earlier in the thread myself and Banks posted about what the RAF were telling new pilots about negative G cutouts in the RAF Pilot Notes General.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...2&postcount=92

Now compare it to this...

"Just as usual.The slightest whining in the community about a probable wrong performance reducing thing on an allied plane and it gets fixed immediately (no matter if it actually WAS historically correct or not).
And the 109? Ist STILL much too slow, can be outturned (as its supposed to) outclimbed and outspeed by the Spit. Thats just not right DEVS!!!
I have been sick of that from the ROF devs but seemingly this here is not a bit diffrent..."

If you're going to add something, make it relevant to the thread and show some evidence. If you don't have evidence, then it's just opinion isn't it? There are people genuinely trying to make things as authentic as possible and your post really doesn't help. Imagine if I had posted something similar on a 109 thread about engine management...

"Just as usual.The slightest whining in the community about a probable wrong performance reducing thing on an axis plane and it gets fixed immediately (no matter if it actually WAS historically correct or not).
And the Spitfire? Ist STILL much too slow, can be outturned, outclimbed and outspeed by the 109. Thats just not right DEVS!!!
I have been sick of that from the ROF devs but seemingly this here is not a bit diffrent..."

I'd be flamed to hell wouldn't I and quite rightly so! If you're going to contribute then please contribute but do it sensibly, every titbit of information will help make this a better sim for everyone.