PDA

View Full Version : I fail to see the logic



Daiichidoku
05-03-2007, 03:07 PM
in this

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/Daiichidoku/lagg3rd.jpg


what happened to much-touted "accuracy"?

ok, so they figured its a complete dog...so why not make it so?

so what if the mid war La5 is faster without having to upgrade lagg3rd?

if it was a dog, then its a dog, if they didnt want to have such a dog in the house, then why let it in the first place?

because its so noteworthy as a 46 type? and thats the point to the DVD being made anyhow (so STFU and count your lucky stars?), right? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

but if they found it it would be a dog in 46...



sorry...but if i was making a US/British "46", and with the original intention that it would be specifically for the UK ONLY market, for example... perhaps instead of the useless P-59 Airacomet or P.1061, or even early mk Meteor, and didnt want it to be quite SO underpowered/unsuitable a vehicle....wouldnt YOU rather have the effort made to be put into say, a Russian jet/rocket contemporary, making it more interesting, and give more possibilities for fun eastvswest "what ifs"?

why couldnt they do the same? instead of this thing, maybe a nice little Vampire? Ryan Fireball?....oh, ok, you say the lagg3rd was easier to make cause you use a good portion of the original Lagg3 model? then how about a Mustang with wingtip Ramjets? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif



[/ENDRANT]

JG53Frankyboy
05-03-2007, 03:13 PM
rice..................china...............

XyZspineZyX
05-03-2007, 03:26 PM
sigh....


the term "1946" is specifically used to illustrate a non-historical event: the continuation of hostilities resulting from the world wide events we call World War two, into a timeframe in which those vents were not really fought.

yes?

OK. Now with that background, you are now pigeon-holing the real aircraft as developed outside of hostilities commencing in the Hsitorical Second World War

Do you see that you are pushing a square block into a round hole here?

You are requiring that real world airframe and powerplant development be observed in the 1946 scenario. You are insisting that the REAL development of the aircraft, during peacetime, is what the "what-if" development of the aircraft is modelled as.

Let me put it another way:

Let us assume that WWII ended in 1940, and the USA decided to keep developing fighter planes anyway, OK? Fine

By your logic, the P-51D can never have been made, in my example, because the USA would never have taken those steps to develop an aircraft

The hole in your logic is that the real-life timeframe of aircraft development needs to dovetail with the fantasy 1946 Russo-Germanic conflict in Il2 1946

It does not. The assumption has been made that naturally, development of aircraft is not restricted to it's historical rate: The USSR is still at war in this scenario. Consider the non-historical development of planes like the Me 262 that also appear in 1946

People need to divorce their concept of the 1946 scenario from real-world events. the entire thing is fantasy, not just the dates: the conflict, the politics, the technological developments, and the countries involved. Stop palcing real 1946 templates over the Il2 1946 timeline. Do not become outraged that a plane isn't it's historical version in Il2 1946, it makes no sense. The year is assumed to be the only change, and it is not: these events never happened, which is itself a fantasy. It is equally fantastic to require this airplane you are ranting about to conform to it's real world specs, when in the 1946 scenario, the USSR is still fighting and seeking to destroy an active enemy that is itself making technological leaps

Dislike the 1946 scenario all you like, but understand that you can't just drop the background of war into the real-world events of 1946. It doesn't make sense to do it: the world didn't "halt"

Klemm.co
05-03-2007, 03:39 PM
To sum it up: Fantasy Addon. But why of all planes possible did they have to chose the Lagg3? (and some other ones, but they are not the matter here)
Maybe there were no other planes available, that were developed thus far in 1946-47 in the real world, i.e. basically all of the russian planes in that period (up to but not inluding the MiG-15) sucked. So why not, if there isnt really anything reasonable available at all, and its all fantasy anyway, just turn some more Russian *rap-planes über.
Would really have liked to see the more reasonable Ta-183 Design III and Me-262 HG-III (y'know, the one with the cockpit in the tail).
[RANT OFF]

XyZspineZyX
05-03-2007, 03:41 PM
They picked that plane because somebody on the dev team liked it enough to back the project and get others on board with modelling the plane.

LStarosta
05-03-2007, 03:42 PM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
in this

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/Daiichidoku/lagg3rd.jpg


what happened to much-touted "accuracy"?

ok, so they figured its a complete dog...so why not make it so?

so what if the mid war La5 is faster without having to upgrade lagg3rd?

if it was a dog, then its a dog, if they didnt want to have such a dog in the house, then why let it in the first place?

because its so noteworthy as a 46 type? and thats the point to the DVD being made anyhow (so STFU and count your lucky stars?), right? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

but if they found it it would be a dog in 46...



sorry...but if i was making a US/British "46", and with the original intention that it would be specifically for the UK ONLY market, for example... perhaps instead of the useless P-59 Airacomet or P.1061, or even early mk Meteor, and didnt want it to be quite SO underpowered/unsuitable a vehicle....wouldnt YOU rather have the effort made to be put into say, a Russian jet/rocket contemporary, making it more interesting, and give more possibilities for fun eastvswest "what ifs"?

why couldnt they do the same? instead of this thing, maybe a nice little Vampire? Ryan Fireball?....oh, ok, you say the lagg3rd was easier to make cause you use a good portion of the original Lagg3 model? then how about a Mustang with wingtip Ramjets? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif



[/ENDRANT]


Yeah, what do you think they did to the rest of the VVS a/c?

Do you really think the I-185 was the worldbeater it is in the game?

Or the La-7 performing the way it does despite empirical data that shows the in-game La-7 exhibits performance figures closer to those of the real life La-9.

Or the LaGG-3 3's durability despite being referred to as a varnished flying coffin by those who flew it.


I seriously doubt these fantasy planes are the only airplanes that show the developers' "artistic license".

Treetop64
05-03-2007, 04:04 PM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
in this

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/Daiichidoku/lagg3rd.jpg


what happened to much-touted "accuracy"?

ok, so they figured its a complete dog...so why not make it so?

so what if the mid war La5 is faster without having to upgrade lagg3rd?

if it was a dog, then its a dog, if they didnt want to have such a dog in the house, then why let it in the first place?

because its so noteworthy as a 46 type? and thats the point to the DVD being made anyhow (so STFU and count your lucky stars?), right? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

but if they found it it would be a dog in 46...



sorry...but if i was making a US/British "46", and with the original intention that it would be specifically for the UK ONLY market, for example... perhaps instead of the useless P-59 Airacomet or P.1061, or even early mk Meteor, and didnt want it to be quite SO underpowered/unsuitable a vehicle....wouldnt YOU rather have the effort made to be put into say, a Russian jet/rocket contemporary, making it more interesting, and give more possibilities for fun eastvswest "what ifs"?

why couldnt they do the same? instead of this thing, maybe a nice little Vampire? Ryan Fireball?....oh, ok, you say the lagg3rd was easier to make cause you use a good portion of the original Lagg3 model? then how about a Mustang with wingtip Ramjets? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif



[/ENDRANT]

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

Gotta admit. With Daiichidoku 100% on this one. Reading that does make one raise an eyebrow. I'm sure Oleg got a few emails...

Making the tail section of the Ta-183 stronger is one thing, (after all, what would be the point of flying the thing at all if it would just tear itself apart after a few minutes flight?), but turning this Volkwagen into a Porsche simply for the sake of making it faster is just plain stupid.

XyZspineZyX
05-03-2007, 04:08 PM
take the blinders off, people!

What is so hard to "get"?

In their 1946 scenario, the USSR addressed and improved certain things on the aircraft

you are insisting that real-world development schedules and events in technology breakthrough and application are adhered to in this fantasy scenario. You fail to see the logic because your OWN logic is fatally flawed on the subject

Treetop64
05-03-2007, 04:23 PM
I don't think so...

XyZspineZyX
05-03-2007, 04:43 PM
Why? Tell me why the plane's development would be the same regardless of whether or not the Russo-Germanic 1946 scenario existed or not.

You are forcing a real-life timetable on the fanatsy "what if the war (and by association, events) happened a different way" development

The two cannot co-exist and make sense. Your logic is flawed.

I don't care for the 1946 stuff myself, but it is not "illogical" in the slightest to have the aircraft's performance "corrected" by their designers and have shortcomings and problems addressed, had they really had to develop and improve planes during this fantasy 1946 war

It is illogical to force the plane into it's real-life and therefore static and set-in-stone development, while simultaneously asking me to accept the 1946 scenario. Then the question arises: why did the Soviets put this awful plane into production? It must offer an advantage to be of worth.

It's not because of the simple fact it's "fantasy-land", it's becasue they simulated the further development and improvement of the aircraft- and other planes, too

Look at the V tailed Me262 and the Lerche, then tell me that they are not assuming that corrections to problems with thses 1946 aircraft were assumed and reflected in the 1946 add-on. Goodness, this is not news, this has been hashed and re-hashed: the 1946 scenario assumes some things that didn't really happen DID happen- one of those things is that aircraft development turned out a little different due to the continuation of the war


You can't shove real-life development into the situation. You're pushing round blocks into square holes

Daiichidoku
05-03-2007, 05:09 PM
youre kinda missing the point BBB

BTW...i LOVE 46 and "what if" stuff, whether in game or reading/daydream materiel

i have NO idea how you gathered that i dont like 46...care to explain?

XyZspineZyX
05-03-2007, 05:21 PM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
youre kinda missing the point BBB

BTW...i LOVE 46 and "what if" stuff, whether in game or reading/daydream materiel

i have NO idea how you gathered that i dont like 46...care to explain?

WTF? "care to explain"? You're sticking up for your forum cred, and you're gonna put me in my place now? You're really challenging me?

You say: "what happened to much-touted "accuracy"? " And i reply that the situation never happened, and you're demanding historical accuracy for things that are fantasy. Your standpoint is purely paradoxical because you want " much-touted "accuracy" " for planes that never flew in war in 1946, which is what the add-on is about, but you want agreement not discussion concerning it!

