PDA

View Full Version : Put it too rest.



CarpeNoctem43
03-02-2007, 09:20 AM
Alright guys and gals. We see tons of posts addressing the 1 on 1 results between planes A and B.

As far as I am aware of it, fighting didn't happened like this. No American, English, German, Russian, etc. with enough gray matter would go out, make a bee line towards an enemy base @ 1000 meters to make any challenges.

Yes I am sure that, like in the movie 'Battle of Britain', some small fraction of pilots would go up to "test" their plane with the hopes of finding a straggler over the channel. But the results are evident with same said RAF pilot swimming home. It's liken to a craps shoot of living.

What wins dogfights, online and in real life? Clear and utter tactical advantages. Yes, a property of the plane that you can use to gain the advantage is great thing to have. But unless you AND OR your plane gain it in about 5 seconds forget it. Why, because it takes about 5 seconds to loose a dog fight, even if its a 30 minute dog fight. (Ever watched a long track and spot the exact moment of SNAFU? from begining to end of the snafu is about 5 seconds or less)

No pilot ever, I repeat EVER, willfully engaged without a CLEAR TACTICAL ADVANTAGE. Altitude and teamwork will ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS win. You could have an Super Hornet in IL2 and it will be dominated by a Buffalo if the F15 pilot doesn't use his head in the game. I pop jets ALL the time because of this. And if speed is life and E is the all encompassing factor/unified theorum what does that mean? It means it's not the winning factor. That it takes a back seat to tactics.

Do I wish that the planes flew differently? Sure I do; we all have our oppinions about a particular plane. But what is it based on? Books published by Osprey? A note from a single RAF/LW pilot? Sure, but you have to realize - Osprey is out to make money and each book is going to capatilze on the fact the buyer, of the single book, wants a happy ending. And we that 'research' such things have a painted picture beforehand and we go looking for the pieces to fit that picture.

Even with a particular plane property advantage in real life means that if you exploit it will you become victorious. Diving in a Bf 109 F-4 when there is Spit Mk Vb on my tail @ 250 meters will not guarantee me living 2 more seconds. Not a bit in the slightest, even with a speed advantage. Neither in online nor in real life.

It's so laughable to hear people say I cant believe that plane X outturned my plane Y - only to find out that the angle off tail to begin with was astronomical.

This is a four dimensional game with boundaries and properties. The only way to dominate the four dimensions is knowing your boundaries and exploit your properties better than the other guy.

We all wish our favorite planes fly as we see fit; but the truth is we all have preconcieved notions that simply are based upon our imaginations - not real life AT ALL.

Personally, I simply LOVE the Fw 190 A series. As soon as I got FB I'd jump right into it and end up thinking WTF. This is not how I thought it should fly. (Key to that statement is the same as every other opinion thrown around, 'how I thought'.) I can't fly online worth a **** in the Fw (109 is a different topic http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )

Is it because of the FM of the Fw is unfairly biased against turning? No it can't possibly be - it is what it is.

If it's not one thing it'll be another, yet all of the statements made by all the blow hards indicate they can't think in a multivariant or multidimensional environment.

If every plane was modeled to your satisfaction then it'd be, 'in 1944 in this part of the world there was only 2 plane X's in the air at any one time' because of fuel shortages. Well model that in a game where everyone bought a chance to fly the plane they want to. You'd find yourself asking for spare change in a NY minute.

If you are all such an authority then why isn't Oleg, Microsoft, Osprey, Janes, etc throwing bags of money your way? Everyone knows the answer.

It's not that the game is wrong - its that you suck just like the rest of us.

-Rick

DKoor
03-02-2007, 10:12 AM
I don't know why are you bashing Osprey.
They aren't responsible for idiots around the world you know.
In fact those books are really good material, filled with pilots accounts.
I like to read them.

This board have problems with biased idiots, not Osprey, Oleg, Microsoft or something/someone else.
Nothing is idiot-proof.

