REALISM RATING of the HSFX 4.1 Bf-109K-4

REALISM RATING of the HSFX 4.1 Bf-109K-4 - Printable Version

+- All-Aircraft-Simulations (https://allaircraftsimulations.com)
+-- Forum: Announcements & General Discussions & Hyper Lobby (https://allaircraftsimulations.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=264)
+--- Forum: General Discussions. (https://allaircraftsimulations.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=298)
+--- Thread: REALISM RATING of the HSFX 4.1 Bf-109K-4 (/showthread.php?tid=69652)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

- ACE-OF-ACES - 14.04.2010

BillSwagger Wrote:
ACE-OF-ACES Wrote:
BillSwagger Wrote:thanks i found the PDF, and the graphs.

Do you have anything to support that theory beyond your gut 'feelings'?

Its not so much a gut feeling as it is i'm left asking questions that haven't been resolved by the data provided.

Ok not gut 'feelings'

Just gut 'questions'

Either way you have provided nothing IMHO that would sugest the 109K-4 data is suspect

Just tossing up straw men as to what might be or could be is not proof one way or another

Do the leg work and research to support your theories and than we can talk

BillSwagger Wrote:The 12199 prop was an experimental thin bladed prop. Thin blades are typically used for speed and dives, are they not?

If the 12195 is the one that was used in service, how did its characteristics differ? Did it offer better climb at the expense of top speed?

Those kind of questions.

And this has what to do with the Bf-109K-4 REALISM RATING that I did?

Anyway

Here is the deal

If you have a theory about something

Feel free to toss it out there

As long as it is presented as such

A theory

But when you say things like you think this or that is suspect based on your theory

Don

- BillSwagger - 14.04.2010

I don't see how what you've provided is anything more than a theory. Its just packaged in a neat presentation, but still a theory.

I'd do the leg work too, but its easier to ask the questions. :lol:

Perhaps asking the proper questions addresses other areas of research that could be looked at more closely, by me, you , or who ever has the time for it.

Also, did you climb the planes yourself, or use another method?

I find the AI climbs much better.

Another note, as much as its been disputed in the past, the HSFX mods did mod some of the stock planes. You may be testing modded aircraft and not a stock plane. To be certain you should be using a vanilla copy of 4.09m with no mods.

Bill

- ACE-OF-ACES - 14.04.2010

BillSwagger Wrote:I don't see how what you've provided is anything more than a theory. Its just packaged in a neat presentation, but still a theory.

Well based on what you have said thus far I am not suprised that you don't see it

Like I said if you think those guys were so stupid back than that they were not capable of colecting data

That's fine

I for one just give them more credit

BillSwagger Wrote:I'd do the leg work too, but its easier to ask the questions. :lol:

Again

Not suprised

Movie critics are a dime a dozen

It actully takes some knolwage and effort to make a movie

BillSwagger Wrote:Perhaps asking the proper questions addresses other areas of research that could be looked at more closely, by me, you , or who ever has the time for it.

Sure toss out as many theories as you like

Heck bring up the question of sun spots and what the pilot had for breakfast the day of the test

There all great theories

Just don't be suprised if most of us don't get too excited about them

BillSwagger Wrote:Also, did you climb the planes yourself, or use another method?

another method

BillSwagger Wrote:I find the AI climbs much better.

No AI was employed here

BillSwagger Wrote:Another note, as much as its been disputed in the past, the HSFX mods did mod some of the stock planes. You may be testing modded aircraft and not a stock plane. To be certain you should be using a vanilla copy of 4.09m with no mods.

Another neat theory

But Ill have to take Mongue's and all the mod makers I have worked with word over yours

In that they have showed me the stock FMs vs. the modded FM's which proves your theory is wrong

- P/O W. 'Moggy' Cattermole - 14.04.2010

Amusing as this, allow me to make this warning to those that would spar with Aces: NEVER make assertions without supporting evidence, NEVER go to battle without preparing for the possibility of him dissecting everything you say to find holes in your argument and theory. And never insult him if you get annoyed as 1) the administration and moderation mob don't smile on lobbing insults about the forum and 2) he'll use it against you to weaken your argument, since I honestly don't think he really cares.

