Friday Update, February 10, 2012

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by [URU]AkeR

I don´t want/care to know how you guys feel. For sure most of the entire world doesn´t either. I check this topic to see the updates and any relevance info that might come up. But have to dig in pages and pages of the same complaints over and over. Is very annoying.

I feel your pain..

Or should I say felt? Because I did find a way around it.. A filter if you will..

Simply goto page one, click on BlackSix's name, select Find all posts by BlackSix than click on his posts with the title of this thread..

That is the best way to see the updates and any relevance info that might come up with regards to the current thread..

Because honesly, the rest of the posts are just 'feelings'!

[Tavingon]

Someone please just tell me the bofors wont be as hideous to aim as the aircraft gunnery positions

[Rjel]

Maybe the update threads could be locked? Someone could always start a 30 plus page thread for the sky is falling complaints. Another could be started telling us it's all okay, don't worry. It would save time too. We'd only have to read the posts we agree with. The world would seem right then for each of us.

[bongodriver]

Someone already suggested that but it seems the idea was rejected

[Dano]

Originally Posted by Hood

And why would you cancel a pre-order when you don't know what the product is like until you receive it? I don't speak Russian so could not access their forums, and there wasn't enough information available on these forums to allow anyone to make a decision one way or the other.

Your point really doesn't hold up, does it?

Over and out.

Hood

There was plenty enough information here and at SimHQ to know it was in a state, you didn't need to read or visit Russian forums, my point holds up perfectly well.

[Chivas]

Originally Posted by bongodriver

Someone already suggested that but it seems the idea was rejected

Its too bad as I think it would be great to have only four threads.

A locked Luthier/BS thread.

A constructive criticism thread.

A Debbie Downer thread.

A Fanboi thread.

I suppose it would be alot of work for the moderators moving posts, lol. The community would be a much happier place if we only read the applicable threads. Although the forums would be extremely quiet, when you separated the Debbie Downers, from the Fanboi's.

[14./JG5_Roman]

Originally Posted by [URU]AkeR

I don´t want/care to know how you guys feel. For sure most of the entire world doesn´t either. I check this topic to see the updates and any relevance info that might come up. But have to dig in pages and pages of the same complaints over and over. Is very annoying.

Well put sir!

[JG26_EZ]

What good is a skin pack if "Steam" has you ejected if you are flying with an altered one?

Or so, that's what I've read. ...or has this changed?

[Varrattu]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Well its a good thing then that it was Messerschmitt AG that published these papers, so you can trust them with your life for authenticy.

Anyone wishing to check the original Me 109E specs paper should check here - there is not much to add except that this is the official performance guaranteed by manufacturer within +/- 5% in speed (ie. 475 - 525 km/h at SL) and +/- 8% in climb.

http://www.2shared.com/document/-XYw...chreibung.html

This tended to be an average of performance - any plane that did not meet the above specs within tolerance was rejected by the LW's quality control group, abbreviated BAL.

The document does not include any statement indicating that the datas are from a Bf109E. I am not convinced that this is the Bf109E as it went into serial production.

Regards Varrattu

[Kurfürst]

Originally Posted by Varrattu

The document does not include any statement indicating that the datas are from a Bf109E. I am not convinced that this is the Bf109E as it went into serial production.

Regards Varrattu

Well, at least I do not know any other 109 variant with DB 601, with exactly the same weights and dimensions and specs as the Bf 109E...

Anyway, you can buy the full version at http://www.luftfahrt-archiv-hafner.de/. I do not have it, but they list it as for Bf 109E.

Its a bit like arguing that a British doc from 1940 mentioning "Spitfire" is unconvcing, because it does not say Spitfire I.