WWMaxGunz
03-02-2007, 10:24 AM
Thank you Rick, an excellent summation!

Just one little LOL --- F-15/Super Hornet I think are different planes. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif
Like it matters!

BuzzU
03-02-2007, 10:27 AM
Titor.

Daiichidoku
03-02-2007, 10:45 AM
Originally posted by DKoor:
Nothing is idiot-proof.

except spitfires and La7s http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

CarpeNoctem43
03-02-2007, 10:48 AM
I'm not bashing Osprey. I love to read their books. I'm just trying to state that one cannot take a single reference (or a single group of references) while discounting others.

And more importantly, when a so called fact hunter goes hunting, they will have a preconcived notion and wear blinders to any statement contradicting that notion.

While pilot accounts are wonderful reads, you can't take any one or any group of them as the gospel. even if a few pilots say I out turned a a plane at this speed at this alt, doesn't mean that plane can out turn the other. The plane isn't the only factor - and it certainly isn't the most important factor.

It seems like everyone is trying to be the undisputed 'top dog' and they think that the plane is going to make that happen for them. And when it doesn't, they find every little detail that doesn't fit with their idea of how things work and say its Oleg's fault.

Everyone has forgotten that when this game came out nothing, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING, could touch it on ANY level. And they certainly don't realize that NOTHING can touch it now.

Is the game perfect on every point? Well, a lesson in humility teaches us that everything has room for improvement. Do I wish that the flight model was different on the Fw? Yeah, I do @ times. But the FM isn't the reason for my failures in the Fw. It's my tactics.

A large percentage of won air battles, much larger than the the flip side, was won because of what? The defender never saw his attacker.

On both sides of the channel there are 'pilots' with 'credentials' that will say both: The (take your pick, 109, 190, 110) was a better fighter than the (take your pick Spit XYZ, Hurri, P51, P47)

Take what you read with a grain of salt and remember: Believe nothing of what you read, part of what you hear, and half of what you see.

TheBandit_76
03-02-2007, 10:53 AM
Gosh, no more need to debate IL2 FMs folks, this chap has it all figured out. Time to close the forums?

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

CarpeNoctem43
03-02-2007, 10:53 AM
Just one little LOL --- F-15/Super Hornet I think are different planes.

Yeah they are... Got ahead of myself and didn't reference both in the paragraph properly.

-Rick

LStarosta
03-02-2007, 11:06 AM
"Put it too rest."

Learn two use proper grammar.

AVGWarhawk
03-02-2007, 11:07 AM
@Carp

Nice post!!!

My plane is still faster then yours though and yours is way over modeled http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

J/K. The only difference between gamers and simmers is the price of their joystick http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

DKoor
03-02-2007, 11:08 AM
Originally posted by LStarosta:
"Put it too rest."

Learn two use proper grammar. W2F???11! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

CarpeNoctem43
03-02-2007, 11:21 AM
Gosh, no more need to debate IL2 FMs folks, this chap has it all figured out. Time to close the forums?

You miss the point.

The major problem with people crying 'uber plane' isn't the FM's, it's tactics and to a lesser degree skills.

I bet if we examine dogfights that don't end in our 'preconceived' ending, we'd find that it boils down to tactics and who saw/shot first.

As far as how the FM affects anyones outcome I bet its a 99:20:1 ratio of tactics:skill:FM/FS issues.


As far as if this is a simulator or not, sure it is. Anyone who says differently, I charge to name 1 that is qualified by the FAA (or any other national aviation agency) and see if that's your reference of a consumer FS. And you will see that your so called FS is not either, by the same judgements.

I'll start off, the only qualified "flight simulator" that I am aware of, the Boeing 717-200 full motion FS, built by FlightSafety Boeing Training International. But then again it doesn't run on a AMD Athlon X2.

So, instead of using the forums cry about the uber planes, lets use it to discuss proper tactics. Just a start.

