PDA

View Full Version : History and ORR



Zen--
10-11-2004, 11:40 AM
It really surprises me at the way history has been nitpicked and torn to shreds here in this forum, often as though this game and only this game is correct and is the only measure of what happened 60 years ago in WW2. It also surprises me at how people can nitpick anything to the smallest possible detail in order to confuse the issue and nullify historical comments, as though the people that made them back then were wrong or that the situation never happened in the first place. It surprises me that people will go further than that and dispute the historians themselves, refute test data and make a big deal about hidden agenda's and national bias as reason to discount test results and to make them appear false. Others will take a man like Robert Shaw, who was a fighter pilot himself and an engineer (and who's book is used to train USN and USAF pilots) and discount what he says as well, apparently because he has a fact of out place in his book or that his views don't correspond with what happens here in game.


Can anyone else see that there is a trend of elitist behavior so convinced that they are right that it results in people apparently arguing that history itself is wrong? That history itself and the commentary of actual people who flew the actual planes is no longer relative to the discussion of FM fidelity in this game? That historians who have a passion for the subject and have made a career of it are no longer qualified and can be dismissed from these boards once and for all? That people who write books about the intricate details of air to air combat and wrote these books because they know how to do it -- are being dismissed as well? Can anyone else see that some people are effectively arguing that THIS GAME is more accurate than history and that only THIS GAME is to be taken seriously? Or is it that they are arguing that nothing at all can be right and no example of anything is justified to be used here in the forum, that they are arguing that no example given can withstand proper scrutiny?

And it surprises me that if you dare speak out on any perceived inaccuracies in this game that you are persecuted relentlesly by cheap debate tactics...tactics that are not focused so much on the issue in question, but more on the person raising the issue with the intent to do nothing more than make poster look silly, uninformed and incapable of justifying their position...as though only some people are allowed to decide what is right and wrong and only those people are allowed to sit on judgement on everyone else.

Do you really believe that all those people from back then on both sides of the conflict, all the pilots, testing departments, designers, historians, aces, etc are wrong? All of them? That what we have in game right now with the FW190 is accurate and should not be challenged, that it is a faithful and correct representation of how things were back then in then? Be careful here, because while you can perhaps discount any one of those people and even certain tests can be discounted, as a whole they are all saying something very similar and they tend to corroborate each other very well. Do you really believe that because some numbers don't add up on a specific test that alone means that everything else related to the performance of that aircraft is to be disbelieved also? All of it? That because we have a certain FM of the 190 in this game we can safetly assume that the game is correct and we can then begin a process to eliminate anything that doesn't agree with what we can do in game, apparently including eliminating reality itself? Do you really believe that it is ok to say that a man like Robert Shaw or Eric Brown is not to be trusted and that their comments cannot be considered because there is always, always a counter argument to what they have said? Do you really believe all this?

I don't know about you, but quoting me line by line and refuting my statements line by line might make it seem as though I personally am an idiot (and that may be true), but the rest of the world doesn't seem to think that the historians, test pilots, and real combat pilots who made real life statements and who are regularly discounted, discredited and ignored here in this forum are idiots. These people are considered experts and treated as such in real life because those people were there during that time or have done research on the events... and then left behind their comments on what happened in part so that we today would understand what it was like to be there at that moment. It is those very comments that helped me form my opinion on what is accurate in this game or not and common sense has played a big part in how I have interpreted those comments.

But instead of common sense here in this forum, all we have here is a very vocal minority of 'experts' with a hundred reasons why none of these historians/pilots/authors from real life has any right to be considered as qualified commentators on a war that they fought in, wrote about or designed planes for. As though this minority actually knows better than than EVERYONE else about what happened during WW2, including the people that were there. This forum contains the largest collection of armchair generals who apparently know more about the war than even many who fought in it, more than I have ever seen anywhere else period...simply amazing. But to my knowledge not one of them has ever flown a spitfire or a FW190 in combat, none of them are historians and none of them helped create a tool that is used to teach fighter pilots their business. To my knowledge none of these people were alive back then and none of them participated in the war but it is ok for them to discount whatever they feel doesn't warrant merit for discussion.



Can anyone else see that perhaps things have gotten a little silly in here?



This post is not about if the game is right or wrong specifically or even about the 190 itself, it's about how this forum tends to view history through the eyes of our virtual game pilot as though he is correct, instead of viewing the game through the eyes of the historical pilots who flew the real things. It is also a call for a little more common sense...I think it is foolish to assume that ONLY charts, tracks, numbers and more numbers are the be-all, end-all of what makes a game correct and that it's also foolish to dismiss the humans that made those numbers or flew the real planes. A long time ago people cared about the integrity of the game and wanted it to be as good as it could be, to be as historically correct as possible. Now all some people seem to care about is to trash anything they don't like as though this forum belongs to them and only they are qualified to speak on these subjects or to decide what is historical correct or not.



We are all entitled to our opinions and to our perception of how accurate the game is, but my money is on history. My logic is pretty simple here: The game is attempting to simulate something that happened....history actually happened. Sadly, I don't think history can be proven, because there is no track.



Just my .02 rupees and a call for less belligerence and some more common sense.

Zen--
10-11-2004, 11:40 AM
It really surprises me at the way history has been nitpicked and torn to shreds here in this forum, often as though this game and only this game is correct and is the only measure of what happened 60 years ago in WW2. It also surprises me at how people can nitpick anything to the smallest possible detail in order to confuse the issue and nullify historical comments, as though the people that made them back then were wrong or that the situation never happened in the first place. It surprises me that people will go further than that and dispute the historians themselves, refute test data and make a big deal about hidden agenda's and national bias as reason to discount test results and to make them appear false. Others will take a man like Robert Shaw, who was a fighter pilot himself and an engineer (and who's book is used to train USN and USAF pilots) and discount what he says as well, apparently because he has a fact of out place in his book or that his views don't correspond with what happens here in game.


Can anyone else see that there is a trend of elitist behavior so convinced that they are right that it results in people apparently arguing that history itself is wrong? That history itself and the commentary of actual people who flew the actual planes is no longer relative to the discussion of FM fidelity in this game? That historians who have a passion for the subject and have made a career of it are no longer qualified and can be dismissed from these boards once and for all? That people who write books about the intricate details of air to air combat and wrote these books because they know how to do it -- are being dismissed as well? Can anyone else see that some people are effectively arguing that THIS GAME is more accurate than history and that only THIS GAME is to be taken seriously? Or is it that they are arguing that nothing at all can be right and no example of anything is justified to be used here in the forum, that they are arguing that no example given can withstand proper scrutiny?

And it surprises me that if you dare speak out on any perceived inaccuracies in this game that you are persecuted relentlesly by cheap debate tactics...tactics that are not focused so much on the issue in question, but more on the person raising the issue with the intent to do nothing more than make poster look silly, uninformed and incapable of justifying their position...as though only some people are allowed to decide what is right and wrong and only those people are allowed to sit on judgement on everyone else.

Do you really believe that all those people from back then on both sides of the conflict, all the pilots, testing departments, designers, historians, aces, etc are wrong? All of them? That what we have in game right now with the FW190 is accurate and should not be challenged, that it is a faithful and correct representation of how things were back then in then? Be careful here, because while you can perhaps discount any one of those people and even certain tests can be discounted, as a whole they are all saying something very similar and they tend to corroborate each other very well. Do you really believe that because some numbers don't add up on a specific test that alone means that everything else related to the performance of that aircraft is to be disbelieved also? All of it? That because we have a certain FM of the 190 in this game we can safetly assume that the game is correct and we can then begin a process to eliminate anything that doesn't agree with what we can do in game, apparently including eliminating reality itself? Do you really believe that it is ok to say that a man like Robert Shaw or Eric Brown is not to be trusted and that their comments cannot be considered because there is always, always a counter argument to what they have said? Do you really believe all this?

I don't know about you, but quoting me line by line and refuting my statements line by line might make it seem as though I personally am an idiot (and that may be true), but the rest of the world doesn't seem to think that the historians, test pilots, and real combat pilots who made real life statements and who are regularly discounted, discredited and ignored here in this forum are idiots. These people are considered experts and treated as such in real life because those people were there during that time or have done research on the events... and then left behind their comments on what happened in part so that we today would understand what it was like to be there at that moment. It is those very comments that helped me form my opinion on what is accurate in this game or not and common sense has played a big part in how I have interpreted those comments.

But instead of common sense here in this forum, all we have here is a very vocal minority of 'experts' with a hundred reasons why none of these historians/pilots/authors from real life has any right to be considered as qualified commentators on a war that they fought in, wrote about or designed planes for. As though this minority actually knows better than than EVERYONE else about what happened during WW2, including the people that were there. This forum contains the largest collection of armchair generals who apparently know more about the war than even many who fought in it, more than I have ever seen anywhere else period...simply amazing. But to my knowledge not one of them has ever flown a spitfire or a FW190 in combat, none of them are historians and none of them helped create a tool that is used to teach fighter pilots their business. To my knowledge none of these people were alive back then and none of them participated in the war but it is ok for them to discount whatever they feel doesn't warrant merit for discussion.



Can anyone else see that perhaps things have gotten a little silly in here?



This post is not about if the game is right or wrong specifically or even about the 190 itself, it's about how this forum tends to view history through the eyes of our virtual game pilot as though he is correct, instead of viewing the game through the eyes of the historical pilots who flew the real things. It is also a call for a little more common sense...I think it is foolish to assume that ONLY charts, tracks, numbers and more numbers are the be-all, end-all of what makes a game correct and that it's also foolish to dismiss the humans that made those numbers or flew the real planes. A long time ago people cared about the integrity of the game and wanted it to be as good as it could be, to be as historically correct as possible. Now all some people seem to care about is to trash anything they don't like as though this forum belongs to them and only they are qualified to speak on these subjects or to decide what is historical correct or not.



We are all entitled to our opinions and to our perception of how accurate the game is, but my money is on history. My logic is pretty simple here: The game is attempting to simulate something that happened....history actually happened. Sadly, I don't think history can be proven, because there is no track.



Just my .02 rupees and a call for less belligerence and some more common sense.

k5054
10-11-2004, 11:50 AM
It's a forum. Nobody here is more or less qualified to post stuff, right or wrong.
Personally, I care about the history, I'm not too bothered about whether the game is right.
Please give list of authors/historians who we can trust implicitly and whose word may not be debated.

faustnik
10-11-2004, 12:04 PM
Great post Zen. Refuting history because you want your favorite plane to have an advantage in the sim is just plain wrong.

On the other hand, this is a discussion board and post of charts and data are interesting. The true story however, can only be found in the pictures painted by the words of the brave men who were there. Charts may measure indivual flight characteristics of an aircraft. The veteran's accounts reveal the sum of all the flight characteristics of an aircraft.

karost
10-11-2004, 12:20 PM
Wow..., it's a Hot post Zen http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


First time in ORR I like to see alot of good friends share his good idea , experience , knowledge to each other with open mind and compromise , I learned a lot of good thing from this forum ....But Now!... this place become an expert war forum same as you pointed.


S!

SeaFireLIV
10-11-2004, 12:22 PM
Absolutely right and very intelligent post. The stupid complaints designed just to get someone`s uber plane better than others is sad.
The lack of actual interest in WWII reality is lost on these people, they don`t care.

What has in some ways put me off has been the realisation that FB might possibly being changed to suit these people with only an interest to twist history to suit themselves.

And it goes on and on...

Also, WHO are these people? What are their credentials? They may write eloquently and spell well, but that proves nothing. They can be 10 year old kids with a fairy view of the world or old bitter sobs with an axe to grind with everyone and everything!

I only hope that Oleg is wise enough to ignore the rubbish and keep with historical acuracy from what HIS researchers find and using other people`s info only IF he is convinced by the variety of authentic evidence provided.

Sorry for my rant. But ZEN is so right!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v31/SeaFireLIV/Sigeaf.jpg

BBB_Hyperion
10-11-2004, 12:24 PM
Good post Zen .)

There are reasons i dont post important concerns here anymore http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

GregSM
10-11-2004, 01:40 PM
The original post implies a fantastic equivalency between "the past" and "history". History is neither the past nor its mirror image, but merely its interpretation. Analysing, revising where necessary, or affirming where appropriate, the words of historians is a natural and necessary part of the process in the construction of history.