I'm not getting called to heel by you or anyone else. I'd love to discuss but since you're more intersted in demanding things and being self-righteous, you can piss off

Brain32
05-03-2007, 05:27 PM
After Lerche I don't care, we might have F-19 or Mig-31 Firefox as far as I am concerned, heck I want those two babies http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Korolov1986
05-03-2007, 05:32 PM
You guys are all forgetting that the LaGG-3RD isn't much more than a LaGG-3 with a jet engine.

It sucks.

FE_pilot
05-03-2007, 05:35 PM
All planes form the 1946 expansion are all fast except the Lagg3rd rocket fighter. At ground level it will not go very fast. Sometimes i can catch up to it with my Me-109 E4.

VW-IceFire
05-03-2007, 05:53 PM
As much as I understand the point...have any of you actually flown the LaGG-3RD? Even if it does have a boost in performance it will never reach its top speed before the sun goes down assuming that you set out at dawn http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Abysmal aircraft!

heywooood
05-03-2007, 06:00 PM
FWIW - Nationalism is in all of us - there is no denying it.

What makes anyone think it can be put aside for the purpose of a flight sim or any other reason?

Oleg has been accused of bias by more than one of us and at cross purposes if we are all correct.

We can't all be right - but we can all expect our nationalism to lead us to believe our country's planes are not fairly represented...thats our national pride and heritage fostered by the air we breath and lives we live in our respective countries.

This is just a flight sim - it is going to mirror the sentiments of its creators and developers, they all do.

As a representation of reality and not reality itself - it can be made to perform in any way its mfg sees fit.

You want to know how these planes flew and what their strengths and weaknesses were - you ask the pilots that flew them...ofcourse around here that idea is spurned and ridiculed - look at the data! they say.

Data can be interpreted anyway you like - it can be skewed and skewered just as a real life combat pilots own words can be twisted and discounted as nationalistic pride and propaganda.

All you are left with is what you started with...a very nice game thats fun to play and has provided hours of distraction...both in the game and here in discussion.

Treetop64
05-03-2007, 10:06 PM
Originally posted by BBB462cid:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
youre kinda missing the point BBB

BTW...i LOVE 46 and "what if" stuff, whether in game or reading/daydream materiel

i have NO idea how you gathered that i dont like 46...care to explain?

WTF? "care to explain"? You're sticking up for your forum cred, and you're gonna put me in my place now? You're really challenging me?

You say: "what happened to much-touted "accuracy"? " And i reply that the situation never happened, and you're demanding historical accuracy for things that are fantasy. Your standpoint is purely paradoxical because you want " much-touted "accuracy" " for planes that never flew in war in 1946, which is what the add-on is about, but you want agreement not discussion concerning it!

I'm not getting called to heel by you or anyone else. I'd love to discuss but since you're more intersted in demanding things and being self-righteous, you can piss off </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bro, I certainly don't want to turn this into a war.

If, using "modern calculations", the LaGG-3RD would have turned out to be a complete POS then perhaps it should be made that way in the sim. Now 1C obviously took some liberties in modifying the speed of the aircraft, perhaps to at least make it worth flying at all if it's going to be in the sim. Even considering that, in the sim the LaGG-3RD ain't much anyway as far as the jet roster is concerned. Indeed, in-game it's merely a match for some of the decent piston fighters. That's not a complaint, by the way.

However, when first read their summary reads like "According to our math the engine specified to be installed would have produced highly insuffiecient power, and it's actual speed would not have been anywhere close to its design specification. So, when we modelled this aircraft we simply increased the engine power just so it could be a little faster than a contemporary piston fighter". To me that sounds like they didn't like how this plane would have actually performed so they simply took the liberty of making it better than it really was. To some that may raise an eyebrow.

Makes one wonder, then, what liberties were taken to make some of the American fighters the pigs they were in previous versions of the game. These were machines that fought in real fights, obviously, and their actual performances speak for themselves. What about the in-game Ju-88, one of the worst performing aircraft in the sim. In-game it is more delicate and has much lower survivability than even the Heinkel 111 (IRL the opposite was true).

But I digress...

BBB, I understand your point and see where you are coming from, and I won't argue with that. However, I only stated that, from my interpretation, they artificially boosted the performance of the LaGG-3RD simply because they realized the actual design would have yeilded performance that was less than desireable. Based on their reputation of honorably sticking rigidly - as much as the game's engine would allow - to realism and aircraft performances, that struck me as sort of cheap.

DKoor
05-03-2007, 10:10 PM
You wanna me to say it?
They have double standards.
There.

Derated Öst front 190 anyone?

Nothing new, move along http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Daiichidoku
05-03-2007, 10:31 PM
ninja edit


BBB

your time at the Zoo is making you jumpy.
unclench dude.



oh, and what Treetop said; he got most of what i said, inverse to you

LEXX_Luthor
05-03-2007, 10:45 PM
Gotta admit, great call here BBB!

LaGG-3RD is close to the P-59 AiraKomet of the 1946 game. Oleg pumped it up just like Microsoft would have to pump up the P-59 to be useful in the game under a 1946 Microsoft West Euro scenario (Ussian gamers whine here, claiming P-59 as test flown would have won the war if only allowed to).

1946 assumes the designers would have improved the engine over time, not simply "improved the speed" as some are claiming at this gamer webboard. Personally, I'd rather see the ramjet boosted La-7PVRD, as it flew very well and showed astounding performance, but with equally astounding weight and drag penalty when the ramjets were not operating. La7PVRD was not needed in the real world 1945, but could have been needed and mass produced in later 1945 of the 1946 scenario. That, I think, would be far more useful in-game than the rocket boosted La and Yak, although I do find the rocket Yak interesting from a historical perspective as regards the test pilot, but we have rather silly hardcore computer gamers here, with no interest in history, just flight models, so I won't discuss it here.

AKA_TAGERT
05-03-2007, 10:49 PM
Pooor Nancy

Treetop64
05-03-2007, 11:03 PM
Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
...but we have rather silly hardcore computer gamers here, with no interest in history, just flight models, so I won't discuss it here.

No need to make it personal, Luthor. What do you know of someone's else interest in anything.

You can make a point without resorting to such tactics.

Moreover, you make ill-advised assumptions on someones else's level of interest for history, while in the same breath elaborating on in-game examples in a hypothetical, alternate history scenario.

LEXX_Luthor
05-03-2007, 11:38 PM
TreeTop (last page)::
but turning this Volkwagen into a Porsche simply for the sake of making it faster is just plain stupid.
Well, we do look silly having to toss out slogans like "Volkwagen," correctly spelled slogans like "Porsche," and making things sound personal like "stupid." If you would like to talk about simulation of history for the enjoyment of the paying customers, rather than simple re-enactment, we can talk. I'm not so bad. Take a chance. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

For example -- what is the date the game gives for this "fast" LaGG jet? 1944? 1945? I would hope not 1943. No matter, those interested in history enough to experiment with history can research and then decide/guess their own dates -- I always said, ignore the dates given in the game, find your own elsewhere.

True, I'd enjoy simming the original designed "slow" version for hysterical correct purposes, but apparently only the "fast" version would be useful in the game. Even then, I am not interested in the LaGG jet in any event, but others may be, particularly in Russia. If we "feel" Biased, we can still send an Emil to a western developer like, say, Microsoft, and ask for a Lend Leace P-59.

DKoor
05-03-2007, 11:58 PM
I'd trade all jet LaGG's, LA's, He-162's Komets and whatnot for Kate & Avenger pit. Strange course of events denied us Hs-129 pit too.
Am I being titor here?
I know, but I can't help myself.

Treetop64
05-04-2007, 12:07 AM
Bro. Last I checked, you weren't my english instructor, Mr. "Lend Leace". You actually take yourself so serious to point out spelling errors on an internet gaming forum?

Second, I'm not about to qualify myself for someone who feels they have the need to be patronizing in tone with their invite to a discussion and with their questions. Thanks, but no thanks.

LEXX_Luthor
05-04-2007, 12:22 AM
Well sis, last I checked, you are free to leave the thread, or the board, if you are taking a computer game so seriously you toss out silly slogans. Butt, now that you axed...

During pre-releace screenshots of AEP, the Moscow Bureau's P-51Dora cockpit had a handle or panel label with the spelling CANOPY RELEACE or something. The Ussian gamers threw a temper tampon on the board almost as bad as when the Blue players saw pre-releace screenshots of TB-3/I-16 Svenyo or "stack," thinking it was some 1946 Russian Thing -- they never saw it before, and they Panicked on the board. Anyways, that's how we spell things now. Bear asked me once long ago why I spell like that, and I never answered him. There we go.

Badsight-
05-04-2007, 02:31 AM
Originally posted by LStarosta:
Or the La-7 performing the way it does despite empirical data that shows the in-game La-7 exhibits performance figures closer to those of the real life La-9. while i sympathise with anyone who finds I-185's unbelieveable , the fact is some things the La-7 could do were better than the perfomance posted by the La-9

Badsight-
05-04-2007, 02:34 AM
Originally posted by BBB462cid:
take the blinders off, people!

What is so hard to "get"?
people like you - we had 3 years of unbending historical accuracy proof requirements for changes to be made - then they turn around & game the game

there is sticking up for what is right , and there is sucking up to what is liked

despite planes i like in FB getting hindered by the former , its what ive always preferred

DKoor
05-04-2007, 03:07 AM
Originally posted by Badsight-:
then they turn around & game the game At least that's what is obvious. But I still have a hard time to believe it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

MEGILE
05-04-2007, 03:28 AM
Originally posted by BBB462cid:

I'm not getting called to heel by you or anyone else. I'd love to discuss but since you're more intersted in demanding things and being self-righteous, you can piss off

ROFL

DAII, you win this thread.

MEGILE
05-04-2007, 03:34 AM
Originally posted by Badsight-:

we had 3 years of unbending historical accuracy proof requirements for changes to be made - then they turn around & game the game

Good point Badsight... maybe the best commentary on 46 thus far.