-Rick

CarpeNoctem43
03-02-2007, 11:24 AM
quote:
Originally posted by LStarosta:
"Put it too rest."

Learn two use proper grammar.
W2F???11!


ROFLMAO... isn't that a beauty?

StellarRat
03-02-2007, 11:29 AM
Sounds like someone woke up on the wrong side of the runway.

"You could have an Super Hornet in IL2 and it will be dominated by a Buffalo if the F15 pilot doesn't use his head in the game."

Yeah, right...Only if the F-15 is landing and the pilot is reading a comic book.

BTW, the F-15 and the Super Hornet are two different planes.

AVGWarhawk
03-02-2007, 11:33 AM
HEAR IS ONE OF MY FAVORITE POST I HAVE READ.NOT PENNED BY ME MIND YOU. BUT ONE THAT HAS REALLY STUCK IN MY MIND. I REALLY LIKE THE LAST SENTENCES. READ BELOW:

"Also, any P-51 will outclimb any 109 in this sim if you climb in the P-51 at high-speed. But this is another thing a crying newb like the thread starter would not know, becaue he is busy flying around on the deck turn-fighting and getting his butt shot off so he has more to cry about.

That is like saying the 190 will not outclimb any aircraft, it will, if you get it up to it's best climbing speed, just like you had to do in the 190 in real life.

Nothing arcade/gamer pilots say about flying around in their arcade servers is valid for any kind of argument. We should have a separate forum for those who do not fly full-real, then they will be in company they deserve."


GOSH AND I'M JUST A GAMER. ALL THE QUACKS WHO TRULY BELIEVE THIS IS A SIM ARE LIVING IN FANTASY LAND. WHAT AN ANAL RETENTIVE PERSON THIS GUY IS.

IT IS WHAT IT IS.....BE HAPPY.

CarpeNoctem43
03-02-2007, 11:47 AM
But this is another thing a crying newb like the thread starter would not know, becaue he is busy flying around on the deck turn-fighting and getting his butt shot off so he has more to cry about.


Dang Warhawk, I would have thought you would have read the post. But I guess not.

WWMaxGunz
03-02-2007, 11:58 AM
Warhawk, if you think that it has to be a full motion/FAA-certified box to be a sim then you
really need to look up the definition of simulation.

You aren't the guy that thinks all assault rifles including the AK-47 are low powered as well?

AVGWarhawk
03-02-2007, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
Warhawk, if you think that it has to be a full motion/FAA-certified box to be a sim then you
really need to look up the definition of simulation.

You aren't the guy that thinks all assault rifles including the AK-47 are low powered as well?

My thought exactly http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif But no. BTW it is a sim by definition and not much more.

AVGWarhawk
03-02-2007, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by CarpeNoctem43:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">But this is another thing a crying newb like the thread starter would not know, becaue he is busy flying around on the deck turn-fighting and getting his butt shot off so he has more to cry about.


Dang Warhawk, I would have thought you would have read the post. But I guess not. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


That was a quoted post sir! And how ugly it is http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif Please read it over and see my first sentences in capital letters. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif Perhaps I will make it clearer.

CarpeNoctem43
03-02-2007, 12:10 PM
My thought exactly But no. BTW it is a sim by definition and not much more.

Roger that...

But everyone must admit, as personal pc flight simulators go there isn't any much better considering.

Sure, we aren't going to be able to perform check rides in the IL2 P-51s nor Spits, but then again...

AVGWarhawk
03-02-2007, 12:12 PM
Originally posted by CarpeNoctem43:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">My thought exactly But no. BTW it is a sim by definition and not much more.

Roger that...

But everyone must admit, as personal pc flight simulators go there isn't any much better considering.

Sure, we aren't going to be able to perform check rides in the IL2 P-51s nor Spits, but then again... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, none better at the moment. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

arrowtalon
03-02-2007, 12:44 PM
The major problem with people crying 'uber plane' isn't the FM's, it's tactics and to a lesser degree skills.