No great man has redeemed the performance of the FW from the backwoods of history, and I doubt any will come close by retaining neurotically rigid preconceptions. (See Faber discussion.)


Cheers,


Greg

clint-ruin
10-11-2004, 02:20 PM
Interesting post.

Two things.

The focus on charts and facts is something that has been shaped by Olegs requests for them just about every time he has popped up in the kind of discussion you're talking about. If you don't want to give the developer what he wants in order to take a look at the problem, that's fine, but you may find that no spectacular progress is made. Pilot accounts aren't worthless - Oleg has mentioned them himself from time to time - but they are secondary to hard numbers. Unfortunately the FB codebase can only interpret hard numbers and has no text parser for pilot accounts to be put into it. Sad but true. Similarly it is a lot easier for the coders to go through a track file than it is to go off someones word about what happened in an online game last week. This is why this stuff is requested. I don't think judgement really comes into it at all - there is data that is considered helpful and unhelpful or indifferent, and there is a very long history of Oleg discounting 2nd hand stories while sifting through for bits of cold hard recorded reality.

The other great thing about this thread - and what I really want to congratulate you on - is just how many people are going to think this criticism applies only to someone else. I think in the next post you should really go for it and try and get this thing all the way to 20 pages.

WWMaxGunz
10-11-2004, 02:44 PM
Absolutely EVERYTHING written as history is 100% true.
Especially when it's used to prove anything.
Even if some histories disagree with others, the one that counts is the one we decide
to use.
We should never ever examine how a test might or might not apply to a claim because
once the name of someone who was there is given then it means that whatever is claimed
on the basis of that is absolutely 100% true.
Everything in Robert Shaws' book is absolutely golden in every case possible. Even
though Robert Shaw says don't use the book that way, we know it's supposed to be good
for anything we want.
We can apply anything to anything else and just because of the source, that makes us
unquestionably right.

Oh yes, what Oleg puts in the sim... well WTF does HE know? He wasn't there!

Yeeee-gads! Flippin prima-donnas.


Neal

clint-ruin
10-11-2004, 02:59 PM
Very facetious max! But I think we have our answer. After all that fuddy-duddy judgementalism, we have the final answer. The historical accounts that imply the FW190 ruled the skies are the right ones after all. How did we come to this conclusion? Simply because History says so. I called up History to ask him if this was true, but he was out to lunch.

Nevermind - it's all settled now!

faustnik
10-11-2004, 03:11 PM
Wow, you hit a nerve Zen. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

The revisionists strike back!

Giganoni
10-11-2004, 04:09 PM
Historians deal with written primary sources firstly and then other sources secondly. In fact there are still historians that wont even look at anything, but written primary sources. It provides a very narrow view of a subject.

It is about interpretation. For instance if I was to write an article about Japanese colonialism in Asia I could, if I wanted, use sources that simply talked about the benefits Japanese colonialism had on Asia prior to WWII and after. You then get a very rosy interpretation of Japanese colonialism. It wouldn't be a very good article and fellow Historians would easily attack it because it ignored so many sources on the horrible things of Japanese colonialism.

However if I did an article that just focused on the bad things that too would not be painting a more accurate interpretaion.

It is still an interpretation. You cannot fully trust any historian or pilot which I think Zen is forgetting. Historians have agendas, they have biases. Pilots as well. Soldier memoirs can also have agendas or biases. A soldier who writes about his experiences in the Pacific for his family might omitt certain "parts" of his story that may involve his actions.

On the other hand we certainly cannot put trust solely on charts, graphs, or tests. I think to understand an aircraft's impact and performance you should look at as many varying sources as possible.

WWMaxGunz
10-11-2004, 04:17 PM
The misuse of history and knowledge, to say one thing means another...
that is not revision?

Robert S. Johnson had some very definite things to say about the Jug.
Like rollrate. Is it possible that some well known FW pilot might disagree?
Which plane had the highest rollrate? RSJ says P-47. I keep reading that
it is FW. Both are based on history, but history cannot be wrong.

That's just one of many, many, many. Can I go pick a quote and paste it
onto a claim whether it fits or not, whether there is another quote that
say different or not, and still whatever I want to make of it, that is true?

If so, and I see this in many posts, that is revisionism in full force.

If someone questions those methods, now they are the revisionists!


Neal

Giganoni
10-11-2004, 04:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
The misuse of history and knowledge, to say one thing means another...
that is not revision?

Robert S. Johnson had some very definite things to say about the Jug.
Like rollrate. Is it possible that some well known FW pilot might disagree?
Which plane had the highest rollrate? RSJ says P-47. I keep reading that
it is FW. Both are based on history, but history cannot be wrong.

That's just one of many, many, many. Can I go pick a quote and paste it
onto a claim whether it fits or not, whether there is another quote that
say different or not, and still whatever I want to make of it, that is true?

If so, and I see this in many posts, that is revisionism in full force.

If someone questions those methods, now they are the revisionists!


Neal <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Um, that is not revisionism, that is history. Interpretaion, selection of sources. Personal biases and agendas of the author also come into play, been happening since Thucydides. If you want cold "facts" with nothing else, look at a timeline or a chronology. History isn't about that.

faustnik
10-11-2004, 04:58 PM
Revisionist history is the alteration or amendment of how an event has been recorded or interpreted. What Zen is discussing, if you read his original post, is the alteration or refuting of history for the specific purpose of promoting a personal agenda.

clint-ruin
10-11-2004, 04:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
Wow, you hit a nerve Zen. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

The revisionists strike back! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was trying to be all jokey :&gt;

But I have a feeling that the "history" that we are supposed to be going by is not the "history" where say, Golodnikov tells us how mediocre German planes were - especially that fatty 190 thing. I have this sneaking intuitive itch that says the non-biased, strictly historical and non-judgemental view actually involves making a lot of judgements indeed, starting with - if two people who were there say the exact opposite thing, which one do you believe? Remember - don't be judgemental :&gt;

WWMaxGunz
10-11-2004, 05:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
Revisionist history is the alteration or amendment of how an event has been recorded or interpreted. What Zen is discussing, if you read his original post, is the alteration or refuting of history for the specific purpose of promoting a personal agenda. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then Zen can show where the alteration or ammendment was made and what it is.

Has there been refutation of history or refutation of the application of history or
quotes of Robert Shaw?

As I posted above, this whole general-case history thing leads to where someone
validates their arguements simply and solely by attaching quotes, nothing else needed.

Well, it is an election year here so I guess anything goes.... it sure does on the tube.


Giganoni; so what can we draw from history by using specific selected parts?
My answer is 'generally not the truth'. It is more so the more selective we get.


Neal

faustnik
10-11-2004, 05:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:

I was trying to be all jokey :&gt;

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know, I was running with it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Hunde_3.JG51
10-11-2004, 05:59 PM
As you already know Zen I completely agree and it is the same reason I rarely post anymore. Some people in here think their word is law, they are never wrong and they are just here to help guide the poor, misinformed masses. You'll find them in almost every thread, sitting high atop their throne while casting down the real truth to others. Never, or very rarely will they admit they are wrong or change their stance through discussion, or even admit there could be an alternative to their opinion. As you said, elitists.

You could post "the sky is blue" and a handful of individuals would be right there to tell you how you are wrong. Hell, they may even provide a chart or some scientific explanation as to just how wrong you are. I wonder if this small group of elitists ever even play the simulation, or if they get off more by coming onto this forum and telling everyone the absolute truth (at least from their perspective).

Like you said, you can find ten sources, pilot accounts, etc., that say the FW-190 should out-dive and zoom the Spitfire but if one account disagrees the whole matter is murky and uncertain. I have read accounts of 190's turning with Spitfire's, but I sure as hell don't expect my Focke-Wulf to turn with the British fighter. My point is, as others have said above, is that from history's accounts I think we should at least be able to agree on some universal truths but some in here feel the need to argue against this, no matter how weak it is, for what I can only guess is for some sort of personal feeling of worth or satisfaction. This would be acceptable once in awhile but lately it has become the norm.

"The true story however, can only be found in the pictures painted by the words of the brave men who were there. Charts may measure indivual flight characteristics of an aircraft. The veteran's accounts reveal the sum of all the flight characteristics of an aircraft."

Very well said Faustnik, but I'm sure the usual cast of characters will be along to tell you how wrong you are. There is probably one chart in existence that shows history can't be trusted, or there is a scientific explanation as to why history cannot accurately be recalled by people who were there, it can only be explained by some cyber-geek who thinks he has all of the answers and that uses his monitor and keyboard as his conduit. Thank God we are blessed with their all-knowing presence.

WWMaxGunz
10-11-2004, 06:10 PM
I'm not feeling jokey. Yesterday I read a post Oleg made on SimHQ in reply to what
Siggi wrote. Soon enough we may have one choice for sims that aren't =totally=
arcade and I don't much like that choice.

I saw this happen before. People do the best they can and get heavy disrespect and
demands in return, they go do something else. So lets just rubber-stamp anything
that attaches 'history' to it as license to make demands and see how far it flies,
shall we?

People seem to forget that "perfect" was never in the product description. "Best",
or "most historic" I think might have been. FM fidelity is in there somewhere.
That would be overall. Nowhere did I ever read "perfect" or "all-encompassing".
It doesn't even do everything, but every little thing it doesn't is cause for a fit
post and thread.

Gee I hope PF is going to run well on my PC. I may be playing it for a looooong time.


Neal

WWMaxGunz
10-11-2004, 06:15 PM
You could post "the sky is blue" and get back "not always" then throw a fit
and get your buddies to join in. BTW, it's night here, the sky is black.
Wanna tell me it ain't? Am I giving you problems?


Neal

Korolov
10-11-2004, 06:47 PM
You is wrong, the sky is azure.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

EDIT: Be sure!

LEXX_Luthor
10-11-2004, 07:11 PM
Actually, the night sky is blue. You can see this on a crystal clear full moon night with no haze (clear winter nights). Black is the absence of light. The tiny amount of light coming from stars and moon (and planets) is scattered blue just like sunlight, just not as much light as sunlight, so we call it black. I even tested this one full real moon night with coloured filters.

Hunde_3.JG51
10-11-2004, 07:32 PM
Funny Max, I never mentioned your name. Strange how you are all in a fit though, really makes you think. "Am I giving you problems?"

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.

GregSM
10-11-2004, 07:49 PM
Hi Hunde_JG51,


Perhaps refraining from insulting those who would contest anecdotal evidence on principle would help elevate the forum to where you would feel inclined to rekindle your participation.

And I might note your handle refers to an axis online squad, or that your signature graphic depicts a FW. But that would be casting aspersions on the framework of your perspective, wouldn't it? And this would be no different than idly surmising the psychology behind the inflated lecturing of the "usual cast of elitist cyber-geeks", would it?


Cheers,


Greg

WWMaxGunz
10-11-2004, 08:10 PM
That's nice Lexx. We're under cloud cover. I guess it's not black though since
there's a lot of backscatter, this being a city the sky is never really black.

The point being, it's not **always** blue --- something about blanket statements.

I've seen the sky lit in fantastic shades usually around the sunset hour.
It makes the world seem much more interesting. Then there's grey days with the
clouds and rain....

But some people only see one color or want everyone else to, I guess.


Neal

Hunde_3.JG51
10-11-2004, 08:18 PM
Greg, exactly who did I insult? If you are a know it all, elitist type then maybe I insulted that individual. I presented my opinion and got a less than friendly response from someone who I never named.

And I couldn't care less what you think about me having a FW-190 in my sig. Name a plane and I'll tell you what I have publically stated should be improved for it. I have supported numerous beneficial changes for allied planes, posted tactics for allied planes, sent tracks to Oleg concerning problems with Allied planes, and have praised many of them for their strengths and quality. Still, you are free to feel as you please.

Btw, I like how you consider historical first hand pilot accounts to be "anecdotal" evidence, as if it offers no validity at all. I think this was the point of the original post.

LEXX_Luthor
10-11-2004, 09:10 PM
MaxGunz:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>You can see this on a crystal clear full moon night with no haze (clear winter nights). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes I agree, sky must be clear.

GregSM
10-11-2004, 10:57 PM
Hi Hunde,


"Greg, exactly who did I insult? If you are a know it all, elitist type then maybe I insulted that individual. I presented my opinion and got a less than friendly response from someone who I never named."

I can't imagine what this is really intended to mean, but the type of person, or rather the type of attitude you intended to disparage is perfectly transparent. There's no need to name it.

