Any thoughts on new neg G cutout post beta patch?

[III/JG11_Simmox]

yea yea i heard ya the first time

but i dont think your right here
fact is WE are the ones going to have to put up with you guys in your supermarines and hurri;s
and the fact is well known,you allied guys cant be trusted to keep *ACCURACY* accurate

its a community thread and people are voicing there concerns on what yet again appears to be the FEW getting the goods on the majority.

it was changed without a consensus ,vote,raise of hands,nada,and now we know that its not all that impressive to the players.


oh and there is a thread on 109 FM quite interestingly enough.didnt make the patch though did it?
how rude

[Moggy]

Simple question then for you 2...what are the current negative G cutouts set to for the Hurricane and Spitfire with this beta patch?

[Winger]

Originally Posted by Moggy

Simple question then for you 2...what are the current negative G cutouts set to for the Hurricane and Spitfire with this beta patch?

Cutout at -X g, no cutout at +X g. Like stated in the patchnotes...

Winger

[bw_wolverine]

To me it sounds like this is a situation where the game can't really appropriately simulate the effect of the carburetor and a 'fudge' has to be made.

Setting the effect to 0.5g, etc as per actual notes is probably not going to give the accuracy that people want. I doubt the game is simulating where the fuel is in the tank, etc etc. It's probably just saying "0.5g is achieved, make engine stutter". More factors are seemingly involved than can be accomodated if I understand what I've been reading here and elsewhere to be correct.

So, the change is made to make it only -g that induces the effect and we've got some people saying that it's now too much the other way.

I'm sure a happy medium will be found.

DISCLOSURE: I at first thought that the change was BAD ("should be realistic levels! Don't change it for the n00bs!, etc.") but after considering the fact that this kind of effect in the engine is based on so many little mingling things, I'd rather they spend more time on getting frame rates improved, adding FFB, and making trees hazardous to plane health than agonizing over the intricacies of the engine to make a carburetor fault behave perfectly.

Make the plane perform as close as you can to real. Whether or not the cut out starts at .5 or at -.1, I don't really care.

[Viper2000]

Downloading the patch now. I didn't fly the beta, so this will be interesting...

TBH I'm expecting the correction to be somewhat too far the other way.

I don't think that a significant fudge has to be made, because the sort of behaviour that analysis predicts isn't exactly going to tax a modern CPU; I suspect that the main issue is that coding up this sort of thing is a bit of a pain and there are other priorities.

But I have great confidence that we'll get there in the end.

[IvanK]

Originally Posted by bw_wolverine

To me it sounds like this is a situation where the game can't really appropriately simulate the effect of the carburetor and a 'fudge' has to be made.

Setting the effect to 0.5g, etc as per actual notes is probably not going to give the accuracy that people want. I doubt the game is simulating where the fuel is in the tank, etc etc. It's probably just saying "0.5g is achieved, make engine stutter". More factors are seemingly involved than can be accomodated if I understand what I've been reading here and elsewhere to be correct.

So, the change is made to make it only -g that induces the effect and we've got some people saying that it's now too much the other way.

I'm sure a happy medium will be found.

DISCLOSURE: I at first thought that the change was BAD ("should be realistic levels! Don't change it for the n00bs!, etc.") but after considering the fact that this kind of effect in the engine is based on so many little mingling things, I'd rather they spend more time on getting frame rates improved, adding FFB, and making trees hazardous to plane health than agonizing over the intricacies of the engine to make a carburetor fault behave perfectly.

Make the plane perform as close as you can to real. Whether or not the cut out starts at .5 or at -.1, I don't really care.

Absolutely spot on Wolverine.

There is room to tweak this still further. The Changelog text was an unfortunate (maybe a language issue) use of the term "some users found this confusing" this lead to all this they are dumbing down the sim to placate some users opinion. That is just total BS. The Devs are working their hardest to get things as accurate as they possible can. I am sure you will see a little more adjustment in this area.