PDA

View Full Version : All Performance Whiners Should Read This:



XyZspineZyX
08-17-2003, 04:46 PM
All performance whiners should take a break and read this:


http://www.simhq.com/_air/air_065a.html

It was posted by Euro-Snoopy and puts all this Performance charts stuff vs Simulation into perspective. It even says some pilots in WWII complained that there plane didn`t perform to the charts specifications!

I guess it won`t stop the whining of course.






"Tis better to work towards an Impossible Good, rather than a Possible Evil."

SeaFireLIV.

XyZspineZyX
08-17-2003, 04:46 PM
All performance whiners should take a break and read this:


http://www.simhq.com/_air/air_065a.html

It was posted by Euro-Snoopy and puts all this Performance charts stuff vs Simulation into perspective. It even says some pilots in WWII complained that there plane didn`t perform to the charts specifications!

I guess it won`t stop the whining of course.






"Tis better to work towards an Impossible Good, rather than a Possible Evil."

SeaFireLIV.

XyZspineZyX
08-17-2003, 05:07 PM
neat site

<center>I know my name is spelled wrong

XyZspineZyX
08-17-2003, 06:00 PM
Excellent article!


Cheers,
=38=IndiaOscar


http://www.russianaviationarchive.com



http://www.russianaviationarchive.com/images/raa_header.gif

XyZspineZyX
08-17-2003, 06:26 PM
Good article - should be distributed with the game.

If you think thing are bad now, wait until the whiners of all denominations get stuck into the 1946 stuff - arguing the toss about specs for planes that never flew.

<center>http://mysite.freeserve.com/Endodontics/sigs/FaintWhirly.jpg?0.014428488517455151 </center>

XyZspineZyX
08-17-2003, 10:53 PM
WOW !

Thanks Seafire for spotting the thread

XyZspineZyX
08-17-2003, 11:03 PM
Pity the REAl whiners won`t read it. People tend not to want to see what they don`t want to know...



"Tis better to work towards an Impossible Good, rather than a Possible Evil."

SeaFireLIV.

XyZspineZyX
08-17-2003, 11:11 PM
Cool,thanks. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

<center>"The show must go on..."<center>
<center>http://www.btinternet.com/~jj_b/vaw/images/iar81t.jpg </center>
<center>A 'good' landing is one from which you can walk away. A 'great'
landing is one after which they can use the plane again<center>

XyZspineZyX
08-17-2003, 11:39 PM
Thanks SeaFire. That was an awesome read.

<center> http://www.4yourfuture.net/handshake.gif


"Altitude, speed, maneuver, fire!"-The "formula of Terror" of Aleksandr Pokryshkin, Three times awarded the rank of Hero of the Soviet Union

XyZspineZyX
08-17-2003, 11:45 PM
Interesting that the article should mention the LA-5FN, This article was written i assume before the patch, Cause i've read threads here that claim the LA-5FN was toned down cause some people felt it was too good in Ver1.0, I hope this is'nt the case, Because the LA series is my favorite Russian fighter to fly.

"An attack against a unit of Flying Fortresses was something like controlled suicide...Sometimes 50, Sometimes 80 machine guns were firing at you... You attempted to close your eyes & continue to fire, Frightened to death, Frightened to death."

Oberst Johannes Steinhoff (176 kills)

XyZspineZyX
08-18-2003, 01:14 AM
no im SURE it will,as you must agree, otherwise you wouldnt have taken the time to write this out eh?....yes?

XyZspineZyX
08-18-2003, 02:26 AM
I have seen this before and i agree with it 100%. However one feels about the virtual performance on aircraft in FB the fact remains that the FMs and DMs here are the absolute best there is so far.

<CENTER>http://www.world-wide-net.com/tuskegeeairmen/ta-1943.jpg <marquee><FONT COLOR="RED"><FONT SIZE="+1">"Straighten up.......Fly right..~S~"<FONT SIZE> </marquee> http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat

<CENTER><FONT COLOR="ORANGE">vflyer@comcast.net<FONT COLOR>
<Center><div style="width:200;color:red;font-size:18pt;filter:shadow Blur[color=red,strength=8)">99th Pursuit Squadron

XyZspineZyX
08-18-2003, 02:32 AM
tnx SeaFireLIV

<center>http://users.pandora.be/vnnet/sig_2.jpg
Once he made up his mind...</center>

XyZspineZyX
08-18-2003, 06:01 AM
Good read. Really bring back the perspective one should have concerning virtual combat flight sims.


Thanks.



Have fun. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
08-18-2003, 06:39 AM
Good read! TNX SeaFire! Hopefully whiners would read this!

XyZspineZyX
08-18-2003, 07:16 AM
Good stuff! I liked that.

XyZspineZyX
08-18-2003, 08:13 AM
this should be read by all IL2ers, thanks for bringing it to our collective attencion, it also means after suffering a severe injury i need to head on over to simhq for a refresher!

http://mudmovers.com/Sims/IL2/images/wallpaper/me262sharkt.jpg
us infantry 84-91

XyZspineZyX
08-18-2003, 08:34 AM
Salute Seafire

Read the article again. It says all planes likely performed below specs.