"And I couldn't care less what you think about me having a FW-190 in my sig. Name a plane and I'll tell you what I have publically stated should be improved for it. I have supported numerous beneficial changes for allied planes, posted tactics for allied planes, sent tracks to Oleg concerning problems with Allied planes, and have praised many of them for their strengths and quality. Still, you are free to feel as you please."

You don't address the point, which was to illustrate that anyone - even you - is susceptible to unfounded speculation about why they post. Don't step into the boxing ring if you'd rather not get punched.

"Btw, I like how you consider historical first hand pilot accounts to be "anecdotal" evidence, as if it offers no validity at all. I think this was the point of the original post."

You assume I dismiss pilot accounts as invalid when I've offered absolutely no opinion of them.


Cheers,


Greg

clint-ruin
10-11-2004, 11:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
Btw, I like how you consider historical first hand pilot accounts to be "anecdotal" evidence, as if it offers no validity at all. I think this was the point of the original post. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Hunde,

I am actually asking this just to ask - no intention of belting you around the head here. I came across this in Ask Oleg:


(Q): I think this game is targeted to those who love VVS planes.
(A): And in Russia players think that I love too much German planes and they are simply overmodelled.....
As I told all things may have realtive numbers...
Link: 10/29/02 12:57PM

(Q): What do Russian pilots/players complain mostly? I think G6AS in 44, G2 in 42 and F-4 in 41 are doing the troubles for them
(A): Right. But not only about it. Also about that too hard to shot down Ju-88, etc... Almost the same as other side but about other planes.
Or they say that P-39 should be more maneuverable, according recals of Pokryshkin, La-7 should fly 700 km/h becasue Kozedub said it flyes with this speed, etc...


[as far as I know he's talking about 700kmh at sea level from the original Kozedub quote]

So I mean, basically, my question is - based on an anecdote as told by Kozedub, would you be happy if the La7 got a 95kmh or so speed boost on the deck? Or would you like to see some evidence that any La7 ever did such a thing?

Edit: similarly, a little further down:

While flying F15s out of Germany, Hands (Phil "Hands" Handley) had the opportunity to talk with Adolf Galland, the great WWII German ace. Hands told the German ace that it was obvious to him that of Germany's World War II fighters, the Fw-190 was teh superior aircraft based on published performance data. The Fw-190 was faster, could turn better, and could climb higher than the Me-109, the plane in which Galland had recorded most of his kills. Adolf Galland smiled and said that Handley was correct in his analysis of the two aircraft's relative performances-but wrong in his assessment of which aircraft was superior. The German ace had flown both aircraft and believed that the Me-109 was the superior fighter because "flying it felt like wearing a glove." It was as smooth as silk and easy to control, whereas the Fw-190 was difficult and unruly. Galland could fly the Me-109 to his--and its--maximum performance, and this made it the better combat aircraft.

Now - that's a story Oleg pulled out to support the 109/190 flight models. Do you have anyone who tops Galland? How do we work out who to believe?

edit: mysterious growing post.


(Q): It's just so **** frustrating to lose engine oil on ONE hit by a small calibre MG while flying a 109 when a YAK can take 20mm shots on the engine without damage.
(A): If you only will have a chance to read Russian, I will show you exactly the same statements about German planes in recals of Russian WWII pilots.
So I'm sorry, I almost don't take in account such pilots recals, except these that corresponds to real construction of the aircraft. I will repeat and will underline, I almost don't take in account such recals of almost any nation if it doesn't corresponds with actual construction of aircraft.
Not the time yet to show how is modelled the constuction of the plane in IL-2 and even more complex in FB.
When will be the right time - I will show. Then you and other simply will think about any comments next time and simply will compare to others who developing sims before to say that something is wrong...
Sure something isn't perfect, but anyway much better than in some others, where such details simply not modelled or were taken from the sky.

I don't get where this stuff about wanking judgmental elitists comes from? Actually I might have a pretty good idea about that, but what I don't get is why when Oleg has said he doesn't want anecdotes, do you rail against people in Oleg Maddox's Ready Room who mention that Oleg doesn't like anecdotes.

I mean. Who exactly are you mad at here?

BfHeFwMe
10-11-2004, 11:39 PM
Wouldn't ever want to compare a modern flying example or museum relic, everyone knows besides sharing airframes, powerplants, and control systems a flying P-38 could never tell us a thing about them. You must compare P-38's and sausage to get much more accurate data. Museum 190 cockpit pictures? Come on get real.

What could a combat pilot ever know about fighting an airframe he used in war? Bah, who cares if they're all saying it, mass delusions run rampant in combat.

Looks like you hooked a few of the Lurkers, or was that Lunkers.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

Hunde_3.JG51
10-12-2004, 12:21 AM
I'm not going much further with this since I have already stated my point.

Clint, I was more supporting the original post than being mad at anyone. What does annoy me is the people who post in **** near every thread and speak as if on a soapbox. Its constant correcting of those who they feel are wrong, but it is so frequent and pervasive as to make reading the threads a chore. This is basically what I said in my first post.

And no I don't rail against people who say Oleg doesn't want anecdotes, that is a statement by Oleg and there is nothing wrong with that. Do I agree that pilot accounts hold no value when creating or discussing plane performnace? No, I don't. Oleg is very science/engineering oriented and that is what he operates by, which is fine. I don't take every account as law but as I said there are generalizations I think one can deduce when doing extensive reading. This is important, since I am not speaking about raw speed numbers, turn rates, etc, quite the opposite. I am saying more simplified examples as I gave with Spitfire and FW-190 in regards to zoom/dive. It is seen numerous times in numerous references but the point is that some will come on here and debate to their death that these accounts, that are seen with regularity and rarely (if ever) to the contrary, are wrong. I am not speaking on detailed matters but simplified matters that really are not that great in number.

As for the Galland thing he flew the 109 for a very long time before he flew 190, and from my knowledge he had limited time in that aircraft. I can find references where pilots were much happier when converting to the 190. But this is not an example of what I am talking about, I am talking about certain generalizations like FW-190 performing poorly above 22,000+ feet, the P-47 being excellent in a dive, Spitifre out-turning 109, etc. Things that are seen repeatedly but seemingly can't be accepted by some, on both sides.


Greg, if it helps I don't understand you either. You say I insulted someone, but can't say who. You say my attitude is transparent, well I am saying I am sick of the elitist type who feel the need to post their opinion (which is never wrong) in every thread. Nothing to see through here, I pretty much made it clear from the beginning. And speculation as to why they post? I just offered a possible explanation, I really don't care why they post the way they do, that isn't the point.

"Perhaps refraining from insulting those who would contest anecdotal evidence on principle..."

We were specifically talking about pilot accounts, so if that is not what your comment was referring to then what was it referring to?

But like I said, I made my point and I don't need to justify it to anyone. It's my opinion of what ORR has become and I'm certainly not alone in this thinking. So discussing this further is rather pointless.

*As a note: Nowhere did I say that the people I am tired of are only posting in favor of improved allied planes.

BaldieJr
10-12-2004, 12:42 AM
I wish I could make everyone read this and comprehend it. I'm not good with words, but i'll try anyways.

Several of you gained points with me in this thread. Not that my opinion means much, but i use it to get me through life, so its not entirely without merit http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

I've noticed that some people are so abrasive in making thier points that others will go to great lengths just prove them wrong... often they'll argue minutia for many pages when all they really needed to do was say "you know, maybe you are right, but you sure are a jerk.".

But who of us has not fallen into that trap at least once?

So, I thought I'd do two things in this thread:

Firstly, I want to thank you all. A lot of things said in this thread were smartly said, and I appreciate the effort because I no longer feel that ORR is "gimmme land".

Secondly, I think that people should form themselves into 3rd party testing and research teams. Within those teams specific strengths should be played upon. Each team should pick a plane that interests all members and should thoroughly test it in the game and provide good historical data to prove/disprove points. They should also elect themselves a representative to do all the "talking" and should choose someone worthy of the title "representative".

A lot of people here LOVE this sort of thing but get bogged down in the process. Maybe distribution of the workload would ensure completion of task. Perhaps also the differing personalities within the group will help uncover facts about each plane that a single person might not find.

I don't know much about anything, but I know that a diverse group such as this needs to working towards common goals if it intends to steer clear of the tomfoolery we see so much of here lately.

Stiglr
10-12-2004, 01:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I've noticed that some people are so abrasive in making thier points that others will go to great lengths just prove them wrong... often they'll argue minutia for many pages when all they really needed to do was say "you know, maybe you are right, but you sure are a jerk.".

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So much easier to go that route than to actually have some evidence of your own, or be able to simply argue the point.

So many people here are so thin skinned, and so bitter that somebody might have a dissenting opinion that they routinely fall into this trap.

Fehler
10-12-2004, 01:20 AM
LOL, Stiglr! Now you did it! Your tail will be along in short fashion to bash you.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

JaBo_HH--Gotcha
10-12-2004, 02:24 AM
Agree !
Good one zen !

I think the situation partially comes because people always take it personally.

The first personal attacks started with accusing somebody to be a "whiner" because he felt wrong about seomthing (be it qualifed or not).
Next is a bunch of people here taking the role of the developers-advocate and "assuming" the inention of the developers.

So many times I read claims by somebody just to be asked for "proof" "tracks" etc.
Just what the heck do such people think they are ?

Maybe a question like "Did you send your concerns to Oleg already ?" Would be nicer and would spare us a lot of silly discussions, where personal vendettas and pride as well as some "pseudo"-Honor make any topic deviate into a silly clash.
However that I learned a great deal from some of these smart-butts (censored version..) ... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I'd also like to add that if the mods would for example immediately toast any flame-thread (like the one called "only Pathetic...") and apply harsher rules we could have ommitted a lot of stuff. (how about banning the word Whiner ? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )
Not just close it ! Annihilate it from existence !
But it's not only their responsibility.

When I came here first, I met the "learn to fly "-party, whenever I had a question.
Several people were pushed into the X-Whiner party, for just raising concerns.
For some time I was part of the "dead-horse" fraction and of course the all time classics Luftwhiners...

I think a call for common sense and less politics is not a bad thing....

!S!

CHDT
10-12-2004, 02:28 AM
Zen, it's one of the best posts I have ever read.

It's a pity that so many nitpickers and fanboys are unable to see the "whole picture" and are basing their argumentation only on one-sided reasonments.

Concerning history, the worst attitude is either to believe anything or to doubt anything.

To get it right and arrive to a reasonable veracity on historical matters, it needs some kind of "honest tweaking". So to build one opinion only or pilots stories or only on charts can only get into a biased perception. Both approaches have to be taken in consideration for getting in the end something approaching the reality.

And if it happens that something doesn't match what has been recognized as true for a long time, in this case, yes, very "hard" datas have to be shown in the open!

A very good example of this debate can be found in the excellent book of Tom Wolf "The Right Stuff" (the Phil Kaufmann's movie was also very well-done) when the astronauts debated hardly with the scientists. So to believe only the astronauts or only the scientists is a wrong approach, truth is always in the middle.

CHDT
10-12-2004, 02:42 AM
Btw, you're right, Gotscha, no "learn to fly" and "use the right tactics" ayatollah until now http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Not bad for one time!

clint-ruin
10-12-2004, 02:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JaBo_HH--Gotcha:
Next is a bunch of people here taking the role of the developers-advocate and "assuming" the inention of the developers.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think we really need to assume all that much here, on this topic.

