Quote:
Originally Posted by LesniHU
ok, I said I will elaborate, I will.
How to "kill" proof, shown in math to make it as simple as possible:
statement X*X=3*X
counterexample: X=2 => 2*2=3*2, not true => original statement incorrect
That is what I did in first reply.
your statement: accuracy of weapon X is too low because hit ratio is low
my counterexample: X=BK3.7 => hit ratio of X=BK3.7 is low but its accuracy is fine => logic behind original statement incorrect
It cannot be more simple. Will continue below..
|
Yawn.. Please define "fine"
Just because you show some silly statement in math doesn't give any documentation or prove otherwise. "am I and others supposed to take your word for it?" Hmm suspect as usual. You can't because what your stating has nothing to do with the 50 cal...
Orginal statment still stands until you provide some actual test documentation. See how what you want is a double edge sword? The simple fact is a 5 year old thread with several tests done and screen shots you just want to go with whats what.
Lets just leave the 50s alone. Get to work and fix the damed Mach problem that I pointed out earlier.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LesniHU
Yes. It did not take much for me to figure out that your claim that "Antons non self-sealing fuel leaks..." are in fact common selfsealing tanks which behaves same way as other planes' tanks. That selfsealing works, contrary to your claim. Then I invested hour of my life to make actual flighttest showing selfsealing in action and post results, BTW something YOU could do too before even posting it. Then FC99 invested time of his life to make actual flighttest showing another plane leaking all fuel in matter of minutes, something YOU could do too before posting. I hope this will finally end the story and that I will not hear anything about hidden agenda or conspiracy."?
|
Fantastic then. You have proven me wrong. Thank you for your testing. I feel much better now knowing this isn't a problem anymore.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LesniHU
You pointed several problems, ok, I did not comment them because either someone other did or I do not have all info at hand. I did not comment compressibility. I did not coment Hellcat performance. I did not comment .50 accuracy (!) (read this sentence again please) - what I did is that I killed your "proof". Before I could comment gun accuracy I would have to learn much about ballistics, rigidity of gun mounts, wings and nose and much other things. If you want .50 more accurate, you will have to do the same. Alternatively you can find historical documents and recreate test in game..
|
Sure sure I will get right on that. I know you can't comment on compressibility because you probably don't have the documentation to back it up as presented earlier in the thread and by others. It's okay you comment on what you can.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LesniHU
When you try to base .50 accuracy claims on hit ratio, I think its clear you can't be taken seriously. You really want to read in next readme "accuracy of .50cal increased because JG27CaptStubing's hit rate with them was lower than supposed"?
|
I'm sure you and some others won't take me seriously because you specifically feel that you're better now that you're part of DT. What I find odd about all this is when I pointed out other problems ie the Mach issue somehow it came out to be true. So I guess I'm only partially wrong in all my emotions and other claims right? Grab a glove and join the game. I only make claims to improve the game. Oddley enough it's aligned with the betterment of the game. So relax turbo and take it out of gear.
Capt Love