Friday Update, April 13, 2012

[zapatista]

Originally Posted by taildraggernut

you are demonstrating a total failure of charisma, it really doesn't hurt to be polite.

just re-read your previous post and the context it was in (applauding manu's meaningless comment), my reply was tailored to the combined level of intellectual effort demonstrated

i promise to be gentle and bring flowers next time

[taildraggernut]

Originally Posted by zapatista

just re-read your previous post and the context it was in (applauding manu's meaningless comment), my reply was tailored to the combined level of intellectual effort shown

i promise to bring be gentle and bring flowers next time

if it was a mindless applause I would have just said '+1' which seems so popular here, instead I gave a reason why I agreed with Manu, and made no attempt to ridicule you.

if you think it's all about the machine then you are a classic case of the 'bad workman', and if you think a simulation will suffice in recreating 'all' the variables in real life then it's pretty clear whose oppinions are worthless here.

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by zapatista

just re-read your previous post and the context it was in (applauding manu's meaningless comment), my reply was tailored to the combined level of intellectual effort demonstrated

i promise to be gentle and bring flowers next time

Your reply was incredibly rude Zapatista. Whether you did this because your grasp of English is poor or if you are socially inept I do not know. In future perhaps you would do well to think whether you would be prepared to say that to him in person before you post, that may keep your manners in check.

[zapatista]

Originally Posted by Osprey

Your reply was incredibly rude Zapatista. Whether you did this because your grasp of English is poor or if you are socially inept I do not know. In future perhaps you would do well to think whether you would be prepared to say that to him in person before you post, that may keep your manners in check.

you are not one to speak here, with your abrasive self conceited meaningless posts directed at various people over the last weeks

how about you mind your own business and stay out of what does not concern you, you have enough problems of your own without going to look for more

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by zapatista

you are not one to speak here, with your abrasive self conceited meaningless posts directed at various people over the last weeks

how about you mind your own business and stay out of what does not concern you, you have enough problems of your own without going to look for more

Yes I think it's the latter.

[No145_Hatter]

Supporting Crystal Palace is Osprey's problem.

[Osprey]

Originally Posted by No145_Hatter

Supporting Crystal Palace is Osprey's problem.

As much as I hate West Ham and will laugh at fat crook Allerdyce when they flop in the playoffs, that 6-0 thrashing of the Seaweed last week made me laugh rather a lot

Now, enjoy your time at the moment. As Brighty recently said, there are teachers and pupils - when will BHA ever learn?

[No145_Hatter]

So much for the lucky heather Gus bought at Selhurst...

[Insuber]

As remarked by others (Manu, Tamat) there are some visual limitations of the current simulation which effect more the game than the 5% + or - of turning radius.

I'll give an example. One hour ago I was on ATAG - before a CTD - flying on my Bf-109 Northward at 4km above the Channel, and got engaged by a Spit coming opposite.

After the crossing I went in a power climbing spiral at full WEP, 1.41 ata, while the Spit turned towards me loosing some of his energy. He kept lifting his nose some 200 m behind and lower on my right, trying to score pot shots, which he did, but on the fuselage. After some of this spiral climbing he stalled and went down spinning for some 500 m. I leveled and kept turning , looking at him to see his direction once he recovered the spin, in order to B&Z him. And voilà ... vanished above the sea.

All my maneuvering and tactics have been frustrated because at medium distance the LODs are porked, and the Spit became invisible. Sooooo ... why disputing about plane performance when we have some basic issues like the disappearance of planes at medium distance?

Cheers,
Insuber

[SlipBall]

Originally Posted by Insuber

As remarked by others (Manu, Tamat) there are some visual limitations of the current simulation which effect more the game than the 5% + or - of turning radius.

I'll give an example. One hour ago I was on ATAG - before a CTD - flying on my Bf-109 Northward at 4km above the Channel, and got engaged by a Spit coming opposite.

After the crossing I went in a power climbing spiral at full WEP, 1.41 ata, while the Spit turned towards me loosing some of his energy. He kept lifting his nose some 200 m behind and lower on my right, trying to score pot shots, which he did, but on the fuselage. After some of this spiral climbing he stalled and went down spinning for some 500 m. I leveled and kept turning , looking at him to see his direction once he recovered the spin, in order to B&Z him. And voilà ... vanished above the sea.

All my maneuvering and tactics have been frustrated because at medium distance the LODs are porked, and the Spit became invisible. Sooooo ... why disputing about plane performance when we have some basic issues like the disappearance of planes at medium distance?

Cheers,
Insuber

Have you added that to the bugtracker/feature list?...I have not looked there lately, but I don't remember seeing that.