BETA PATCH v1.06.17582--Bug thread

[furbs]

Near Calais in free flight...


By furbs9999 at 2012-05-08

[DroopSnoot]

All twins cannot take off on the Quick mission set in England with the picture of the Blenheim. They just won't power up enough to take off. Can someone else test in case in doing something wrong?

My realism settings were complex engine on but temp conditions off.

[ATAG_Doc]

Originally Posted by Insuber

He said he spoke with other ATAG guys. Additionally he said that in 1946 the Spit IIa behaved the same. Honestly I didn't remember that.

He was ATAG fermen or fastmen or farmen or something like that.

Cheers!

Was it fastfed?

Sent from my SCH-R910 using Tapatalk 2

[klem]

Originally Posted by furbs

Its just hard to imagine the RR engine behaving like that, plus ive read most books on the BOB and most of the books by the pilots that flew in the battle and ive never heard that before. Not saying the guy is not telling the truth but im sure i would of come across that info on the spit2.

Its porked.

"Off you go laddie, finest aircraft in the world. Just one thing, the throttle's a bit of a bugger, only controls the boost over about 0.1% to 40% of its movement and you can't get her down to idle, but you can cope with that can't you? Eh? Rolls Royce? Nothing to do with them its just the way Supermarine designed the throttle installation. We've asked them for an upgrade but everyone's working on Seafires now. Current spitties won't be changed."

[Feathered_IV]

Thank you Klem, post of the week!

[Skoshi Tiger]

From my understanding the early Merlin engines had 43 degrees of valve overlap. This the period of the rotation of the camshaft at the end of the exhaust stroke and at the beginning of the induction stroke when both the inlet and outlet valves of the combustion chamber are open. It allows the cylnder to fill as completely full of fuel air mix as possible before the combustion cycle continues.

This allows the engine to produce more power at high RPM. Unfortunately the flip side of the equation is that she idles like a dog and run rough at low speeds.

Later Merlins like the 70 series, had overlaps increased to about 70 degrees. They will really run rough at low revs.

[III/JG53_Don]

I experienced a bug in the 109 (other planes not tested yet)
If I want to land my plane, lowering my gears and lowering my flaps I cant change my throttle anymore. The current set throttle position stays hard as a rock till I pull the flaps back in. This is one pretty deadly bug!

But maybe this is ja specific G940 problem?

EDIT: Sorry I had antropomorphic controls switched on which would explain why I cant change throttle due to the large amount of time lowering the flaps in a 109 need! Bug is most commonly a feature

[Ze-Jamz]

Originally Posted by III/JG53_Don

I experienced a bug in the 109 (other planes not tested yet)
If I want to land my plane, lowering my gears and lowering my flaps I cant change my throttle anymore. The current set throttle position stays hard as a rock till I pull the flaps back in. This is one pretty deadly bug!

But maybe this is ja specific G940 problem?

You sure you havent got that setting enabled?..cant remember what its called, some BS setting where you cant do 2/3 things at once

[ElAurens]

Anthropomorphic controls.

[MD_Marx]

Originally Posted by JG52Uther

Intersting Macro. I play with grass and roads off and am having CTD's with the new patch, with the same 'NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object.' error in the logfile.

Sorry for sounding 'Techy', but I call myself a 'software engineer', and I too have had CTDs with this given as a reason. Either the report is incorrect (which doesn't make it very helpful for debugging), or it's true. If true, then something is very, very seriously wrong with the initialisation code of objects, because this should NEVER be seen. There are 2 levels of object initialisation - at start-up e.g. objects within the cockpit, and the more demanding level - dynamically i.e. in-flight. I wonder if the dynamic initialisation is falling behind, out of sequence when the method on the object is called? To me, this sounds like a basic threading error; probably difficult to reproduce, but a closer look in the code design/architecture at anything that affects the completion of the initialisation thread seems to be in order. I would have thought that test code could readily be instrumented to log when an object's method is called before the initialisation is complete? It certainly suggests to me that 'defensive' programming isn't being used............


Marx