If you want to have ALL the planes perform worse than their specifications... Great.

But right now, we don't have an even playing field.

We have some planes performing as they should, and others performing far below what they were rated at.

So what do you want?

Everything degraded from factory specs?

Or everything set at factory specs?

Decide on one or the other and then apply it consistently.

By the way, that article has been around for more than a year.

It was posted on this forum long time ago.

I have had many discussions with Badboy, (under a different handle) on the ACES HIGH forums, where he spent most of his time before he became interested in IL-2. He helped with his charts and tables on a ACE HIGH Scenario which I designed for Hitech and Pyro. Badboy is very knowledgeable.

The other issue is those who jump over anyone who questions the FM or any other issue with the game.

Guess what Seafire?

THIS IS A BETA.

Notice the little "b" on the FB 1.1b?

And what did Oleg say? Present facts directly to him if issues arose.

So if you don't have anything better to do than snipe at posters who have the intelligence and energy to actually do some research into issues with the game, then I would suggest you find something else to do with your time.

The only thing you are doing is showing yourself to be too narrow minded and limited to crawl outside the little box which IL-2 FB came in.

Cheers RAF74 Buzzsaw

XyZspineZyX
08-18-2003, 09:34 AM
the Bf & LA speeds seem to be wrong ?

XyZspineZyX
08-18-2003, 09:46 AM
Interesting response Buzzsaw.

You start with a Salute and then rip in to Seafire!

???

His low key non flaming post hardly deserved the response.

He was just putting some perspective on the FM's, even if it was 'old new' (I hadn't seen it previously and thanks Seafire!).

Trouble is there will always be moans about the FM.
We should learn to be proficient with the tool(s) provided that we choose to use.

After all the old axiom 'a poor workman always blames his tool' is very true!

/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
08-18-2003, 10:04 AM
Salute B16

Would that be a suggestion my skills are lacking?

I'd be happy to demonstrate my abilities against you with both of us in P-47's.

Or any other pair of aircraft.

By the way, I flew 8 hours this weekend online with my Squad and other opponents like 609 Squadron, JG1 and the WingWalkers. I make a point of enjoying the game flying against tough honourable opponents.

Didn't fly a P-47, spent most of my time in Brewsters, I-16's and P-40's.

Send me a PM, and we can set up a meeting next weekend.


Cheers RAF74 Buzzsaw

XyZspineZyX
08-18-2003, 10:52 AM
No suggestion of the sort!

Just my bad communication - I was referring to the 'patch whiners'!

I'm not aware that you are a patch whiner so.......

And as for my flying abilities?

I'm a crap workman /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

FB is the first flight sim I have ever tried online, and I have only had it since March.

It wouldn't do you justice for us to meet up! (as I'm such a n00b!).

Thanks for the offer, as a busy father getting more than two hours 'flying time' in the entire weekend would be a record!

BTW, what's a P47? - is that a Walther? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

XyZspineZyX
08-18-2003, 10:59 AM
Thnx,B16Enk but don`t worry about it. I expected the Whiners like RAF74BuzzsawXO to attack me for this post. It shows at least ONE of them`s reading it. And I won`t get involved in some silly argument which he`d probably love me to do... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif



"Tis better to work towards an Impossible Good, rather than a Possible Evil."

SeaFireLIV.

XyZspineZyX
08-18-2003, 11:08 AM
SeaFireLIV wrote:
- Thnx,B16Enk but don`t worry about it.

NP. Just like to see civil boards personally.

And I found your original post to be informative - I need all the help I can get!

XyZspineZyX
08-18-2003, 03:05 PM
excellent read

XyZspineZyX
08-18-2003, 04:37 PM
Salute Seafire

You still haven't acknowledged the fact that you are misinterpreting Badboy's comments. Read them again:

"The first thing that must be remembered is that the aircraft used in daily front line service were rarely able to match the performance of test aircraft. This may have been partly due to the standard of aircraft delivered straight from the production lines, and partly due to factors such as airframe and engine maintenance that occurred in less than ideal conditions and less often than recommended. Indeed, pilots of every nationality were apt to complain that their aircraft did not perform to published figures."

Notice he doesn't say "USAAF aircraft were rarely able to match the performance of test aircraft." He says "aircraft". Ie. aircraft from all sides.

And I will repeat my comments:

Let's have a level playing field.

Either all aircraft are set to factory specs, or none.

By the way, it is clear from an analysis of Factory quality standards data, that American and British manufacturing standards were much better than either Russian or German by 1944. In Germany it was a function of the fact that the factories were being bombed, and the general level of disruption was high. Plus many of the aircraft parts were manufactured by imported slawe labourers from occupied countries such as France or Russian. And the incidence of sabotage was a considerable factor.

Plus if you look at Squadron records, you will see that the number of mechanics assigned to an individual aircraft's maintenance were greater in USAAF and RAF Squadrons. Which would mean that their aircraft would be more likely near factory standards than German or Russian.


RAF74 Buzzsaw