1. #1
    Zen--'s Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,060
    It really surprises me at the way history has been nitpicked and torn to shreds here in this forum, often as though this game and only this game is correct and is the only measure of what happened 60 years ago in WW2. It also surprises me at how people can nitpick anything to the smallest possible detail in order to confuse the issue and nullify historical comments, as though the people that made them back then were wrong or that the situation never happened in the first place. It surprises me that people will go further than that and dispute the historians themselves, refute test data and make a big deal about hidden agenda's and national bias as reason to discount test results and to make them appear false. Others will take a man like Robert Shaw, who was a fighter pilot himself and an engineer (and who's book is used to train USN and USAF pilots) and discount what he says as well, apparently because he has a fact of out place in his book or that his views don't correspond with what happens here in game.


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

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

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

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

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



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



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



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



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

  2. #2
    Zen--'s Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,060
    It really surprises me at the way history has been nitpicked and torn to shreds here in this forum, often as though this game and only this game is correct and is the only measure of what happened 60 years ago in WW2. It also surprises me at how people can nitpick anything to the smallest possible detail in order to confuse the issue and nullify historical comments, as though the people that made them back then were wrong or that the situation never happened in the first place. It surprises me that people will go further than that and dispute the historians themselves, refute test data and make a big deal about hidden agenda's and national bias as reason to discount test results and to make them appear false. Others will take a man like Robert Shaw, who was a fighter pilot himself and an engineer (and who's book is used to train USN and USAF pilots) and discount what he says as well, apparently because he has a fact of out place in his book or that his views don't correspond with what happens here in game.


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

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

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

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

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



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



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



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



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

  3. #3
    It's a forum. Nobody here is more or less qualified to post stuff, right or wrong.
    Personally, I care about the history, I'm not too bothered about whether the game is right.
    Please give list of authors/historians who we can trust implicitly and whose word may not be debated.
    Share this post

  4. #4
    Great post Zen. Refuting history because you want your favorite plane to have an advantage in the sim is just plain wrong.

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

  5. #5
    karost's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    606
    Wow..., it's a Hot post Zen


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


    S!
    Share this post

  6. #6
    Absolutely right and very intelligent post. The stupid complaints designed just to get someone`s uber plane better than others is sad.
    The lack of actual interest in WWII reality is lost on these people, they don`t care.

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

    And it goes on and on...

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

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

    Sorry for my rant. But ZEN is so right!

    Share this post

  7. #7
    Good post Zen .)

    There are reasons i dont post important concerns here anymore
    Share this post

  8. #8
    The original post implies a fantastic equivalency between "the past" and "history". History is neither the past nor its mirror image, but merely its interpretation. Analysing, revising where necessary, or affirming where appropriate, the words of historians is a natural and necessary part of the process in the construction of history.

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


    Cheers,


    Greg
    Share this post

  9. #9
    clint-ruin's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    1,633
    Interesting post.

    Two things.

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

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

  10. #10
    WWMaxGunz's Avatar Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    4,792
    Absolutely EVERYTHING written as history is 100% true.
    Especially when it's used to prove anything.
    Even if some histories disagree with others, the one that counts is the one we decide
    to use.
    We should never ever examine how a test might or might not apply to a claim because
    once the name of someone who was there is given then it means that whatever is claimed
    on the basis of that is absolutely 100% true.
    Everything in Robert Shaws' book is absolutely golden in every case possible. Even
    though Robert Shaw says don't use the book that way, we know it's supposed to be good
    for anything we want.
    We can apply anything to anything else and just because of the source, that makes us
    unquestionably right.

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

    Yeeee-gads! Flippin prima-donnas.


    Neal
    Share this post

Page 1 of 9 123 ... Last ►►