Friday Update, April 13, 2012

[335th_GRAthos]

Originally Posted by Moggy

The data I sent in also had some information not relating to the Battle of Britain Hurricane but earlier models.

I am sorry to be persistent Moggy,

I do not give a rat's xxxx how the fuel tanks of the Hurricane Mk.I work (or don't).

What I understand between the lines is that you gave them historical data regarding the Hurricane MK.I including performance data.
The performance data you gave to them are historically correct but due to the test environment used, they do not reflect the maximum performance of the Hurricane.

Now, for some reason, you decide to wonder whether 1c used the data you provided them with, although you do not have any indication that they used it, rather the contrary (they thanked Sean and not you).

Which brings up following troubling aspects:

#1. This reminds me of the cases when people give loaded guns to children and then wonder why accidents happen... Responsibility and foresight of what our actions may cause is important in this world.

#2. What do you want to achieve mentioning what you mentioned???? ("I pray that...")
- That we congratulate you for your XXXXXXX???? <- I live the choice of descriptive word at your discretion and judgement
- That we congratulate 1c for their XXXXXXX for using historical data they should not be using ???? <- I live the choice of descriptive word to anybody's imagination
- That we all run like scareless chicken because the Hurricane will now be running with 87oct performance instead of 150oct (do not know what the current oct rate is for the day, I lost count). ?????

Besides, since you are not Sean why on earth do you open a discussion aknowledging something which could potentialy make people consider congratulating you for your XXXXXXX???? <- I live the choice of descriptive word at your discretion and judgement


And what for?
we have not seen how the frigging Hurricane performs as per the new patch that we do not have!



~S~

I am sorry to lash out on you, it is not personal and I mean no insult, it is just that you gave me an excellent example to point out some of the madness that has been going on since last Friday's announcement.

Taildragger...

>>Are you stalking me?<<

Simply getting involved in something which doesn't really have much to do with me, and pointing up a contradiction. As you did, and tried to do, with me previously. Now, see how silly it is?

>>I thought it was a polite way to say stop talking crap. <<

No, it wasn't. Don't be silly.

Ben

[taildraggernut]

Originally Posted by Falstaff

Taildragger...

>>Are you stalking me?<<

Simply getting involved in something which doesn't really have much to do with me, and pointing up a contradiction. As you did, and tried to do, with me previously. Now, see how silly it is?

hold a grudge much?

at least you admited the circumsatnces for my original interaction with you was for hipocrisy on your part.
yes I can see how silly you are.

Originally Posted by Falstaff

>>I thought it was a polite way to say stop talking crap. <<

No, it wasn't. Don't be silly.

Ben

No..it really is, repeat the 2 to yourself and let the wisdom sink in.

Taildraggernut said:

>>hold a grudge much?<<

Not a whole bunch, but I do have a memory for holier-than-thou types.

>>at least you admited the circumsatnces for my original interaction with you was for hipocrisy on your part.<<

Ok, spot the typos....

>>yes I can see how silly you are.<<

Great

Ben

[taildraggernut]

Not a whole bunch, but I do have a memory for holier-than-thou types.

I just act it, I don't really believe it like you do

Ok, spot the typos....

point in case, yes I made a bad spelling....oops....I'm only human.

[Stipe]

Need a ruler you two? Might be faster.
Use Pm's for the sake of the rest of us. Thank you.

[taildraggernut]

Quite right, sorry folks.

[JG52Uther]

Stipe use the ignore function, it works brilliantly.
User CP > Edit ignore list > Add member to list

[kendo65]

Grathos, I'm no expert in these matters but I easily understood what Moggy was talking about. Are you sure you can't work it out for yourself. Seems a bit disingenuous to me.

The main point is that he gave the Hurricane data for startup procedures. The reason the devs shouldn't use the performance data supplied is because they are for Hurricanes with inferior fixed-pitch propellors - something that isn't modelled in COD. (there's also the 87 octane V 100 octane debate of which enough has been said already.)

And he also stated at the bottom of that post that he wasn't Sean.

So what exactly is your problem?

[Moggy]

Originally Posted by kendo65

Grathos, I'm no expert in these matters but I easily understood what Moggy was talking about. Are you sure you can't work it out for yourself. Seems a bit disingenuous to me.

The main point is that he gave the Hurricane data for startup procedures. The reason the devs shouldn't use the performance data supplied is because they are for Hurricanes with inferior fixed-pitch propellors - something that isn't modelled in COD. (there's also the 87 octane V 100 octane debate of which enough has been said already.)

And he also stated at the bottom of that post that he wasn't Sean.

So what exactly is your problem?

Thank you kendo, the devs cared enough to fit a proper fuel tank selector in Cliffs of Dover. I saw a picture back last year of them holding pilots notes and 1 of them looked a lot like a Hurricane mk.II notes (could be wrong but there aren't too many orange coloured notes around). The mk.I notes are very detailed (158 pages) but most of the performance data is purely for the fixed pitch prop as the notes were made in March 1939 and as such non applicable. However, the procedures themselves didn't change too much so knowing how rare the mk.I notes are I contacted Black Six and sent them in along with ATA notes and the film I mentioned previously.
You're spot on about the 87\100 octane debate that's why I left it there, enough has been said already.
I'm glad someone at least understands my reasoning.