PDA

View Full Version : The Myth of the 'Uber' Aircraft.



georgeo76
11-19-2004, 12:13 PM
Pacific Fighters has brought many new faces to this game and to this community. Welcome.

I hope you learn from this community for they are a valuable resource. However, I'd also like to warn you that some of what you read here is pure BS. Learning to tell the difference is valuable, and I'd like to clue you in.

The best example of what I'm talking about is the myth of the 'Uber (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=uber)' aircraft.

For as long as I've been around there have always been at least one uber aircraft. The consensus of which aircraft this happens to be usually cements just after a new game, expansion pack, or patch is released.

Even though the Uber AC changes, the reasons an AC is selected is almost always the same.

1. Poor sportsmanship: The pilots online are really good. But most of them are not as good as they think they are. These competitive types get their butts handed to them; shocked and in disbelief, they figure there must be something wrong w/ the game.

2. Nationalism: ppl have always read about how the pilots form their country are great and the aircraft they flew were superior. They are often surprised to discover that other country's pilots don't roll over in their wake, and they figure that there must be something wrong w/ the game. (the nationalist are almost always poor sportsmen)

3. Anti-nationalism: The anti-nationalists get beaten by aircraft from a country that they believe should be inferior. They conclude that the developers are biased, or have somehow been persuaded by the advocates of the country in question. (the anti-nationalists are almost always nationalists and poor sportsmen)

4. The gullible: The gullible are the the bulk of the online community that hear the objections of the vocal minoritys that I've described above and are deceived by their arguments. After a while, the opinions of the vocal minority are repeated often enough that an aircraft's 'uberness' is taken for granted. The gullible do not necessarily fall into the categorys above, but they do facilitate them.

Now I'm not saying that the flight model of certain aircraft have never been inaccurate. What I am saying is that the developers have always made a good faith effort to make them as accurate as possible. In fact, they have often tweaked the flight models based on the organized and documented arguments of the community.

What I am saying is that I've yet to see an instance where one particular aircraft was so inaccurate as to be unbeatable, and all the inaccuracies I've seen so far have been good faith mistakes that have been corrected in a timely manner with regards to the limits of the game and the developers resources. What I am saying is the 'uber' arguments have always been hype.

If you take the difference in performance between the game's worst aircraft and it's best, it's minute compared to the differences in the skills of the pilots that fly them. Remember, if someone shoots you down, it's because of one or both of the following reasons:

1. he was a better pilot
2. you made a mistake

georgeo76
11-19-2004, 12:13 PM
Pacific Fighters has brought many new faces to this game and to this community. Welcome.

I hope you learn from this community for they are a valuable resource. However, I'd also like to warn you that some of what you read here is pure BS. Learning to tell the difference is valuable, and I'd like to clue you in.

The best example of what I'm talking about is the myth of the 'Uber (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=uber)' aircraft.

For as long as I've been around there have always been at least one uber aircraft. The consensus of which aircraft this happens to be usually cements just after a new game, expansion pack, or patch is released.

Even though the Uber AC changes, the reasons an AC is selected is almost always the same.

1. Poor sportsmanship: The pilots online are really good. But most of them are not as good as they think they are. These competitive types get their butts handed to them; shocked and in disbelief, they figure there must be something wrong w/ the game.

2. Nationalism: ppl have always read about how the pilots form their country are great and the aircraft they flew were superior. They are often surprised to discover that other country's pilots don't roll over in their wake, and they figure that there must be something wrong w/ the game. (the nationalist are almost always poor sportsmen)

3. Anti-nationalism: The anti-nationalists get beaten by aircraft from a country that they believe should be inferior. They conclude that the developers are biased, or have somehow been persuaded by the advocates of the country in question. (the anti-nationalists are almost always nationalists and poor sportsmen)

4. The gullible: The gullible are the the bulk of the online community that hear the objections of the vocal minoritys that I've described above and are deceived by their arguments. After a while, the opinions of the vocal minority are repeated often enough that an aircraft's 'uberness' is taken for granted. The gullible do not necessarily fall into the categorys above, but they do facilitate them.

Now I'm not saying that the flight model of certain aircraft have never been inaccurate. What I am saying is that the developers have always made a good faith effort to make them as accurate as possible. In fact, they have often tweaked the flight models based on the organized and documented arguments of the community.

What I am saying is that I've yet to see an instance where one particular aircraft was so inaccurate as to be unbeatable, and all the inaccuracies I've seen so far have been good faith mistakes that have been corrected in a timely manner with regards to the limits of the game and the developers resources. What I am saying is the 'uber' arguments have always been hype.

If you take the difference in performance between the game's worst aircraft and it's best, it's minute compared to the differences in the skills of the pilots that fly them. Remember, if someone shoots you down, it's because of one or both of the following reasons:

1. he was a better pilot
2. you made a mistake

crazyivan1970
11-19-2004, 12:16 PM
Right on, right on...

TacticalYak3
11-19-2004, 12:25 PM
Good post mate. That's the challenge of the game, not only learning to fly your ride well, but knowing how to fly it well against the other guy's ride.

SeaFireLIV
11-19-2004, 12:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by georgeo76:
4. The gullible: The gullible are the the bulk of the online community that hear the objections of the vocal minoritys that I've described above and are deceived by their arguments. After a while, the opinions of the vocal minority are repeated often enough that an aircraft's 'uberness' is taken for granted. The gullible do not necessarily fall into the categorys above, but they do facilitate them.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Incredibly good post and one I was working round to writing up myself.

I myself made the elemental mistake of believing everything I saw when I first started. Then it dawned on me - A lot of these guys TALK like they know what they`re talking about but haven`t the faintest clue., ESPECIALLY when on about their FAVOURITE PLANE.
For example people talking because they `think` not what they know, or because they saw one example of their fave plane doing an amazing act (usually in a Hollywood film). They even try to create biased impressions by using film footage when examined carefully actually proves very little, or does not explain the full story etc.

For all new forum members here I would say `QUESTION EVERYTHING!` and to be on the safe side get a few good books on WWII aircraft and pilot experiences, so you can balance what you see here with REAL INFORMATION.

Again, good post. You should sticky it, Crazy Ivan.

Kootenai
11-19-2004, 12:30 PM
Good post. You might want to add a third reason why someone shoots you down, though -- the purity of his precious bodily fluids.

Bogun
11-19-2004, 12:31 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif
Respect, Georgeo76!

DIRTY-MAC
11-19-2004, 12:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by georgeo76:
Pacific Fighters has brought many new faces to this game and to this community. Welcome.

I hope you learn from this community for they are a valuable resource. However, I'd also like to warn you that some of what you read here is pure BS. Learning to tell the difference is valuable, and I'd like to clue you in.

The best example of what I'm talking about is the myth of the 'http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=uber' aircraft.

For as long as I've been around there have always been at least one uber aircraft. The consensus of which aircraft this happens to be usually cements just after a new game, expansion pack, or patch is released.

Even though the Uber AC changes, the reasons an AC is selected is almost always the same.

1. Poor sportsmanship: The pilots online are really good. But most of them are not as good as they think they are. These competitive types get their butts handed to them; shocked and in disbelief, they figure there must be something wrong w/ the game.

2. Nationalism: ppl have always read about how the pilots form their country are great and the aircraft they flew were superior. They are often surprised to discover that other country's pilots don't roll over in their wake, and they figure that there must be something wrong w/ the game. (the nationalist are almost always poor sportsmen)

3. Anti-nationalism: The anti-nationalists get beaten by aircraft from a country that they believe should be inferior. They conclude that the developers are biased, or have somehow been persuaded by the advocates of the country in question. (the anti-nationalists are almost always nationalists and poor sportsmen)

4. The gullible: The gullible are the the bulk of the online community that hear the objections of the vocal minoritys that I've described above and are deceived by their arguments. After a while, the opinions of the vocal minority are repeated often enough that an aircraft's 'uberness' is taken for granted. The gullible do not necessarily fall into the categorys above, but they do facilitate them.

