Quote:
Originally Posted by KeBrAnTo
At last someone who knows about what he's talking about comes to confirm what I tried to make understand some stones few weeks ago.
No signs of the teacher and the pupils around now though. I only hope they can understand that for me, and probably for many others, it is much more credible the oppinion about how much fire burns when it comes from a fireman, than the one coming from anyone trying to explain it is written on his book that fire actually burns.  |
If you find on HL (IL2 1946) a guy named 6S.Marte you have to know that he's a military fighter pilot too. I asked to him before starting the research and he agreed about irrealistic target visibility (too difficult to spot and ID at long distance, too easy to spot and track at short distance).
Of course he said also that it's VERY difficult to spot a fighter at low altitude and with the your same vector. Infact nobody here is claiming the opposite, nor the teacher, nor his pupils, nor the documents themself.
We are talking about military fighter pilots who have a specific method to scan the sky. To my knowledge the ULM pilots and the glider pilots are not teached this method. Some posts above I asked about this to a poster who claimed himself as civil pilot but he did not give an answer.
So I ask Tuckie and pirke the same thing: what method are you using to scan the sky? And in which circumstance are you searching?
And Tuckie, I think losing a previously spotted contact because you're occuped to do something else is a realistic thing (as many civil pilots do... I've read on a document that they are looking at instruments the most of the time): it's different if you are actually tracking that plane and this one disappears in the sea of pixels (because of the many things explained in this thread)... Can you really 100% confirm that in RL you lose a contact even if you're constantly staring at it?
If there was "no sign" of me in this thread it's because I've promised to not expound my ideas anymore on this subject since the most of the people did not care. They want a "simulator" who does not simulate real target visibility ("Look I see a dot! Let's turnfight at 300m!").
If you really want to aid this discussion, proving to me and to the others that the studies made by the US military scientists are wrong and useless, please post some official documents.
This is an open discussion: I opened this thread to expose the result of my research on the web using official documents and asked to discuss it using
serious arguments...
I also found more accounts made by real pilots who spotted enemies at longer distance than the document states, but I discarded it because it was a "only" pilot's accounts... in the same way I discard the opinions of WW2 pilots claiming that the 109 could outturn a Spitfire and all the WW2 myths based on pilot's accounts.
I don't claim to be right (I'm not the teacher as you childishly claims), but still I've found out documents and the ingame test I made (the first post of the thread) proves that target spotting is very different from what we see on our monitor. I would be glad if somebody else can find me documents who claims the opposite because I'm not an expert too.
Anyway, KeBrAnTo, I hope you understand that nobody here cares about your statement about the "tall building" that you can't see. Add to this your "US Navy documents are BS" statement (where BS is not our new friend BlackSix) and we have a bingo of credibility fail. People don't care about your getting along with the other posters.