(Q): In simulation i think that combat performance should be derived from veterans opinions too. They really fought with those planes.
(A): That will be almost completely wrong criteria if to model it ONLY using their opinion. That is only additional and relative info.
If to model it like some veterans said (any side) than this side sure should win the war. But not...
When I will have a time I will translate the statistics of dogifights with JG-54 of couple of Soviet fighter squads, that was done by russian veteran of WWII, that flew there... It will be very interesting to read for you(and many others). It is post war statistic and that used confirmad things from Germany and Finland(you'll be able to check it yourself as you are from Finland) already after the war. Then you'll see is it possible to compare flight model as you offer.
All things have very realtive number and character.
Link: 10/04/02 09:04AM
(Q): The real aircombat showed us the real situation. In order to simulate WW2 aircombats then one source should be the pilots who flew in WW2.
(A): You didn't get my idea. You continue to speak and means Finnish pilots recals. Yes? Sure yes.
But did you ever read Russian pilots recals? Or was speaking to Russian pilots? I think if you'll have both sides recals, then you will be able to look for it across the "lense" and find great contradictions in both sides recals. Really very great contradictions. Be sure and read please always many sources then only couple. I hope I'm right here that you speak about Finnish pilots recals, that I also have many. I told you I have a great help from my Finnish friends. As well as from Germany and other countries. I never look into one side. I look for all.
I have a help from the the people who restored WWII planes or that fly them now (its about FW also ). I take all things serios, I'm not a usual game designer. I went from aviation that to make aviation sim with possible current PC features and with high level of progammers that know what they do.
Link: 10/04/02 09:44AM
(A €" Luthier€s response ):No! No, no no, no no!!!
The WWII pilots should be the LAST source of information you'd ever want to use in the sim. You wouldn't know whom to believe - a German pilot would say no plane could ever match his 190, a Soviet ace would swear by his P-39 and claim that all "fokkers" were total pigs, a Finnish pilot would claim that he shot down Soviet airacobras with his 109 like nobody's business, and an American ace would tell you all the stories of him totally outperforming any 109s he saw.
Remember, all veterans you will talk to were successful pilots, and their victims were not so successful. The task of these veterans was not to objectively evaluate planes - it was to shoot them down. Which they did. The fact that they have victories, and that they've survived the war, means that they have not met their match in the skies.
You might get a good opinion out of a test pilot, but any combat fighter pilot you ever talk to will be extremely subjective.
(A): Absolutely great post. Sad that my English is so bad and I can't write so cool, like American
Link: 10/04/02 09:46AM

Manufacturer and real tests first, pilot accounts second, and only if they confirm what the test docs say. It has been laid out year after year after year. Some people are just a wee bit slow picking this up.

Fehler
10-12-2004, 04:34 AM
OK, I really didnt want to get into this debate, but I would like to ask you, Clint, what about generalizations that people take for fact?

Example, a Zero should be able to outturn nearly every plane in it's era. We all agree on this one, correct? So no one questions it, because the game also agrees with this interpretation of history.

It is only when the game doesnt conform to what we have all learned and read that questions arise.

I also think that one aspect people forget sometimes is that two identical planes, will not perform identically, even if they are build in sequential numbers. Take two cars off the same car lot, and I bet you will see slight, but noticable differences in performances, especially when testing limits like raw acceleration and handling.

In the game, the FM's are modelled from data, but where does that data come from? The testing of a plane at some point in history, right? OK, so who is to say that that particular piece of data is all-inclusive? Perhaps the test craft was "Set up" for the test. When companies like Boeing and Curtis were fighting over contract bids, dont you think they tested their best planes, and submitted the data to the government for consideration? Naw, they probably took a random plane off an assembly line and tested it, right? Only millions of dollars in contracts were at stake, nothing important.

Or how about a Russian developer that feared the Gulag if his plane wasnt accepted by Stalin? He probably took the average aircraft for testing, right? Nothing at stake there, just his life...

Or maybe the German developer was the most accurate. Winning favor with Hitler would not make a difference, right? So using the best of the best for demonstration was not a thought.

So, as you can see by my sarcasm, there were many reasons why aircraft developers would "Rig" the test planes to produce the desired results. The same can be seen today with companies like Lockheed and Boeing fighting over contracts worth billions of dollars.

So, to abandon historical accounts by the people that actually flew the aircraft would be foolish. The testimony of persons that counted on these planes strengths and the subsequent tactics did so because they wanted to stay alive. Test pilots wanted to give their side the best fighting chance at survival. Therefore is test pilot "X" said, dont try and out dive a FW190 in your Spit, he probably said that for a reason, dont you think?

But like all information, people have to learn to take things with a grain of salt. I personally love vintage Dodge muscle cars. I own a few. But I am willing to bet you would hear quite a heated debate between me and a Chevrolet fan over who's car was best in the 70's, now wouldnt you?

Pride could have a great deal to do with bias in pilot accounts, so discarding data in lieu of accounts is equally ignorant in determining the way a plane should be modelled in a combat simulator.

So a happy medium needs to be reached. By all means, things that are taken for granted like "A zero can out turn nearly every plane in it's era." can be easily modelled. The turn times in raw data can be used and from both a written account and data the widely "Known" inference should be able to be obtained.

But what do we do when the data does not support the personal account? Or the game does not reflect what we have come to "Know" as fact? Or things dont appear to be logical in application?

Well, that's when we, as a community, come here to discuss what we think based on what we know, or what we think we know.

It is those times that bring out the elitist crowd. The people who demand proof for some things that are not entirely provable. For example, 90% of the time I am shot in a 190, I get a fuel leak, no matter where I am hit. That is a fact. Others attest to that from their experiences while playing the game. Anyone that flys the 190 will say the same thing. But there are those that need a track to prove what 100 others say? And if they are provided these things, what real position are they in to correct the problem?

For all the "Scientific" data that goes into this game, I submit that there is at least the same amount of subjectivity that is also applied. Especially in the area of damage model. When I read pilot accounts about how tough a 190 was, then I go fly the game and receive 3 .50 cal hits on a wing and it flys like my fat sister-in-law is sitting on the wingtip, I question it. Logic tells me that 3 1/2 inch holes surely cant deterriorate lift that badly, when my own 20mm's wont do the same to another's airframe. Accounts dont agree on the effect; "Could take a lot of damage" And there is no real data on the events, I may be inclined to ask a question.

But here we get all the self appointed experts that leap to the opportunity to call me a Luftwhiner, or say I must learn to fly, or I am not a aerodynamic engineer, so what the hell would I know?

Those are the people that leave a bad taste in my mouth, and destroy the fundamantal reason this room exists... direct communication with the DEVELOPER. Not direct communication with the "Self-appointed" experts.

How many threads are started, "Oleg, why is it like this in the game?" To be answered a hundred times over by people that dont make a freaking flip in the sim, and would never be in a position to change a thing if they wanted to? But they are surely happy to thrust their opinion on matters and attempt to prove everyone else wrong. It's almost like they are running for some sort of political office or something. Like, if they can prove someone else wrong, then they win the prize.

Now, I also agree that some threads shouldnt last as long as is needed to delete them. When questions are asked with disrespect, or accusations are made without question, or people come here to rant because they are pissed off they got beat by and "Inferior" plane, then they are not constructive and have no place in this forum. But some of these threads are allowed to live on, and on, and on, for no really good reason.

The thing is, I really dont know why I even bother to write all this. The people that partake in this type of rhetoric will not stop, nor will they even bother to evaluate themselves (Hell they have been doing it for 3 years now), and the moderators will not impose tighter restrictions on this sort of behavior.

CHDT
10-12-2004, 04:49 AM
"Example, a Zero should be able to outturn nearly every plane in it's era."


A good test with PF will be to see if a Wildcat can outdive a Zero by a sufficient margin which will allow this ability to be used as a correct tactic.

But if the Wildcat will outdive the Zero only marginally, I think it will be ok to say that something is perhaps not quite right!

clint-ruin
10-12-2004, 05:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
The thing is, I really dont know why I even bother to write all this. The people that partake in this type of rhetoric will not stop, nor will they even bother to evaluate themselves (Hell they have been doing it for 3 years now), and the moderators will not impose tighter restrictions on this sort of behavior. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I didn't make Luthier or Oleg write what I quoted from them. I really don't think your post should be addressed to me, I don't set their data acceptance policy or anything. You should definitely take it up with Luthier or Oleg if you want pilot accounts to have a greater role in the sim. The focus on tracks and charts and whatever came from Oleg, not from mysterious nameless skidmarks on ORR.

The one thing I would mention is that for 'obvious' things such as A6M2 turn time there is abundant data from multiple nations. We don't really need pilot accounts there, and in any case, it's all good, they mostly back up the test data on this subject anyhow. We near enough to -know- the Zero is a comparatively good turning monoplane because of the multiple independant tests done on it. All we know from pilots is that they -thought- of it as a good turning monoplane. Different things. Allied pilots thought they were fighting Bf109s and MC202s in the pacific too, and I'm sure they were very sincerely convinced that this was the case. We know for a fact that it was not the case.

Should we see 109s and 202s in imperial japanese markings in PF? Serious question.

From Zens post I see that pretty much everyone has taken their own view of what "history" is and what it would mean to the game to be based on "history". That's why it was such a brilliant flytrap post. Wish I'd thought of it :&gt;

As for A6M2 diving vs FM2 and others, I believe Skychimp once posted a controlled USN test of various planes diving abilities contrasted, and the Zero wasn't actually that much of a slouch as compared to the USN planes. The issues with diving were, in my opinion, much more to do with control authority and the Zeros fragility than some kind of weird antigravity that applied to the A6M2.

Blottogg
10-12-2004, 05:39 AM
Zen, good post, and one that obviously hit a sensitive spot regarding ORR. I've seen more than enough flaming, mud-slinging, and deliberate out-of-context sourcing or outright fabrication of information here regarding most of the popular aircraft. I've also learned a tremendous amount concerning many of these same aircraft, from data posted in the same threads. I blame the internet for many of these belligerent threads, for a couple reasons:

1) Back before the internet, most of this geek info on WWII aircraft was published in books. They usually had their share of errors, but had to go through several sh*t-screens of editors and publishers. Now anyone with and ISP usually has a web site of their own, where they can post anything they like and offer it as gospel. People haven't gotten any more incredulous over the years, and will lap this stuff up, especially if it agrees with their predispositions.

2) The anonymity of the internet allows behavior that would never be tolerated face-to-face. Were some of the mud-slinging that occurs here to happen in person, blows would be thrown. This permissive envoirnment attracts the trolls who have little or no interest in coming to an accurate as possible solution, they merely want to start a food fight and congratulate themselves on their perceived manipulative cunning. They're even more effective when armed with "facts" that almost make sense, and I've unwittingly fed too many of these trolls myself.

3) Related to 2), and the real cause for conflict rather than enlightenment here, is that with the internet, you don't have to have an open mind anymore. A Google search will likely provide you with information to support any prejudice, no rational thought or analyis required. Merely gather a few URL's, prohibit any contradictory input on your own personal filters and blaze away! Fun for the whole family.

I don't think this behavior is going to change unfortunately. The best I can offer is to help interpret the data available, and to try to remember to admit "I don't know" when in fact, I don't know. I have my own prejudices (like we all do), but try to take those into account when figuring out an apparent inaccuracy. Humility helps here (the sim has been correct much more often than I have been when questions have arisen.)

As far as a resolution to these conflicts, the best that I can offer is this.

1) Pilot accounts are valuable, but their value is limited. Clint, thanks for the Oleg quotes, it seems he is of a similar opinion. There are simply too many unknown variables in most of them to be useful primary sources. Did an Fw-190 out turn a Spitfire? If so, what variants, airspeeds, altitudes, fuel loads, stick forces, etc were involved? Rarely are anecdotes accompanied by this data. I'm not trying to discount the data with these questions, but the answers can significantly affect the outcome. Test data varies too, depending on hardware condition, weather, test team experience, fuel etc., but at least some of the variables are documented, making an educated guess less of a blind stab in the dark.

2) Don't take it personally, and don't make it personal. These are WWII aircraft, not a member of your family, a representitive of your political party, or you genitalia. If you have a sentimental favorite, great. So do I. But be aware of your prejudice and leave it outside the discussion. Otherwise, you set yourself up for a close-minded flame fest where nothing is revealed, except the ease with which you can be baited (as has happened to me on occasion.)

3) Not knowing is not a sign of weakness. Stumbling on like you do know, when you in fact don't, is a sign of weakness. If you don't know, ask. There are many members of this forum with extensive knowledge of WWII aircraft, history and engineering. There are also the aforementioned types looking to stroke their own egos by foisting fiction as fact, or insult those asking in a misguided attempt to look superior. Ignore those, and sooner or later they'll head for greener pastures, or at the very least won't detract from a productive discussion.

Sorry to be so long-winded (again) but Zen's origninal post touched a nerve with me, too (obviously.)

CHDT
10-12-2004, 06:06 AM
"then I go fly the game and receive 3 .50 cal hits on a wing and it flys like my fat sister-in-law is sitting on the wingtip, I question it."

Ah, ah, funny and so true http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

But I hope your sister-in-law doesn't read this forum!

karost
10-12-2004, 06:24 AM
at less I can see some good idea come to this place again since waiting for a long time

Zen: point out the critical situation
Fehler: show a sample case
Blottogg: share a one of good solution


S!