Now I'm not saying that the flight model of certain aircraft have never been inaccurate. What I am saying is that the developers have always made a good faith effort to make them as accurate as possible. In fact, they have often tweaked the flight models based on the organized and documented arguments of the community.

What I am saying is that I've yet to see an instance where one particular aircraft was so inaccurate as to be unbeatable, and all the inaccuracies I've seen so far have been good faith mistakes that have been corrected in a timely manner with regards to the limits of the game and the developers resources. What I am saying is the 'uber' arguments have always been hype.

If you take the difference in performance between the game's worst aircraft and it's best, it's minute compared to the differences in the skills of the pilots that fly them. Remember, if someone shoots you down, it's because of one or both of the following reasons:

1. he was a better pilot
2. you made a mistake <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

BULLSEYE!
You are so right!

Infact, I think you can count the real objective guys here on the forum,
with the fingers on your two hands.

John_Stag
11-19-2004, 12:41 PM
Good enough to warrant a sticky, IMO.

Aero_Shodanjo
11-19-2004, 12:44 PM
I like uber planes... But there will always be more "uber" human opponent no matter what plane he/she uses... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

The old saying has it: There's always sky above the sky (am i getting it right?) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Btw, does any of you online veterans have experiences to share (i believe so, btw http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif)? Especialy about when you use an "uber" plane but still get shot down against another player with a "less than uber" plane.

Such true stories will strengthen this thread's points even more, IMO.

pacettid
11-19-2004, 12:58 PM
I'll tell you what...that is one of the most well written, well thought out posts I have ever seen on this forum...bravo, bravo!

I could not agree more, and after two combat tours in the U.S. military, I am always amazed at the total **** some of the more vocal representatives of the groups you mention preach as absolute gospel.

This sim may not be perfect, but I still find myself marvelling at how good it really is. Sometimes I just get up on Saturday mornings, and fire up the game for some early morning touch-and-goes...sure does bring back memories for an old prop driver like me, and that my friends is priceless http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Mulleteer
11-19-2004, 01:01 PM
Hey! How you explain why I yesterday got shot down constantly by F4U-C's. I was flying P-11 which is supposed to be best of pack?? Conspiracy!

tttiger
11-19-2004, 01:04 PM
Well said, Georgeo.

S!

ttt

TAGERT.
11-19-2004, 01:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by georgeo76:
Pacific Fighters has brought many new faces to this game and to this community. Welcome.

I hope you learn from this community for they are a valuable resource. However, I'd also like to warn you that some of what you read here is pure BS. Learning to tell the difference is valuable, and I'd like to clue you in.

The best example of what I'm talking about is the myth of the 'http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=uber' aircraft.

For as long as I've been around there have always been at least one uber aircraft. The consensus of which aircraft this happens to be usually cements just after a new game, expansion pack, or patch is released.

Even though the Uber AC changes, the reasons an AC is selected is almost always the same.

1. Poor sportsmanship: The pilots online are really good. But most of them are not as good as they think they are. These competitive types get their butts handed to them; shocked and in disbelief, they figure there must be something wrong w/ the game.

2. Nationalism: ppl have always read about how the pilots form their country are great and the aircraft they flew were superior. They are often surprised to discover that other country's pilots don't roll over in their wake, and they figure that there must be something wrong w/ the game. (the nationalist are almost always poor sportsmen)

3. Anti-nationalism: The anti-nationalists get beaten by aircraft from a country that they believe should be inferior. They conclude that the developers are biased, or have somehow been persuaded by the advocates of the country in question. (the anti-nationalists are almost always nationalists and poor sportsmen)

4. The gullible: The gullible are the the bulk of the online community that hear the objections of the vocal minoritys that I've described above and are deceived by their arguments. After a while, the opinions of the vocal minority are repeated often enough that an aircraft's 'uberness' is taken for granted. The gullible do not necessarily fall into the categorys above, but they do facilitate them.

Now I'm not saying that the flight model of certain aircraft have never been inaccurate. What I am saying is that the developers have always made a good faith effort to make them as accurate as possible. In fact, they have often tweaked the flight models based on the organized and documented arguments of the community.

What I am saying is that I've yet to see an instance where one particular aircraft was so inaccurate as to be unbeatable, and all the inaccuracies I've seen so far have been good faith mistakes that have been corrected in a timely manner with regards to the limits of the game and the developers resources. What I am saying is the 'uber' arguments have always been hype.

If you take the difference in performance between the game's worst aircraft and it's best, it's minute compared to the differences in the skills of the pilots that fly them. Remember, if someone shoots you down, it's because of one or both of the following reasons:

1. he was a better pilot
2. you made a mistake <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Agreed 100%! That sums it up nicely! Every catagory is covered.. Only now what percentages per catagory.. I think 50% stem from cat #1 i.e.

1. Poor sportsmanship: The pilots online are really good. But most of them are not as good as they think they are. These competitive types get their butts handed to them; shocked and in disbelief, they figure there must be something wrong w/ the game.

As for the Nat and Ant-Nat.. They make up a good part of the 25% left.. But, they typically are easy to spot by anyone that has been around a week or so.. And sadly, last but not least are the gullible.. They git suckered in by all of the above.. Granted after a few weeks they should/could spot the Nat and Anti-Nat stuff.. But some never seem to spot the cat #1 guys. In that they themselfs probally suffer from the same things as the cat #1 guys.. Only sad thing is they belive it has nothing to do with thier abilitys. They tend to follow in kind with no more proof backing up the statment than "my daddy said so".

carguy_
11-19-2004, 01:05 PM
Too simplfied to be true.

Targ
11-19-2004, 01:06 PM
This guy is making to much sense Ivan, I suggest we convene a mod meeting and vote on banning him.

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

pacettid
11-19-2004, 01:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Targ:
This guy is making to much sense Ivan, I suggest we convene a mod meeting and vote on banning him.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

crazyivan1970
11-19-2004, 01:12 PM
Yeah Targ, making sense cannot be tolerated.

TAGERT.
11-19-2004, 01:13 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Incredibly good post and one I was working round to writing up myself.

I myself made the elemental mistake of believing everything I saw when I first started. Then it dawned on me - A lot of these guys TALK like they know what they`re talking about but haven`t the faintest clue., ESPECIALLY when on about their FAVOURITE PLANE.
For example people talking because they `think` not what they know, or because they saw one example of their fave plane doing an amazing act (usually in a Hollywood film). They even try to create biased impressions by using film footage when examined carefully actually proves very little, or does not explain the full story etc.

For all new forum members here I would say `QUESTION EVERYTHING!` and to be on the safe side get a few good books on WWII aircraft and pilot experiences, so you can balance what you see here with REAL INFORMATION.

Again, good post. You should sticky it, Crazy Ivan. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Now your getting it! Welcome to the light side!

georgeo76
11-19-2004, 01:23 PM
Thanks for all the positive feedback guys!

Your right Targ, Ivan. I've been bad and must be punished http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Oh, and carguy, ever heard of Achems razor?

crazyivan1970
11-19-2004, 01:23 PM
I guess i`ll sticky it for couple of days, deffinitely worth it.

cpirrmann
11-19-2004, 01:26 PM
"Even if we had their planes, our boys would still beat theirs"
Claire Chenault

R_Mutt
11-19-2004, 01:32 PM
This guy is too smart to be part of VFC http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Seriously, great post.

clint-ruin
11-19-2004, 01:51 PM
The nicest way anyone could possibly put,

you cry,

because you lost,

because you suck,

because you is wrong,

the end :&gt;

georgeo76
11-19-2004, 02:02 PM
LMAO clint! Your a poet!

clint-ruin
11-19-2004, 03:09 PM
Nah :&gt; great post by the way. The whole "rock paper scissors" expectation of how planes should beat other planes is so, so silly. Glad someone took a go at poking that particular forum carbunkle with a sharp stick.

