said i was waiting G.obviously your not reading the write ups or posts.so here it is.the degraded flight files you did for nigels 109's are unlikeable nicely puting it.
Unlikeable? Perhaps, but very close to the real life specifications. The late model Bf 109s were some of the most uncomfortable aircraft out there to fly and a realistic flight model should reflect that.
If by teaching me manners you mean trying to make me shut up about my opinions backed up with real life facts, true, you can't.
not the stockers.microsoft made this sim as an online game play.where all the planes were made just about the same,to level the playing field.your capable of opening and compareing all the original cfs3 airfiles.look for your self.
So that's why the stock Spitfires outfly everything imaginable, the stock Fw 190s can barely make a turn without coming down like bricks and the stock P-51s stall randomly at will? I'm inclined to say it's just bad flight model design which wouldn't be anything new to Microsoft.
thankfully the third party builders found that out and start theirs on the leading edge. makeing for a generally better flieing plane.you believe that the stock air files are correct.
I certainly do not believe the stock air files are correct, I've flown only AvHistory from 2006 when I first discovered them.
do the real ww2 fighter planes make a left or right turn and FLIP back over the other direction and go into completly unrecoverable spins? NO.
With the exception of P-51B/C/D/K series with fuselage fuel tanks, Fw 190s, I-16s, Fiat G.50s, and that's only to mention a few.
the real aircraft can do inside vertical loops.the stockers can't. flaps on real planes make lift and drag. stockers don't.real aircraft slow down when you back the throttle to zero and start to loose altitude.not the stockers they will keep going like a glider.
As said, bad flight model design. Very bad.
every real aircraft built. has its owen power curve according to the equipment and aircraft design. cfs3 doesn't. we're stuck with a unidirectional power curve.and a manual wep.cfs3 can't produce reverse thrust. the critical altitude is set so low on all cfs3 aircraft. they won't handle and are power restricted.both to less than 20.000 feet.
CFS3 allows full control of engine efficiency at whichever RPM you wish, allows setting the critical altitude to wherever you want it and setting the WEP critical altitude independently from that, and yes it can produce reverse thrust. Try setting propeller blade angle limits to negative figures and you'll see.
Some of the stock aircraft have their critical altitudes below 20.000 feet, agreed. Because they should - mechanical superchargers have their limits and very few models were optimized for extreme altitudes. Then again the turbocharged P-47s and the P-51B give full power up to 30.000 feet.
The real life V-1650-7 in the P-51D gave full 60.5 in/hg boost up to 26.000 feet, producing 1260 bhp at that altitude. After that the power fell of quite rapidly, at 30.000 feet it only had 51.6 in/hg (1075 bhp) left and at 40.000 feet the figure was down to 32.8 in/hg and 630 bhp.
real aircraft can't flat flight corkscrew at the rates the stockers do.theres more but the point is made that cfs3 aircraft flight files ARE NOT ACCURATE.
So for the third time we see (and agree) that the stockers are hopeless. They really are. The actual flight model files themselves are surprisingly accurate but it takes something else than the stock data to get a well flying model.
thats why alot of people blew off and bad mouthed cfs3.they wanted planes set up more like these.i was talked into putting them up after holding them for 5 years.now for all intents and purposes cfs3 is pretty much DEAD.most of the builders have moved on for many reasons. some because of fourm response like this.
Those people either didn't know where to look, didn't appreciate realism or just got fed up with a marginal sim. I can fully well understand why few people want to build things for a sim with dozens of users when the alternative is building for a sim with thousands of them.
NOW THE NASTY remmember a thread i started called "follow the leader" i do ! i was looking for a test pilot.i posted pics of myself flying aircraft inverted through hangers.and wanted others to do the same.a guy dared someone to fly inverted under the tower bridge with a B-29. ring a bell yet ? you posted a picture of a B-29 flying under the road platform inverted.remmember now ? i do. i downloaded the picture and opened it in photoshop.sure enought it was faked. and it was the second time you posted the same B-29 pic.you let it ride as real. i did it for real and ended the thread without finding a test pilot.again i was gentleman enough not to call you on it,on public fourm.and make you look like a cheater. oh well.on top of the negative posts. thats why your word,opinion and work mean nothing to me.
hey look there are, different imodicons.
Ah, finally my favourite part of the post. No need for the axe and bazooka though. I remember the thread very well and it was a real challenge to get the B-29 through the gap without the vertical tail hitting the water. I'm suspecting your Photoshop is broken because
it was real so of course I let it ride. See pictures
[1] [2] [3]. You should have called me up on it right away, gentleman or not, if you suspected something - I'd have posted these back then!
The funny thing is that all this began from me saying that a critical altitude of 41.000 feet is unrealistic for a Packard Merlin, as is unlimited WEP. I won't change my opinion of those because both of them are facts. I can agree with you in saying that this version is more fun than the stock P-51D (which is horrible) but realistic it is not.
