UP 3.0 vs HSFX 5.0?

[I/ZG52_HaDeS]

Originally Posted by Aracno

I'm not trying to be a saint, I'm trying to be civil.
For sure you are not on the top of my sympathy but I have nothing against the modders that released the mod in your pack.

Very nice of you really, but its not "my pack". Its community's one. I may have started first and be behind this all the time, but for sure i don't feel its "my pack", and frankly its not at all "mine".

Originally Posted by Aracno

So I have nothing against Kwiatek, except about the opportunity of his post in this thread.

Its also nice of you but knowing that you are biased in favor of specific things, your post was not that innocent.

Originally Posted by Aracno

So, please, dont try to keep me in your personal war.

"war" and "personal" are 2 words that are not in my vocabulary in the Il2 world regarding UP.

Cheers

[GOZR]

Well IMO as real WW2 aircraft pilot .. i can tell you to get the UP version of IL2.

[Aracno]

Originally Posted by I/ZG52_HaDeS

Very nice of you really, but its not "my pack". Its community's one. I may have started first and be behind this all the time, but for sure i don't feel its "my pack", and frankly its not at all "mine".

Who is the polite now?
All the IL2 world identify UP with you, it's enough for me.

Originally Posted by I/ZG52_HaDeS

Its also nice of you but knowing that you are biased in favor of specific things, your post was not that innocent.

Yes, I like HFSX, BUT, i was an happy UP2.01 users, so it's hard for you to found something written by me against one pack or in favour of another.
I was only defending Aachen's work, without Kwiatek post I hardly posted in this thread.

Originally Posted by I/ZG52_HaDeS

"war" and "personal" are 2 words that are not in my vocabulary in the Il2 world regarding UP.

Cheers

Yes, and every Christmas I become SantaKlaus.

Cheers
Aracno

[JtD]

According to Focke Wulf, the real 190 had a climb rate of 14 m/s in second charger gear.
According to 1C FM of that plane, it has 15 m/s.
According to a much improved mod pack FM, it has 17 m/s.
According to another even more improved mod pack FM, it has 18 m/s.

Go figure what "better" FM means...my guess is the next "improvement" will break the 20.

Maybe the FM builders should get together and check their data before they release it? Would save us from forum hostilities and bad FMs.

[Aracno]

Originally Posted by JtD

According to Focke Wulf, the real 190 had a climb rate of 14 m/s in second charger gear.
According to 1C FM of that plane, it has 15 m/s.
According to a much improved mod pack FM, it has 17 m/s.
According to another even more improved mod pack FM, it has 18 m/s.

Go figure what "better" FM means...my guess is the next "improvement" will break the 20.

Maybe the FM builders should get together and check their data before they release it? Would save us from forum hostilities and bad FMs.

There is 16 m/s free for us ......

[II/JG54_Emil]

Originally Posted by JtD

According to Focke Wulf, the real 190 had a climb rate of 14 m/s in second charger gear.
According to 1C FM of that plane, it has 15 m/s.
According to a much improved mod pack FM, it has 17 m/s.
According to another even more improved mod pack FM, it has 18 m/s.

Go figure what "better" FM means...my guess is the next "improvement" will break the 20.

Maybe the FM builders should get together and check their data before they release it? Would save us from forum hostilities and bad FMs.

lol
what a indifferent comment all, all FW190 have a climb rate of 14m/s.???

[JtD]

Well, some lol, others will find the variant I was referring to.

[Aracno]

About FW A6 wrong performance and the graphic showed in this thread, in the IL2 compare for some strange reason the AC weight is 3780 kg instead of 4050-4100, so il2 compare are calculating wrong ROC and performance due to this problem.
But AC weight in HFSX is correct and performance too.
So all this discussion was based on wrong calculations of IL2 Compare, not on the real ingame FM.
The same problem is present in others AC (wrong weight in IL2Compare), and they are studying the reasons of this error.
If this discussion was made ​​on the forum HFSX the problem would be solved immediately, without shedding doubt on the validity of the work done by Aachen.

[II/JG54_Emil]

Originally Posted by Aracno

If this discussion was made ​​on the forum HFSX the problem would be solved immediately, without shedding doubt on the validity of the work done by Aachen.

I absolutely agree.

Which leads us to the question why do we have such a discussion here?