A.K.Davis
11-19-2004, 03:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by georgeo76:
If you take the difference in performance between the game's worst aircraft and it's best, it's minute compared to the differences in the skills of the pilots that fly them. Remember, if someone shoots you down, it's because of one or both of the following reasons:

1. he was a better pilot
2. you made a mistake <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would like to make one small modification to this:

1. He made fewer mistakes than you.
2. You made more mistakes than him.

EURO_Snoopy
11-19-2004, 03:59 PM
Spotty dog!

VMF223_Smitty
11-19-2004, 04:49 PM
Bravo

Mozzie_21
11-19-2004, 04:56 PM
The thing that gets me is this whole argument about which fighter is better than which other fighter.

All that anyone can talk about is the relative strengths and weaknesses of one plane.

I suppose in the case of say the wildcat and the hellcat, the hellcat obviously is an improved version of, and thus is better than, a wildcat. In general late war aircraft are much better than early war aircraft.

But talking about whether a corsair is better than a hellcat. The corsair was an excelect fighter bomber (hence it's use in Korea) while the hellcat was a specialist (vs Japanese aircraft) fighter. Come on guys get over it.

GRYPHON_401Cdn
11-19-2004, 05:27 PM
I hope that this excellent post will encourage more players to try the early war aircraft. Success with them, against the so called uber planes, is possible from time to time, and it clearly demonstrates how the pilot holds the key to success or failure.

fabianfred
11-19-2004, 05:58 PM
excellent post..........

I have often been concerned that the noisy minority have caused changes to be made, in the patches, to the detriment of the silent, satisfied, majority.......

I'm sure the off-liners vastly outnumber the on-liners here.

nickdanger3
11-19-2004, 06:10 PM
I think you mean Occam's razor....but I get the drift.

LeadSpitter_
11-19-2004, 07:04 PM
Its the aircraft not the person flying it.

Mashie_Nibblick
11-19-2004, 07:40 PM
Wow, Georgeo. Well put.

IV_JG51_Prien
11-19-2004, 07:42 PM
I like flying the "underdog" birds. For the true "underdog" experience fly bombers http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Sometimes it feels like being a spider waiting for a juicy fly to come buzzing your way.. I.e the fighter pilot that thinks your going to be some massivly easy kill... hop in to one of the gunner seats and snipe his engine or his windscreen... it's worth it even if you do end up having to bail http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Bearcat99
11-19-2004, 09:29 PM
Well Georgeo... that was sure refreshing..... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

AFJ_Skyghost
11-19-2004, 11:18 PM
The best post I read here in months, salute George http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Mr_Nakajima
11-20-2004, 02:15 AM
One thing to add€¦

History vs a Historical Game
Many people will have read accounts of actual battles in the second world war. They will have heard how the Germans destroyed huge quantities of Soviet aircraft in 1941, how the Japanese swept all before them in 1942, and how the Americans conducted turkey shoots against the Japanese in 1944-5.

Having read this a lot of newcomers fit themselves into their Bf 109F-4, A6M2 or F-4U and expect to slaughter their opponents with the same ease. If their favourite aircraft scored 5:1, or 10:1, or 20:1 against the opposition then they should to.

But flying in a game is different.

A better aircraft is often better in real life because it is faster and can avoid trouble if it encounters a numerically superior enemy. But in this game we want to fight even if the odds are against us because we don€t end up incinerated in a flaming aircraft. We simply join another game.

Pilot quality is a huge factor. Whenever an airforce was scoring higher than its opponent it was usually doing so because of a big disparity in pilot training. In 1941 the quality of the average German pilot was excellent and that of the average Soviet pilot was abysmal. In 1945 the average American aviator was extremely well trained and the average Japanese pilot was barely safe to fly on his own. But in on-line games, no matter which year they are set in, you will get a random spread of skills across the sides.

Tactics are another thing. We have the advantage of hindsight and know which tactics are appropriate against which aircraft. In 1941 Soviet pilots displayed a tactical naivety which cost them dearly. Few people will try to out-turn an A6M2 at low speed. Players of this game will not make such mistakes. More importantly, successful airforces emphasised teamwork. Aircraft flew and fought in mutually supporting two and four plane divisions where possible. The USN was able to counter the formidable A6M2 using the F4F by tactics such as the Thach Weave. Pilots who lived, flew and fought with each other for weeks or months worked well together. On-line, how many times does this occur?

Aircraft condition is a final factor. Oleg has, I believe, chosen to model aircraft with a factory-fresh, all systems working performance. This is a perfectly sound decision. Yet some airforces had tremendous difficulty getting their aircraft to perform this way in the field. Late war Japanese aircraft are notorious for often failing to develop full engine power for example. Ki-84s encountered by American flyers sometimes performed poorly compared with the model we have in Pacific Fighters.

So for all the above reasons people should be wary of assuming that just because they strap themselves into their favourite aircraft, be it a Spitfire IX, Fw 190, F4U or Ki-84, that they will match its historical performance. They won€t.

Papa_K
11-20-2004, 03:20 AM
There is something to this post, but don't take it too far -- some aircraft, in the game, are better than others, whether deservedly so or not.

Whenever I hear someone say "it's the man, not the machine", I automatically respond: "You're half right -- it's the man AND the machine." (Whether in the cyber-world or real world, the planet's greatest ace in a Stuka (or other aircraft of your choice) stands little chance against a "normal" human pilot in an La-7, or Ki-84, or [insert your "uber" plane here]. [Imagine Richtoven in his triplane against an F-16, for example.]

There has been some stigma involved with flying certain aircraft, online at least (in some servers), but it doesn't amount to much since there is a fair degree of "balance" involved in the game -- speed, firepower, maneuverability, FMs, situational workload, etc. (And no single plane can survive long with a "fly til you die" online mentality.)

One "uber" plane, the Ki-84c, has undergone a transformation in people's "uber attitude" with PF's release: On US v. Japan servers, where the odds are 2:1, 3:1, 4:1 in favor of the droves of Corsairs, with people disdaining the notion on equitable odds, the Ki-84 doesn't seem so "uber" any more. (The "realism" of the odds against late-war Japan don't seem to make for good gaming.)

How did the "uber" plane labelling start? I don't know, but I can remember being in servers where people were flying early war birds, exclusively, and someone shows up selecting the La-7, shooting down a fair number of people, and then being ridiculed for flying the "Noob" plane. It was more a case of being outside the current scenario, selecting a later-war plane to fly against early-war foes -- and "blame" (if there was any) would lie as much with the mission builder as much as anyone.

Papa_K

Hendley
11-20-2004, 04:13 AM
This thread has been a great read--thanks very much to the first poster and all those that followed.

One suggestion I would offer for those worried about "uber" planes on the opposing side:

Go online, get in a bomber, forget about your kill-to-death ratio and try to survive three missions in a row. You might be surprised how much fun it can be--and most planes look uber from the inside of a Stuka cockpit http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

WOLFMondo
11-20-2004, 04:30 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Papa_K:
How did the "uber" plane labelling start? I don't know, but I can remember being in servers where people were flying early war birds, exclusively, and someone shows up selecting the La-7, shooting down a fair number of people, and then being ridiculed for flying the "Noob" plane. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That does piss me off a little when people say this or that plane is a n00b plane, its not a n00b plane, its easy to fly and control which is great testement to the people who designed those planes. If I was 20, shoe horned into a Spitfire in 1940, with a few hours in tigermoths, I'd want it to be easy to fly and control.

John_Stag
11-20-2004, 05:10 AM
Personally, I think the shout of "nOOb Plane!" says more about the shouter than the aircraft.

I don't usually fly in mainstram online games, and haven't heard anyone actually say it.

Do people actually embarrass themselves in this way?