As for his investigations, I'm sure he'd agree that they're not perfect. But they would appear to me to be fairly decent (though no doubt he'd agree that what they appear to me does not necessarily have any significance) but they are fair. It's interesting anyway, since no one else actually has a scientific method of rating aircraft. And giving a score based on scientific method.

- BillSwagger - 14.04.2010

ACE-OF-ACES Wrote:
BillSwagger Wrote:Like I said if you think those guys were so stupid back than that they were not capable of collecting data

Are you suggesting there is more 109k data, if there is, quit holding out on us, Ace. Surely this can't be the only 109K test(s).

I mean, there could probably be more data if it wasn't captured or destroyed.

Damn it, there i go again with my theories. Smile

I actually enjoy your work Ace, it raises a lot of questions about the modeling and the research that surrounds it.

In the end, its still only a theory just the same.

Bill

- BillSwagger - 14.04.2010

ACE-OF-ACES Wrote:
BillSwagger Wrote:
BillSwagger Wrote:Another note, as much as its been disputed in the past, the HSFX mods did mod some of the stock planes. You may be testing modded aircraft and not a stock plane. To be certain you should be using a vanilla copy of 4.09m with no mods.
Another neat theory

But Ill have to take Mongue's and all the mod makers I have worked with word over yours

In that they have showed me the stock FMs vs. the modded FM's which proves your theory is wrong

This seems to be a touchy area, so i've addressed it in private.

check your PMs. Ace.

thanks

Bill

- LuckyOne - 14.04.2010

P/O W. 'Moggy' Cattermole Wrote:As for his investigations, I'm sure he'd agree that they're not perfect. But they would appear to me to be fairly decent (though no doubt he'd agree that what they appear to me does not necessarily have any significance) but they are fair. It's interesting anyway, since no one else actually has a scientific method of rating aircraft. And giving a score based on scientific method.

Ace is doing something useful and with professional knowledge.I guess,we all like to spent our time flying a/c with non historic characteristic or what?I think that people who are dedicated to this game should encourage this kind of analysis or you are completely satisfied flying any a/c with non historic characteristic??

- Fireskull - 14.04.2010

Hummm...

I visualize a "formation" of data test results just over the horizon, coming to bomb all these questions to pieces.

- ACE-OF-ACES - 14.04.2010

BillSwagger Wrote:
ACE-OF-ACES Wrote:Like I said if you think those guys were so stupid back than that they were not capable of collecting data
Are you suggesting there is more 109k data, if there is, quit holding out on us, Ace. Surely this can't be the only 109K test(s).

I mean, there could probably be more data if it wasn't captured or destroyed.

Damn it, there i go again with my theories.

I actually enjoy your work Ace, it raises a lot of questions about the modeling and the research that surrounds it.

In the end, its still only a theory just the same.

Hardly

And here is why

You have the word 'theory' confused with the word 'compare'

Allow me..

Code:
theory

a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. 

contemplation or speculation.

guess or conjecture.

Code:
compare

to examine (two or more objects, ideas, people, etc.) in order to note similarities and differences.

to consider or describe as similar.

What I did is 'compare' the in-game data to the real world data

What you do is offer up a 'theory' about the data

Hope that helps you

On that note of helping

May I make a sugestion?

Or should I say will you do me a favor?

Read things at least once before you comment on them

Than consider reading them again before you comment on them

In that there is no way what I said could be confused for me saying there is more 109K data

So give it that 2nd read and than if your still confused

Let me know and Ill walk you threw it step by step

- ACE-OF-ACES - 14.04.2010

BillSwagger Wrote:This seems to be a touchy area, so i've addressed it in private.

check your PMs. Ace.

Nothing touchie about it

Just another case of you needing to read something twice before commenting on it

As I pointed out to you in the PM reply

You were and are wrong in thinking HSFX modified the flight models of stock planes

- ACE-OF-ACES - 14.04.2010

LuckyOne Wrote:Ace is doing something useful and with professional knowledge.I guess,we all like to spent our time flying a/c with non historic characteristic or what?I think that people who are dedicated to this game should encourage this kind of analysis or you are completely satisfied flying any a/c with non historic characteristic??