I agree with theis MOST of the time. However, I've been doing some "experiments" online and offline over the past couple days--mostly over my post of the P-51/109 thread.

Here's what I've begun to realize:

Most of the complaints about aircraft are not well-defined. This is a game and there are sure to be bugs in particular aircraft. We know this. Oleg knows this, that's why IL-2 has gone through so many revisions.

As long as an aircraft is in the right ballpark with historical accounts, I'm happy. Sometimes, they're just not. Many would say the Spitfire is not. Others bash the La-7 or the Yak-3.

At least for me, I've found that there are major problems with evaluating the 1 v 1 characteristics of combat. Most players on here are around the same skill level. Some are really good, others are rookies, but most of the debates have some merit.

The MAJOR issue is in defining the complaint. I've found that my complaints over the 109 are not related to the 109 per se as I thought. They are actually related to completely unrealistic AI (granted, still the best we've seen in a flight sim).

Online, its hard to find someone to conduct tests with you, so many people go out and test offline--doesn't work.

Example: Online, the P-51 smokes the 109 with equally skilled pilots in each. Offline, with the SuperAI manning the Mk108 cannon and an invisble rocket strapped to the belly of a 109, the P-51 is cannon fodder.

I think if you review the complaints. They can be summarized into a few things.

1) The AI is way too ridiculously good, especially in marksmenship at long range.

2) Players are used to CFS(2,3) which models control resistance differently than IL-2. In CFS you can pull as hard on the stick as you want, but you won't turn as hard as you'd like, because it simulates pilot arm strength. In IL-2, you can pull back on the stick, it shudders, and you stall. (The shuddering point is where most pilots get tired really fast. The control surfaces in reality would barely let you pull past this point at reasonable speed. In many aircraft, like the Zero, planes were limited by this as they could snap their own wings off in a turn.)

3) Other games model Allied planes poorly. CFS3 has the Mustang turning inside the Spit...WTF

So, to those that complain... try flying online, knowing that the range of joystick motion in IL-2 is more sensitive than other games. Do that, and I think you'll find most aircraft stack up where they should (I.E. the P-51 can comfortably handle a 109 if you use it correctly.)

MEGILE
03-02-2007, 12:47 PM
I'll be honest with you..

I can't read posts longer than 3 lines.

arrowtalon
03-02-2007, 12:59 PM
Heh, Can anyone?
No, seriously.
Can anyone?

stalkervision
03-02-2007, 01:01 PM
I think half the fun of the forums is arguing about sim flight models accuracy. If no one ever complains about them then nothing will ever improve on this account.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ViktorViktor
03-02-2007, 01:02 PM
CarpeN, you're going out on a limb when you write

No pilot ever, I repeat EVER, willfully engaged without a CLEAR TACTICAL ADVANTAGE.

It's simply not true. But I agree with the gist of your post.

LEBillfish
03-02-2007, 01:04 PM
Wewak

CarpeNoctem43
03-02-2007, 01:08 PM
That was a quoted post sir! And how ugly it is Please read it over and see my first sentences in capital letters. Perhaps I will make it clearer.

Sorry Warhawk, didn't realize it was an off thread quote.

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

-Rick

AVGWarhawk
03-02-2007, 01:08 PM
Originally posted by stalkervision:
I think half the fun of the forums is arguing about sim flight models accuracy. If no one ever complains about them then nothing will ever improve on this account.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Not complaints but hard evidence showing the issue. Also best to post on Oleg's Ready Room forum. Some of the arguing is not fun but gets down right nasty http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif and then turns into a witch hunt. Some can not say, 'this is incorrect and here is why'. Some just start ripping you a new arse and throwing charts in your face. Sometimes the civility just disappears when anonymous entries can be made and no recourse can be enacted other than a ban for a few days.