VF-29_Sandman
11-20-2004, 05:48 AM
95% of those online dont even bother with the word 'teamwork' except for squads apparently. if a flight of 4 'mediocre' hurricane's where to be flown as a team of 'hi/low', the chances of beating the 'uber' ki-84 go up. all it takes is a round in the pilot to send a ki-84 down.

Zarathael
11-20-2004, 05:54 AM
I, on the other hand, ALWAYS assume that if I get killed, it's just dumb luck. Especially if it happens the same way ten times in a row... har har. That way there's no blame on anybody.

It just amazes me that considering what the people like Oleg and his team do, to create, quite literally a virtual, physical world in which we can sit at home at our desk and fly combat missions over New Guinea in 1941... The sheer awe inspiring magnitude of that accomplishment, and of the work that has gone into it never ceases to astound me. And the best thing these people can do is come onto the forums and bash on it. Yes there are usually problems with every game that hits the streets. Some are better than others, but you can guarantee that even the buggiest sim out there had a team of people who worked very hard to put it together. When you can do better, start your own company... Isn't that what Oleg did?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Tully__
11-20-2004, 06:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by georgeo76:
...Remember, if someone shoots you down, it's because of one or both of the following reasons:

1. he was a better pilot
2. you made a mistake <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Funnily enough, the same reasoning could be applied to most accusation of cheating http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

VaporBlast
11-20-2004, 07:18 AM
OMG...Best post Ever !!!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Aaron_GT
11-20-2004, 07:30 AM
LeadSpitter wrote:
"Its the aircraft not the person flying it."

Very much so. If I fly a plane and get my *** handed to me by someone and we swap planes I still get my *** handed to me, unless the planes are very mismatched (Pz11 versus P51, perhaps).

If I do shoot someone down it is as much despite the plane as because of it!

WUAF_Toad
11-20-2004, 10:32 AM
I've never seen any good player whine about "uber" planes before. It's always the ones that can't figure out how to deal with these great planes that are crying uber... uber... overmodeled...

tascaso
11-20-2004, 10:51 AM
Well nothing is perfect and that is a fact. The much ballyhooed UBER planes are in fact just in fact FM's that were completely hosed. The fact of the matter is that PC and monitors have severe limitation in representing the true environment that existed in WWII.

My best experience in FB/AEP is when I joined a squad and got on comms and flew coops, VEF, VWF, and Bellum. If it were not for that I would be long gone from this game.

As an online pilot I stink the best I can do is drop bombs at a 25% hit rate and on a good day keep my wingie from being shot down.

In real life I fly the Piper Tomahawk and Cherokee and Beechcraft V36B Bonanza. I don't discuss FB at the pilots lounge at the airport.

The squads are the way to go and you have to have comms. Then you can practice flying formation...group tactics and a variety of angles that truely represent some of the reality and bring out the best and worst of the aircraft. To fly them as they were really flown is the true test of this sim. To Boom n Zoom in the 109 is great fun while refusing the turning battle. Even down low I have been able to fend of the turning fighers with the 109 using combat flaps.

Oh and the time I flew an IL-2 and flew low tight turns while the rear gunner blasted everyone out of the sky! What fun...realistic who know and who cares.

Remember .... who dares wins...or is it.... who cares who wins!

enjoy 123_Tony_123VEF



Its all about fun. Remember

VOL_Mountain
11-20-2004, 01:18 PM
~Salute~ georgio76,

Your post was a good read!

I've enjoyed flying the various types from both sides from day one and found their aircraft to be very competitive.

Stiglr
11-20-2004, 08:51 PM
I don't agree with this simplistic argument.

Fact is, if you delve deep enough into these forums, you can find numerous cases of planes being modelled VERY optimistically, compared to their historical capabilities. This is sometimes due to the plane itself, sometimes due to sim-wide phenomenon (like the moon gravity that pops up now and again).

Proof of that statement is: many planes have been changed and tweaked numerous times, mostly to strip them of their overestimated abilities.

I give you the P-39N and Q, the La5FN, the Hurricane IIc, to name a few.... all "ueberized" at different points in time.

As for the entire concept of Ueberplanes: yes, there were really a few that truly stood out as dominant and ueber: like the Yak 3, the La-7, the P-51D, the FW190A4 and the 109F in their narrower timeframes. The Zero in early Pacific War might fall into this category, too, but with hindsight as to its problems, maybe not.

It's not all "bad sportsmanship" and gottawinism. Sometimes it's simply that a plane overperforms (or its adversary UNDERperforms) such that real-life tactics simply don't work. Some people, believe it or not, have actually cracked a few books on the subject and know a little about how these aircraft should behave. And when they see these successful tactics fail online, for many reasons, including "overmodelling" "undermodelling" "political modeling" (although we're never supposed to say that) AND yes, admittedly, player mistakes and misapplication of tactics, they will most likely want to point out these, uh, oversights.

It's usually never just one of these things, but I would argue that the case is much less often, "the sim is totally right and everyone who can see it's flaws are wrong, be sure".

TAGERT.
11-20-2004, 11:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
I don't agree with this simplistic argument.

Fact is, if you delve deep enough into these forums, you can find numerous cases of planes being modelled VERY optimistically, compared to their historical capabilities. This is sometimes due to the plane itself, sometimes due to sim-wide phenomenon (like the moon gravity that pops up now and again).

Proof of that statement is: many planes have been changed and tweaked numerous times, mostly to strip them of their overestimated abilities.

I give you the P-39N and Q, the La5FN, the Hurricane IIc, to name a few.... all "ueberized" at different points in time.

As for the entire concept of Ueberplanes: yes, there were really a few that truly stood out as dominant and ueber: like the Yak 3, the La-7, the P-51D, the FW190A4 and the 109F in their narrower timeframes. The Zero in early Pacific War might fall into this category, too, but with hindsight as to its problems, maybe not.

It's not all "bad sportsmanship" and gottawinism. Sometimes it's simply that a plane overperforms (or its adversary UNDERperforms) such that real-life tactics simply don't work. Some people, believe it or not, have actually cracked a few books on the subject and know a little about how these aircraft should behave. And when they see these successful tactics fail online, for many reasons, including "overmodelling" "undermodelling" "political modeling" (although we're never supposed to say that) AND yes, admittedly, player mistakes and misapplication of tactics, they will most likely want to point out these, uh, oversights.

It's usually never just one of these things, but I would argue that the case is much less often, "the sim is totally right and everyone who can see it's flaws are wrong, be sure". <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Only simple thing here is that you simply dont realise that no sim was.. is.. or ever will be perfect... No mater how much time or money is tossed at it

Dagger_3
11-21-2004, 01:56 AM
Very true. Tho some aircraft are technally suppirior, a violin in only good in the hands of a good player, or somthing like that. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Dagger3

Tully__
11-21-2004, 06:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
I don't agree with this simplistic argument. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The original post did say right up front the "..some of what you read here is BS...". Note some, not all. There's no harm in a politely worded post in Oleg's Ready Room pointing out some carefully researched data that appears to contradict the in game performance. Most "uber" or "porked" accusations bear no resemblance to that sort of post and should be taken with several pounds of salt http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

LeadSpitter_
11-21-2004, 06:44 AM
aron gt more like a ki84 vs anything alot of aircraft are missing thier dive accelaration due to the limitations of the game which takes away some planes only advantages, that and highspeed handling p40b c and p39 now which lock up so early compaired to planes like the zero ki43 ki61 whichs locked up much lower speed. Same with russian aircraft large wide ailerons and control surfaces = better low speed handling worse high speed handling, long thin narrow surfaces had both good and highspeed handling its a common anyone who seen windtunnel tests knows.

then dont forget the huge advantage over pc speed fps and connection with online gaming.

I dont see why this thread is a sticky in fact should be locked as another usual flame fest

georgeo76
11-21-2004, 07:22 AM
I wasn't trying to be simplistic. I thought I threw a pretty wide net, but I did leave out a lot of nuance for the sake of brevity and continuity.