Fehler
10-12-2004, 08:09 AM
Clint, please dont get me wrong. Personally, I dont see much wrong in this sim, seriously. And my gripe isnt HOW conclusions are made from the point of the developer, it's how people here tend to insert themselves as though they were the developer.

Personally I agree with Luthier and Oleg. Everyone's favorite ride is the one they are in, and if they take it into battle and survive, well, that makes it a great plane, right?

I really think that Zen is pointing finger at the few that refuse to discuss anything. They act as though they directly represent some higher authority on aircraft because they read a book or two, or have a data chart.

I was merely raising a hypothetical question to you to see if you agree with my statement, then re-making the point that Zen had in his first post. Nothing tricky or hidden there, and certainly nothing against you.

Yes, I know you have asked for tracks in the past, but I have always gotten the feeling like you want to visually see what another is seeing. That way YOU can make up your mind whether or not the guy is 1. Incorrect, 2. doing something that you could point out for him or make batter in your own flying, or 3. Making things up to serve his own purpose.

Other here dont do that. They want proof so they can knit-pick it to make the person feel foolish. These types are quite aware of who they are. I find it humerous that they dont make their conversation in private to the people they attempt to belittle, but would rather do so in open. Again, as I stated, as if they are in some sort of contest to make a fool out of another to win a prize.

Behavior like that is 1. childish, and 2. serves this community no purpose. But it IS tolerated daily here for some unknown reason, and it has helped to drive the developer away.

I used to love to come here and read the open discussions between forum members and Oleg. I have learned a great deal about Russian technology from these readings. Being from the United States, I was not accustomed to reading about Russian WWII aircraft; this little thing called the cold war prevented a large amount of historical communication between our countries. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif But it has always been enlightening to read about things from the other side of the north pole.

GregSM
10-12-2004, 09:24 AM
Hi Clint,


"The other great thing about this thread - and what I really want to congratulate you on - is just how many people are going to think this criticism applies only to someone else."

You were certainly correct about the result, but you might save your applause - I'll wager it wasn't intentional.

Either way, it's fascinating.


Cheers,


Greg

TAGERT.
10-12-2004, 09:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GregSM:
The original post implies a fantastic equivalency between "the past" and "history". History is neither the past nor its mirror image, but merely its interpretation. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>EXACTALLY!

Zen's first of many misstakes all seem to stem from his statment of.. ie
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Zen-:
as though the people that made them back then were wrong or that the situation never happened in the first place <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
What he assumed is that we dissagree with the people or the event.. Not true, what most point out is the errors in the INTERPRETATION of what those people said and those events by the PEOPLE OF TODAY!

TAGERT.
10-12-2004, 10:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:
Very facetious max! But I think we have our answer. After all that fuddy-duddy judgementalism, we have the final answer. The historical accounts that imply the FW190 ruled the skies are the right ones after all. How did we come to this conclusion? Simply because History says so. I called up History to ask him if this was true, but he was out to lunch.

Nevermind - it's all settled now! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>ROTFLMAO!

TAGERT.
10-12-2004, 10:06 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Absolutely EVERYTHING written as history is 100% true.
Especially when it's used to prove anything.
Even if some histories disagree with others, the one that counts is the one we decide
to use.
We should never ever examine how a test might or might not apply to a claim because
once the name of someone who was there is given then it means that whatever is claimed
on the basis of that is absolutely 100% true.
Everything in Robert Shaws' book is absolutely golden in every case possible. Even
though Robert Shaw says don't use the book that way, we know it's supposed to be good
for anything we want.
We can apply anything to anything else and just because of the source, that makes us
unquestionably right.

Oh yes, what Oleg puts in the sim... well WTF does HE know? He wasn't there!

Yeeee-gads! Flippin prima-donnas.


Neal <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>As allways Neal.. right on the money! S!

crazyivan1970
10-12-2004, 10:46 AM
Interesting topic...

GregSM
10-12-2004, 01:02 PM
"What he assumed is that we dissagree with the people or the event.. Not true, what most point out is the errors in the INTERPRETATION of what those people said and those events by the PEOPLE OF TODAY!"

I'm reminded of this: Evidently, in literary circles after the First World War there was a curious paucity of genuine critical material dealing with the poetry of soldiers. What emerged tended to be simply obsequious. A later critic (whose name and time escape me), published an article entitled "Combat Gnosticism" in which he theorizes that critics of the day, being too close to the events, simply couldn't resist the inclination towards reverence and awe. The poets were considered to have imbued special knowledge through the special experience of war - "Gnostic insight", as it were, which they versified into what was perceived "critically" as a new sacred writing.

I'm certain that similar psychology operates here on this board. And there's good reason. After all, political and historical forces overwhelmed and often killed the young men who flew the planes we merely amuse ourselves by pretending to fly. The reality is catastrophically awful, and should be acknowledged so. Indeed, we may feel especially obligated to acknowledge the historical reality when, however obliquely, we derive amusement from war, essentially commodifying it or reducing it to a kind of utility - precisely what the early critics of First War poetry couldn't bring themselves to do.

At once, though, it's possible, if not absolutely essential for academic purposes, to set the ethics aside. That is, to see what happened, to see how the Spitfires faired against the FW, we must be able to distinguish or even to disassociate what happened to the pilots in moral terms from what happened to their aeroplanes in physical terms. The pilots words might in a sense further the inquiry into their aeroplanes, but genuine, comprehensive sympathy and understanding includes the acknowledgement that history played dirty tricks on the pilots, and didn't afford them the privilege of considering their experiences from the purely academic perspective. We possess this privilege, though its application implies a sort of schizophrenic trick that many people will be unable or unwilling to perform.


Cheers,


Greg

Fehler
10-12-2004, 03:42 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by TAGERT.:
Zen's first of many misstakes all seem to stem from his statment of.. ie
[QUOTE]

Case in point... I am glad I am blessed with your viewpoint.

clint-ruin
10-12-2004, 03:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
Clint, please dont get me wrong. Personally, I dont see much wrong in this sim, seriously. And my gripe isnt HOW conclusions are made from the point of the developer, it's how people here tend to insert themselves as though they were the developer. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Fehler,

Sorry about that - on rereading my post it comes off as pretty abrupt, but it wasn't intentional - I was trying to finish that post and the MG151/20 post quickly before going out last night.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>GregSM wrote:
You were certainly correct about the result, but you might save your applause - I'll wager it wasn't intentional.

Either way, it's fascinating. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Zens a cool guy, and I think he had a very specific set of people in mind in writing that post, but didn't want to name names and start up a big flamewar directly. So there was rather a lot of room for personal interpretation for some people as to where he was talking about them, or the guy they were arguing with :&gt;

TAGERT.
10-12-2004, 06:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GregSM:
A later critic (whose name and time escape me), published an article entitled "Combat Gnosticism" in which he theorizes that critics of the day, being too close to the events, simply couldn't resist the inclination towards reverence and awe. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes.. I don't know what it is about human nature.. But that "inclination towards reverence and awe" happens at many levels. For example, as a kid I thought to be a pilot you had to be somewhat of a god.. Growing up in the 60s with the space race and the like it is not hard to understand how a kid would think that. As I got older that has changed. I still consider modern military trained pilots as a cut above the rest.. But no where near that god like status I attributed to them as a child. The next step down the ladder are the commercial carrier pilots with all the responsibility. Then there is a BIG GAP between them and the civilian with a pilots license. They do not impress me in any way shape of form. Nothing physically or mentally special about them. Any boob with enough time and money can get pilots licenses. So, in a way I can understand how some people may still (child like view) put a lot of weight in something some WWII pilot might have said. That blind eye and child like reverence to not question anything said combined with their potential miss-interpretation can lead to a real error in the conclusions drawn from the statement.

JG14_Josf
10-12-2004, 06:56 PM
Blottogg,

You wrote:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>They're even more effective when armed with "facts" that almost make sense, and I've unwittingly fed too many of these trolls myself.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have often wondered if my reaction to abuse on these boards has effected me negatively.

Have I grown to be similar to the ones who constantly find reason to verbally attack me?

I know my tendency is to strike back in kind.

What I don't know but I do suspect with serious consideration is that some of the attacks on my integrity are true.

Does your quote above refer to me?

Thanks for your honesty.

I can think of no one better to set me straight.

I certainly have better things to do with my time than bother people on this forum.

BaldieJr
10-12-2004, 07:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by GregSM:
A later critic (whose name and time escape me), published an article entitled "Combat Gnosticism" in which he theorizes that critics of the day, being too close to the events, simply couldn't resist the inclination towards reverence and awe. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Yes.. I don't know what it is about human nature.. But that "inclination towards reverence and awe" happens at many levels. For example, as a kid I thought to be a pilot you had to be somewhat of a god.. Growing up in the 60s with the space race and the like it is not hard to understand how a kid would think that. As I got older that has changed. I still consider modern military trained pilots as a cut above the rest.. But no where near that god like status I attributed to them as a child. The next step down the ladder are the commercial carrier pilots with all the responsibility. Then there is a BIG GAP between them and the civilian with a pilots license. They do not impress me in any way shape of form. Nothing physically or mentally special about them. Any boob with enough time and money can get pilots licenses. So, in a way I can understand how some people may still (child like view) put a lot of weight in something some WWII pilot might have said. That blind eye and child like reverence to not question anything said combined with their potential miss-interpretation can lead to a real error in the conclusions drawn from the statement. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Besides doing that anoying quote thing, all you did was adjust the "reference line" of your view of pilots.

Combat pilots are no longer gods while civilian pilots are boobs with enogh time and money to get a lisince while not being physically or mentally special.

Although I understand what you really meant, I want to point out that this sort of talk is exactly the kind of thing that causes problems on this forum.

But I'm not holding this against you as a person. I think your bring a valid point.

TAGERT.
10-12-2004, 07:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BaldieJr:
Besides doing that anoying quote thing, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Some call it anoying, other call it being trough and not taking anything out of context.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BaldieJr:
all you did was adjust the "reference line" of your view of pilots. Combat pilots are no longer gods while civilian pilots are boobs with enogh time and money to get a lisince while not being physically or mentally special. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>More than that.. In that I use to think any and all pilots were god like.. How else could you fly? Now I realize they are no where near gods.. And went as far as to put them into category.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BaldieJr:
Although I understand what you really meant, I want to point out that this sort of talk is exactly the kind of thing that causes problems on this forum. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Enh! Life aint fair! I make no excuses for my non-pc style.. I guess after spending 10+ in the military and 10+ as an engineer I have pick up a thick skin and have no time for sugar coating things. That is not meant as an excuse, just a reason.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BaldieJr:
But I'm not holding this against you as a person. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Wouldn't bother me even if you did!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by BaldieJr:
I think your bring a valid point. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Thanks! I aint perfect, I make mistakes every dam day.. The difference between me and most is I am man enough to admit it when I do.

Bearcat99
10-12-2004, 09:28 PM
I kind of stayed away from this one but im getting ready to fall out in about 10 so I figured id drop in.... My take on the whole thing is that the sim is still the best WW2 sim on the market today bar absolutely NONE. I like the new 50s.. but you know what? I dealt with the old ones..... I think that this sim is so challenging in each of its incarnations from FB 1.0 to now that no matter what.. it is still a joy and an extreme challenge to fly. Maybe its because I dont do the Df servers too much.... so I dont get the head to head action everyone seems to be talking about. To me that is one aspect of the sim that gets to me.. the fact that I can be in a DF server and get so much lag or packet loss or whatever. That takes away from it to me because it is so hard to tell if my weps are weak or if Im just missing due to a connectivity issue. Same thing with the FMs... I cant always tell if that Yak is flying like that because the plane is just a good one, the pilot is better, or he has abetter connection and thats why he can fly sideways around me.... It just seems to me that coops run smoother. I just dont have a lot of complaints about the sim that are worth groaning about and it amazes me that some do and that they are willing to take it to such extremes as far as expressing them. I have noticed that because of the nature of the beast flight simmers like real pilots are a cocky, swaggering and egotistical bunch for the most part... and i guess it is rightfully so... I mean.. I know so many guys who call themselves virtual pilots but they claim this sim sucks... they say its too unrealistic and if it were this hard no pilots in WW2 would have survived... yet most of us can at least handle the basics like a piece of cake. So.. yeah I gues that is somewhat of an accomplishment. It is a sim that does take more skill than most other sims let alone other "games". Throw in the online aspect and you get a whole mosh of ego tripping and good natured ribbing that comes with the package. Me.. I just like the sim... I dont care.. patch it dont patch it... fix it dont fix it... as long as it stays close to the quality that it is and i can rest assured that the guy who shot me down in his 109 was a better or more lucky pilot...not some punk with a penchant for hacking code Im happy and buying any sim 1C puts out sight unseen till I get burned. I guess after 5 years of Microsoft and Warbirds.... h@ll.. this is like flight sim Nirvanah to me from 1.0 to 2.04.

