Cruise Speeds - 0.81 mach overspeed?

[Joe L 62]

Brandon,If you notice, PSS has never addressed this thread at all - like they are ignoring it?** Backup first ** A simple 30 second edit of the aircraft.cfg file to change max_mach under Reference Speeds to max_mach=0.86 really does the trick. Might be worthwhile to that check fuel_flow_scalar under General Engine Data is set to 1.00 or close. Has to be done for each each aircraft.cfg file too.I did that and times, cruise, ability to hit 0.82 mach etc all seems very good.Joe Lorenc

[Guest NormanB]

>Brandon,>>If you notice, PSS has never addressed this thread at all ->like they are ignoring it?Or have noted it and made the changes in an upcoming patch?

[Guest Knikolaes]

>If you notice, PSS has never addressed this thread at all ->like they are ignoring it?>>Joe LorencWas plain as day right above -- in fact it was the FIRST reply:>noted and added to the list to be looked at.>Has anyone else experienced this?>Steven>PSS SupportLooks like they weren't ignoring it to me. **shrugs** They just don't like to repeat themselves when the answer is already there in black and white.

[Guest Knikolaes]

>Or have noted it and made the changes in an upcoming patch?Many thanks, Norman :-) Much appreciate the update.

[Joe L 62]

Well Mr. Dittmar,Not quite - in my opinionSaying it is being looked at and saying it is fixed, as Norman just vaguely implied, are two different things. Neither really confirming anything either.Maybe it is the clients of this product don't like repeating themselves, since we paid for it and it sure is not a very bug free release. Look at the view count on the thread, look at the requests for an update in it.Get your facts straight as I do not see an answer (though you got your brownie points I'm sure).Joe Lorenc

[Guest Knikolaes]

Joe,I am not aggressive, so please don't come off that way to me. I was just trying to point out posts that I presumed were missed by the reader. In fact I am happily using your figures above for the CFG edits on my UPS 752F and thus far it has been working well.And I don't go for brownie points. I, like you, am a paying customer. I guess I just have a habit of having confidence in the developers - especially when they have a proven track record like PSS does. In the meantime, I team with my peers and use fixes (such as yours) to actually enjoy the product more in the meantime.The ONLY part I was replying to above with your statement of "PSS never addressed this thread "at all"" was that they did address it. And I do apologize for being an overly happy guy.

[Guest N555TZ]

>Well Mr. Dittmar,>>Not quite - in my opinion>>Saying it is being looked at and saying it is fixed, as Norman>just vaguely implied, are two different things. Neither>really confirming anything either.>>Maybe it is the clients of this product don't like>repeating themselves, since we paid for it and it sure is>not a very bug free release. Look at the view count on the>thread, look at the requests for an update in it.>>Get your facts straight as I do not see an answer (though you>got your brownie points I'm sure).>>Joe LorencThe only other similar product was rendered completely unflyable upon initial release by an eency weency bug.Why do you persist in defaming PSS?

[Guest NormanB]

>Why do you persist in defaming PSS?Its fashionable. Its also generally ignored :)Constructive criticism is most welcomed. Flame bait though is ignored.

[Guest Bjorn757]

You're a wise wise man Norman LOL!I would like to say that besides a few minor bugs, which imho are logical in an early release state, this plane truly ROCKS!You have once more done a fantastic job all together. I have already completed several uneventful flights and there are many more to come.Thanks for this great bird!Kindest RegardsBjorn