Friday Update, April 13, 2012

[taildraggernut]

Originally Posted by zapatista

lol, so the sumtotal of your contribution in a debate exchanging information on 109 and spitfire performance is, "the brave one wins", "'cause you and your bestest friend did it that way" ?

your in the wrong department here, maybe google "fairytale forum" to go post that nonsense in

Actually what manu said makes good sense, you have to be confident with your aircraft if you want to stand a chance, so yes....if you are flying evenly matched aircraft then the better or braver pilot has the edge.

[6S.Manu]

Originally Posted by taildraggernut

Actually what manu said makes good sense, you have to be confident with your aircraft if you want to stand a chance, so yes....if you are flying evenly matched aircraft then the better or braver pilot has the edge.

[zapatista]

Originally Posted by taildraggernut

Actually what manu said makes good sense, you have to be confident with your aircraft if you want to stand a chance, so yes....if you are flying evenly matched aircraft then the better or braver pilot has the edge.

you are demonstrating a failure here to rationally compute simple facts

first we want to know what the actual BoB era performance was for these 3 planes. even if there will be slightly different perspectives on german or allied evaluations done, there will be some genral common ground.
second you can then look at how an experienced, expert, or novice pilot might handle that aircraft
third, you then asses how accurately these competing planes are modeled in CoD, to confirm/reject that what we have in the sim actually allows us to replicate the ww2 pilots experience as close as possible
fourth, and this is where you oddly seem to start off from and completely overlook the previous 3 points, you then want to see how we as armchair virtual pilots can master a specific plane with all its idiosyncrasies, so we have a change to use it strength correctly, and compete against other aircraft with a varied level of skilled pilots.

does that sequence ring any bells with you ?

if you still dont compute, the purpose of this discussion was to deal with step 1 and 2

i really dont care what side was "better" at this or that, we all know what the eventual outcome of the conflict was what i do care about, is being able to use historical tactics and maneuvers with specific planes in this sim, and be able to rely on the aircraft i am (virtually) flying being able to execute it. that is for me (and many others here) the "fun factor" of this sim, and why we keep pushing for it to be better and more accurate.

[taildraggernut]

Originally Posted by zapatista

you are demonstrating a failure here to rationally compute simple facts

first we want to know what the actual BoB era performance was for these 3 planes. even if there will be slightly different perspectives on german or allied evaluations done, there will be some genral common ground.
second you can then look at how an experienced, expert, or novice pilot might handle that aircraft
third, you then asses how accurately these competing planes are modeled in CoD, to confirm/reject that what we have in the sim actually allows us to replicate the ww2 pilots experience as close as possible
fourth, and this is where you oddly seem to start off from and completely overlook the previous 3 points, you then want to see how we as armchair virtual pilots can master a specific plane with all its idiosyncrasies, so we have a change to use it strength correctly, and compete against other aircraft with a varied level of skilled pilots.

does that sequence ring any bells with you ?

if you still dont compute, the purpose of this discussion was to deal with step 1 and 2

i really dont care what side was "better" at this or that, we all know what the eventual outcome of the conflict was what i do care about, is being able to use historical tactics and maneuvers in this sim and be able to rely on the aircraft i am (virtually) flying being able to execute it. that is for me (and many others here) the "fun factor" of this sim, and why we keep pushing for it to be better and more accurate.

you are demonstrating a total failure of charisma, it really doesn't hurt to be polite.

[zapatista]

Originally Posted by taildraggernut

you are demonstrating a total failure of charisma, it really doesn't hurt to be polite.

just re-read your previous post and the context it was in (applauding manu's meaningless comment), my reply was tailored to the combined level of intellectual effort demonstrated

i promise to be gentle and bring flowers next time

[taildraggernut]

Originally Posted by zapatista

just re-read your previous post and the context it was in (applauding manu's meaningless comment), my reply was tailored to the combined level of intellectual effort shown

i promise to bring be gentle and bring flowers next time

if it was a mindless applause I would have just said '+1' which seems so popular here, instead I gave a reason why I agreed with Manu, and made no attempt to ridicule you.

if you think it's all about the machine then you are a classic case of the 'bad workman', and if you think a simulation will suffice in recreating 'all' the variables in real life then it's pretty clear whose oppinions are worthless here.

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by zapatista

just re-read your previous post and the context it was in (applauding manu's meaningless comment), my reply was tailored to the combined level of intellectual effort demonstrated

i promise to be gentle and bring flowers next time

Your reply was incredibly rude Zapatista. Whether you did this because your grasp of English is poor or if you are socially inept I do not know. In future perhaps you would do well to think whether you would be prepared to say that to him in person before you post, that may keep your manners in check.

[zapatista]

Originally Posted by Osprey

Your reply was incredibly rude Zapatista. Whether you did this because your grasp of English is poor or if you are socially inept I do not know. In future perhaps you would do well to think whether you would be prepared to say that to him in person before you post, that may keep your manners in check.

you are not one to speak here, with your abrasive self conceited meaningless posts directed at various people over the last weeks

how about you mind your own business and stay out of what does not concern you, you have enough problems of your own without going to look for more

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by zapatista

you are not one to speak here, with your abrasive self conceited meaningless posts directed at various people over the last weeks

how about you mind your own business and stay out of what does not concern you, you have enough problems of your own without going to look for more

Yes I think it's the latter.

[Insuber]

As remarked by others (Manu, Tamat) there are some visual limitations of the current simulation which effect more the game than the 5% + or - of turning radius.

I'll give an example. One hour ago I was on ATAG - before a CTD - flying on my Bf-109 Northward at 4km above the Channel, and got engaged by a Spit coming opposite.

After the crossing I went in a power climbing spiral at full WEP, 1.41 ata, while the Spit turned towards me loosing some of his energy. He kept lifting his nose some 200 m behind and lower on my right, trying to score pot shots, which he did, but on the fuselage. After some of this spiral climbing he stalled and went down spinning for some 500 m. I leveled and kept turning , looking at him to see his direction once he recovered the spin, in order to B&Z him. And voilà ... vanished above the sea.

All my maneuvering and tactics have been frustrated because at medium distance the LODs are porked, and the Spit became invisible. Sooooo ... why disputing about plane performance when we have some basic issues like the disappearance of planes at medium distance?

Cheers,
Insuber