Never the less '46 is a fantasy addon, and 1c are free to fantasize about aircraft performance.

It is however, a stark contrast to the previous Maddox rules of modelling ie. 100% proofs.
Enough of a contrast for SOME people to question Oleg's integrity.

Not me though, I like the jets http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

XyZspineZyX
05-04-2007, 04:18 AM
Originally posted by Badsight-:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BBB462cid:
take the blinders off, people!

What is so hard to "get"?
people like you - we had 3 years of unbending historical accuracy proof requirements for changes to be made - then they turn around & game the game

there is sticking up for what is right , and there is sucking up to what is liked

despite planes i like in FB getting hindered by the former , its what ive always preferred </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pardon me a moment Badsight

Did you really just allude to ME as being the problem, but then use the state of the sim to illustrate why?

It may interest you to learn that I do not make the sim

if you want to make a comment about me being anything, do it

If you want to make a comment about how the game is, do it

But don't ask me to sit here while you use BS to try and tell me why I'm wrong and say nothing about it

You're using ME as the reason the sim is like it is

For your information, if the planes in 46 "game the game", you don't have to allow them in your planeset. The 46 planes don;t change the other content. But still you suggest that you want "historical accuracy" and still prattle on about the 1946 planes being X Y or Z- you want historical accuracy in a thing which never existed.

Now maybe to you this seems logical, but to me it seems like raving lunacy. In either case, stop blaming "people like me" for the sim. i didn;t make the damned thing, as you know very well. perhaps you've forgotten that I don't just let people get away with that type of nonsense without explaining why it's bull? You need to get up many hours earlier in the day before you can get that hogwash past me. If you have a point, make it. If not, put a sock in it

XyZspineZyX
05-04-2007, 04:24 AM
Originally posted by Treetop64:

If, using "modern calculations", the LaGG-3RD would have turned out to be a complete POS then perhaps it should be made that way in the sim. Now 1C obviously took some liberties in modifying the speed of the aircraft, perhaps to at least make it worth flying at all if it's going to be in the sim. Even considering that, in the sim the LaGG-3RD ain't much anyway as far as the jet roster is concerned. Indeed, in-game it's merely a match for some of the decent piston fighters. That's not a complaint, by the way.

However, when first read their summary reads like "According to our math the engine specified to be installed would have produced highly insuffiecient power, and it's actual speed would not have been anywhere close to its design specification. So, when we modelled this aircraft we simply increased the engine power just so it could be a little faster than a contemporary piston fighter". To me that sounds like they didn't like how this plane would have actually performed so they simply took the liberty of making it better than it really was. To some that may raise an eyebrow.



If the designers of this aircraft didn;t want to get thrown in prison or get summarily executed for under-performaing fighters during wartime (of which there are certain and documented hostorical examples), they would have very certainly attempted to do just that: increase the engine power, yes?

"Modern calculations" aside, they would have test flown the aircraft in WWII had it continued, yes?

They would have found it underperforming, yes?

They would have considered their hides worth saving, yes?

Well, the logical conclusion is...they would have done...what...to the engine and the plane's performance..???

But the "historical accuracy takes precedence in a 'what-if' sceanrio" camp will not accpet that. No matter why the plane is like it is, it MUST be arbotrary, because after all, the plane didn;t do that in real life- sidestepping the small problem that WWII didn't go into 1946- the whole thing is un-historical

Another point:

Bf 109Z. How much did that plane ruin the sim? How badly has the Lerche skewed things?

Not at all- if you don;t insist on using them in historical scenarios http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif I can put F4Us on Ford Island on Dec 7th 1941, and I can make FW190s fly for the USA in 1941

You can do all sorts of wacky nonsensical and unhistorical things with the sim, not just with 1946

It is your choice. Use the LAGG 3RD if you want to- or don't. It doesn't do a thing if you don't use it. Remember when we were using Yaks as Spitfires? How historical was that, of this community? We chose to do it.

But now there is no choice to not use the LAGG 3RD? And this thread is supposedly about logic??

Houston, we have a problem!

Badsight-
05-04-2007, 05:20 AM
Originally posted by BBB462cid:
Pardon me a moment Badsight nah - you can waffle on & on trying to defend the change of direction the sim took , please go get stuffed if your going too tho

you (OM & 1C) cant be that adament for that long a period of time over issues that were that minor

its called bloody-mindedness

either stick to the mentality or dont do it in the first place

btw , wtf is with the "i didnt make the game" crying ??!?! - its the looser fanboy defense when its obvious how the game changed thats annoying . you might not remember the direction & changes FB has made in its history . . . . . . or the stands taken on the big issues . . . . . . or the defense made by OM & 1C against critisicm's of IL2
but others tho dont have such short memorys

Badsight-
05-04-2007, 05:26 AM
Originally posted by Megile:
It is however, a stark contrast to the previous Maddox rules of modelling ie. 100% proofs.
Enough of a contrast for SOME people to question Oleg's integrity.

Not me though, I like the jets http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif i LOVE the jets of 46 , 46 suits me something wicked

but they could have "bent" a little & added high interest , but low historical data planes like the Pe-8 & Hs-129 for FB v1.0 if they were going to open the floodgates later

not to mention a certian freakin bar


or is that just Badsight being silly . . . . .

XyZspineZyX
05-04-2007, 05:56 AM
Originally posted by Badsight-:
nah - you can waffle on & on trying to defend the change of direction the sim took , please go get stuffed if your going too tho


I'm defending the direction the sim took? Where? I didn't bash the sim, so I'm defending? read where I posted "I don't care for the 46 stuff"

But you won't. All you do is take bits and pieces from here and there and stitich them together. You're like the guy who does sound bites on the news- just use what you like, discard the rest, and don't actually address the point. You coward. Instead of actually making a point, you make this BS up. Nice job.


Originally posted by Badsight-:
you (OM & 1C) cant be that adament for that long a period of time over issues that were that minor


What in the holy hell does THAT mean?


Originally posted by Badsight-:
its called bloody-mindedness


You realise that by this time you have both acheived complete incomprehensibility, and total insanity. What the hell are you talking about? Do you even know what words mean? What information are you failing to communicate here?


Originally posted by Badsight-:
either stick to the mentality or dont do it in the first place


You know very well that I take a standpoint and stay with it. This is BS. Come back when you aren't drunk


Originally posted by Badsight-:
btw , wtf is with the "i didnt make the game" crying ??!?!


You still insist on saying things like "it's people like me". In this very post of yours I'm quoting, you AGAIN lump me into the crowd that makes the sim. I don't make the sim, Badsight. if you want to put forth the idea that I am not making sesne with that statement, you really need to stop posting things like "you (OM & 1C) cant be that adament for that long a period of time over issues that were that minor". if you don't understand that by doing things like this, you are putting me in the camp of folks that have say on how the sim is made, call for nurse for more meds, you nutjob. is your short-term memory really that bad, is it the drugs you're on, or are you just that dumb that you don't know what you're saying? Please let me know!



Originally posted by Badsight-:
- its the looser fanboy defense when its obvious how the game changed thats annoying



If you'd stop saying I had something to do with the direction the game took, I wouldn't have to remind you I didn't. But you keep saying things like "you and 1C" to me. You poor slob, you don't even know what you post. Don't make me quote your posts more, Badsight. You can find them yourself.


Originally posted by Badsight-:
. you might not remember the direction & changes FB has made in its history . . . . . . or the stands taken on the big issues . . . . . . or the defense made by OM & 1C against critisicm's of IL2

Personal agenda, much? Badsight, all your arguments are crudely skewed by you to bring the discussion around to what you want to talk about. This isn't about the history of the sim, how things got defended, how chnages were made or why, or who's being elected Mayor of Candyland, no matter HOW much you want them to be about those things

It's about the logic of planes like the LAGG 3RD and how they are portrayed in the sim. I'll try to explain to you again:

The planes aren't modelled to real-world accuracy and then put in a 1946 scenario. They are modelled TO the 1946 scenario. Use that cold hard lump under your hat for something besides a hammer for a change!


Originally posted by Badsight-:
but others tho dont have such short memorys



Bogus! What a cop-out. You of all people should not talk about memory Badsight. If you want to talk about memory so much, try putting a little context into your own dim recollections. Stop changing the subject, and stop putting words in people's mouths

The subject is the logic behind the LAGG 3RD. And that's all. You want to ramble on about how "people like me" are the problem with the game, and how "you (OM & 1C) cant be that adament for that long a period ", you take it to your own thread and bang on about it. Don't you equate me with he sim developers, and don't you put your perceived shortcomings of the sim on MY shoulders you arrogant imbecile. I'll thank you to keep your trap shut, in the interest of attracting less flies, unless of course you'd like to embarrass yourself further with your flights of fancy and meandering BS. And by the way, could you actually address a point I've made once in your life?

alert_1
05-04-2007, 06:04 AM
It's completely strange and ridiculous that those "soviet jet wonder" all were using RD10/20 engines which was nothing else then captured German BMW003/Jumo 004 jet engines but soviet ubermensch quickly overcome the problems with these engines and put tehm pomptly in their woden wonders to defeat bloody fascist http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

LStarosta
05-04-2007, 06:15 AM
Lexx, I am disgusted by your use of racial/national slurs. "Ussian" is offensive. We are AMERICANS. To deny that is no worse than calling someone a n***y h***ed h*. Stop perpetuating the hate.

Badsight-
05-04-2007, 06:21 AM
Originally posted by BBB462cid:
bla bla bla gawd you think highly of yerself , crimea river ffs

you whine over peeps who have negative opinion with this game constantly - **news flash** : its nowhere near perfect - in some things its glaring

& with 46 its also inconsistent

MEGILE
05-04-2007, 06:29 AM
lol teh intaweb debate.

joeap
05-04-2007, 06:38 AM
Originally posted by Megile:
lol teh intaweb debate.

