4-12 wish list (Merged)

[SaQSoN]

Originally Posted by shelby

about youtube videos

Pardon me my slowness, but what exactly about them all? And what are those videos have to do with the topic, called "4-12 wish list"?

Or, in a short words, what the heck are you trying to say by flooding this thread with youtube links?

[shelby]

Originally Posted by SaQSoN

Pardon me my slowness, but what exactly about them all? And what are those videos have to do with the topic, called "4-12 wish list"?

Or, in a short words, what the heck are you trying to say by flooding this thread with youtube links?

to fix some mistakes in the upcoming update....

[SaQSoN]

What mistakes?

[shelby]

lagg3 and me109e machine guns, mig flying in dogfight and some more....

[SaQSoN]

There are no mistakes with the things you listed. Unless you can clearly describe a mistake exactly what it is and provide documents (meaning, written/printed official test results, not propaganda movies), proving the mistake exists.

[Treetop64]

Originally Posted by shelby

lagg3 and me109e machine guns, mig flying in dogfight and some more....

"Vague" doesn't even begin to describe the above statement, which the author presents as evidence of "mistakes". Especially the "some more" part.

No one argues against critical analysis (which the above is certainly not), but make at least make a small effort at validating your case. Others would be more willing to listen and think about what you say, regardless of whether they agree or not.

[shelby]

Look i just put some documentaries about planes of ww2 so if they are based in reality then the planes in game need some work to be more realistic but i don't know if that can be done and i don't have official documents to argue

[CWMV]

What the Heck are you talking about?
What do you think is off?
Can you please state your case and remove your spam posts?

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by shelby

Look i just put some documentaries about planes of ww2 so if they are based in reality then the planes in game need some work to be more realistic but i don't know if that can be done and i don't have official documents to argue

"Be more realistic" is about as vague as you can get. The best and only way to make anything more realistic is to delve in to the detailed technical specifications. You can certainly use anecdotal evidence to provide some level of flavour and to get the average person a general idea of "how things really were" but ultimately, in a simulation, you need to rely on numbers. The harder the number (i.e. the more quantifiable) the better.

That's why we try and dig up test pilot reports, scientific testing results, data tables, etc. to get the best possible result. It's extremely difficult to model something that is 60 years old with some details washed away with time but on the whole, WWII is extremely well documented, and it's easy enough to get most of the details right.

Not to offend but a couple of TV documentaries are good fun to watch but of little value in simulation discussions. The detail levels required for simulation are much too high for the average TV documentary... it's the wrong audience. Even for us simulation pilots... "flying the aircraft" is great but there is a whole other level going on underneath in computer code that is well above and beyond the average simulation pilot. Nevermind the average TV watcher.

[SPAD-1949]

Originally Posted by shelby

to fix some mistakes in the upcoming update....

Like when they talk about G-Models the keep showing E- Models or when talking about the 410 showing a Ju 88 or so?
This movies are full of some mistakes...