GregSM
10-13-2004, 01:14 AM
Hi Tagert,


"I don't know what it is about human nature.. But that "inclination towards reverence and awe" happens at many levels."

Yes, it does, and each level resounds no less than the classical confrontation of myth and reason! Actually, I'm half-serious. A big reason why I read this and other flight sim boards is to see something of the current stage of the old fight - clever young upstarts with heads full of charts and mouths full of questions test their mettle against the venerable old pilots and their songs of yore!


Cheers,


Greg

Blottogg
10-13-2004, 03:35 AM
Hey Josf, I wasn't referring to you. My main finger pointing was directed at the Uber-Twins, though others have adopted their tactics to lesser degrees from time to time (I'm not being PC by omitting names, it's just that no one else comes to mind other than them.) You've always struck me as tenacious, which may have come across to some people as having an agenda. I believe your tenacity to be motivated by a genuine desire to figure out what's going on in the sim, rather than any political or prejudicial agenda. Don't worry, my inherent abrasiveness will kick in and I'll let you know if I think you're being a butt-head. I expect the same in return if and when I deserve it. My point in my first post was for a community effort to try and deserve it as little as possible.

Fehler
10-13-2004, 04:36 AM
I have to say, numbers are very important, but numbers can also be misleading. Even though a plane is capable of doing something, that does not always mean the average pilot, or even the above average pilot could actually accomplish the thing in question.

I would venture to say that most "Virtual pilots" probably could not endure the G stress (In reality) that is depicted in a sim. Momentarily, prehaps, but not continuously. People get tired and weakened in real life, but not us "Virtual Pilots." The game does make an attempt in depicting this, but it could go further, which I hope BoB will.

Nor could all "Virtual pilots" pull and push and swing back and forth 30-50 pounds of stick pressure all day long without effort. Even last night, I dueled a P-39 for 10 minutes when I finally thought, this is silly, our arms would have fallen off by now with all this stick pulling.

Perhaps it is reasons like this that some dismiss what they see in the game as silly or unrealistic, even though the data that allows these types of events may in fact be spot on.

So, for things like this, we look to pilot accounts as the definitive answer between what an airframe could do, and a pilot could endure. No chart in the world can describe that. No number. Only the accounts of the people that flew the planes.

There is a certain amount of nostalgia associated with this era, much akin to the feeling one gets when playing golf with hickory shafted clubs, or baseball with wooden bats, or driving a vintage automobile. I think it's this feeling that brings most of us to this sim in the first place. In addition to this, we all feel a certain degree of respect for the men (And women) that flew during the war, even though this era has proven to be one of the darkest periods of man's history.

But in here, when these pilot accounts are brought up as evidence they are often dismissed by "Forum Members" as though they could not be true. Well, for me, if a pilot said that he could avoid death by performing a maneuver that cant be duplicated in the game, then I am inclined to believe the guy who did this because his life depended on it, not the person that is so inflexable that they refuse to understand the logic in why there is a disparity (At times) between numbers, and what actual people proclaim that they did in real life.

But it is also these events that make me remember that after all is said and done, this is merely a computer game. A great one, no doubt! But still a game, none-the-less.

clint-ruin
10-13-2004, 05:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
I have to say, numbers are very important, but numbers can also be misleading. Even though a plane is capable of doing something, that does not always mean the average pilot, or even the above average pilot could actually accomplish the thing in question. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry to pick apart the post like this, but just to give this a quick reply -

That's actually precisely why pilots memoirs are so much trouble to go by. Did their opponent black out, panic, have mechanical problems, did his crew chief or squad leader tell him not to handle the plane in a certain way, did some sabotour in the GULag or slave labour camp mess up his plane .. ? Pilot accounts are like the exact opposite of a controlled test, where you know almost nothing for sure about the conditions.

Some scientific or semiscientific testing of planes is going to be more or less reliable than others, but the more often they're run by different people at different times the closer you get to the reality of the performance of the specific plane type under specific conditions. At least the way I read them, accounts like Golodnikovs tend to raise a lot more questions than they answer.

If a test gets basic data points wrong, we can disregard that test or that element of the test. If Golodnikov disagrees with Rall who disagrees with Galland who disagrees with Carson .. what do we do? Rank them by kills and go with that? I am pretty sure that we would have just as many unhappy people no matter what method was chosen.

We can almost never know, other than through the reports from captured airmen after the event, and if there are some problems with the reliability of straight pilot accounts then accounts from people who're POWs at the time are going to be even more interesting to verify.

Apart from feeling like I should mention the above - good post, very much agreed.

clint-ruin
10-13-2004, 05:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TAGERT.:
What he assumed is that we dissagree with the people or the event.. Not true, what most point out is the errors in the __INTERPRETATION__ of what those people said and those events by the PEOPLE OF TODAY! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Could also mention that many pilot accounts that people reference, at least on this forum, have been translated from the original language to English. And it's unlikely that the person who did the proof read/translation is a qualified AE or even a pilot themselves. Do we know nothing was edited or spiced up to make a better quote for the back of the book? For sure? This doesn't imply any deliberate dishonesty, just that very minor changes, even the position of a comma, can completely change the interpreted meaning of these accounts. Bit of a gamble to say for sure that this definitely didn't happen to your source if you pull them at random.

GregSM
10-13-2004, 09:00 AM
Hi Fehler,


"If a pilot said that he could avoid death by performing a maneuver that cant be duplicated in the game, then I am inclined to believe the guy who did this because his life depended on it."

But narrow survival is certainly a prime source of bias. (And what might the poor dead fellow have to say? In a sense it doesn't matter, as we'll never know. But that we'll never know matters fundamentally.) Trauma itself does nothing to numbers, but is likely to contribute dramatically in shaping impressions and descriptions of traumatic events.

Here's a light-hearted example:

"I can't help it, gas escapes from my fundament on the least pretext,
it's hard not to mention it now and then, however great my distaste.
One day I counted them. Three hundred and fifteen f*rts in nineteen hours,
or an average of over sixteen f*rts an hour. After all it's not excessive.
Four f*rts every fifteen minutes. It's nothing.
Not even one f*rt every four minutes. It's unbelievable.
Dam it, I hardly f*rt at all, I should never have mentioned it.
Extraordinary how mathematics help you to know yourself." (Samuel Beckett)


Knee-slapping aside, consider what is said in the subtext about how hard science modifies impression and its linguistic expression - from an embarrassment of riches, so to speak, to unmentionable poverty.


Cheers,


Greg

TAGERT.
10-13-2004, 09:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
I have to say, numbers are very important, but numbers can also be misleading. Even though a plane is capable of doing something, that does not always mean the average pilot, or even the above average pilot could actually accomplish the thing in question. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So? The questions is about what the plane could do, not what the pilot could do.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
I would venture to say that most "Virtual pilots" probably could not endure the G stress (In reality) that is depicted in a sim. Momentarily, prehaps, but not continuously. People get tired and weakened in real life, but not us "Virtual Pilots." The game does make an attempt in depicting this, but it could go further, which I hope BoB will.

Nor could all "Virtual pilots" pull and push and swing back and forth 30-50 pounds of stick pressure all day long without effort. Even last night, I dueled a P-39 for 10 minutes when I finally thought, this is silly, our arms would have fallen off by now with all this stick pulling. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>So? Nor do the planes model the differences between the same plane. That is to say each P51 in the air is the same.. Each pilots capabilities are the same. About the only thing that comes close to modeling human limitations is the PC it is running on.. Bad eyesight.. Like having a Bad video card. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
Perhaps it is reasons like this that some dismiss what they see in the game as silly or unrealistic, even though the data that allows these types of events may in fact be spot on. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>In my experience most of the complaints are when the plane goes BEYOND the limitations of the NUMBERS. The points where it does not MEET the numbers typically is due to someone not understanding the numbers they read. That is to say they look at the quick data sheet and see that the top speed is 400mph. Then they run out and find that at 1000ft it only goes 320mph. Then run to this forum and yell BUG! Never stopping to realize that the 400mph quote is the best it could do at a certain alt at a certain configuration.. i.e. not every altitude.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
So, for things like this, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>WHAT? Things like WHAT? You just spent all your time talking about personal pilot limitations that are not modeled.. If they were modeled it would keep us from hitting the MAX numbers in SOME cases.. But they are not modeled.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
we look to pilot accounts as the definitive answer between what an airframe could do, and a pilot could endure. No chart in the world can describe that. No number. Only the accounts of the people that flew the planes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>DISAGREE 100%! You can not quantify a *feeling*. Numbers is the ONLY WAY to make a flight sim. Pilot accounts can be used only if they contain enough information to recreate the scenario and test it.. But 99% of the combat pilot accounts don't contain that kind of information.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
There is a certain amount of nostalgia associated with this era, much akin to the feeling one gets when playing golf with hickory shafted clubs, or baseball with wooden bats, or driving a vintage automobile. I think it's this feeling that brings most of us to this sim in the first place. In addition to this, we all feel a certain degree of respect for the men (And women) that flew during the war, even though this era has proven to be one of the darkest periods of man's history. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Enh.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
But in here, when these pilot accounts are brought up as evidence they are often dismissed by "Forum Members" as though they could not be true. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>DISAGREE 100%! Now you refer to them as evidence.. They are not! As I pointed out you don't have enough information to recreate the scenaro. There is so many variable missing from most pilot accounts of a situation that it makes they hard to use for anything other than interesting reading.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
Well, for me, if a pilot said that he could avoid death by performing a maneuver that cant be duplicated in the game, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Now your in error in thinking that the GAME is anything like the real war situation. There are MANY things that make the game UNLIKE real war.. But out of all of them one comes to mind and I think it is at the top of the list.. The FEAR OF DEATH is not and will NEVER BE simulated well enough in a GAME to have it's effect on how people act. Most of the tactics that work in the real world start to fall apart in the game.. Everyone is John Wayne in the game.. Attacking an airfield all by themselves.. Flying and attacking others while their airplane is on fire.. I could go on but I think you get the idea. In short, death defying acts were the exception to the rule in real life.. but are the rule in the game what with the REFLY button.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
then I am inclined to believe the guy who did this because his life depended on it, not the person that is so inflexable that they refuse to understand the logic in why there is a disparity (At times) between numbers, and what actual people proclaim that they did in real life. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Two totally different things.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
But it is also these events that make me remember that after all is said and done, this is merely a computer game. A great one, no doubt! But still a game, none-the-less. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Just remember that it is also your INTERPRETATION of what that pilot said which could be very different then what actually happened

Hunde_3.JG51
10-13-2004, 10:55 AM
I'm glad to see this thread has deteriorated into exactly what some of us are talking about.

Tomes of knowledge and soapboxes must be on sale somewhere.

For myself this isn't about who is right or who is wrong, its about not arguing everything, its about not putting your righteous stamp of approval on every thread, piece of information, or even someone's personal opinion, its about talking to people, not talking at them....

I think this was at least part of the point of the original post, but I may be mistaken.

clint-ruin
10-13-2004, 11:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
I'm glad to see this thread has deteriorated into exactly what some of us are talking about.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So we will see you lobbying for "Il2FBAEPPFGold: Kit Carson and Ivan Kozedub Bloody Well Said So And They're Right And If You Think Otherwise Then You're Wrong Because They Were There And You Weren't Edition" in your next post?

No, I don't think we will. I think that there is a very specific set of anecdotes that some people would like to be able to replicate in the sim, and some that they would very much dislike to see in the sim. And I don't think the distinction between the two goes much further than personal preference or likes.

So I mean, when you can work out the process we use to evaluate and implement story xyz in a computer game directly, let us know. Be sure.

