Bug 174 on 12lbs boost. Review please.

[Kurfürst]

It seems you are applying for membership in ROLC, Kwiatek.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

And how on Earth is this proof to complete changeover to 100 octane, which is what you claim?.

You have seen it, we disagree on it but you have seen it.

.

My position was made clear 14 months ago on the matter in the thread you have participated, despite this you continuously claim that my position is unclear.

Since you have refuse to spend the time (apprx. 1 minute search) required to understand my position I make it clear to you again. You can read it again on this page:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthr...t=20110&page=5

Note that the current level of evidence shows 8 out of 19 Sector Airfields and 9 out of 32 Fighter Airfields using 100 octane fuel. Also note that many of these stations only show sign of 100 octane use in August or later and not before.

Many thanks, that wasn't too painful was it

[Kwiatek]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

It seems you are applying for membership in ROLC, Kwiatek.

Well i think i have not such skill and time for these

Maby beacuse over these i definitly prefer to do these:



or these

[Ernst]

Originally Posted by robtek

Still both sides have evidence but no proof.

The issue seems very similar to the "schroeders cat" problem.

Everybody and his uncle "knows" the cat is dead, but it can't be proven until the box is opened.

So, everybody, and his uncle, "knows" there was only 100 oct. used by the active part of the FC, but as in "Schroeders cat" all possibilities are equal true until there is proof (box opened).

I agree with this Robtek. I do not see any definitive proof by both sides. Outstanding claims requires outstanding proof. And both failed to provide.

[fruitbat]

hmmmm, i see lots of evidence from one side, but i quite readily concede not absolute conclusive proof beyond all doubt, and no evidence at all on the other side that has any bearing, from the church of the luftwhiners.

but i await to be dazzled by some evidence from Kurfurst/Crummp, and there disciples of the church of luftwhiners, Ernst Robtek and Doggles, at some point.

[robtek]

Originally Posted by fruitbat

hmmmm, i see lots of evidence from one side, but i quite readily concede not absolute conclusive proof beyond all doubt, and no evidence at all on the other side that has any bearing, from the church of the luftwhiners.

but i await to be dazzled by some evidence from Kurfurst/Crummp, and there disciples of the church of luftwhiners, Ernst Robtek and Doggles, at some point.

Beginning to call the other side names is not the most subtle avowal of defeat.

[fruitbat]

Originally Posted by robtek

Beginning to call the other side names is not the most subtle avowal of defeat.

so where's your evidence

by the way, Kurfurst and Crummp have been insulting people for pages now, lol!

[bongodriver]

Originally Posted by Ernst

I agree with this Robtek. I do not see any definitive proof by both sides. Outstanding claims requires outstanding proof. And both failed to provide.

Both may have failed to provide definitive proof but only the advocates of RAF 100 octane use have come up with 'any' evidence, give the debate has now turned to wether the RAF's use of 100 extensive or not the distinct lack of any evidence of 87 octane use works in it's favour.

definitive proof may ultimately prove to be unobtainable, so common sense would dictate the acceptance of exclusive use of 100 octane based on the 'only' evidence provided.

[fruitbat]

Originally Posted by bongodriver

Both may have failed to provide definitive proof but only the advocates of RAF 100 octane use have come up with 'any' evidence, give the debate has now turned to wether the RAF's use of 100 extensive or not the distinct lack of any evidence of 87 octane use works in it's favour.

definitive proof may ultimately prove to be unobtainable, so common sense would dictate the acceptance of exclusive use of 100 octane based on the 'only' evidence provided.

What he said.

But all said and done, from the games point of view, as i have said before along with others, this argument is largely irrelevant, as everyone agrees that there should be 100 octane spits and hurris. Frequency is what is being argued about, mission builders can decide that in there own missions, and people can vote with there feet, based on what they believe.

[ATAG_Snapper]

My post to Black Six last February 10th re 100 octane shows we're no further along; in fact we were pushed backward in flight modelling since then with the recent alpha patch + Hotfix.

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...1&postcount=84

I am not optimistic about any further FM "improvements", especially in how any specifics are being withheld.