One group I did leave out:

Malcontents: Some ppl only seem to be able to express themselves with complaint, and only seem satisfied pointing out the flaws and errors in the game and their fellow members. While most ppl will have a negative post now and again, the malcontents can be spotted by the utter consistency of their nitpicking. The only time you'll ever see them make a positive remark is as a disingenous disclaimer (Oh, I love this game, but....), or as a prefix for their next dissertation of woe (I'm glad they finally fixed the widgets on the thingamabob, but now...). Beyond the negativity there is always an undercurrent of spite, guile, and hatefulness. You can see this in their eagerness to point-out, criticize, and hopefully embarrass, anyone who posts factual errors.

Another thing you must keep in mind is that the poorsportsmen, nationalists, anti-nationalists, and malcontents are not always wrong. Sometimes they have good information. But you must not be fooled. Without exception these groups are intellectually lazy, for there are always flaws to find if you're looking. What separates the arguments of these groups is their motives, not their information. If you break down their argument, you'll always find the anti-science of conclusions searching for observations.

VF_29_Bulldog
11-21-2004, 09:43 AM
Amen sir. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Stiglr
11-21-2004, 10:00 AM
Awaiting your addendum for the "fanbois", who are satisfied with everything presented to them, without challenge, without a critical eye and especially, not willing to stand up for *the other guy's* aircraft or side now and then.

TAGERT.
11-21-2004, 11:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
Awaiting your addendum for the "fanbois", who are satisfied with everything presented to them, without challenge, without a critical eye and especially, not willing to stand up for *the other guy's* aircraft or side now and then. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Take another look at it Stig.. The specific fanbois lable is just a sub-set of existing lables.. i.e. Nationalism, Anti-Nationalism and Gullible.

Up to now I have never had a good lable for you.. But I must say that Malcontent definition fits you like a glove imho!

ASM 1
11-21-2004, 12:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tully__:
The original post did say right up front the "..some of what you read here is BS...". Note some, not all. There's no harm in a politely worded post in Oleg's Ready Room pointing out some carefully researched data that appears to contradict the in game performance. Most "uber" or "porked" accusations bear no resemblance to that sort of post and should be taken with several pounds of salt http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Georgeo76...

Great post M8 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif couldnt agree more!

Tully - again, well said, fortunately, I have been "into" ww2 aviation for a long time - and have (for the most part) been able to back up any assertions I have made (which have been few and far between - I've not felt the need to speak out much) I do appreciate that for some people, this branch of sims has been their 'introduction' - as it were - to WW2 aviation in any kind of depth...therefore their BS radar may not be as honed as it should be!

What annoys me intensely is the number of people who far from "a politely worded post in Oleg's Ready Room pointing out some carefully researched data that appears to contradict the in game performance." some people whine and moan about his her favourite plane not performing like an X-wing or whatever http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif .... why? because they think (through lack of experience/knowledge or just downright bloody-mindedness that it should be better... and are frankly downright bloody rude about it http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

I hate to turn this into a rant, but what people need to remember here is that the developers don't HAVE to listen/give us patches with Sh1tloads of free stuff...(microsoft anyone?) but they do... why? because they obviously care about their work... and about us the customers.

As for the accuracy - well I for one accept that flying a TA-152 in game (my fav though you'd never guess eh? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif) is NEVER going to be like the real thing, only an approximation, if you like... its a computer sim remember! (and of course has limitations, I know, I'm stating the obvious but the way some people go on, makes you wonder) Of course I am happy that I have the opportunty to fly it and other aircraft of its era in such an excellent package. The only people who know what the real thing was like are the pilots who flew them at the tme (numbers of whom are sadly dwindling) or those lucky people who get to fly warbirds (there isnt a flyable/replica TA-152 either http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif.... All we have to go on are "on paper" specs - sme of which can themselves be wide of the mark... For an "approximation" of all the aircraft on offer.... the product isn't too bad overall IMHO - and the fact that the developers care enough to "tweak" things (for good or ill http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif) is even better! Nothings perfect, and I accept the possibility that it may never be (to my particular tastes) but I just get on and enjoy what I have....

OK I'll shut up now.... hope I havent dragged things too far OT http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

EDIT:- Substitute TA-152 for 190, 109G6/AS, ME 262, P47, Corsair, Zero, P-51, Ki 84 or whatever - depends on my mood. The fact that we have so many choices is another great thing about IL2/AEP/PF http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Wallstein
11-21-2004, 01:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by georgeo76:
If you take the difference in performance between the game's worst aircraft and it's best, it's minute compared to the differences in the skills of the pilots that fly them. Remember, if someone shoots you down, it's because of one or both of the following reasons:

1. he was a better pilot
2. you made a mistake <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is my first post to this side (PF) of the forum. I fully agree and tell you, as far as I remember correctly, the 3:rd time, that some months ago I SHOOT DOWN A MUSTANG WITH MY STUKA IN A "DOGFIGHT". My reargunnerist did not shoot, but I shot the Mustang down after my dive, as the chasing Mustang passed me. It proves, if nothing else does, that also the "poor" aeroplanes might be dangerous for those über -aeroplanes under certain conditions:

1) if you are unlucky with your über plane
2) if you are even unluckier with your über plane
3) etc.

Wallstein

SeaFireLIV
11-21-2004, 03:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
I don't agree with this simplistic argument...blah, blah, moan, whine, groan...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ah, the typical badassed, tormented, angry Stiglr. He must really enjoy NOT agreeing with anything that makes good sense.

But a good discussion needs a good naysayer, no matter how misguided he may be.

XyZspineZyX
11-21-2004, 05:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Tully__:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by georgeo76:
...Remember, if someone shoots you down, it's because of one or both of the following reasons:

1. he was a better pilot
2. you made a mistake <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Funnily enough, the same reasoning could be applied to most accusation of cheating http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

except in the case of those who have flaps mapped to a slider, creating a distinctly unfair advantage http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

sunflower1
11-21-2004, 10:42 PM
Georgeo, INTP? INTJ?

clint-ruin
11-21-2004, 11:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by sunflower1:
Georgeo, INTP? INTJ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I get either of those 50% myself :&gt;

The_Ant
11-22-2004, 06:27 AM
Nice thread!

As for the term uber aircraft i say its masshysteria created within the il2 community.

I like flying for the blue team in both fb,aep and pf,i know how my sides planes handless mostly,of course i would like that some off them to be more historical,but that whould´t happen since there is some limitations in il2 game engine.What i hate online is when im in a inferior Blue aircraft and succesfully destroys a Red plane which is better than mine (me109g6 vs P51 D-20 or Spit 9).And the other pilot accuses me of having a uber plane ??? and he states that this wouldn´t happen in RL since the P51 or Spit ruled the sky.Well for those whiners please check your history books,(not the Biased one´s written by the winners).In the Pacific and over europe the Axis side was in a often numerical inferior position 1200 vs 200 on a bomber intercept over the reich etc,they laked good fighter pilot training etc.This was why the axis side lost so many planes and pilots,the axis planes could maybe be total **** but they had there orders too intercept or to do a free hunt regarding the odds they did it and the out come was inevitable.

If the tables would have been changed in WW2 and both sides would have the same amount of aircraft in the air and the same pilot standard the outcome may have been some thing else,the war would have lasted longer etc... but the axis would lose in the end anyway.

Sorry for bad english.

pettera
11-22-2004, 06:44 AM
I like the article Forgotten Battles: A Reality Check (http://www.simhq.com/_air/air_065a.html)

Some of it reads:

<span class="ev_code_BLUE">How well does this reflect what we know about what actually happened on the Eastern front? 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. As interesting as it would be to speculate how these factors may have influenced the air combat, the thing we can say with some confidence, is that despite any performance disadvantage the Luftwaffe pilots were forced to concede, they were almost certainly able to minimize that by making the best use of their experience and skill to deliver surprise attacks from positions of advantage, and do it well enough and often enough to accumulate formidable scores. But in order to put that into perspective, and correlate it with what happens in our simulations, we need to take a brief look at the big the picture.</span>

Regards
Petter

mynameisroland
11-22-2004, 08:26 AM
I like this thread a lot and agree with it, there are pilots out there on line who - regardless of the plane they are in are deadly.

