:neutral:

MMMM, I thought it was clear, it was tested. :)

Exactly.

1. Without a good set of operating instructions, we will never know if the engine is being damaged.

2. My personal feelings are it is not very realistic at all to have airplanes that speed, climb, and turn but don't fly like the real thing. It will really distort the relative dogfighting abilities adding frankenplanes.

http://i91.photobucket.com/albums/k3...-page-001a.jpg


+1

I was replying to Crumpp, He must've deleted his post because when I posted it mine was directly afterwards. I should've quoted him, poor form from him.

He made some bizarre comment about Spitfires, Hurricanes and FM's, I forget now, but it was nonsense.

EDIT: Here it is:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...&postcount=216

Looks like he removed his first post, posted again after me and then edited it all into one.

Really? No difference? This says a lot about your 'feel' because there's a world of difference.

The second part, he never suggested that, we want 2 models which are reasonably representative of each, + the 109 versions. By representative I mean reasonable accuracy on speed, ROC, roll and turn at respective heights and speeds. Followed by reasonably representative DM's for each type of weapon.

I suspect that you'll have an argument for that, ask for all that rot which degenerates the thread.

You misunderstand the term frankenplane btw. It was coined from the practice of producing a particular type by using model files from pieces of another type which are similar enough. The FM was never pieced together like that, they are new files.

Haha..no worries, I just glad I edited it now then ;)

+2

Osprey,

It is defineable and measureable, characteristic.

It is not based on a subjective opinion.

Sorry, I am not up on my gaming lingo.

What is the correct term for a FM that is overmodelled in its capabilities?

+3