Sorry for being late to the party, but I want the following, even though it is stupid. :)

I think that this qualifies for the "did that just happen" moniker. Though it is nicely subtle and could easily be missed by the unaware.

If in BOB we are to get weather and specifically wind direction. Then determining wind direction when making a forced landing away from an airfield, where there would presumably be wind socks provided, I would think would be important - and in fact it was. So using cues from nature pilots would try to determine the wind direction. Things like movement of water and trees, and the behaviour of Cows, and other grazing animals.

I was reading Luftwaffe Test Pilot by Hans-Werner Lerche, the other day. And one method that the author used was the direction that cows face in a field. So I want this modeled, imperfectly of course, because it is not foolproof. But there is some evidence for it that if the wind is strong enough cows will face away (shielding their faces) from the wind. :)

Here is the passage from the Lerche book. "I had even determined the wind direction by the position of the cows which are supposed to stand with their backs to the wind." page 60. It is worth noting that the man flew 125 different types of aircraft (not counting variations of the same aircraft) and was extremely experienced.

See the following ...

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_do_cow...same_direction

http://www.cruisersforum.com/forums/...ind-42437.html

This last one is pilots debating the issue. There is also a link to a tragic (perhaps also funny) video of a Tiger Moth hitting a cow on landing. The plane seems fine by the way.

http://www.pprune.org/private-flying...en-eating.html

+1 for windsock cows. Total immersion breaker for me if not included.

Yes

You are not on the FAA forum, you are on the 1C GAMES forum with "Necrovision" and "StarWolves 3" banners surrounding your posts. You cannot walk into any flight school and have your hours spent on Il2 count towards earning a license. Sorry

It's in the flight simulator genre of games, I'll give you that but as long as you can buy it on amazon.com for 50 bucks and it says "T for teen" on the cover, it's a game.

I've just noticed the discussion about simulator vs game. You lot are very amusing indeed.
There's no shame in playing your video game. You don't have to call it a simulator to try and make the hobby seem somehow more mature.

I'm positive that 50 years ago you would all have had train sets, and the pit builders of today would have dressed up as little train drivers back then.

It's a game, you silly, silly men. A very good game, too. When you simulate, or pretend to do something, be it cowboys and indians or playing IL2, you are engaging in play.

I can get quite annoyed when people dismiss gaming as childish, yet insist on watching television aimed at those with subnormal intelligence. But I never lose sight of the fact that at the end of the day, I'm playing games, whether it's Black Shark or BFBC2.

Kind of reminds of of that Argentinian bloke who played Silent Hunter in real-time and designed his flat to look like a submarine. I am curious: how many of you actually do dress up to play IL2?

I only have a joystick on an upturned wastepaper basket, but I still prefer nothing less than full switch settings.

50 years ago I did have a train set.

The point is Ad Man that many, if not most of us would rather not see all the silly, pointless Luft 46 junk in this title.

There are so many other more desperately needed aircraft.


Oh, and I hate Nazi's, so the continuing deification of their imaginary hardware does indeed wrankle my feathers. My father and his generation fought those idiots so we could all be here and enjoy the freedoms we have to play on the internet.

If you don't understand that, I pity you.

Are you completely ignorant of the context of this question? It was about why fewer people want Luft '46 aircraft in the game. That's about target audiences, not whether I think I can get a pilot's license. But given any of my previous discussions with you it should come as no surprise that that has gone completely over your head (I seem to recall one occasion where I made a JOKE and you said "Ban this faggot"). Bottom line: In an economic sense, do you think that the target market of this game is similar to that of any of the games you have mentioned above? Do you think that the vast majority of the audience of this game want aircraft that they can use to play campaigns that actually happened, and where simulating a fictional campaign, don't you think that they'd want aircraft that might have actually POSSIBLY flown in that what-if scenario? THAT is what I am talking about. :rolleyes: *sigh* My faith in the human race wavers yet more. The only reason for the discussion about simulator vs. game is to highlight the difference in the tastes of the fan base of this genre. Any gamer likes a what-if scenario, or a '46 aircraft, but most fans of flight-sims like ones that can still fly using the physical laws of the game engine without having one of these put into the flightmodel to make it take off.

Well said sir.

I hope so. No doubt I'll receive only insults in reply.

Not to worry, it will never be as bad as the Rof forum at SimHQ...

:-P