AVGWarhawk
03-02-2007, 01:09 PM
Originally posted by CarpeNoctem43:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">That was a quoted post sir! And how ugly it is Please read it over and see my first sentences in capital letters. Perhaps I will make it clearer.

Sorry Warhawk, didn't realize it was an off thread quote.

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

-Rick </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


10-4 Big Buddy....I with you! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

WWMaxGunz
03-02-2007, 01:21 PM
You can't make or test an FM with combat results and AFAIK Oleg does not accept such.

Rick, aren't the rest of FSI's sim boxes FAA rated? The courses are certainly good enough
for insurance companies to give bigger price breaks than the courses cost. I've been through
the G-II and Lear 35 schools in 87 as part of a job for an FSI vendor. The classes ran the
people the pilots in them worked for, well the G-II school was $10,000 for two weeks then.
Somehow I think that the boxes should have been rated.

Just how real were they? As long as you didn't do anything you shouldn't they were close
enough to real that the guys with umpteen hours said "it's only a little bit harder than real".
But really late at night... there was a G-III simtech that would 'fly' a box (can't remember
if there were 3 or 4 boxes in the sim bay) upside down (no the box only tilts so far and then
stops) under the Savannah Bridge and then rolls it back up just to show it can be done in the
box at least. So I guess that makes it a bug or totally arcade! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

AVGWarhawk
03-02-2007, 01:26 PM
Originally posted by ViktorViktor:
CarpeN, you're going out on a limb when you write
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">No pilot ever, I repeat EVER, willfully engaged without a CLEAR TACTICAL ADVANTAGE.

It's simply not true. But I agree with the gist of your post. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK, let's say a SMART pilot would never willfully engage in position of poor tactical advantage.

WWMaxGunz
03-02-2007, 01:39 PM
It worked for McGuire for quite a while. The best guess according to what I've seen is that
he pulled hard one time too many on his last mission, based on how many times he returned
with warped wings and popped rivets but WTH he did shoot down a lot of Japanese!

Really though, naked aggression in air combat has won many pilots the day even without a
clear advantage and outnumbered. I have read/heard of accounts where a lone fighter chose
not to run but instead attack when faced with poor odds and the reaction of the enemy
pilots threw them off badly. It's the pilot(s), not the plane(s)!

CarpeNoctem43
03-02-2007, 02:00 PM
Rick, aren't the rest of FSI's sim boxes FAA rated?

Don't really know. I try to read consumer publications as much as I can and that's the only one I remember hearing that the FAA qualifies.

Their web site says, 'many certified by multiple National Aviation Authorities.' Who knows what that means. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

Even so, statistically, none, of us have that kind of 'simulator' let a lone a WWII variant. (maybe there is a Howard Hughes type out there in our presence)

Cant we all just, get along? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif

If I only make 1 point with this thread let it be that tactics and teamwork should be the focus of people online rather than FM this or FM that.

Even if the FM was perfectly modelled in every way, tactics and teamwork will win the day.

If I could make a confession, I too was disappointed with certain aspects of the FM. That is until I realized that it didn't really matter.

I used to complain the FW sucks here there is no way I should be stalling like this. This was a big deal to me since I have been a Fw fan for YEARS and had this uber idea of how it should fly.

That was until a couple friends decided to show me my short comings.

They let me pick the planes. Of course, i said - 'you guys fly the FW-190 A-9 and we'll fly the uber plane, La7'

Let me tell you, it was a turkey shoot everytime. And all they had above us was altitude and coordination, (tactics and teamwork). We had the planes didn't we? of course these were the uber planes.

I was a believer at that point. And as much as it hurt my feelings - I had to come to grips with the fact that no matter how much I adore the Fw-190, I can't fly it worth a *insert explitive here*. and why is that? I don't have the skills in advanced energy tactics.

Another thing I've learned, me and my buds, when we adhear to simple rules like get as much altitude as you can, always scan the skys while you fly, stay reasonably close to each other (1km or so) while cruising, constant detailed yet concise communications, and only engage in the fights we can win - we usually end up landing safely back @ base.