JG14_Josf
10-13-2004, 11:23 AM
To whom it may interest:

I have something to say on this subject that may seem a little far out but to add just a little weight to your contemplation of my words please consider that my take on things, my thoughts, are effected by my reading, my education, my assimilation of patterns in thinking based upon an ever growing stack of books. I don't consider myself any better than anyone else who has not read the things that I have read. I don€t feel superiority over people who do not think the way that I think but my thoughts do inspire in me a prejudice against certain types of behavior, my behavior in particular.

People tend to be more alike then different; however there are extremes on each end of this statistical bell type curve. On the far ends of the curve are the few who just don't fit in, while in the middle of the curve is everyone else.
On one end of this spectrum is the extreme extrovert (for lack of a more representative word) who spends more time than anyone else doing things and this extreme far out individual spends practically no time not doing.
On the other end is the extreme introvert who spends almost no time doing stuff and this extreme end person spends most of his time not doing stuff.
In the middle are the ones that tend to balance the doing and the not doing. In the middle are the ones doing things together. I like to call them friends. They make the world go around. They keep everyone else alive because they not only do things but they team up and therefore produce a whole lot more than the guys on the far end who either make enemies because of their over achieving personalities or simply don't do enough to make many friends.

It is my observation that there is one form of identifiable motivation and beyond that one defining motivator there is the superfluous stuff. There is a prime motivator and then there is the absence of the prime motivator. In other words, for the purpose of conveying this observation I name a prime motivator and what remains to motivate people is less significant. Think of this concept to be analogous to heat and cold. Cold is the absence of heat. Heat is something. Cold is the absence of something.

Power is the prime motivator.

I really can't expect too many people to grasp this concept based upon my communications since it is just recently managing to find its way in my neural net. How can I expect to transfer something that I do not really possess?

I try because I am motivated to try. What motivates me?
Can you feel the nibble of something obvious but not so obvious?

Power motivates people to do things. In order to survive we must gain power over our environment. Oxygen doesn€t automatically find its way into our lungs. We are required to breathe it in and we must also find the power to get rid of the carbon dioxide.

Please bear with me.

Power motivates us to associate with others too. If we choke on a piece of food we find reason to motivate others to assist us in the process of circulating that oxygen.

This is simple stuff but necessary in leading to a particular observation.

Remember the guys on the far ends of the bell curve? These extremists on either end of the bell curve of life may have trouble motivating a friend to help overpower the food stuck in their throats.

On the one end of the human bell curve can be found the worthless blob of flesh that helps no one ever, who just sits there doing God knows what and certainly nothing to help anyone else since he doesn€t do anything at all; he is going to find it difficult to inspire anyone to help him and that would of course assume that anyone is close enough to hear his desperate cries for help, which is not likely.

On the other extreme end is the person who has done everything in his power to gain power. This type of person keeps on going like the energizer bunny. Life is power and power is life. Every waking moment this physical and mental dynamo spends accumulating power, wielding power, striving for and attaining power. How does he manage to get someone to help him when he is in need?

I hope I have not lost everyone because this line of thinking is a new approach to a familiar problem for me too. I am having a good time moving this thinking along and I hope others can be inspired to move along with me. I call this process: communication.

I am trying to gain power in knowledge and understanding and I wish to not only help others gain power in knowledge and understanding but I sincerely want others to help me if they are so inclined to volunteer the effort.

Help doesn€t always come from the obvious sources. Self inspection can illuminate errors of judgment. We are all guilty of perpetrating errors in judgment as we endeavor to overpower the need to keep oxygen flowing. We tend to make enemies along the way. We tend to step on others and use them to breathe for us because we can, because they let us, and or because we find ourselves being selfish.

Power keeps us alive. The problem is that sometimes we abuse power to gain at the expense of others instead of helping each other gain equally whenever possible. Sometimes we tend to make more enemies than we make friends.

If anyone is still reading this and if they are wondering how, or if, I am going to get on topic then I€ve probably lost the battle. I have failed to communicate. My hope, however, is to sum things up and get on topic with a few more words. Yea right!

Some people are very active on this board. They read and they write. Some read more than others, and I suspect that some do not write at all. What Zen points out, I think, is the need to be careful when posting on this board because some of the people, who don€t write, could if they were presented with a little friendly encouragement and the possibility exists that someone out there has something valuable to say.

Imagine a person. This person is the bell curve extreme introvert type. Many of the middle types don€t have time to think about this silent type. The middle types are too busy having fun with their friends.
The high end of the bell curve extroverts who are very active may think that this guy is just a lazy stupid inert nerd mindlessly sitting in the corner of cyber life and these extroverts may think that the silent type is not worth wasting time on. The extroverts are so active that they have enough energy to look everywhere all at once and the introverts do show up on the extroverts radar despite the annoyance because the extroverts always have their radar turned on. The extroverts see the introverts and dismiss them. They do so with efficiency and determination. The extroverts move on quickly to more pressing matters.

The silent types must be imagined because they are so silent that little or nothing is known about them.

For the purpose of getting this monster post concluded I must project my imagined version of a silent type that may actually exist.
Let me call him Blottogg II or B2. I choose this label for a reason that may or may not be apparent to anyone else, but it has significance to me.
B2 is out there and he is unknown. We can only imagine his existence. B2 is much like Blottogg and B2 wants to be like Blottogg. When Blottogg posts; B2 is eager to see how things get along. Blottogg posts and manages to be on-topic and Blottogg manages to move things along in a positive way, he taps into his vast resource of experience and information to shed light on a particular subject in a perfectly innocuous manner. B2 watches. Blottogg manages to grease the wheels of communication and Blottogg supplies the information bank with interest bearing capital stock. B2 really likes how Blottogg operates. B2 is eager to do the same and it turns out that B2 is equally capable of contributing valuable posts that contain equally important information and equally encouraging inspiration and insight.
B2 is almost ready to participate in the community. He is eager to be a part of the process, he wants to join in and make friends. He wants to help. He feels confident in his ability to contribute toward and participate in the fun.

B2 is however an introvert. He is cautious and has no tolerance for confrontation and or conflict. B2 will not participate in an aggressive manner, it is not his nature to attack or defend. He just is; and introvert, and he just happens to have a whole lot of valuable information and experience that could be well worth the effort to communicate with him.

I think Zen has posted a concern that is entirely supported with common sense.

I think he is asking us to €˜please€ stop destroying this forum with overly aggressive personal attacks. I take the warning as good advice to check my own behavior.

The powerful are not always right. The silent ones could possibly have very valuable things to say.

NorrisMcWhirter
10-13-2004, 11:36 AM
Hi,

It'll (FB) never be correct - it can't be; there is too much conflicting information and not enough scientific, repeatable tests which can be performed.

The only way to resolve most of this is to have batches of aircraft built precisely as they were in WW2, run them under the same conditions, using the same fuel and oil and then do like for like tests using genetic clones of the same pilot. Even then, people will say that the atmosphere isn't the same as in 1944 because of pollution/clone b was better than clone c because he was manufactured in a test tube made from Russian glass etc so it will never be resolved.

I don't subscribe to the idea that anecdotal evidence of those who flew them is correct, either, unless it was recorded at the time (for example, people recall old arcade games with fondness then realise that they are actually **** now when they play them on an emulator) and you can perform some statistical analysis to determine whether these anecdotes are consistent between all parties and with respect to other external factors.

Nor am I a big fan of tests produced by the RAF/USAF/LW/whoever because, as we've seen suggested in Spitfire/190 thread, these *may* be biased for political reasons.

So, logically, the best thing we could all do is benchmark all the aircraft in the game (in terms of DMs/FMs/weapon strengths) at each patch revision to see how they have changed over time relative to each other and their previous versions. It doesn't prove a whole lot vs historical data but I think it's fair to say that we don't have any precise historical data to compare against..

So, you're quite correct; all this ORR hot air purely amounts to opinions, bias towards favourite aircraft, dodgy recollections of what someone took for gospel on the History channel, chart making and general, ego-inflating cobblers.

And, to my mind, I doubt Oleg/UBI is upset by any of it; rather they will be pleased to have created such a enthusiatic and committed customer..er...fan base. In fact, perhaps that's their ploy; treat 'em mean to keep 'em keen. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Cheers,
Norris

GregSM
10-13-2004, 12:05 PM
"Tomes of knowledge and soapboxes must be on sale somewhere."

Yes, they're adjacent to the blinders and the podiums for assuming to dictate the parameters of discussion.


Cheers,


Greg

BBB_Hyperion
10-13-2004, 01:52 PM
Homines libenter quod volunt credunt.

I wonder who disagrees on this http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.

Regards,
Hyperion

k5054
10-13-2004, 02:07 PM
"A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest"
paul simon/ art garfunkel

Hunde_3.JG51
10-13-2004, 03:39 PM
Clint, again you missed the point entirely. I suggest you read my last post starting from "For myself..." And again, you can stop with the LW bias implications. Please find where I said it was a problem with only allied favoring posters, it is a problem on both sides (as I have already said) so give it up already. I can't believe you entirely missed my point when I said it is not an issue of right or wrong, meaning of history vs. science, it is an issue of the way certain people post and their attitudes. This really isn't open for discussion, it is what it is so there is nothing to debate. Nobody has to agree with me, but you are tyring to invalidate my own opinion. If I say I don't like the way some people in here post, are you really going to argue with me? If so then that only proves my point further. Its my opinion and I am entitled to it just as you are. However, many do agree so I simply offered my support of the original post/opinion.

Greg, I am not assuming to dictate the paramenters of discussion, stop being so defensive and putting words in my mouth. I am merely stating my frustration (that is shared by others) about certain ways people conduct themselves on the forum. If someone says that they hate it when people constantly talk out loud at the movies, and I agree, am I dictating the rules of the theater? No, just merely pointing out that it is a shame the way certain people conduct themselves in the absence of guidelines. Again, it is my opinion and who the hell are you to tell me I am wrong? Somebody offers their opinion and you jump on them, who is trying to do the dictating here?

Oh, and please explain why I have "blinders" on. What am I blind to? I respect everyone's opinion as long as it is presented respectfully and appropriately (which is my whole point). I respect scientific theory and historical accounts. I think there are problems with allied planes and axis aircraft in the game. So what exactly am I blind to?

WWMaxGunz
10-13-2004, 04:30 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fehler:
But in here, when these pilot accounts are brought up as evidence they are often dismissed by "Forum Members" as though they could not be true. Well, for me, if a pilot said that he could avoid death by performing a maneuver that cant be duplicated in the game, then I am inclined to believe the guy who did this because his life depended on it, not the person that is so inflexable that they refuse to understand the logic in why there is a disparity (At times) between numbers, and what actual people proclaim that they did in real life. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How do you feel when someone disagrees that an account really backs up another members point
or implied assertion?

Does account A mean that conclusion X is true just because account A is true?
And the ways of tying account A to conclusion X can get very tricky, even to the point of
denying that X is a conclusion even though the 'material' of the 'relation' or just the
'meaning' gets brought up again and again as if X has been established.

As for accounts themselves -- they can't =all= be right when some conflict with others.
That's not saying they're all wrong, it's not a matter of all or nothing by any means.

From all you have read any and everywhere, what WWII fighter rolled the best? Or dived?
Will you tell me that it depends on conditions? I'd have to agree totally. But when I
look at the majority of accounts, the conditions are not stated either at all or in whole.
The times they are, it's a treasure for me because it lets more light into true flight
dynamics as when AVG pilots like Shilling write about the roll rates of the P-40 and the
Zero varying with speed and how they used that tactically. Yet I could chop a piece or two
out of those same accounts and end up with whichever plane I want being better and it's
still backed by a historic quote by someone who was there and an expert so I must be right.
It would be horse$hit, but woe to anyone who tries to say so since Eric Shilling said that!

I hope that's understood, we have things like that going on in threads here all the time.
Sometimes worse. A comment from Golodkin about Merlin engines from when he was around and
flying Hurricanes in Russia, in the conditions of the front at the time where he stated
a bad opinion of the Merlins has been taken and used to apply to all Merlin engines period.
We have the 1942 Spit VB LF in the sim (mistakenly marked as 1941 according to Oleg, it
was a typo done at 1C) and FW 190A-4 in the sim being compared to the 1941 Spit VB, first
one produced, and captured FW 190A-3 run at higher boost than it was rated for by placard
in the cockpit, words from the German pilot and the trials having to be stopped due to
engine trouble -- and why aren't the sim planes relative to each other like what the
conclusions of the trials say? But, the trials are gold and the conclusions are absolute
truth so what does that mean? It means NOBODY CAN QUESTION ANYTHING ABOUT IT. That's
personal politics at work, truth by vote.


Flight sims work by numbers and algorithms. What data to use was decided on based on a lot
more data than we've seen here. As the means used, Clint reposted that from Oleg and Luthier
and "pilot recals" comes last. Should the data be changed to match every story that can be
found and presented? Should every pilot account in the world be sought out then weighed
each to the others and then any data that doesn't fit be made to fit or discarded?

I think Norris hit the nail back a few posts ago. "The Truth" itself is subjective per
whoever is doing the looking. And lookey, lookey -- we have some definite groups of members
who agree on their versions for their reasons, good or not. When one posts to back that
view up and anyone else questions or denies it, the others jump in and object. If you're
not a friend, then you're an enemy and you're trying to get the other side ubered or
something.


Neal

clint-ruin
10-13-2004, 04:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
Clint, again you missed the point entirely. I suggest you read my last post starting from "For myself..." And again, you can stop with the LW bias implications. Please find where I said it was a problem with only allied favoring posters, it is a problem on both sides (as I have already said) so give it up already. I can't believe you entirely missed my point when I said it is not an issue of right or wrong, meaning of history vs. science, it is an issue of the way certain people post and their attitudes. This really isn't open for discussion, it is what it is so there is nothing to debate. Nobody has to agree with me, but you are tyring to invalidate my own opinion. If I say I don't like the way some people in here post, are you really going to argue with me? If so then that only proves my point further. Its my opinion and I am entitled to it just as you are. However, many do agree so I simply offered my support of the original post/opinion. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The reason I keep asking this of Zen and you and Fehler is because I honestly have no idea how you expect the pilot account system to work. I really don't. To me, all it sounds like is a massively silly race-to-the-bottom of who could post the most wild pilot account about the superiority of a certain type over another, or the aerobatic abilities of a plane, or whatever. I have not the slightest idea how such a thing could be translated into equations the game runs on, other than making fights a game of rock-paper-scissors.

I know that's your opinion, what I am trying to get to the bottom of is - now that you have told us you think that, how exactly would this work in the game? What would FB look like if pilot accounts were given greater authority over hard data? Since you have previously expressed a great deal of concern over the La5F being about 15-20kmh too fast right next to where its boost drops off, I can only guess what your reaction would be to a 95kmh faster La7. I'm guessing that you would most definitely not be happy about it. Am I right?

OK, so if that's true - then we're not just accepting pilot accounts, we're accepting pilot accounts that meet a certain criteria. How then do we determine what is valid and invalid from pilot remarks? What do we do if they contradict each other? Do we discriminate between these accounts at all? Noone has really been able to tell me so far.

I simply seek to understand why it is you feel this way, with a sneaking suspicion that this might not have been thought all the way through by some of the people advocating it.

I agree that many discussions here get a little personal for their own good - here is the news though. If you have ever pushed, or pushed back, it is you being talked about when people complain about the angst and flames here. Wanna bet you're pure?

GregSM
10-13-2004, 05:31 PM
Hi Hunde,


Fair enough - no doubt we can agree the forum goes to rot from time to time! But please consider that using "provocative" language - "cyber geeks", "know-it-alls", "elitists", etc. - is certain to raise a few eyebrows, if not aggravate the very unruliness you'd rather see suppressed. And, as I'm sure you're aware, this very sort of language is often wielded by unscrupulous proponents of a certain tradition of thinking who mean to belittle, rather than to engage in discussion, the proponents of another, opposing tradition of thinking. Now, I don't insist you used this language deliberately to antagonise, but I'd bet that I wasn't alone in wondering if you really were.

As an aside: I really can't see where this thread is unruly. On the contrary, I'd say it's among the finest I've seen here in some time. People are obviously interested in different perceptions of history and science, how they relate, what they mean to the sim, and etc. I suggest instead that the discussion in this thread has been more thoughtful than unruly.

I hope this is reasonable.


Cheers,


Greg



Edit: Sorry, I suppose this deserves a response:

"Oh, and please explain why I have "blinders" on. What am I blind to? I respect everyone's opinion as long as it is presented respectfully and appropriately (which is my whole point). I respect scientific theory and historical accounts. I think there are problems with allied planes and axis aircraft in the game. So what exactly am I blind to?"

I used the word "blinders" specifically because it alludes inversely to a phraze you used in the passage I quoted from your earlier post - "tomes of knowledge". The phraze, or properly its sarcastic usage, struck me as another in the line of "egghead" references to which I've spoken already.

So, I intended really to confront sarcasm with sarcasm, and to appear more wryly amusing than ill spirited in the process.

Atomic_Marten
10-13-2004, 07:20 PM
I don't really care anymore about how correct is this and that in game. Once I do. But I give up some time ago. Nowadays I just fly Messerschmitt fighter in IL-2 game and that is it.

Atomic_Marten
10-13-2004, 07:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:
OK, so if that's true - then we're not just accepting pilot accounts, we're accepting pilot accounts that meet a certain criteria. How then do we determine what is valid and invalid from pilot remarks? What do we do if they contradict each other? Do we discriminate between these accounts at all? Noone has really been able to tell me so far. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You see that thing is making big issue on this forum.

At some point one was reading certain book and found data (from actuall pilots) that does not meet some IL-2 plane modeling criteria.

I give a second thought about that whole issue 'cause I found myself in that position numerous times. I was simply ask myself: Geez that guy wrote in his book what his aeroplane can do and what is his favourite tactic etc...hm...that'll be just like I wrote what my car can do in my book.... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. What type of cars I can race, what it takes to achieve speed of 100kmh/mph...etc.

That is for sure not worth arguing.

Hunde_3.JG51
10-13-2004, 07:38 PM
Fair enough Greg, I think it was more of a case of misunderstanding than anything. Perhaps my use of terms was a bit harsh, I just wanted to get across my frustration and my intentions were not to antagonize. I just wanted to say my peace and be done with it. Still, it was probably a poor decision on my part and I will give this more consideration in the future. No hard feelings.

Clint, the La-5 issue I had was going according to numbers I had, but much more importantly the number did not conform to the numbers Oleg and crew provided in the object viewer. I believe all planes should adhere to object viewer numbers unless a case is made otherwise, in which case it should be included in the readme so that we can identify purposeful changes and the unintentional errors (this is one area I wish Maddox/1C could improve upon, whenever there is a patch everyone wonders what hidden changes there will be and Oleg himself admitted that because of the amount of code that sometimes unforseen changes occur). I think they would save themselves alot of headaches by posting exactly what was meant to be changed. It was never even mentioned in readme IIRC about Ta-152 getting big boost down low or about elimination of "auto" setting on 190A's.

But like I said this is a poor case, and I specifically mentioned that the instances I am talking about are actually fairly few in number and do not relate to instances of raw numbers and data such as precise speeds, turn rates, etc. I am talking about generalizations such as Spitifre out-turning 109, FW-190 out-diving Spitfire, FW-190 performing poorly at high altitude, etc. There was a time recently in-game that the Bf-109 and P-51 out-turned the Spitifre and some people tried to justify it which in my opinion is absurd. If the FW-190 out-performed the P-51, P-38, P-47, etc, at high altitude, I would say it is absurd. Now when someone for example tries to say the FW-190 shouldn't be able to out-dive a Spitifre I think it is equally absurd due to the numerous recollections to the contrary. No this isn't a scientific approach, but there are a few generalizations that I believe can be deduced from historical accounts that are consistent enough. As you see by my example I am not taking sides. I sent a track to Oleg when you could light up a P-47 with just a few .303 rounds, in my opinion I had heard enough from historical accounts to believe the P-47 was a tough aircraft and that this was obviously wrong. The track was hosted here a long time ago by Zen (ironic no?).

As a note it was the La-5, and it was changed in-game leading me to believe it was an unintentional error. Just as we have with the Spitfire now above 6,000m. Which leads me to another point, it is not only the discounting of consistent historical accounts that irks me, but the discounting of overwhelming data as well. I have not seen a Spitifre fan tell me that the speeds above 6,000m are correct, in fact they agree with me because the data is overwhelming against it. Now if someone pulled out one chart and said the speeds are correct and argued it until the they were blue in the face it would annoy me. Just like if someone found a chart saying the FW-190 could out-turn a Spitifre, or outrun a Mustang at high altitude, if they constantly argued for it I would find it annoying. But, and this is important, I would not go into that thread and preach and carry on, I would let the more numerous evidence speak for itself.

But really my main point was what I mentioned in the last few posts, and what I mentioned above is actually just a small part of it.

Also I wanted to point out that I was right about the P-63's DM, that was what our last disagreement was about. And yes, I provided a track to Gibbage to prove it. Please don't get upset about this comment, it is meant lightheartedly, but I was right http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

I think you have a certain opinion of me, but I think you would be surprised to find out what I have reported to Oleg, and some of the discussions we have had. He once told me that even though he is extremely busy, that he answers my questions because I "ask them in a polite manner, and you ask right questions." Thats good enough for me, and even though I bring up complaints on the forum at times, I am always sure to be extremly respectful, polite, and grateful when speaking to Oleg. One thing I think we both agree on is that more people should politely make a case to Oleg and send it to him using the proper channel, instead of coming on here half-cocked and accomplishing nothing.

clint-ruin
10-13-2004, 09:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
Also I wanted to point out that I was right about the P-63's DM, that was what our last disagreement was about. And yes, I provided a track to Gibbage to prove it. Please don't get upset about this comment, it is meant lightheartedly, but I was right http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am wondering if you remember that I tried to replicate your tests for a while, and as soon as I was able to I immediately agreed, sending a track of my own Invicible P-63 to Oleg too.

I have hosted peoples tracks and pictures on my webspace before, even when they're from people who are completely disagreeing with me and using them as counterexaples.

I think you read far far too much into some of this. The "gotcha" aspect generally only comes into play, I find, against people like say Huckles who set themselves up so beautifully for a smackdown. For me it is very rarely personal - I tend to get much more frustrated with people when they can't articulate their point, or back it up in any way, than annoyed at them because I just don't like them or something.

Of course for this attitude - requesting trks to help Oleg resolve the issue that people are having gets me vilified, and little cheap shot posts like the tagline on say, this one:
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=26310365&m=3751014822&r=3751014822#3751014822

get dumped around the boards from time to time.

Whatever. I am sure that somewhere someone imagines a silent tear running down my cheek at that remark, but it just ain't so.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
I think you have a certain opinion of me, but I think you would be surprised to find out what I have reported to Oleg, and some of the discussions we have had. He once told me that even though he is extremely busy, that he answers my questions because I "ask them in a polite manner, and you ask right questions." Thats good enough for me, and even though I bring up complaints on the forum at times, I am always sure to be extremly respectful, polite, and grateful when speaking to Oleg. One thing I think we both agree on is that more people should politely make a case to Oleg and send it to him using the proper channel, instead of coming on here half-cocked and accomplishing nothing. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think the main impression I formed of you from some threads was not so much that you had an agenda so much as being almost entirely against actually recording what you thought was happening in the game. I think the more eyeballs we have on FB and the more people submitting off tracks about strange behaviour, the better - really couldn't care less what they're arguing for, as long as there is some kind of guts behind it. Of course sometimes this can degenerate into sort of "screw you"ism between people, but man, is it ever better to have "screw you" with a track attachment than just a bunch of text.

edit: link corrected

Hunde_3.JG51
10-13-2004, 09:49 PM
Clint, like I said when were at odds, I recorded plenty I just didn't feel the need to have it approved by anyone other than Oleg. I don't really know how to host tracks so I sent them all to Oleg, as it should be.

But as I said, take that comment lightheartedly. I think some people get frustrated and make comments because of the frequency you request tracks. There are times when certain people who play the game quite a bit really know something is off and know a track is not required (as with the P-63 DM). Unfortunately there are even more that make claims that do not know what they are talking about which makes your position certainly understandable.

I didn't really mean it as a smart a$$ comment, it was lighthearted joke with a very minor point.

GregSM
10-13-2004, 11:55 PM
Hi Hunde,


Thank you. We will have to agree to disagree about some stuff, but I can see now that this can be done without malice.

And I should probably endeavour myself to be a little less harsh.


Cheers,


Greg