I also think that political/technological bias is unavoidable as it is symptomatic of most if not all of the records and we have from WW2. The russian planes in the game perform better than they did in reality this is due to the decision to make them perform as they were specified to whereas in WW2 quality of construction , materials ect took their toll - let alone the quality of the pilots.

I am glad this game is not programmed by an American team otherwise I fear that planes like the Mustang would be over moddeled. You just need to read pilots accounts , histories blah blah blah of different nations to see how superior they regarded their own planes over their enemies. Show me an American who does not think the P51 was the best prop fighter of all time ( well now they'll be a lot of Corsair believers too) Now for my country - Britain ; ) everybody thinks the Spitfire was the last word in piston engined perfection (although soon with the Tempests inclusion maybe that will change)

It is a good point made by Ant that LW aircraft seem inferior when viewed from an allied perspective - but when you realise the nummerical inferiority, lower octane fuel,lack of metals that can withstand high temperatures, poor quality replacement pilots ectera You have to question whether this accepted inferiority is the case is the case.

On the Eastern front in 1944 there were something like 13,000 Red Army Airforce planes ranged against 600 LW fighters. What seems to be overlooked is how magnificently the German army/airforce/navy performed in defeat. To understand the LW's huge scores It has to be man and machine as well as circumstances. I have read plenty of reports that make light of German aces kills and some that down right say they are falsified. If you look at the Battle of Britain already there are pilots like Molders and Galland who have scored 60 + kills yet still we justify these by saying how Germany had more targets therefore greater oppertunities ect yet the LW was nummerically superior during this period to the RAF and both sides flew a similar number of missions during the same timescale so the question of LW man - machine? superiority has to be raised.

If the allies were - as we assume better trained, equiped and more numerous how did the LW inflict such astounding losses on our airforces? much greater than they themselves experienced.

What reasonable explanation do we have for this phenommena?

TROOPER117
11-22-2004, 10:43 AM
Guys, am I missing something here? When I play this game it gives me such a great experience unlike any other sim I've played so far. If I get shot to pieces then someone is a far better flyer than me, and I'll go away and try and learn from that and try to do better next time. The thought that a pilot in an 'Uber' aircraft has somehow got an unfair advantage never even crosses my mind!
Am I picking up on a little subliminal message here in this thread that there are some pilots out there that still think we are at war??
I'm not wanting to put the cat amongst the pigeons here but its just an observation. I love the game and my goal every time I fly is to try and better myself and my flying abilities, not point the finger at game inaccuracies or some sort of mystical 'Uber' aircraft that manages to shoot me down!
Can't believe you lot have got me whinging like this, but I just had to answer this thread!

Dave S.

RocketDog
11-22-2004, 12:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mynameisroland:
If the allies were - as we assume better trained, equiped and more numerous how did the LW inflict such astounding losses on our airforces? much greater than they themselves experienced.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In short, they didn't. Getting OT, but the idea of the LW as some sort of super airforce is a bit of a myth. The LW fared well against poorly armed and prepared airforces at the beginning of WWII (1). But it was unable to defeat the RAF in the BoB and was then and later unable to develop any strategic capabilities (2). It managed quite well against the USSR as a tactical force in the early days of Eastern-front fighting, but began to fail when faced with more modern aircraft types - such as the various Yaks, LaGGs and Lavotchkins. In later years in the West it achieved some considerable success against unescorted day and night heavy bombers, but was swept from the daytime skies by the advent of long-range fighters. Of course, the LW produced a small number of high-scoring aces, but they mostly reflect the particular conditions encountered (poorly trained opponents and no limited tours of duty). The prospects for the average LW airman were grim at best.

Regards,

RocketDog.

1. An examination of the statistics show that LW losses were actually quite sobering during the early phases of WWII. As with all airforces of the time, they had seriously underestimated the attrition experienced during military operations.

2. The failure to develop strategic capabilities reflects muddled strategy and procurement processes in the LW.

IV_JG51_Prien
11-22-2004, 01:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> But it was unable to defeat the RAF in the BoB <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If good old Adolph had not decided it was better to send his bomber force to bomb London instead of continuing to plaster radar installations and Airfeilds then things could easily have gone a bit differently. Also don't forget that many of the LW pilots had gained valuable combat experience in the Spanish Civil War.

Further, it is to be said that the largest factor in the LW having to deal with dwindling supplies, poor materials etc. is to be thanked by the constant bombing that was crippling Germany's industrial output. WW2 was a very industrial war, and as the history of it shows to cripple the opponents industry is to crush his ability to fight. The Allies did not have this problem and were able to mass produce on a much greater scale.

Furthermore, just to close Hitler was just as instrumental in his own defeat as the allies were.

Sorry for the slight thread derailment http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

sunflower1
11-22-2004, 02:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by sunflower1:
Georgeo, INTP? INTJ? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I get either of those 50% myself :&gt; <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well out of 64 possibilities, narrowing it to two isn't totally cowardly, is it? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Mjollnir111675
11-22-2004, 05:25 PM
"LW having to deal with dwindling supplies, poor materials etc. is to be thanked by the constant bombing that was crippling Germany's industrial output"

Actually if you look at the german state of production you'll very quickly see that most of their armament industries actually went UP in production. Contrary to what the ami propaganda machine was putting out itself!!!

Ball bearing output went up(Scweinfurt),aircraft were being assembled(in different phases) by ppl on farms and in the country,Armor production went up especially fer the panzer 4 and panther series.
Oil and men were the prob.And one cant forget to include the fact that hitler and his upper echelon cronies had anal-cranium inversion!!That being THE biggest prob!!!

clint-ruin
11-22-2004, 05:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by sunflower1:
Well out of 64 possibilities, narrowing it to two isn't totally cowardly, is it? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The choices are fixed branches - so it's 16 total possibilites - still pretty good, given that this here (http://209.15.29.56/myersbriggs/personhome.htm) says INTP/INTJ are about 1% of the population :&gt;

Oi georgeo, what do you get when you fill this (http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes2.asp) thing out?

sunflower1
11-22-2004, 07:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by sunflower1:
Well out of 64 possibilities, narrowing it to two isn't totally cowardly, is it? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The choices are fixed branches - so it's 16 total possibilites - still pretty good, given that this http://209.15.29.56/myersbriggs/personhome.htm says INTP/INTJ are about 1% of the population :&gt;

Oi georgeo, what do you get when you fill http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes2.asp thing out? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Quite right, whoops. You have a J/P balance? M. Ruin?

Bearcat99
11-22-2004, 07:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mynameisroland:
I like this thread a lot and agree with it, there are pilots out there on line who - regardless of the plane they are in are deadly.

I also think that political/technological bias is unavoidable as it is symptomatic of most if not all of the records and we have from WW2. The russian planes in the game perform better than they did in reality this is due to the decision to make them perform as they were specified to whereas in WW2 quality of construction , materials ect took their toll - let alone the quality of the pilots.

I am glad this game is not programmed by an American team otherwise I fear that planes like the Mustang would be over moddeled. You just need to read pilots accounts , histories blah blah blah of different nations to see how superior they regarded their own planes over their enemies. Show me an American who does not think the P51 was the best prop fighter of all time ( well now they'll be a lot of Corsair believers too) Now for my country - Britain ; ) everybody thinks the Spitfire was the last word in piston engined perfection (although soon with the Tempests inclusion maybe that will change)

It is a good point made by Ant that LW aircraft seem inferior when viewed from an allied perspective - but when you realise the nummerical inferiority, lower octane fuel,lack of metals that can withstand high temperatures, poor quality replacement pilots ectera You have to question whether this accepted inferiority is the case is the case.