Personally, after 2-3 hours of online I would rather end up with 100-200 points and no deaths than 1000 with 10 - 15 deaths.

-Rick

CarpeNoctem43
03-02-2007, 02:09 PM
Really though, naked aggression in air combat has won many pilots the day even without a
clear advantage and outnumbered.


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif I'm telling Bard... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Yeah, we've all read these types of stories. But the reason that these are so riviting, like every other is, they are unique - out of the ordinary.

Not many first hand stories about the one who stayed with a disadvantage and lost... Wonder why?

-Rick

LStarosta
03-02-2007, 02:16 PM
What the fudge is the point of this thread?

fordfan25
03-02-2007, 02:20 PM
Originally posted by TheBandit_76:
Gosh, no more need to debate IL2 FMs folks, this chap has it all figured out. Time to close the forums?

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

fordfan25
03-02-2007, 02:21 PM
Originally posted by LStarosta:
What the fudge is the point of this thread? he may want a cookie

DKoor
03-02-2007, 02:25 PM
Originally posted by CarpeNoctem43:
If I could make a confession, I too was disappointed with certain aspects of the FM. That is until I realized that it didn't really matter. ...and as you start to play, play, play and play it'll matter more and more and...
Why? Simply because as you get experienced, you make little room for errors, if any, exploiting your plane to maximum.


I used to complain the FW sucks here there is no way I should be stalling like this. This was a big deal to me since I have been a Fw fan for YEARS and had this uber idea of how it should fly. Yes, FW sometimes "sucked" sometimes it was "uber"... that is, in fact, true. This game went thru numerous patches and what we have today we didn't have 1,5 year ago. Etc.
But generally speaking, FW is the most potent fighter and interceptor in this simulation. IMHO.


They let me pick the planes. Of course, i said - 'you guys fly the FW-190 A-9 and we'll fly the uber plane, La7'

Let me tell you, it was a turkey shoot everytime. And all they had above us was altitude and coordination, (tactics and teamwork). We had the planes didn't we? of course these were the uber planes. FW-190A9 vs. LA-7? Lavochkin will win every single fight 1 vs. 1 in some kind of death match arena. On the other hand, in many vs. many there is a chance because the rule "more guns teh better" start to kick in.
But thing is such arenas didn't existed in WW2.
Too rand0mized.


I was a believer at that point. And as much as it hurt my feelings - I had to come to grips with the fact that no matter how much I adore the Fw-190, I can't fly it worth a *insert explitive here*. and why is that? I don't have the skills in advanced energy tactics. I think that you'll see that the main shortcoming of most half-experienced pilots is - gunnery. You get the chance and you blow the chance. How often does that happen?
Remember all you have to do is to make E/A to appear in your gunsight for a snapshot in 400 minus meters. That is all you have to do in FW.
Not many people can do that *and* hit E/A on 'realistic' settings in 8/10 opportunities let alone higher.

DKoor
03-02-2007, 02:28 PM
Originally posted by LStarosta:
What the fudge is the point of this thread? Put it 2 rest? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sleepzzz.gif

WWMaxGunz
03-02-2007, 02:33 PM
Originally posted by CarpeNoctem43:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif I'm telling Bard... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Yeah, we've all read these types of stories. But the reason that these are so riviting, like every other is, they are unique - out of the ordinary.

Not many first hand stories about the one who stayed with a disadvantage and lost... Wonder why?

-Rick

Ah --- HAH! I don't think you're Dart, so....?

