303_Kwiatek Posted October 18, 2015 Posted October 18, 2015 As i said there is no will to change FM and performance of planes issues even if they are proved by evidence ( historical data and in game test).
1CGS LukeFF Posted October 18, 2015 1CGS Posted October 18, 2015 (edited) As i said there is no will to change FM and performance of planes issues even if they are proved by evidence ( historical data and in game test). Nonsense yet again from you. I could point to a number of examples where things were changed as a result of evidence being posted by forum members (soon to include one pointed out by myself). Just because you think something is wrong doesn't necessarily mean something is wrong. Edited October 18, 2015 by LukeFF 2
coconut Posted October 18, 2015 Posted October 18, 2015 I wonder, was octane 100 available to Germans during the battle of Stalingrad?
6./ZG26_5tuka Posted October 18, 2015 Posted October 18, 2015 (edited) Just adding some more exlpaination on those sheets from Kwiatek (incase it was overlooked or not translated) so it won't be misunderstanded: - all of them state performance for C3 (97 Octane) fuel - in sheet number 1 it's hinted, that "Performances are acchieved values (without MGFF) and account for an airborne weight of 3850kg with adjustable cooling outlet". - second sheet states a guranteed tolerance for measured climb time to 2km of 10% Edited October 18, 2015 by Stab/JG26_5tuka
303_Kwiatek Posted October 18, 2015 Posted October 18, 2015 (edited) Nonsense yet again from you. I could point to a number of examples where things were changed as a result of evidence being posted by forum members (soon to include one pointed out by myself). Just because you think something is wrong doesn't necessarily mean something is wrong. Not not beacasue i think that something is wrong but becasue RL data and charts and in game tested proved that something is wrong. Edited October 18, 2015 by 303_Kwiatek
coconut Posted October 18, 2015 Posted October 18, 2015 Just adding some more exlpaination on those sheets from Kwiatek (incase it was overlooked or not translated) so it won't be misunderstanded: - all of them state performance for C3 (97 Octane) fuel - in sheet number 1 it's hinted, that "Performances are acchieved values (without MGFF) and account for an airborne weight of 3850kg with adjustable cooling outlet". - second sheet states a guranteed tolerance for measured climb time to 2km of 10% Are you sure? The second sheet actually states "Kraftstoff 100 Oktan". Ich spreche nicht Deutsch, so of course I could be wrong. Also, if testsheets have a tolerance of +-10%, that means the climb rate is in the most favorable case 18.7 m/s (17m/s from first sheet, which was very hard to see clearly) and 14.4 m/s in the least favorable case. I don't know what the plane does in the game, and I'm not sure I understood all the details of ISA/winter/summer, but if the plane is performing within 3% of test data which has 10% tolerance, then I don't see what the problem is.
StG2_Manfred Posted October 18, 2015 Posted October 18, 2015 (edited) To be exactly the sheet says a tolerance of 10% only for the climb to 2000m. A tolerance of 3% for the speed and a tolerance of 400m for service ceiling. And yes, in the second sheet is stated 100 octane fuel. In the others 97 octane or only C3 is written. Edited October 18, 2015 by StG2_Manfred
Bearcat Posted October 18, 2015 Posted October 18, 2015 The only answer we will get from the devs (or admins) is a locked thread! As i said there is no will to change FM and performance of planes issues even if they are proved by evidence ( historical data and in game test). There is a procedure for addressing this and a whine and cheese thread like this is not it. If you have already submitted information to back up your claims then wait for a response from the team. If you do not get the response you would like then I don't know what to tell you.
Recommended Posts