British FM killing the fun of the game for allied pilots.

[Crumpp]

Save it for if and when we actually get a MkV.

See robtek's post because mine sailed over your head.

The instability of the early mark spitfires is a proven fact.

Instability is not modeled in the game at all.

[NZtyphoon]

Originally Posted by Crumpp

See robtek's post because mine sailed over your head.

The instability of the early mark spitfires is a proven fact.

Instability is not modeled in the game at all.

Crumpp can quit highjacking this thread to push his own personal Spitfire elevator fetish; as has been pointed out elsewhere (http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showpos...&postcount=934)

If Crump wants to provide Game test data or observed and documented characteristics and furnish the developers with the supporting valid realworld data (NACA or other I dont care). He can do it in private directly to Ilya, this [94 page] thread has had more than enough time and data thrown at it to "prove" his theory if its correct.

Personally I dont see the point of wasting this much energy on a single characteristic of a single aircraft at the expense of all other aspects and all other aircraft. In doing so it would unbalance the game and overall flight model of the aircraft in question. I would also have to question whether Crump holds an objective view of this flight characteristic and flight data given the single bloody-mindedness of the argument.

The developers have their criteria and approach to modelling flight characteristics and should not be pushed to change a FM based on one persons argument against the community. While I am impressed by the amount of research and data and the extreme effort to prove the spit was unstable, where was the game testing data to back up that infact the FM is incorrect? Nada, zero, zilch... so I have to conclude this is just a massive one-man-band trolling of the community.

[Kurfürst]

Personal attacks... always very constructive.

[ACE-OF-ACES]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Personal attacks... always very constructive.

I don't see anything in NZtyphoon's quote of what FS~Phat said in another recent Spit thread that would/could equate to a personal attack.. personal fact.. but not attack IMHO

[robtek]

Just because Crumpp was shouted down by some internet bullys in the other thread, who also influenced FS~Phat as it seemed, it is still not 'his own personal Spitfire elevator fetish'!

Only someone totally biased and bent on ignoring facts could say something like that.

Loud and often repeated doesn't mean automatically truth.

[Al Schlageter]

Originally Posted by Kurfürst

Personal attacks... always very constructive.

So you are complaining about a personal attack by a Mod > FS~Phat. There is the icon next to the Post Number you know very well for reporting such.

[bongodriver]

Loud and often repeated doesn't mean automatically truth and it doesn't matter how many you use it doesn't make Crumpp right either.

Just because Crumpp was shouted down by some internet bullys in the other thread, who also influenced FS~Phat as it seemed

Are you saying Phat didn't make his own conclusions?

Only someone totally biased and bent on ignoring facts could say something like that.

Only someone biased and bent on ignoring facts assumes that anyone opposing Crumpp is doing it from a biased standpoint.

[JG52Uther]

Well done.