Just waiting til I read or watch on the news, on the web or elsewhere

"Man found dead of heart attack/ stroke in front of computer screen" and on the screen will be this forum, or any one of a half dozen forums I've seen these arguments happen. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif

Daiichidoku
05-04-2007, 08:52 AM
sigh

Lexxx, you said:
"LaGG-3RD is close to the P-59 AiraKomet of the 1946 game. Oleg pumped it up just like Microsoft would have to pump up the P-59 to be useful in the game under a 1946 Microsoft West Euro scenario (Ussian gamers whine here, claiming P-59 as test flown would have won the war if only allowed to)."

did yo uread my FIRST post thouroughly?
" but if i was making a US/British "46", and with the original intention that it would be specifically for the UK ONLY market, for example... perhaps instead of the useless P-59 Airacomet or P.1061, or even early mk Meteor, and didnt want it to be quite SO underpowered/unsuitable a vehicle....wouldnt YOU rather have the effort made to be put into say, a Russian jet/rocket contemporary, making it more interesting, and give more possibilities for fun eastvswest "what ifs"?"

i would disagree with this policy also, and say that a yak 15 or mig 9, (or even that me 262 clone Stalin nixed) would be a better choice than useless p 59

should MS have pursued "accuracy" in CFS to the extent of 1C, then the 59 would indeed suck ballz
and thats vexing, that 1C abandons accuracy in this case



BBB

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

ytou come in here and miss the point (initially), and then make a value judgement on me for no reason....then get bent when i ask you why (and STILL have not given an answer, aside from some obfusication

the gold though, is watching you freak cuz Badsight (whom i rarely agree with) hinted at a judgement about YOU (gasp!)

goose n gander etc

i know there is much strain on fanbois round here, given the plethora of negative comments that can be said of the game (that wwe ALL play and enjoy, even if hating it at the same time), so i can see your pain my child

its NOT a matter playing the lagg3rd or not...its that what they used what it takes to make it, when they could have made something more appro., but instead, they arbitrarily improve it, makes em look like stupid hypocrites

as for your "non-reality" arguement

then why dont we have i 153s with joined shaft double radials, climb rockets and top speed RAMjets? the 153 was fine, but these would have improved its performance, ...CONCIEVABLE, given YOUR logic of improvement
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Daiichidoku
05-04-2007, 09:03 AM
Originally posted by Badsight-:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BBB462cid:
bla bla bla gawd you think highly of yerself , crimea river ffs

you whine over peeps who have negative opinion with this game constantly - **news flash** : its nowhere near perfect - in some things its glaring

& with 46 its also inconsistent </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

+1

Tator_Totts
05-04-2007, 09:18 AM
Originally posted by heywooood:
FWIW - Nationalism is in all of us - there is no denying it.

What makes anyone think it can be put aside for the purpose of a flight sim or any other reason?

Oleg has been accused of bias by more than one of us and at cross purposes if we are all correct.

We can't all be right - but we can all expect our nationalism to lead us to believe our country's planes are not fairly represented...thats our national pride and heritage fostered by the air we breath and lives we live in our respective countries.

This is just a flight sim - it is going to mirror the sentiments of its creators and developers, they all do.

As a representation of reality and not reality itself - it can be made to perform in any way its mfg sees fit.

You want to know how these planes flew and what their strengths and weaknesses were - you ask the pilots that flew them...ofcourse around here that idea is spurned and ridiculed - look at the data! they say.

Data can be interpreted anyway you like - it can be skewed and skewered just as a real life combat pilots own words can be twisted and discounted as nationalistic pride and propaganda.

All you are left with is what you started with...a very nice game thats fun to play and has provided hours of distraction...both in the game and here in discussion.

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

XyZspineZyX
05-04-2007, 09:44 AM
Badsight-

Again, where am I saying the sim is perfect? Where am I defending it as being anything but what it is?

Badsight, you bluster on and on, and wrap up with telling me that the sim is not perfect- as if I had said it was. All I did was present the logic behind the LAGG 3RD, but you don't want to hear it; you want to get more ammunition for the "this sim is teh p0rk" arguments you always twist a discussion to. No defense, no statements from me that '46 is good, no defence of Oleg's or RRG's choices, just the logic behind why the plane is not as it was historically, which remains as:

the plane is not modelled to real 1946 standards and then put in the sim; it was modelled TO the 1946 scenario of the sim's last add-on.

News flash: Don't fly it, and don't allow it in your planeset. How flippin hard is that? You tell me how many VVS pilots downed TA 152s in January of 1946 in real life, and then we'll discuss the appropriate use of the LAGG 3RD in the game. Deal?

You are a wonder. It's too bad there is no Il2 Kidz forum, you'd be quite a hit over there, but here with the big boys all you're getting is typing practice. Sell that bill of goods you're pushing on somebody else, it doesn't pass muster here

I do in fact have a high opinion of myself. You don't have a good opinion of yourself? I'm confident and assertive; you have a nice little persecution complex and feel you're a victim

Guess which one of us does better in Life http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

stalkervision
05-04-2007, 09:46 AM
http://avia.russian.ee/air/russia/la-152.php

maybe this should have been substituted..

http://avia.russian.ee/pictures/russia/la-152.jpg


Specification
MODEL La-152
WEIGHTS
Take-off weight 3239 kg 7141 lb
Empty weight 2310 kg 5093 lb
DIMENSIONS
Wingspan 8.20 m 26 ft 11 in
Length 9.12 m 29 ft 11 in
Wing area 12.15 m2 130.78 sq ft
PERFORMANCE
Max. speed 778 km/h 483 mph
Range 492 km 306 miles


or this...

http://avia.russian.ee/pictures/russia/la-160.jpg

http://avia.russian.ee/air/russia/la-160.php

Specification
MODEL La-160
WEIGHTS
Take-off weight 4060 kg 8951 lb
Empty weight 2738 kg 6036 lb
DIMENSIONS
Wingspan 8.95 m 29 ft 4 in
Length 10.07 m 33 ft 0 in
Wing area 15.90 m2 171.15 sq ft
PERFORMANCE
Max. speed 900 km/h 559 mph

XyZspineZyX
05-04-2007, 09:49 AM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:

BBB

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

ytou come in here and miss the point (initially), and then make a value judgement on me for no reason....then get bent when i ask you why (and STILL have not given an answer, aside from some obfusication
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Oh baloney! You make a ranting post about how the LAGG 3RD is X Y and Z, then say "whatever happened to our much-touted "historical accuracy" ?"

Historical accuracy? Accuracy? You do know that there was no Russo-Germanic war in 1946, right? So you want historical accuracy in this non-historical scenario. Do you know what a paradox is? You may not like that they improved the LAGG 3RD, or any othger plane, to be competitive, but the fact that you don;t want to hear that the plane was modelled to the Il2 1946 scenario's requirements doesn't make it a false statement. Don't like it! I don't like it myself

Then you act all surprised by my impression that you don't much like '46, and I say I don;t like it a heck of a lot myself

Then you demand an explanation of why I feel that way? Are you for real, man?

I got that impression from your words. Shall I quote them, or will you read what you posted? I was supposed to get the impression you liked '46 from your rant?

And then you wonder why I don't like how you say "care to explain?" Are you from mars or something? Read your reply to me to yourself, as if someone were saying those words to you, and think about how you feel

269GA-Veltro
05-04-2007, 10:03 AM
Originally posted by LStarosta:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
in this

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/Daiichidoku/lagg3rd.jpg


what happened to much-touted "accuracy"?

ok, so they figured its a complete dog...so why not make it so?

so what if the mid war La5 is faster without having to upgrade lagg3rd?

if it was a dog, then its a dog, if they didnt want to have such a dog in the house, then why let it in the first place?

because its so noteworthy as a 46 type? and thats the point to the DVD being made anyhow (so STFU and count your lucky stars?), right? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

but if they found it it would be a dog in 46...



sorry...but if i was making a US/British "46", and with the original intention that it would be specifically for the UK ONLY market, for example... perhaps instead of the useless P-59 Airacomet or P.1061, or even early mk Meteor, and didnt want it to be quite SO underpowered/unsuitable a vehicle....wouldnt YOU rather have the effort made to be put into say, a Russian jet/rocket contemporary, making it more interesting, and give more possibilities for fun eastvswest "what ifs"?

why couldnt they do the same? instead of this thing, maybe a nice little Vampire? Ryan Fireball?....oh, ok, you say the lagg3rd was easier to make cause you use a good portion of the original Lagg3 model? then how about a Mustang with wingtip Ramjets? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif



[/ENDRANT]


Yeah, what do you think they did to the rest of the VVS a/c?

Do you really think the I-185 was the worldbeater it is in the game?

Or the La-7 performing the way it does despite empirical data that shows the in-game La-7 exhibits performance figures closer to those of the real life La-9.

Or the LaGG-3 3's durability despite being referred to as a varnished flying coffin by those who flew it.


<span class="ev_code_yellow">I seriously doubt these fantasy planes are the only airplanes that show the developers' "artistic license".</span> </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bingo.

XyZspineZyX
05-04-2007, 10:10 AM
Then complain about the modelling in the sim, not the modelling of a single plane

Daiichidoku
05-04-2007, 10:14 AM
Originally posted by BBB462cid:
I got that impression from your words. Shall I quote them, or will you read what you posted? I was supposed to get the impression you liked '46 from your rant?

youre best off quoting me, cuz i re-read it, and i still cant see where i bash 46 in any way, shape or form

i only bash the decision to include the lagg3rd and/or its non-accurate, arbitrary upgrading

in fact, the only thing i see i wrote about 46 itself, is this:

Daii:
BTW...i LOVE 46 and "what if" stuff

LEBillfish
05-04-2007, 10:23 AM
Actually as Oleg "STATED".....Many of the 1946 CCCP & LW aircraft had to be modified, as in development it proved out they had many flaws that made them unflyable or death-traps at best.....

Now that sounds like hedging yet I don't agree, as planes would of been designed, built, tested, then "MODIFIED" or scrapped.