Not many stories also because few fighter pilots had both the skills and the balls to try!
That and you pull that with the wrong enemies and you'll find out just how well you can
be at escaping! Or not. Note the lack of question mark, LOL!

stalkervision
03-02-2007, 02:43 PM
Originally posted by AVGWarhawk:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stalkervision:
I think half the fun of the forums is arguing about sim flight models accuracy. If no one ever complains about them then nothing will ever improve on this account.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Not complaints but hard evidence showing the issue. Also best to post on Oleg's Ready Room forum. Some of the arguing is not fun but gets down right nasty http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif and then turns into a witch hunt. Some can not say, 'this is incorrect and here is why'. Some just start ripping you a new arse and throwing charts in your face. Sometimes the civility just disappears when anonymous entries can be made and no recourse can be enacted other than a ban for a few days. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

People take it way too personally. After all in the end it's only a game. I say argue the tech points if you want but the main thing is to have fun with it.. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

msalama
03-02-2007, 02:47 PM
Hmmm... someone mentioned "real" sims here I remember?

Well, when it comes to FMs everything seems to be possible. Now I know this bloke who works for a commercial carrier - he's not an active line pilot or anything like that but he nevertheless has his multi-engine ratings and that - and he did try out an MD-10 level D sim a while ago... his findings, amongst other things, was that the simu-bird will do a complete 360 degs. roll in a dirty configuration - flaps & gear still down, etc. - immediately after TO @ 200 ft. or so http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

So of course a question arises concerning the actual realism of the FMs on _that_ level too, doesn't it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Or maybe the real thing can do that as well, who knows. It's just that no-one in their right mind would attempt to actually try it out...

AVGWarhawk
03-02-2007, 02:54 PM
People take it way too personally. After all in the end it's only a game. I say argue the tech points if you want but the main thing is to have fun with it.. Wink


True that, plus the fact that some need to be correct no matter the cost. Get in the last word. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif This forum was very nice and then it turn ugly real fast http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

fordfan25
03-02-2007, 03:56 PM
Originally posted by AVGWarhawk:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">People take it way too personally. After all in the end it's only a game. I say argue the tech points if you want but the main thing is to have fun with it.. Wink


True that, plus the fact that some need to be correct no matter the cost. Get in the last word. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif This forum was very nice and then it turn ugly real fast http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>your wrong i never need the last word........never http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

AVGWarhawk
03-02-2007, 05:41 PM
Originally posted by fordfan25:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AVGWarhawk:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">People take it way too personally. After all in the end it's only a game. I say argue the tech points if you want but the main thing is to have fun with it.. Wink


True that, plus the fact that some need to be correct no matter the cost. Get in the last word. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif This forum was very nice and then it turn ugly real fast http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>your wrong i never need the last word........never http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Me either http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

fordfan25
03-02-2007, 05:55 PM
Originally posted by AVGWarhawk:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fordfan25:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AVGWarhawk:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">People take it way too personally. After all in the end it's only a game. I say argue the tech points if you want but the main thing is to have fun with it.. Wink


True that, plus the fact that some need to be correct no matter the cost. Get in the last word. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif This forum was very nice and then it turn ugly real fast http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>your wrong i never need the last word........never http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Me either http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>yea its great to just let things go hu? ....you dont have to awnser that http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

AVGWarhawk
03-03-2007, 08:50 AM
Originally posted by fordfan25:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AVGWarhawk:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by fordfan25:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AVGWarhawk:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">People take it way too personally. After all in the end it's only a game. I say argue the tech points if you want but the main thing is to have fun with it.. Wink


True that, plus the fact that some need to be correct no matter the cost. Get in the last word. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif This forum was very nice and then it turn ugly real fast http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>your wrong i never need the last word........never http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Me either http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>yea its great to just let things go hu? ....you dont have to awnser that http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let what go? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

ElAurens
03-03-2007, 10:41 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
You aren't the guy that thinks all assault rifles including the AK-47 are low powered as well?

They are in comparison to modern magnum/safari caliber hunting rifles. But military small arms are not meant to hunt thick skinned quadrapeds, so the anemic .223 Remington is perfectly adequate in the military role.

Personally, I feel the .308 is the better round.

