Merlin negative G cutout too quick?

[VO101_Tom]

Originally Posted by klem

GUYS if you feel the Merlin cutout is too sensitive you need to go and vote for the devs to review it. The vote is in danger of turning into a 'reds versus blues' for all the wrong reasons instead of a request for the devs to check it.
http://www.il2bugtracker.com/issues/230

I vote negative just because this sentence. How you dare call them unfair, when You are who garbles the others votes? Ok then, just to understand: If the title says: "Merlin Engine: Negative 'G' cutout too sensitive.", the "NO" means: No, it isn't sensitive. Everything else is just bulls*it

[klem]

Originally Posted by VO101_Tom

I vote negative just because this sentence. How you dare call them unfair, when You are who garbles the others votes? Ok then, just to understand: If the title says: "Merlin Engine: Negative 'G' cutout too sensitive.", the "NO" means: No, it isn't sensitive. Everything else is just bulls*it

As I explained in the bug tracker....

"OK, I accept what you say about the title. I should have named it "Request to devs to re-check the G value for the Merlin negative g cutout point", a bit of a mouthfull but that is what I am asking for as I described in my first post (in the tracker).

I think it is too sensitive and I want them to check it. Why would anyone not want something checked that someone thinks is wrong? I am not asking for a change of cutout g value, I just think the devs may have go it wrong given they are trying to create historically correct FMs using historical documentation, in this case setting the cutout point to about 0.1g - or is the historical data what your really arguing against?"

and as I said in an earlier Tracker post

"Why do I think it is too sensititve? Years of reading decriptions and reports which make me suspicious, plus I installed a G meter in the A2A simulations Spitfire 1a and my 'perceived vertical rate of change' necessary when pushing over to hit 0.1G in that aircraft is a world away from the same observation of the cutout point in CoD. And before you ask I did not compare it with A2A's actual cutout point but observed the rate of change of vertical direction necessary to hit 0.1G. It is not scientific but points to the CoD Merlins being too sensitive."

[WTE_Galway]

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...pdf_501355.pdf

Originally Posted by WTE_Galway

http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources...pdf_501355.pdf

To my understanding the engine in question had a strongly modified carburretor, its functioning hence being quite different from that of the early spits. So not so useful to my understanding. If you believe otherwise please indicate the text sections that support your view.

I think comparing two flight simulators and saying that one is wrong because they differ is a bit uhm ... well, far far from any proof of whatsoever.

[klem]

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Stormcrow

To my understanding the engine in question had a strongly modified carburretor, its functioning hence being quite different from that of the early spits. So not so useful to my understanding. If you believe otherwise please indicate the text sections that support your view.

I think comparing two flight simulators and saying that one is wrong because they differ is a bit uhm ... well, far far from any proof of whatsoever.

Stormcrow, I'm not offering that as proof (although two 'accurate' sim FMs should give a similar result), it was just a comparison which, among other things, makes me think it isn't correct.

I'm not trying to start a war. I'm just asking them to re-check it or perhaps even confirm that it has been looked at under the new patch. It was admitted before October 2011 that it was wrong, it was adjusted at the October 2011 patch and I think I read somewhere that it was set at 0.5G pending further work but I can't confirm that. In any case it just needs a response from the devs.

There's no need for some of the acrimonious reaction that occured in the tracker - and yes, I apologise for questioning the negative-voting 'blues' motives but it was a knee-jerk reaction to their tracker posts attacking this request and my perceptions instead of just expressing their view by voting on it and possibly even offering something to support their voting reasons. Their view (and tbh yours) that it is ok is no more valid than my feeling that it isn't. We can't prove it either way without a cockpit G-meter so we have to ask the devs.

I'm fairly sure it's wrong and I just want it looked at.

Actually I remember the discussion on the cut off behaviour in its release state very well. In fact the devs never said that the g levels were wrong but they understood that the way it was implemented led to some oversensitivity. BTW back then the concern was merely that turbulences were enough to cause the first stage of cut out. So the devs eliminated basically the first stage of cut out completely while it actually should have been there. To my feeling (as you put forward your feelings I may too) they just should have removed the instant first stage cut out due to turbulences by putting in some inertial behaviour of the first stage cut out to render it more insensitive to small to medium turbulences.

I also do thing that the current cut out is not over sensitive.

BTW I do not understand what you expect them to do. You want them to check the g level from which cut out occurs. So you want to know the number and that's it? Or do you want them to make it less sensitive whatever g number they have used? If the latter is the case please provide some historic documents that supports your view that g level has to be improved.

[klem]

Originally Posted by 41Sqn_Stormcrow

Actually I remember the discussion on the cut off behaviour in its release state very well. In fact the devs never said that the g levels were wrong but they understood that the way it was implemented led to some oversensitivity. BTW back then the concern was merely that turbulences were enough to cause the first stage of cut out. So the devs eliminated basically the first stage of cut out completely while it actually should have been there. To my feeling (as you put forward your feelings I may too) they just should have removed the instant first stage cut out due to turbulences by putting in some inertial behaviour of the first stage cut out to render it more insensitive to small to medium turbulences.

I also do thing that the current cut out is not over sensitive.

BTW I do not understand what you expect them to do. You want them to check the g level from which cut out occurs. So you want to know the number and that's it? Or do you want them to make it less sensitive whatever g number they have used? If the latter is the case please provide some historic documents that supports your view that g level has to be improved.

First I don't think light turbulence would cause cutout - and that was confirmed to me by a current MkI Merlin III Hurricane display pilot - but in the release version it blipped continuously in level flight. Second, the documented data is in the Tracker, 0.1G cutout according to the Royal Aircraft Establishment who tested for it in the aircraft in 1940. Third there are a number of reasonable estimates of what the delay might be to cut and recovery including the opinion I posted way back from the Hurricane display pilot I mentioned plus buried away somewhere some documents giving an opinion at the time.

What do I expect them to do? What they said when they committed to as accurate modelling of FMs as possible by checking whether the documented data is incorporated into the flight model or if the FM is still using an estimated value for the last patch. Its that simple and I don't understand why anyone would want to say "No! Don't check it!" What is there to be afraid of? Either its correct or it isn't.

No amount of discussion here will answer this, only they know.