Most my "guess" in war time would have been modified, as things were in a push situation, so to start from scratch just not possible....SO you fix what you have developed, spent the time making best you can and use it.

Adding more power (better engine), stiffening tail sections, adding or removing components only natural.

So if these were r/l planes (which many were), you forget the reason they were scrapped as something better came along and they had the time to shift gears.

So IMLTHO none of the 1946 planes based upon the hypothetical scenario are unreasonable at all.

Naturally.........The thread pointless anywho, as it sounds more like griping just to gripe and have something to post about. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

XyZspineZyX
05-04-2007, 10:27 AM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BBB462cid:
I got that impression from your words. Shall I quote them, or will you read what you posted? I was supposed to get the impression you liked '46 from your rant?

youre best off quoting me, cuz i re-read it, and i still cant see where i bash 46 in any way, shape or form

i only bash the decision to include the lagg3rd and/or its non-accurate, arbitrary upgrading

in fact, the only thing i see i wrote about 46 itself, is this:

Daii:
BTW...i LOVE 46 and "what if" stuff </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's it? that's all you wrote about it? Huh. Funny. And please note, I didn't say you "bashed" in the post you've quoted. I used that term in response to badsight. Please stay focused. I said that I got the impression you didn't much like 1946 from your words. That is the term I used, "dislike it all you want", and I then went on to say I didn't much care for it myself. No stronger terms, I never said you hated it, thought it was awful, despised it, or anything like that.

Here's some samples of what you said, that illustrate to me you "didn't much like" il2 1946. This is from your initial post, which is of course what we are discussing, not your later posts in which you say you like 1946. I made my reply in response to the post these quotes come from:

#1:
"what happened to much-touted "accuracy"?"

This is self-explanatory, but I will illuminate, if needed: the planes are not well modelled. Is this supposed to tell me how much you like Il2 1946?

#2:
"if they didnt want to have such a dog in the house, then why let it in the first place?"

The meaning here is clear: you disagree with the desicion to include the plane. Is this supposed to tell me how much you like Il2 1946?


#3
"because its so noteworthy as a 46 type? and thats the point to the DVD being made anyhow (so STFU and count your lucky stars?), right? "

Also clear in meaning: we are supposed to just accept any old product They make and consider ourselves lucky.

Is this supposed to tell me how much you like Il2 1946?


Now really, shall I go on? Must I? This is childish. Those are your words. They are all to the point that you are not agreeing with aspects of 1946. When you offer those statements, all negative in one form or another, and also provide no positive comment, the conclusion reached is that you don't like il2 1946 "much", and this is what I said. And yet, you behave as if this is some kind of big deal, you demand an explanation, which frankly I'm amazed I've given you, and when I offer one, you still obstinately refuse to see where you may have given the idea you didn't much like Il2 1946, based on what you posted. You also do not strictlky stay on the subkect of the LAGG 3RD, you touch on the project as a whole:

"because its so noteworthy as a 46 type? and thats the point to the DVD being made anyhow (so STFU and count your lucky stars?), right? "

A blind man could see it. Perhaps you just can't see the forest because of all the trees in the way

PraetorHonoris
05-04-2007, 10:29 AM
As for initial problem, I fully agree and would extent it even more. The whole 46-Plane and weapon set on the German side does not make much sense.

- Ta183: If it would have become front-line fighter, it certainly had not looked like ingame. The Fw-team was not more stupid than these game designers, they also knew the problems caused by nose (bow-wave) and tail construction (flutter), which is pretty exactly why they redesigned these. Do we have this in game? No!

- He162C/D: Apart from most debated designations (B/C/D etc.) it is again that RRG seems to think Prof.Dr.Heinkel and Dr.Günther were more stupid than they. These engineers also conducted wind tunnel tests with the forward swept and cranked wings, realising the problems, which is pretty exactly why they featured conventional swept back wings for their evolution of the He162. Their plan to support the engine with an internal additional small rocket engine is not in game, although they even build one (some say, they flew it, too). It was also planned to use R4M for later builds of the A1/2, so a lack of them in 46 for C&D needs some explanation.

- Me262 HGII: it is very dubious, if the HGII was anymore than a test platform since the gondola configuration was severly criticized by some. For 1946 the HGIII – not with cockpit in tail – is more probable.

- Messerschmitt in general: a lot of new projects for finding the successor of the Me262 were in the works. Other than that there is the P.1101.

- X4: this weapon was planned for Me262 and FW190. While it is reasonable that the Ta152 has it, the lack of it for the Me262 and Me262HG is inexplicable.

- Air-to-Ground rockets/missiles: although a plethora of such weapon was used during WWII, none is in game, not to speak of further developments (Panzerblitz III e.g.). Thus we don't have a single German Air-to-Ground rocket or missile.

- MG/MK213: We still have the rusty MK108 in 46, although the 213 was pretty much finished by war's end and intended to replace MG151 and MK108 entirely.

- EZ42: the only reason the He162A was not equipped with the EZ42 was the priority the Me262 enjoyed over it. Yet, neither Me262HG nor any Heinkel has it, and even the Ta183 has no functional EZ42.


I still have a lot of fun flying them, but it could have been so much better!

XyZspineZyX
05-04-2007, 10:35 AM
But it's "what-if" to fit the scenario

that's the point:

real things weren't modelled to fit the scenario, the things were made to fit into the scenario

They wanted the planes, and made them fit. Il2 1946 is completely bogus as far as historical accuracy goes. By definition and design

Daiichidoku
05-04-2007, 10:35 AM
Originally posted by BBB462cid:
bla bla bla

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/Daiichidoku/buttkiss.gif

LEBillfish
05-04-2007, 10:37 AM
as said I believe it "does fit & makes sense"...read my above post.

Daiichidoku
05-04-2007, 10:37 AM
Originally posted by BBB462cid:
But it's "what-if" to fit the scenario

that's the point:

real things weren't modelled to fit the scenario, the things were made to fit into the scenario

They wanted the planes, and made them fit. Il2 1946 is completely bogus as far as historical accuracy goes. By definition and design


the completely bogus IL10? ki27?

LEBillfish
05-04-2007, 10:39 AM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
the completely bogus IL10? ki27?

Those were a seperate add on.....1946 included BOTH Sturmoviks over Manchuria and 1946.

Daiichidoku
05-04-2007, 10:42 AM
oh, my mistake...was away from 404 for 3 or 4 months, got 408 in one fell swoop

ty for the correction

XyZspineZyX
05-04-2007, 10:43 AM
So instead of addressing my points, which you know will only show how your statements can't be defended anymore, we come to this

Much like the child who is shown how all of his remaining moves in Chess will only result in his defeat, you abandon the table and upset the board. Better luck next time, buckaroo

Daiichidoku
05-04-2007, 10:46 AM
no, i cant be bothered with you anymore, thats all

JuHa-
05-04-2007, 10:51 AM
Wasn't the Ta183 modified 'cause "it was a dog" ?
So what's the problem with modifying a russian plane to make it fly/make some sense? Huh?

PraetorHonoris
05-04-2007, 10:56 AM
Originally posted by BBB462cid:
But it's "what-if" to fit the scenario

that's the point:

real things weren't modelled to fit the scenario, the things were made to fit into the scenario

They wanted the planes, and made them fit. Il2 1946 is completely bogus as far as historical accuracy goes. By definition and design

There is a difference between fantasy and what-if-history! A plane design that has been rejected by it's designers and which is considered impossible by them as well as by RRG is not what-if, it's fantasy, because no one wanted to build it and no one could build it (in 1946).
A plane design that was approved by it's designers, the RLM etc. and which is considered perfectly possible, but did not reach production due to the war's end is what-if history, because it would have been build, if the war had not ended before.

PraetorHonoris
05-04-2007, 11:00 AM
Originally posted by JuHa-:
Wasn't the Ta183 modified 'cause "it was a dog" ?
So what's the problem with modifying a russian plane to make it fly/make some sense? Huh?

In it's ingame form it is rather nigh-impossible in a 1946-context. Luthier wanted it to be on par with the MiG9 as he stated on ORR before the release, but somehow in 4.07 it did not work and was corrected in 4.08.
I think the reason to chose that flawed design (and not the probable re-design) was the cool look of it, but that's rumor.

Aaron_GT
05-04-2007, 11:13 AM
but turning this Volkwagen into a Porsche simply for the sake of making it faster is just plain stupid.

Ah.. the irony given that Porsche designed the first Volkswagen! And also that Porsche has made an offer to buy the modern Volkswagen company. That will make all Volkswagens Porsches!

Aaron_GT
05-04-2007, 11:23 AM
Lstarosta

Or the La-7 performing the way it does despite empirical data that shows the in-game La-7 exhibits performance figures closer to those of the real life La-9.

Do you have some figures by way of comparison?

Aaron_GT
05-04-2007, 11:26 AM
but if i was making a US/British "46"

If you do can we have a Meteor III, F.4, Vampire, a Gloster Ace and Rocket (with fixed performance) and a Miles M.52 please?

Treetop64
05-04-2007, 11:35 AM
@ JuHa:

The Ta-183 was not modified because it was a dog, but because the RL design of the tail unit was flawed, and would have resulted in a machine that would have torn itself up in flight from the resulting aerodynamic flutter. Consequently, the in-game tail unit of the Ta-183 was strengthened for the sake of making the plane flyable at all. I think that's perfectly acceptable.

It's worth mentioning that there's a fair distinction between modifying one plane included in the sim to make it safe to fly at all, and modifying another just to make it faster than it's actual design would have allowed.

Obviously, I take the veiw of calling a spade a spade. If the LaGG-3RD would have been a pig then it was a pig. However, IMHO though some of the individual planes in the sim may be slightly suspect in their modelling, their overall performace relative to each other is well represented. Perhaps, in the modeller's view, this is the case with modifying the in-game LaGG-3RD: to at least make it's performance acceptable compared to others on the roster. They certainly didn't make it "uber" in the process, thankfully!