WWMaxGunz
03-03-2007, 05:05 PM
AK-47 chambers both NATO 7.62mm and the Russian round that has slightly longer brass.
That's about a 308 right there.

.223 is ANEMIC??? Are you playing?
Those are still good for one shot kills out past 500 meters, been done many times.
Or is anything less than a 30-06 just a popgun?
Oooh, it's not good to 1000-1200 meters, dismiss it as pathetic!
You ever used one to do more than fool around? Or even at all?

I could agree maybe if you're talking about machine pistols and that's still a maybe.
Something I can bust bricks with at 100 yards, I don't call weak. But if you only have
eyes for special comparisons or worse yet only know numbers on paper then go buy a tank.

I guess reality is whatever you can compare to.

JSG72
03-03-2007, 06:08 PM
Posted Sat March 03 2007 17:02 Hide Post
Originally posted by all within this thread.



Feckin' A**EH*L*s.

Live the dream. Fly the car. Drive the plane. Win the War!

No one cares If you are a paraplegic vegtable with a house and 4 wives to provide in the Northern Congo.

Your views on this Topic don't mean SH1T!!.
But you will keep ignoring the posts until. You find you are only.Talking to yourself


The only real plane I have ever flown in.

BuzzU
03-03-2007, 07:57 PM
The Jug won the war.

JSG72
03-03-2007, 08:25 PM
Originally posted by BuzzU:
The Jug won the war.

Hear! Hear! I am you! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Pirschjaeger
03-03-2007, 08:45 PM
No no, the Jug only helped win the war. Look at the math:

2 Russians + one rifle + 5 bullets + 5 jugs of vodka = victory

The Russians won the war.

ElAurens
03-04-2007, 12:06 AM
Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
AK-47 chambers both NATO 7.62mm and the Russian round that has slightly longer brass.
That's about a 308 right there.

.223 is ANEMIC??? Are you playing?
Those are still good for one shot kills out past 500 meters, been done many times.
Or is anything less than a 30-06 just a popgun?
Oooh, it's not good to 1000-1200 meters, dismiss it as pathetic!
You ever used one to do more than fool around? Or even at all?

I could agree maybe if you're talking about machine pistols and that's still a maybe.
Something I can bust bricks with at 100 yards, I don't call weak. But if you only have
eyes for special comparisons or worse yet only know numbers on paper then go buy a tank.

I guess reality is whatever you can compare to.

I own an AR 15 DCM national match rifle and have competed for several years in High Power competetion locally. Read my post for meaning. I said the .223 Reminton was adequate in the military context. It is lacking at longer ranges, this cannot be disputed.

An AK 47 chambered for the 7.62x39 Russian service round cannot interchangably use the .308 NATO (7.62x51) cartridge, or vice versa. The 7.62x39 isn't even really 7.62mm in diameter. As stated the .308 NATO round is indeed 7.62mm dia, the Russian bullet is a true .311 inches (7.7mm) in diameter. And the Russian cartridge operates at lower pressures and has a lower muzzle velocity as well.

And no I don't think that the .30-06 Springfield is the best service cartridge ever. The .308 NATO is far mre efficient, thanks to the modern propellants developed after WW2.

My ideal service cartridge would actualy utilize a 6.5mm projectile of around 140gr. and use a short case yielding a muzzle velocity in the area of 2700 to 2800fps at the muzzle.

Apologies to the thread starter for the hijack.

WWMaxGunz
03-04-2007, 01:07 AM
I like the existing .243 myself.
Both my drill sergeants stated that AK could use our 7.62 ammo though I've never seen it done.
WTH I figured, they had done tours in that far east place where picking up an AK was commonly
done by US troops. Now I find it was just another bit of BS they fed us all. 10000 + 1.

msalama
03-04-2007, 01:31 AM
No but seriously, the Sturmovik won the war.

AUTHOR'S NOTE: Evaluating the true seriousness of the statement above is left as an exercise to the reader http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif