PDA

View Full Version : History and ORR



Zen--
10-11-2004, 11:40 AM
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.

Zen--
10-11-2004, 11:40 AM
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.

k5054
10-11-2004, 11:50 AM
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.

faustnik
10-11-2004, 12:04 PM
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.

karost
10-11-2004, 12:20 PM
Wow..., it's a Hot post Zen http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


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!

SeaFireLIV
10-11-2004, 12:22 PM
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!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v31/SeaFireLIV/Sigeaf.jpg

BBB_Hyperion
10-11-2004, 12:24 PM
Good post Zen .)

There are reasons i dont post important concerns here anymore http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

GregSM
10-11-2004, 01:40 PM
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

clint-ruin
10-11-2004, 02:20 PM
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.

WWMaxGunz
10-11-2004, 02:44 PM
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

clint-ruin
10-11-2004, 02:59 PM
Very facetious max! But I think we have our answer. After all that fuddy-duddy judgementalism, we have the final answer. The historical accounts that imply the FW190 ruled the skies are the right ones after all. How did we come to this conclusion? Simply because History says so. I called up History to ask him if this was true, but he was out to lunch.

Nevermind - it's all settled now!

faustnik
10-11-2004, 03:11 PM
Wow, you hit a nerve Zen. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

The revisionists strike back!

Giganoni
10-11-2004, 04:09 PM
Historians deal with written primary sources firstly and then other sources secondly. In fact there are still historians that wont even look at anything, but written primary sources. It provides a very narrow view of a subject.

It is about interpretation. For instance if I was to write an article about Japanese colonialism in Asia I could, if I wanted, use sources that simply talked about the benefits Japanese colonialism had on Asia prior to WWII and after. You then get a very rosy interpretation of Japanese colonialism. It wouldn't be a very good article and fellow Historians would easily attack it because it ignored so many sources on the horrible things of Japanese colonialism.

However if I did an article that just focused on the bad things that too would not be painting a more accurate interpretaion.

It is still an interpretation. You cannot fully trust any historian or pilot which I think Zen is forgetting. Historians have agendas, they have biases. Pilots as well. Soldier memoirs can also have agendas or biases. A soldier who writes about his experiences in the Pacific for his family might omitt certain "parts" of his story that may involve his actions.

On the other hand we certainly cannot put trust solely on charts, graphs, or tests. I think to understand an aircraft's impact and performance you should look at as many varying sources as possible.

WWMaxGunz
10-11-2004, 04:17 PM
The misuse of history and knowledge, to say one thing means another...
that is not revision?

Robert S. Johnson had some very definite things to say about the Jug.
Like rollrate. Is it possible that some well known FW pilot might disagree?
Which plane had the highest rollrate? RSJ says P-47. I keep reading that
it is FW. Both are based on history, but history cannot be wrong.

That's just one of many, many, many. Can I go pick a quote and paste it
onto a claim whether it fits or not, whether there is another quote that
say different or not, and still whatever I want to make of it, that is true?

If so, and I see this in many posts, that is revisionism in full force.

If someone questions those methods, now they are the revisionists!


Neal

Giganoni
10-11-2004, 04:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WWMaxGunz:
The misuse of history and knowledge, to say one thing means another...
that is not revision?

Robert S. Johnson had some very definite things to say about the Jug.
Like rollrate. Is it possible that some well known FW pilot might disagree?
Which plane had the highest rollrate? RSJ says P-47. I keep reading that
it is FW. Both are based on history, but history cannot be wrong.

That's just one of many, many, many. Can I go pick a quote and paste it
onto a claim whether it fits or not, whether there is another quote that
say different or not, and still whatever I want to make of it, that is true?

If so, and I see this in many posts, that is revisionism in full force.

If someone questions those methods, now they are the revisionists!


Neal <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Um, that is not revisionism, that is history. Interpretaion, selection of sources. Personal biases and agendas of the author also come into play, been happening since Thucydides. If you want cold "facts" with nothing else, look at a timeline or a chronology. History isn't about that.

faustnik
10-11-2004, 04:58 PM
Revisionist history is the alteration or amendment of how an event has been recorded or interpreted. What Zen is discussing, if you read his original post, is the alteration or refuting of history for the specific purpose of promoting a personal agenda.

clint-ruin
10-11-2004, 04:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
Wow, you hit a nerve Zen. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

The revisionists strike back! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was trying to be all jokey :&gt;

But I have a feeling that the "history" that we are supposed to be going by is not the "history" where say, Golodnikov tells us how mediocre German planes were - especially that fatty 190 thing. I have this sneaking intuitive itch that says the non-biased, strictly historical and non-judgemental view actually involves making a lot of judgements indeed, starting with - if two people who were there say the exact opposite thing, which one do you believe? Remember - don't be judgemental :&gt;

WWMaxGunz
10-11-2004, 05:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by faustnik:
Revisionist history is the alteration or amendment of how an event has been recorded or interpreted. What Zen is discussing, if you read his original post, is the alteration or refuting of history for the specific purpose of promoting a personal agenda. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then Zen can show where the alteration or ammendment was made and what it is.

Has there been refutation of history or refutation of the application of history or
quotes of Robert Shaw?

As I posted above, this whole general-case history thing leads to where someone
validates their arguements simply and solely by attaching quotes, nothing else needed.

Well, it is an election year here so I guess anything goes.... it sure does on the tube.


Giganoni; so what can we draw from history by using specific selected parts?
My answer is 'generally not the truth'. It is more so the more selective we get.


Neal

faustnik
10-11-2004, 05:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by clint-ruin:

I was trying to be all jokey :&gt;

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I know, I was running with it. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Hunde_3.JG51
10-11-2004, 05:59 PM
As you already know Zen I completely agree and it is the same reason I rarely post anymore. Some people in here think their word is law, they are never wrong and they are just here to help guide the poor, misinformed masses. You'll find them in almost every thread, sitting high atop their throne while casting down the real truth to others. Never, or very rarely will they admit they are wrong or change their stance through discussion, or even admit there could be an alternative to their opinion. As you said, elitists.

You could post "the sky is blue" and a handful of individuals would be right there to tell you how you are wrong. Hell, they may even provide a chart or some scientific explanation as to just how wrong you are. I wonder if this small group of elitists ever even play the simulation, or if they get off more by coming onto this forum and telling everyone the absolute truth (at least from their perspective).

Like you said, you can find ten sources, pilot accounts, etc., that say the FW-190 should out-dive and zoom the Spitfire but if one account disagrees the whole matter is murky and uncertain. I have read accounts of 190's turning with Spitfire's, but I sure as hell don't expect my Focke-Wulf to turn with the British fighter. My point is, as others have said above, is that from history's accounts I think we should at least be able to agree on some universal truths but some in here feel the need to argue against this, no matter how weak it is, for what I can only guess is for some sort of personal feeling of worth or satisfaction. This would be acceptable once in awhile but lately it has become the norm.

"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."

Very well said Faustnik, but I'm sure the usual cast of characters will be along to tell you how wrong you are. There is probably one chart in existence that shows history can't be trusted, or there is a scientific explanation as to why history cannot accurately be recalled by people who were there, it can only be explained by some cyber-geek who thinks he has all of the answers and that uses his monitor and keyboard as his conduit. Thank God we are blessed with their all-knowing presence.

WWMaxGunz
10-11-2004, 06:10 PM
I'm not feeling jokey. Yesterday I read a post Oleg made on SimHQ in reply to what
Siggi wrote. Soon enough we may have one choice for sims that aren't =totally=
arcade and I don't much like that choice.

I saw this happen before. People do the best they can and get heavy disrespect and
demands in return, they go do something else. So lets just rubber-stamp anything
that attaches 'history' to it as license to make demands and see how far it flies,
shall we?

People seem to forget that "perfect" was never in the product description. "Best",
or "most historic" I think might have been. FM fidelity is in there somewhere.
That would be overall. Nowhere did I ever read "perfect" or "all-encompassing".
It doesn't even do everything, but every little thing it doesn't is cause for a fit
post and thread.

Gee I hope PF is going to run well on my PC. I may be playing it for a looooong time.


Neal

WWMaxGunz
10-11-2004, 06:15 PM
You could post "the sky is blue" and get back "not always" then throw a fit
and get your buddies to join in. BTW, it's night here, the sky is black.
Wanna tell me it ain't? Am I giving you problems?


Neal

Korolov
10-11-2004, 06:47 PM
You is wrong, the sky is azure.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

EDIT: Be sure!

LEXX_Luthor
10-11-2004, 07:11 PM
Actually, the night sky is blue. You can see this on a crystal clear full moon night with no haze (clear winter nights). Black is the absence of light. The tiny amount of light coming from stars and moon (and planets) is scattered blue just like sunlight, just not as much light as sunlight, so we call it black. I even tested this one full real moon night with coloured filters.

Hunde_3.JG51
10-11-2004, 07:32 PM
Funny Max, I never mentioned your name. Strange how you are all in a fit though, really makes you think. "Am I giving you problems?"

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.

GregSM
10-11-2004, 07:49 PM
Hi Hunde_JG51,


Perhaps refraining from insulting those who would contest anecdotal evidence on principle would help elevate the forum to where you would feel inclined to rekindle your participation.

And I might note your handle refers to an axis online squad, or that your signature graphic depicts a FW. But that would be casting aspersions on the framework of your perspective, wouldn't it? And this would be no different than idly surmising the psychology behind the inflated lecturing of the "usual cast of elitist cyber-geeks", would it?


Cheers,


Greg

WWMaxGunz
10-11-2004, 08:10 PM
That's nice Lexx. We're under cloud cover. I guess it's not black though since
there's a lot of backscatter, this being a city the sky is never really black.

The point being, it's not **always** blue --- something about blanket statements.

I've seen the sky lit in fantastic shades usually around the sunset hour.
It makes the world seem much more interesting. Then there's grey days with the
clouds and rain....

But some people only see one color or want everyone else to, I guess.


Neal

Hunde_3.JG51
10-11-2004, 08:18 PM
Greg, exactly who did I insult? If you are a know it all, elitist type then maybe I insulted that individual. I presented my opinion and got a less than friendly response from someone who I never named.

And I couldn't care less what you think about me having a FW-190 in my sig. Name a plane and I'll tell you what I have publically stated should be improved for it. I have supported numerous beneficial changes for allied planes, posted tactics for allied planes, sent tracks to Oleg concerning problems with Allied planes, and have praised many of them for their strengths and quality. Still, you are free to feel as you please.

Btw, I like how you consider historical first hand pilot accounts to be "anecdotal" evidence, as if it offers no validity at all. I think this was the point of the original post.

LEXX_Luthor
10-11-2004, 09:10 PM
MaxGunz:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>You can see this on a crystal clear full moon night with no haze (clear winter nights). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes I agree, sky must be clear.

GregSM
10-11-2004, 10:57 PM
Hi Hunde,


"Greg, exactly who did I insult? If you are a know it all, elitist type then maybe I insulted that individual. I presented my opinion and got a less than friendly response from someone who I never named."

I can't imagine what this is really intended to mean, but the type of person, or rather the type of attitude you intended to disparage is perfectly transparent. There's no need to name it.

"And I couldn't care less what you think about me having a FW-190 in my sig. Name a plane and I'll tell you what I have publically stated should be improved for it. I have supported numerous beneficial changes for allied planes, posted tactics for allied planes, sent tracks to Oleg concerning problems with Allied planes, and have praised many of them for their strengths and quality. Still, you are free to feel as you please."

You don't address the point, which was to illustrate that anyone - even you - is susceptible to unfounded speculation about why they post. Don't step into the boxing ring if you'd rather not get punched.

"Btw, I like how you consider historical first hand pilot accounts to be "anecdotal" evidence, as if it offers no validity at all. I think this was the point of the original post."

You assume I dismiss pilot accounts as invalid when I've offered absolutely no opinion of them.


Cheers,


Greg

clint-ruin
10-11-2004, 11:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Hunde_3.JG51:
Btw, I like how you consider historical first hand pilot accounts to be "anecdotal" evidence, as if it offers no validity at all. I think this was the point of the original post. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hi Hunde,

I am actually asking this just to ask - no intention of belting you around the head here. I came across this in Ask Oleg:


(Q): I think this game is targeted to those who love VVS planes.
(A): And in Russia players think that I love too much German planes and they are simply overmodelled.....
As I told all things may have realtive numbers...
Link: 10/29/02 12:57PM

(Q): What do Russian pilots/players complain mostly? I think G6AS in 44, G2 in 42 and F-4 in 41 are doing the troubles for them
(A): Right. But not only about it. Also about that too hard to shot down Ju-88, etc... Almost the same as other side but about other planes.
Or they say that P-39 should be more maneuverable, according recals of Pokryshkin, La-7 should fly 700 km/h becasue Kozedub said it flyes with this speed, etc...


[as far as I know he's talking about 700kmh at sea level from the original Kozedub quote]

So I mean, basically, my question is - based on an anecdote as told by Kozedub, would you be happy if the La7 got a 95kmh or so speed boost on the deck? Or would you like to see some evidence that any La7 ever did such a thing?

Edit: similarly, a little further down:

While flying F15s out of Germany, Hands (Phil "Hands" Handley) had the opportunity to talk with Adolf Galland, the great WWII German ace. Hands told the German ace that it was obvious to him that of Germany's World War II fighters, the Fw-190 was teh superior aircraft based on published performance data. The Fw-190 was faster, could turn better, and could climb higher than the Me-109, the plane in which Galland had recorded most of his kills. Adolf Galland smiled and said that Handley was correct in his analysis of the two aircraft's relative performances-but wrong in his assessment of which aircraft was superior. The German ace had flown both aircraft and believed that the Me-109 was the superior fighter because "flying it felt like wearing a glove." It was as smooth as silk and easy to control, whereas the Fw-190 was difficult and unruly. Galland could fly the Me-109 to his--and its--maximum performance, and this made it the better combat aircraft.

Now - that's a story Oleg pulled out to support the 109/190 flight models. Do you have anyone who tops Galland? How do we work out who to believe?

edit: mysterious growing post.


(Q): It's just so **** frustrating to lose engine oil on ONE hit by a small calibre MG while flying a 109 when a YAK can take 20mm shots on the engine without damage.
(A): If you only will have a chance to read Russian, I will show you exactly the same statements about German planes in recals of Russian WWII pilots.
So I'm sorry, I almost don't take in account such pilots recals, except these that corresponds to real construction of the aircraft. I will repeat and will underline, I almost don't take in account such recals of almost any nation if it doesn't corresponds with actual construction of aircraft.
Not the time yet to show how is modelled the constuction of the plane in IL-2 and even more complex in FB.
When will be the right time - I will show. Then you and other simply will think about any comments next time and simply will compare to others who developing sims before to say that something is wrong...
Sure something isn't perfect, but anyway much better than in some others, where such details simply not modelled or were taken from the sky.

I don't get where this stuff about wanking judgmental elitists comes from? Actually I might have a pretty good idea about that, but what I don't get is why when Oleg has said he doesn't want anecdotes, do you rail against people in Oleg Maddox's Ready Room who mention that Oleg doesn't like anecdotes.

I mean. Who exactly are you mad at here?

BfHeFwMe
10-11-2004, 11:39 PM
Wouldn't ever want to compare a modern flying example or museum relic, everyone knows besides sharing airframes, powerplants, and control systems a flying P-38 could never tell us a thing about them. You must compare P-38's and sausage to get much more accurate data. Museum 190 cockpit pictures? Come on get real.

What could a combat pilot ever know about fighting an airframe he used in war? Bah, who cares if they're all saying it, mass delusions run rampant in combat.

Looks like you hooked a few of the Lurkers, or was that Lunkers.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

Hunde_3.JG51
10-12-2004, 12:21 AM
I'm not going much further with this since I have already stated my point.

Clint, I was more supporting the original post than being mad at anyone. What does annoy me is the people who post in **** near every thread and speak as if on a soapbox. Its constant correcting of those who they feel are wrong, but it is so frequent and pervasive as to make reading the threads a chore. This is basically what I said in my first post.

And no I don't rail against people who say Oleg doesn't want anecdotes, that is a statement by Oleg and there is nothing wrong with that. Do I agree that pilot accounts hold no value when creating or discussing plane performnace? No, I don't. Oleg is very science/engineering oriented and that is what he operates by, which is fine. I don't take every account as law but as I said there are generalizations I think one can deduce when doing extensive reading. This is important, since I am not speaking about raw speed numbers, turn rates, etc, quite the opposite. I am saying more simplified examples as I gave with Spitfire and FW-190 in regards to zoom/dive. It is seen numerous times in numerous references but the point is that some will come on here and debate to their death that these accounts, that are seen with regularity and rarely (if ever) to the contrary, are wrong. I am not speaking on detailed matters but simplified matters that really are not th