As for the veiw that these planes are set in a fantasy world so some concession has to be made for developmental improvements, well I agree that view is a sensible point. But I don't think that has anything to do with available hard data on an aircraft that turned out to be a sub-par performer. Nothing fantasical about that. In-game the LaGG is still a bit of a sub-par performer (and that's fine) but not as much as it's actual design would have yeilded.

Does all this detract from my enjoyment of the sim? Not al all. I think we can all agree that is is arguably the best combat flight sim ever released. However, when considering the fact that one of the feature planes was deliberately altered - not because the original data would have produced an unflyable aircraft - but because the original data would have produced an aircraft who's performance would have "sucked", quite frankly, then that raises eyebrows. "But by 1946 the design office would have improved the design anyway?" How do you know that? Who's to say they would not have dumped the design altogether and started on a clean sheet of paper? The truth is that in a "Fantasy world" we don't know how things could have turned out.

PraetorHonoris
05-04-2007, 11:41 AM
Originally posted by Treetop64:
@ JuHa:

The Ta-183 was not modified because it was a dog, but because the RL design of the tail unit was flawed, and would have resulted in a machine that would have torn itself up in flight from the resulting aerodynamic flutter. Consequently, the in-game tail unit of the Ta-183 was strengthened for the sake of making the plane flyable at all.

Again, the ingame Ta183 is a design the FW-team itself has disproven and significantly redesigned, which - in conjunction with the fact that the ingame Ta183 design would have been barely flyable in 1946 - makes the ingame Ta183 fantasy, not what-if history.

There would have been nothing to stop RRG from using the redesigned Ta183. Yet they did not do so.

Daiichidoku
05-04-2007, 12:00 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">but if i was making a US/British "46"

If you do can we have a Meteor III, F.4, Vampire, a Gloster Ace and Rocket (with fixed performance) and a Miles M.52 please? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yes

you will also be overjoyed to recieve the MB5, Hornet, Fury, Wyvern, Swift, Attacker, Brigand/Buccaneer, Lincoln, Canberra...oh, and a Saro seaplane fighter http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Aaron_GT
05-04-2007, 12:11 PM
Well the Canberra is a bit late to be 1946, but that giant-sized Saro jet seaplane fighter would be.. er.. interesting? Given its size people wouldn't get on its six as they'd assume it was a bomber with a laser-accurate AI tail gunner!

Nimits
05-04-2007, 12:13 PM
There would have been nothing to stop RRG from using the redesigned Ta183. Yet they did not do so.

But it does really makes one wonder why they did not use the Ta-183 design III, since that is the one most likely to have been built in 1946 . . . Oh well; the closer you look at 1946, the more it looks like fantasy and not "what-if" history.

Of course, in fairness, the Firepower/Wings of Power folks (who claim hyper-accurate flight modeling) also use the Ta-183 Design II, not the Design III.

Daiichidoku
05-04-2007, 12:41 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
Well the Canberra is a bit late to be 1946, but that giant-sized Saro jet seaplane fighter would be.. er.. interesting? Given its size people wouldn't get on its six as they'd assume it was a bomber with a laser-accurate AI tail gunner!

wasnt canberra designed in 45?
a project started by miles and given to EE, no?
(too lazy to google:P)

Aaron_GT
05-04-2007, 12:47 PM
True, but didn't fly until 1949, though.

Daiichidoku
05-04-2007, 01:00 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

XyZspineZyX
05-04-2007, 02:01 PM
Originally posted by PraetorHonoris:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BBB462cid:
But it's "what-if" to fit the scenario

that's the point:

real things weren't modelled to fit the scenario, the things were made to fit into the scenario

They wanted the planes, and made them fit. Il2 1946 is completely bogus as far as historical accuracy goes. By definition and design

There is a difference between fantasy and what-if-history! A plane design that has been rejected by it's designers and which is considered impossible by them as well as by RRG is not what-if, it's fantasy, because no one wanted to build it and no one could build it (in 1946).
A plane design that was approved by it's designers, the RLM etc. and which is considered perfectly possible, but did not reach production due to the war's end is what-if history, because it would have been build, if the war had not ended before. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

See, this is my point- do not take an historical template and attempt to make it fit the scenario of Il2 1946

They make technology fit what they want to do, they don't make what they want to do fit the technology

I don't much care for how they did the 1946 scenario. I like the maps, I appreciate the effort, and I like the skins and objects, but the planes, and the story- not my thing, mostly for the reasons you just listed.

XyZspineZyX
05-04-2007, 02:07 PM
Originally posted by Daiichidoku:
no, i cant be bothered with you anymore, thats all

Oh, is that it? And here I was, just assuming you had nothing to say to shore up your backpedalling. I see, coincidentally, once you've painted yourself into a corner with your own statements, you're bored of the conversation, that's all. Nothing else, just bored, you don;t feel like bothering now. I guess weird things like that happen all the time, eh? Coincidences. They sure are wacky little devils, huh? I hear ya, brother, loud and clear http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Daiichidoku
05-04-2007, 02:09 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/Daiichidoku/casua.jpg

XyZspineZyX
05-04-2007, 02:13 PM
Again, you got nothing on the plate, post as many pics as you like, we both know the truth about Daiichidoku's BS today and funny ha-has won't change the fact that you were shovelling manure with both hands and a brown smile

...but I thought you just posted you weren't bothering with me anymore. You aren't...aren't contradicting yourself again, are you? Oh heavens no! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

You are out of your league, pard

Daiichidoku
05-04-2007, 02:22 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/Daiichidoku/DeepSeaPhil.jpg

Treetop64
05-04-2007, 02:25 PM
Gawd. I think by comparison LEXX and I were best friends sitting at the bar compared to you two! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I think it's fair to assume that this thread has morphed into a beast unintended... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

HellToupee
05-04-2007, 02:35 PM
Originally posted by Aaron_GT:
True, but didn't fly until 1949, though.

ya because the war ended and everything slowed down, 46 setting indicates war didn't end.


As for lagg3rd who cares, it still sucks :P, i can see why they included it tho as its just really a mod on the exisitng lagg, like the yak jet that it dosnt look like it took alot of work. Funny no one complains about the ta183 tho, thats more like the lerche in the realism department, than a lagg3rd modeled with a better engine.

While everyones all like i wish i could have so and so plane but not thats fine but theres a million and one planes ppl want. Like the hs129, hardly any produced and they sucked to people moaning its not flyable, same with torpedo bombers same with a million others that a few ppl like.

Hell wheres my mosquito XVI ild give up all those 46 jobs for it, but would many others? doubt it.

IMo tho i think 46 would have been better off going with western allies vs russia not bothering with any of those lerches ta183s and such and having meteors p80s and vampires vs east etc going up to korean era planes.

dazza9806482
05-04-2007, 02:38 PM
These threads are the reason i still lurk in this forum 3 years later http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

MEGILE
05-04-2007, 02:39 PM
Originally posted by BBB462cid:

You are out of your league, pard

ROFL.

You have become a parody of the typical intarweb dweeboid

Badsight-
05-04-2007, 02:40 PM
Originally posted by BBB462cid:
You are out of your league, pard special olympics 101 : get involved & be as serious as the other contestants

if you opt out - you forfeit your chance at being proclaimed the winnar!!

Badsight-
05-04-2007, 02:42 PM
btw , clint_ruin has a PM

XyZspineZyX
05-04-2007, 02:55 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif do whatever it takes to make yourselves feel good

Klemm.co
05-04-2007, 02:57 PM
Originally posted by BBB462cid:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif do whatever it takes to make yourselves feel good
... is what you are doing. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

LEXX_Luthor
05-04-2007, 05:52 PM
TreeTop::
I think by comparison LEXX and I were best friends sitting at the bar compared to you two! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

hehe thanks Treetop.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif TreeTop (page 4)::
"But by 1946 the design office would have improved the design anyway?" How do you know that? Who's to say they would not have dumped the design altogether and started on a clean sheet of paper? The truth is that in a "Fantasy world" we don't know how things could have turned out.
Gotta admit, I agree! That's up to the dynamic campaign designer, or campaign player option on either side, or Online War designer. Perhaps rnzoli and Lowengrin have the Power to use random or dependent variables in their campaign engines that decide if the "immproved" LaGG-3RD is used on the Soviet side in the later campaign. This is what gameplay is all about.

One interesting issue is, what should be the in-game name of the Jet Lagg? The original design is LaGG-3RD right? Is that the same name as the in-game version?

Perhaps, Oleg should have called the in-game version LaGG-3RDM (modified), LaGG-3RDU (improved), LaGG-3RDF (afterburning http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif )

Anyways, it would be nice to have the unacceptable original design, say LaGG-3RD, and have it enter production if in some dynamic campaign the ASH engine factory is bombed out by the Luftwaffe, thus no La-5s.

XyZspineZyX
05-05-2007, 05:15 AM
Originally posted by Klemm.co:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BBB462cid:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif do whatever it takes to make yourselves feel good
... is what you are doing. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why did you post then, Klemm? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif I want to know! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Just doing your forum duty? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

CUJO_1970
05-05-2007, 09:36 AM
I don't care what anyone thinks - I still want a Bell P-59 Airacomet http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif It doesn't always have to be about performance, sometimes it's fun to have an airplane included just to experience flying it in the virtual world.

I do think 1946 would be even more successful if it would have contained some of the early British jets.

johnbn
05-05-2007, 12:05 PM
LMFAO

I almost wet meeself reading this thread.

Some of you guys must have been taking lessons on how to be total imbeciles.

For the imbeciles a definition:-

im·be·cile
–noun
1. Psychology. a person of the second order in a former classification of mental ******ation, above the level of idiocy, having a mental age of seven or eight years and an intelligence quotient of 25 to 50.


BBb462cid may take the forums a wee tad serious but some of you other guys (and from your posts I doubt you'll even realise who you are) made fools of yourself.

But thanks for the laugh, I now have to go and change my pants!!!!!!

Jaws2002
05-05-2007, 02:01 PM
The decision to increase the engine power for the LAGG3RD was a bit silly when you know they made the Ta-152C an uber turner with 28 seconds for a full turn. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif The poor 152C is in an elite class with only he111 b-29 and one more loaded early war bomber. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

But they had to make a playable game with this planes they modelled.

Looking at the performance of the planes in the 1946 closer you would quicly realize that the Russians have only one plane that has a snowball's chance in hell too compete with the Germans. The Mig-9.
How can you make a game with one side flying three awesome he-162 versions, few great Me-262's, the Ta-183(awesome as well), the coolest bomber in game(Arado 334 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif) and so on, and the other side flying just targets? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

The poor russians are hopeless until the Mig-9 arives even with the BOOSTED lag3RD.
Honestly would you fly a Russian career if you knew you'll die a million times untill you'l have a fighting chance?

There are many people that like to fly offline campaign and whitout a bit of tweaking here or there you couldn't make a usable Russian campaign.

What should they have done? model something completely useless like the real LAGG3RD? what for? Who would fly it?
As boosted as this LAGG is, in the game is just a hopless target when flying around German jets.
Is like flying an I-153 in a server full of FW-190's.

jarink
05-05-2007, 05:53 PM
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c1/jarink/Condi_rice2.jpg

LEXX_Luthor
05-05-2007, 06:15 PM
Jaws::
How can you make a game with one side flying three awesome he-162 versions, few great Me-262's, the Ta-183(awesome as well), the coolest bomber in game(Arado 334 Big Grin) and so on, and the other side flying just targets? Big Grin
Two ways. First, assume Soviets have some numerical advantage, or not. Lend Leace YP-80 would help here, as the Lend Leace program could be extended longer than in the Hristo-ical Correct case.

The second, and far better way, and to attract the outer wing Ussian Patriot simmer, would be an addon focused around strategic bombing -- LeMay style -- starting 1947.


In the offensive corner -- Ussia -- F-47N, F-51H (faster than Luftwaffe), F-82 Twin Mustang or "zwilling," F-80, F-84E, F-84F, B-29, B-50, B-50 with jet pods, B-36 (flyable), B-36 with jet pods (also flyable) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif , B-45, etc... later addons can add B-47 and Beyond.

In the defensive corner -- Russia -- La-9, La-9 with ramjet pods, Yak-15, MiG-9, MiG-9 with afterburning BMWs, Yak-19 with afterburning Jumo, traditional "korea sim" MiG-15(tm), etc... , later addons can add radar equipped interceptors and early strategic SAMs.


The F-86 has absolutely no role in this, with its most un-American short range and Luftwaffe-esque short endurance.

That's where Oleg should have gone, although the FB/PF game engine is unsuited for such high altitude operations. Perhaps it could be a Luthier-esque addition to the BoB And Beyond series.

carguy_
05-05-2007, 06:38 PM
Oh that goes two ways.

LW had nothing to stand up to the Mig9.The Ta183 was a dog and it is in readme that the tail part was very much flawed of a construction.But we got the ta183 "fixed".Balance.

Oh and if Oleg did not alter the Lerche it couldn`t have got off the ground anyway.They had to boost the engines entirely just to make it fly.

Bottom line is the 1946 is a fantasy addon.Real aircraft specs let alone WWII participation is doubtful.

DKoor
05-05-2007, 07:52 PM
Originally posted by carguy_:
Bottom line is the 1946 is a fantasy addon. Yes.
Thankfully we got some "real" ones too....
- V4.05: Pe-2/3
- V4.06: Ki-43-II's, N1K (flyable), Ki-21, Ki-27, IL-10, A-20C, J2M5 & without new Ai
- V4.07: Do-335V13 (with big MK103 cannons), other things are either pure fantasy or doesn't interest me at all
- and new maps & ground objects too

Without this I would easily skip post V4.05 all together.

Rammjaeger
05-06-2007, 05:56 PM
The funny thing about the LaGG-3RD is that, the fantasy engine aside, it is probably the aircraft with the best forward visibility in this game.

LStarosta
05-06-2007, 07:57 PM
This isn't "Ussia". This is AMERICA!

Seriously, I don't think I've heard anything more ******ed than "Ussia". It's an insult to every American that died for this country. Quit it already.

heywooood
05-06-2007, 08:20 PM
don't take it out on Lexx, LStarosta...

he is not the one who subverted the US Constitution with the 'Patriot Act'

Never before in the history of the United States of America have our civil liberties been so assuaged, nay, canceled by any political party or enemy of the state as they have been by that foul document and this current administration.

They have obliterated your right to privacy and have no requirement to provide for any writ of Habeus Corpus...you may be jailed for any reason or for no reason at all.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15220450/

All without firing a shot....

This is not our Old Republic, this is not our Democracy....this is Ussia.

You can argue all you want "desperate times, desperate measures"....all I see is a few desperate men who want to show all around how powerful they have gotten, not a grain of wisdom between them...and certainly no patriotism.

Haliburton has lined cheneys pockets and Big Oil is lining bushes...and I do not use caps there intentionally.

Badsight-
05-07-2007, 12:58 AM
Originally posted by heywooood:
They have obliterated your right to privacy and have no requirement to provide for any writ of Habeus Corpus...you may be jailed for any reason or for no reason at all.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15220450/

All without firing a shot..... ive been trying for 10 minutes now to get that vid DLed - any way of sussing out msnbc's codes ?

Cajun76
05-07-2007, 02:06 AM
I fail to see the logic of the sim/game developers putting the time in to give the non-Russians some more options when threads like this exist.

And wrong forum for a Bushie rant heywood. What about the facination of watching the Dems fight one another for the chance to choose OBL as a running mate?

MEGILE
05-07-2007, 03:44 AM
Originally posted by heywooood:
don't take it out on Lexx, LStarosta...

he is not the one who subverted the US Constitution with the 'Patriot Act'

Never before in the history of the United States of America have our civil liberties been so assuaged, nay, canceled by any political party or enemy of the state as they have been by that foul document and this current administration.

They have obliterated your right to privacy and have no requirement to provide for any writ of Habeus Corpus...you may be jailed for any reason or for no reason at all.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15220450/

All without firing a shot....

This is not our Old Republic, this is not our Democracy....this is Ussia.

You can argue all you want "desperate times, desperate measures"....all I see is a few desperate men who want to show all around how powerful they have gotten, not a grain of wisdom between them...and certainly no patriotism.

Haliburton has lined cheneys pockets and Big Oil is lining bushes...and I do not use caps there intentionally.

LOL

erm.. I think Lexx just likes to play with words.

msalama
05-07-2007, 04:25 AM
Hey, a real UbiZoo mess once again. Now who would've thought http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif But since we've seemingly gotten our collective pants into a bunch already then whattah3ll, no great harm done if I add my own & undoubtedly cretinous personal opinion too! The more the merrier innit http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

* Why whine about the v4.06 fantasy stuff when you can do as I do, i.e. mostly fly bombers and ground attack AC? Because y'see, for us ground-pounder jocks most fighters are rockets _anyway_ so whining about their performance - pro or con, relative or absolute - is kinda stoopid because they'll _still_ beat us 9 times out of 10... well if they find us that is http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

* Why whine about the v4.06 fantasy stuff when you can do as I do, i.e. mostly fly bombers and ground attack AC? Because y'see, we've got the Pe-2 now, and that's one EXCELLENT dive bomber that baby. Not to mention the IL-10 which just rawks http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

* Why whine about the v4.06 fantasy stuff when you can do as I'd _NEVER_ do, which is to get even sadder and start a political & nationalistic sub-rant having nothing whatsoever to do with the original topic?

PS. no track but im right

PPS. sTürm0Z f0R t3h wIN

PPPS. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

msalama
05-07-2007, 04:28 AM
But spot on Daiichidoku, I fail to see the logic too. In this thread, that is.

XyZspineZyX
05-07-2007, 05:14 AM
Um, folks?

In the interest of keeping some type of link to what's really going on,

4.05 is Pe-2
4.06 is Sturmoviks over Manchuria
4.07 is Il2 1946

4.06 has things like the Ki-21 and Ki-27, which were main players in the real historical WWII, while the Lerche and LAGG 3RD are in 4.07, Il2 1946

4.06 isn't the 'fantasy' add-on, it is 4.07

Lots and lots of people here are under the impression that SoM was part of 4.07, because they bought the 2 DVD package of Il2 1946, and they put it over 4.05. It's a small mistake, but you're going to confuse people (even more) with the 'fact' that 4.06 is a fantasy add-on

PS

political forums exist

Ha!

John_Wayne_
05-07-2007, 06:31 AM
So, forgive my n00bness, would it be possible to obtain just 4.06? If say, a person had no interest in 4.07?

msalama
05-07-2007, 07:57 AM
Ach, you're of course entirely correct about the version stuff there Chuck. Sorry 'bout that, my bad.

Thanks for the correction m8.

msalama
05-07-2007, 07:59 AM
If say, a person had no interest in 4.07?

Well, the Pe-2 addon (v4.05) is downloadable but I'm not sure about the Sturmos over Manchuria stuff... anyone?

jarink
05-07-2007, 09:33 AM
I really hate to add to this discussion, but sometimes the record has to be set straight.


Originally posted by heywooood:
Never before in the history of the United States of America have our civil liberties been so assuaged, nay, canceled by any political party or enemy of the state as they have been by that foul document and this current administration.

Are you talking about the current administration or Abraham Lincoln's during the Civil War?


From Wikipedia:
On April 27, 1861, habeas corpus was suspended by President Lincoln in Maryland and parts of midwestern states, including southern Indiana during the American Civil War. Lincoln did so in response to riots, local militia actions, and the threat that the border slave state of Maryland would secede from the Union, leaving the nation's capital, Washington, D.C., surrounded by hostile territory. Lincoln was also motivated by requests by generals to set up military courts to rein in "Copperheads" or Peace Democrats, and those in the Union who supported the Confederate cause. His action was challenged in court and overturned by the U.S. Circuit Court in Maryland (led by Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger B. Taney) in Ex Parte Merryman, 17 F. Cas. 144 (C.C.D. Md. 1861). Lincoln ignored Taney's order. In the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis also suspended habeas corpus and imposed martial law. This was in part to maintain order and spur industrial growth in the South to compensate for the economic loss inflicted by its secession.