On the Eastern front in 1944 there were something like 13,000 Red Army Airforce planes ranged against 600 LW fighters. What seems to be overlooked is how magnificently the German army/airforce/navy performed in defeat. To understand the LW's huge scores It has to be man and machine as well as circumstances. I have read plenty of reports that make light of German aces kills and some that down right say they are falsified. If you look at the Battle of Britain already there are pilots like Molders and Galland who have scored 60 + kills yet still we justify these by saying how Germany had more targets therefore greater oppertunities ect yet the LW was nummerically superior during this period to the RAF and both sides flew a similar number of missions during the same timescale so the question of LW man - machine? superiority has to be raised.

If the allies were - as we assume better trained, equiped and more numerous how did the LW inflict such astounding losses on our airforces? much greater than they themselves experienced.

What reasonable explanation do we have for this phenommena? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not to hijack this thread at all but is this really neccessary? First off it isnt true. The P-51 was the most familiar American fighter but you assume A)That most Americans who even care about this sort of thing dont know their facts.....and by your Corsair comment B)That most of us have gleaned our understanding of WW2 aircraft from this sim... on both accounts you are wrong. You wont find any Americans here except the most uninformed making any kind of claims having "best""most" etc attatched to them in the context of American aircraft of WW2 except in the context of American Aircraft. It is too broad a spectrum to call any one plane the best unless you broke it down into several categories and sub categories.. ie..... high altitude fighter, bobmer escort fighter, fighter bomber etc... It amazes me how even in the most cogent, logical of threads some people always find a way to slip in their little anti American digs when it is totally uneccessary and a lame assumtion to boot.... and you know what they say when you assume...... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Of course yours wasnt the only such post http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif... it was just the one I latched on to.

clint-ruin
11-22-2004, 08:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by sunflower1:
Quite right, whoops. You have a J/P balance? M. Ruin? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Like a lot of psych tests they tend to try and get around its inherent uselessness by suggesting that you get tested at different times - preferably with no idea where the questions are going to lead. I've had this done 3 times now over the years as part of general workplace team management stuff [psych test gadget grip] and done it online a few times over the years as well. The more often it's done over time the more accurate it is supposed to get. I pretty much end up with INTP or J with very weak tendency one way or the other every time I've had it done.

The test I linked to gives you the strength of your tendency to one letter or another. Generally if you've got one letter coming up with less than 10% preference strength then that's pretty much well inside the error margin for this kind of static online test. The weaker preferences could go the other way [or stronger to your indicated preference] if the questions were worded differently, or at a different time.

You'll notice that a lot of workplaces tend to put these tests onto employees and not management itself .. amazingly when management types get tested there seems to be some kind of correlation between utterly sociopathic behaviour and people rising up the greasy pole. Who knew? :&gt;

KatanaSam
11-22-2004, 08:46 PM
I just wanted to add that there were many factors involved in the success or failure of WWII air combat that went beyond the aircraft and even the individual skill of the pilot. I think this quote of Japanese Ace Saburo Sakai says it well:

"Our strength was the individual skill of our pilots (i.e. how to fight one-on-one, and the marksmanship of the pilots - we didn't let our skills lapse, we kept practicing the same things over and over). That was the only strength of Japan in the war. Our weakness on the other hand was our group tactics. When you talk about features of a car or an airplane, they are just machines. They themselves don't fly. They don't try. It's the combination of pilot and machine. The pilot who can maximize the feature of the machine - that is the strong pilot. The good pilot...

I am confident that Japanese pilots were superior on a one-on-one basis. But the ability to work as a team both offensively and defensively that the Americans had was very impressive. Perhaps this comes from the team spirit and thinking they developed playing American football. This hit us particularly hard in the air engagements from the middle war onwards (teamwork and search patterns)."

My point? Who cares what plane is the 'best' at a particular thing or whose pilots were 'better'? In the end it just may not have mattered. Positive aircraft features would have been useless if not exploited and even then the combination of great pilot and great plane didn't equal guaranteed success.

Personally, I just love aircraft... period. And I appreciate the chance to capture some small bit of what it might have been like to experience them as they were, even if the experience isn't exactly the same.

KS

TAGERT.
11-22-2004, 10:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by IV_JG51_Prien:
If good old Adolph had not decided it was better to send his bomber force to bomb London instead of continuing to plaster radar installations and Airfeilds then things could easily have gone a bit differently. Also don't forget that many of the LW pilots had gained valuable combat experience in the Spanish Civil War.

Further, it is to be said that the largest factor in the LW having to deal with dwindling supplies, poor materials etc. is to be thanked by the constant bombing that was crippling Germany's industrial output. WW2 was a very industrial war, and as the history of it shows to cripple the opponents industry is to crush his ability to fight. The Allies did not have this problem and were able to mass produce on a much greater scale.

Furthermore, just to close Hitler was just as instrumental in his own defeat as the allies were.

Sorry for the slight thread derailment http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>IF.... On that note, IF I could train monkeys to fly out of my butt and drive cars I could take over the world.

LLv26_Morko
11-23-2004, 03:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by KatanaSam:
I just wanted to add that there were many factors involved in the success or failure of WWII air combat that went beyond the aircraft and even the individual skill of the pilot. I think this quote of Japanese Ace Saburo Sakai says it well:

_"Our strength was the individual skill of our pilots (i.e. how to fight one-on-one, and the marksmanship of the pilots - we didn't let our skills lapse, we kept practicing the same things over and over). That was the only strength of Japan in the war. Our weakness on the other hand was our group tactics. When you talk about features of a car or an airplane, they are just machines. They themselves don't fly. They don't try. It's the combination of pilot and machine. The pilot who can maximize the feature of the machine - that is the strong pilot. The good pilot...

I am confident that Japanese pilots were superior on a one-on-one basis. But the ability to work as a team both offensively and defensively that the Americans had was very impressive. Perhaps this comes from the team spirit and thinking they developed playing American football. This hit us particularly hard in the air engagements from the middle war onwards (teamwork and search patterns)."_

My point? Who cares what plane is the 'best' at a particular thing or whose pilots were 'better'? In the end it just may not have mattered. Positive aircraft features would have been useless if not exploited and even then the combination of great pilot and great plane didn't equal guaranteed success.

Personally, I just love aircraft... period. And I appreciate the chance to capture some small bit of what it might have been like to experience them as they were, even if the experience isn't exactly the same.

KS <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There arent no uberplanes ....
there are only good pilots and bad pilots!
It`s the man (or woman) not the machine!

georgeo76
11-23-2004, 10:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:
Oi georgeo, what do you get when you fill http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes2.asp thing out? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok, I took the test and got this:

Introverted: 67
Intuitive: 67
Thinking: 11
Judging: 22

I'm not really sure what this is supposed to mean. My first Major in College was Psychology, but I'm afraid I've never heard of this test.

mynameisroland
11-23-2004, 10:38 AM
Hi Bearcat,

Did you notice when you 'picked up on' my anti american post that i also mentioned how it is the same from a British perspective?

I dont mean to be anti american certainly i dont want to be picked up by people who lookut for anti american quotes.

Back to my thread Did you know Rocket Dog that the Luftwaffe achied a higher kill ratio than any other airforce and also had a proportionately lower casualty ratio
than other airforces. Using the early was as an example belies your lack of knowledge - for instance the Jagdgeshwaders on the western Europe front consisted of around 200 fighters yet inflicted heavy losses on both the RAF and US Army airforce.

The Luftwaffe had over one hundred pilots who scored over 100 kills. No other air force had even one pilot who came remotely near 100 kills. So how do you explain this?