Notice that Lincoln's actions applied to citizens, whereas the current situation applies to non-US citizens only. In my opinion, Lincoln's actions were the more severe. The one thing Bush has done that I don't agree with is the phone tapping. I think he should have pushed for changing the laws and regulations intead of bowing to the expediency of ignoring them.

XyZspineZyX
05-07-2007, 09:44 AM
Originally posted by msalama:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">If say, a person had no interest in 4.07?

Well, the Pe-2 addon (v4.05) is downloadable but I'm not sure about the Sturmos over Manchuria stuff... anyone? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I...thought so, but to be honest, I have never heard of anyone doing it

Interested to see if it is actually possible

LStarosta
05-07-2007, 10:34 AM
Originally posted by jarink:
I really hate to add to this discussion, but sometimes the record has to be set straight.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by heywooood:
Never before in the history of the United States of America have our civil liberties been so assuaged, nay, canceled by any political party or enemy of the state as they have been by that foul document and this current administration.

Are you talking about the current administration or Abraham Lincoln's during the Civil War?


From Wikipedia:
On April 27, 1861, habeas corpus was suspended by President Lincoln in Maryland and parts of midwestern states, including southern Indiana during the American Civil War. Lincoln did so in response to riots, local militia actions, and the threat that the border slave state of Maryland would secede from the Union, leaving the nation's capital, Washington, D.C., surrounded by hostile territory. Lincoln was also motivated by requests by generals to set up military courts to rein in "Copperheads" or Peace Democrats, and those in the Union who supported the Confederate cause. His action was challenged in court and overturned by the U.S. Circuit Court in Maryland (led by Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger B. Taney) in Ex Parte Merryman, 17 F. Cas. 144 (C.C.D. Md. 1861). Lincoln ignored Taney's order. In the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis also suspended habeas corpus and imposed martial law. This was in part to maintain order and spur industrial growth in the South to compensate for the economic loss inflicted by its secession.

Notice that Lincoln's actions applied to citizens, whereas the current situation applies to non-US citizens only. In my opinion, Lincoln's actions were the more severe. The one thing Bush has done that I don't agree with is the phone tapping. I think he should have pushed for changing the laws and regulations intead of bowing to the expediency of ignoring them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

They were both Republicans... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gif

Blutarski2004
05-07-2007, 11:02 AM
Originally posted by jarink:
I really hate to add to this discussion, but sometimes the record has to be set straight.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by heywooood:
Never before in the history of the United States of America have our civil liberties been so assuaged, nay, canceled by any political party or enemy of the state as they have been by that foul document and this current administration.

Are you talking about the current administration or Abraham Lincoln's during the Civil War?


From Wikipedia:
On April 27, 1861, habeas corpus was suspended by President Lincoln in Maryland and parts of leaving the nation's capital, Washington, D.C., surrounded by hostile territory. Lincolnmidwestern states, including southern Indiana during the American Civil War. Lincoln did so in response to riots, local militia actions, and the threat that the border slave state of Maryland would secede from the Union, was also motivated by requests by generals to set up military courts to rein in "Copperheads" or Peace Democrats, and those in the Union who supported the Confederate cause. His action was challenged in court and overturned by the U.S. Circuit Court in Maryland (led by Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger B. Taney) in Ex Parte Merryman, 17 F. Cas. 144 (C.C.D. Md. 1861). Lincoln ignored Taney's order. In the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis also suspended habeas corpus and imposed martial law. This was in part to maintain order and spur industrial growth in the South to compensate for the economic loss inflicted by its secession.

Notice that Lincoln's actions applied to citizens, whereas the current situation applies to non-US citizens only. In my opinion, Lincoln's actions were the more severe. The one thing Bush has done that I don't agree with is the phone tapping. I think he should have pushed for changing the laws and regulations intead of bowing to the expediency of ignoring them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Not to mention the Alien and Sedition Act, and the US govt's incarceration of Japanese-Americans during WW2, the seizure of property and assets w/o due process scam which has been such an unwelcome outgrowth of the "War on Drugs". All the fault of evil Republicans? Hardly. That's the sort of comic-book propagandizing which presently passes for political discourse and commentary in this nation. Too sad.

Halliburton lining Cheney's pockets? Maybe so. But Halliburton (and practically all other large corporations with substantial government contract business) lines EVERYONE's pockets on a completely non-partisan basis. They pay off everyone - Republicans and Democrats alike - because they desire to continue to do big government business regardless of which party holds sway in DC. Check into the number of contracts awarded to the very same Haliburton by the Clinton administration. Ideology has nothing to do with it; $$$$$ has everything to do with it. I'm not trying to ignite a political flame-war here, but wake up and smell the coffee, ladies and gentlemen.

John_Wayne_
05-07-2007, 11:04 AM
Yeh, yeh, whatever. But about bypassing 4.07...

joeap
05-07-2007, 11:08 AM
Originally posted by John_Wayne_:
Yeh, yeh, whatever. But about bypassing 4.07...

You'd give up cool objects, and maps, plus I think the joystick routines?

Freelancer-1
05-07-2007, 12:20 PM
After carefully reading the entire thread...

Daiichidoku FTW...

Definitely

AKA_TAGERT
05-07-2007, 12:26 PM
Did I leave the iron on?

Gibbage1
05-07-2007, 12:55 PM
6 pages of finger pointing tripe, and oddly, not one word about the Lufty flying doughnut. In Oleg's own words, he had to nearly re-design the thing to even get it to fly. Its proposed power plants would not of had the power to lift it, so Oleg's team gave it then a boost in HP. The dang thing is faster then the jets in game!

LStarosta
05-07-2007, 12:57 PM
Originally posted by Gibbage1:
6 pages of finger pointing tripe, and oddly, not one word about the Lufty flying doughnut. In Oleg's own words, he had to nearly re-design the thing to even get it to fly. Its proposed power plants would not of had the power to lift it, so Oleg's team gave it then a boost in HP. The dang thing is faster then the jets in game!


Originally posted by carguy_:
Oh and if Oleg did not alter the Lerche it couldn`t have got off the ground anyway.


Nice SA there, buddy.

Gibbage1
05-07-2007, 01:04 PM
Originally posted by LStarosta:

Nice SA there, buddy.

Sorry if I missed 1 friggen line in 6 total pages. Lets see. 20 post's a page, times 6 pages, with an average of 10 lines per page, thats about 1200 lines and I missed 1. DEAR GOD CALL THE NATIONAL GUARD!

Give me a friggen brake.

LStarosta
05-07-2007, 01:31 PM
Poor Nancy.

John_Wayne_
05-07-2007, 01:47 PM
So.....4.06 available as a stand alone, or what?

John_Wayne_
05-08-2007, 11:15 AM
No takers? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Treetop64
05-08-2007, 11:27 AM
Give it time, bro. Folks are gathering ammo. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

joeap
05-08-2007, 11:48 AM
Originally posted by John_Wayne_:
No takers? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

I don't think so but don't quote me on that. As I already said:


You'd give up cool objects, and maps, plus I think the joystick routines?

Plus 4.08 and 4.09 (latter not out yet) more map and maybe that Dutch plane. (Maybe).

MEGILE
10-29-2007, 03:22 PM
The Lerche is a clown wagon pure and simple. The spit 85% throttle aint got nothin on it.

All these X-4 Lerche aces online.

Mig9 is where it's at.

SlickStick
10-29-2007, 03:26 PM
Originally posted by Megile:
The Lerche is a clown wagon pure and simple. The spit 85% throttle aint got nothin on it.

All these X-4 Lerche aces online.

Mig9 is where it's at.

Where the heck is that pot stirring emoticon when you need it?!?! I'd even settle for a pointy stick one. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

MrMojok
10-29-2007, 03:38 PM
Agreed. Lerche=klownwagon.

han freak solo
10-29-2007, 09:54 PM
http://www.3dscience.com/img/Products/3D_Models/Human_Anatomy/Skeletal/Infant_Skeleton/supporting_images/3d_model_anat_infant_skeleton_web1.jpg

HerrGraf
10-30-2007, 09:54 PM
Sorry, but you can't just bypass it. Every addon is attached to the one before it. So 4.06 is not a stand alone.

On the political front- any political party that is older than its oldest living member should be disbanded and its leadership shot for corruption!

DKoor
10-31-2007, 03:44 AM
Originally posted by Megile:
All these X-4 Lerche aces online. X-4 vulchage is the new best be sure..............

......granted not have the hilarity power of Pe-8 nuc, but its vulching style is unsurpassed........

waffen-79
10-31-2007, 01:21 PM
Originally posted by DKoor:
X-4 vulchage is the new best be sure

SIG material there mate, sig material...

Kongo Otto
10-31-2007, 10:51 PM
This Thread is like:
http://www.goodyblog.com/playing_house/images/2007/06/04/34941302_df5b3b1613_m_2.jpg
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

Cajun76
11-01-2007, 01:21 AM
Originally posted by SlickStick:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Megile:
The Lerche is a clown wagon pure and simple. The spit 85% throttle aint got nothin on it.

All these X-4 Lerche aces online.

Mig9 is where it's at.

Where the heck is that pot stirring emoticon when you need it?!?! I'd even settle for a pointy stick one. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ask. And ye shall receive.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v30/Cajun76/stickpoke.gif

han freak solo
11-01-2007, 11:50 AM
Originally posted by Kongo Otto:
This Thread is like:
http://www.goodyblog.com/playing_house/images/2007/06/04/34941302_df5b3b1613_m_2.jpg
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Friggin' rice bag!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

DKoor
11-01-2007, 12:09 PM
Local Farmers: "Yawn"