The arguement that these were all achieved early war or on the eastern front is incorrect and inaccurate. Hans Joachim Marsielle scored 158 kills all against the RAF. The top scoring night fighter scored over 120 victories against bombers.

Also to get back to your reply Bearcat there are many people who post on this forum who undermine your comment that there are no Americans who believe American is best. Just take a look at how some posts always contain a reference as to how superlative the Mustang was. - every post -

rcocean
11-23-2004, 11:08 AM
The following US planes were the best:

1) P-51 - best long-range fighter

2) P-47 - best fighter over 25,000 ft
- best fighter-bomber

3) F4U-4 - Best naval carrier plane produced in significant numbers.

clint-ruin
11-23-2004, 03:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by georgeo76:
I'm not really sure what this is supposed to mean. My first Major in College was Psychology, but I'm afraid I've never heard of this test. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's absolutely loved by a certain style of management who get really into the whole human performance metrics deal - I've had to deal with several now. If you look up Myers Briggs or MTBI on google you'll see thousands of places offering to do a fairly similar test to the one you just took, for everyone in a company. Supposedly if everyone is tested, they can then be slotted together into teams that will work better together. At least, that's the plan. For some reason this seems to be popular in large organisations who have completely awful HR departments - it's a real sort of, I don't know, 1940s industrialised workforce sort of thing - positively medieval compared to actually getting out and knowing the people in your organisation.

In my experience - teams tend to interact in a lot more complicated ways than this tests for. It's more a guide to how a person sees his or her self than anything else :&gt;

Haukeye1
11-23-2004, 10:37 PM
One important item was left out, and that is when you quit blaming your losses on the sim design, cheat codes, idiot wingman, lucky enemies, et al, and start blaming yourself for your losses and trying to correct the mistakes you made to get you into a losing position, then, and only then will you really start improving. My two cents. No charge. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Haukeye

AFJ_Locust
11-24-2004, 01:18 AM
There is no Myth about the Ki84 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Bearcat99
11-24-2004, 06:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mynameisroland:
Hi Bearcat,

Did you notice when you 'picked up on' my anti american post that i also mentioned how it is the same from a British perspective?

I dont mean to be anti american certainly i dont want to be picked up by people who lookut for anti american quotes.

Back to my thread Did you know Rocket Dog that the Luftwaffe achied a higher kill ratio than any other airforce and also had a proportionately lower casualty ratio
than other airforces. Using the early was as an example belies your lack of knowledge - for instance the Jagdgeshwaders on the western Europe front consisted of around 200 fighters yet inflicted heavy losses on both the RAF and US Army airforce.

The Luftwaffe had over one hundred pilots who scored over 100 kills. No other air force had even one pilot who came remotely near 100 kills. So how do you explain this?

The arguement that these were all achieved early war or on the eastern front is incorrect and inaccurate. Hans Joachim Marsielle scored 158 kills all against the RAF. The top scoring night fighter scored over 120 victories against bombers.

Also to get back to your reply Bearcat there are many people who post on this forum who undermine your comment that there are no Americans who believe American is best. Just take a look at how some posts always contain a reference as to how superlative the Mustang was. - every post - <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course there are going to be some. Just as there will always be some who insist that German engineering would have won the war and the Spitfire saved the day...... but overall your statement was vewry general and an oversimlification... INHO of course.... but point taken.

sunflower1
11-24-2004, 09:44 AM
Clint-ruin has excellent points on the Myers-Briggs. Most people who encounter it have this experience with it and I quite agree that it tells you most about how a person sees themselves, if they have a shred of self awareness.

In less profane hands than HR departments, it is simply the 20th century's psych academy working on Plato's recognition of the 4 temperement types. The most interesting discussion I've seen is how truly great novelists write characters that are quite easily identifiable in their typology.

This score ranking varies from the one in the book, but assuming a high score indicates the strength of the trait:

I missed an important one guessing yours, I guessed that you primarily agree with the statement that it is better to be considered tough-minded than kind-hearted. You're an INFP, also a very rare type.

Introverted, not in the sense of shy, but in the sense that you seek few people or time alone to recharge, but your score is fairly balanced.

Intuitive, in that you are capable of making sense of things without having the connections drawn for you. The opposite here is "sensing." Performers, soldiers and athletes tend to be strong S's.

Thinking, in that you operate more often based upon judgements arising from emotional conditions than reasoning about situations with a score of 11.

Judging, you are not judging of situations in the moment, you are a P, a prober. It takes a certain amount of information to fall into place before you're ready to act, an amount that is greater than most.

If I remember correctly, an INFP's informal title is "crusader."

I am in INTP, "architect."

My guess was a cheat in several respects. I's dominate on the internet and S's are outside, so that makes things easier.

Your clear formulation and precision in language is a trait of NT's so I went for the T.

The most clearly practical thing about Myers-Briggs is that marriages between strong J's and strong P's are fraught with conflict. The data is overwhelming.

Henry_Shrapnel
11-26-2004, 01:35 AM
I agree with most of what you say Georgeo76 however certain aircraft in this game clearly have an unfair advantage over other aircraft. If you take two players of nearly equal playing skill and give one a later period plane model the player with the higher tech plane model will win nearly every time. Late period aircraft, which were not even used in a particular geographic region of the war, should not be used in a game against lower technology aircraft that actually were used in that region.
Just because the host gives players the option to cheat in a game by providing fantasy aircraft that were not yet available in that time period it doesn't mean it is honorable for them to do so.

tHeBaLrOgRoCkS
12-05-2004, 04:39 AM
*bump*

Saburo_0
12-05-2004, 06:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by georgeo76:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:
Oi georgeo, what do you get when you fill http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes2.asp thing out? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok, I took the test and got this:

Introverted: 67
Intuitive: 67
Thinking: 11
Judging: 22

I'm not really sure what this is supposed to mean. My first Major in College was Psychology, but I'm afraid I've never heard of this test. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

INTJ link: http://www.personalitypage.com/INTJ.html

Your a Scientist Gerogeo!

Very well done post btw.

I usually come out as an INFP tho i find recent experiences can effect the way I answer some of the questions.
ex. if i dont have to i rarely rush to pick up the phone, but at work i feel more obligated to do so than most of my co-workers--somebodies gotta do it after all.

Bad HR dept like Myers Briggs because they are too lazy & don't have the skills to really understand their people. But then again atleast they're trying I guess. Our company doesn't even have a proper HR dept. (it's Korean owned & run-different culture which is interesting sometimes.)

Blackdog5555
12-05-2004, 11:11 PM
I was not there, but Jimmy Thatch was. (if you dont know who he was, then don't read on, lol). He complained openly that the F4F was so bad it was was defeating the moral of his flyers. He stated that his successes with the plane was due to poor marksmanship and tactical errors by the enemy.
The human factor was apparently more important than plane performance in his experience.Also, C. Chennault did say that he could beat the japanese if he was flying their planes against his.
Another personal point, I prefer flying the old planes over the new. I like the biplanes the best. Of couse i have to fly offline because very few like the early years in HL. But, I do wish FM were (more)accurate. PF does a great/excellant job but for us purist bla bla bla. (The Zero should turn like the I-153, (at 170mph) one example. Cant have a good China Campaign if the I- 153s kick the **** out of the Zeros... Just my opinion.

Blackdog5555
12-05-2004, 11:17 PM
Yes Zeros!..1940. also the the ki27 A5M and Oscars. the Zero could turn inside the I-153, amazing! Does anyone have good data on the turning speed/time in degrees per sec.// and turning radius at speed for the I-153? love that plane but i think its FM is welll...i wont say.

Saburo_0
12-06-2004, 09:43 AM
Blackdog,

:FI:Snoopbaron runs a biplane map on his server fairly often. Usually on Sundays. You night drop by & give it a try.
Or give him a hollar at the Fighting Irish website. http://www.fighting-irish.org/

S!
Saburo_0
AKA :FI: Up-N-at-'em