Thanks Lucky!

- BillSwagger - 15.04.2010

I think my jokes go right over your head, which is fine, maybe they aren't funny. I'm not sure where i attacked your character or said you were stupid, in fact

i think you are a smart guy.

All i did was challenge your data with possible alternatives and offered some questions.

If you dont like that, then why be a scientist or research guy?

Why should my post's be reduced to theories when your results are really only theoretical? what?... 'cause you made a color graph, and took some

information from a website link?

heck, i can do that, that doesn't take an engineering degree does it?

" a dollar 25 and library card"

ACE-OF-ACES Wrote:
BillSwagger Wrote:This seems to be a touchy area, so i've addressed it in private.

check your PMs. Ace.
Nothing touchie about it

Just another case of you needing to read something twice before commenting on it

As I pointed out to you in the PM reply

You were and are wrong in thinking HSFX modified the flight models of stock planes

Actually, there's no right or wrong about it Ace, its just respect for the forum and the game. I think discussing this topic openly can only do more harm

than good. You obviously don't have the full picture.

Bill

- ACE-OF-ACES - 15.04.2010

BillSwagger Wrote:I think my jokes go right over your head, which is fine, maybe they aren't funny. I'm not sure where i attacked your character or said you were stupid, in fact

i think you are a smart guy.

What are you talking about?

Can you be more specific?

I never said you attacked me or called me stupid

BillSwagger Wrote:All i did was challenge your data with possible alternatives and offered some questions.

Just to be clear

Time line wise

You were challenging it before you even read it

Which I and others found odd

As for your challenge

As I noted all you have provided is a theory

And when asked to provide a little substance to support your theory

You replied back with 'no'

Stating that all you are good for is tossing out theories and can not be bothered with doing any research to support your theories

Which I allready said was fine

Just as long as you don't get upset with me for not taking your theories seriosly

BillSwagger Wrote:If you dont like that, then why be a scientist or research guy?

To interact with people who can actually do the research to support thier theories

BillSwagger Wrote:Why should my post's be reduced to theories when your results are really only theoretical?

Whoops

Looks like your still struggling with the difference between the word 'theory' and 'compare'

Did you see the defintions I gave you?

Try reading them again

In that what I am doing is not theoretical

BillSwagger Wrote:what?... 'cause you made a color graph, and took some information from a website link

heck, i can do that, that doesn't take an engineering degree does it?

" a dollar 25 and library card"

No anyone could do it

As noted above I wish more would!

Than I would have someone to kick some ideas around with

Sadly most of what I get are guys with 'master of the obvious' statments and/or just some silly 'theories'

BillSwagger Wrote:Actually, there's no right or wrong about it Ace, its just respect for the forum and the game. I think discussing this topic openly can only do more harm

than good. You obviously don't have the full picture.

Actully it is you that has the limited picture

And you proved it by saying HSFX made changes to the stock flight model

And your proof of it was to send me a link to an UltraPack topic that said nothing about the stock flight modles in HSFX being change

And when I pointed that out to you

Your reply was well that is how it was explained to me

Now had you actully read the link you sent me to make up your own mind instead of relying on someone else to explane it to you

Oh wait

Nevermind

That probally would not have changed a thing

- BillSwagger - 15.04.2010

Hey look, i can "snip and clip" too.

ACE-OF-ACES Wrote:
BillSwagger Wrote:I never said you attacked me or called me stupid

Ever more reason to show me some respect and stop treating me like a half wit, telling me i need to read things twice.

Quote:Time line wise

You were challenging it before you even read it

Time line wise, i read it a week or so ago when you first posted it. Then it was brought to my attention again by other people that read it.

I've read it three or four times and still can't find a bibliography or reference material,

nor are the methods for flight stipulated.

It just gives the game settings.

Its not a bad job either ace, and my only challenge was really only

related to the reference material.

I have yet to even touch on your methods, and at this point its probably a waste of time to do so.

Quote:Just as long as you don't get upset with me for not taking your theories seriosly

Actually, that doesn't bother me so much,

only that your giving your theories more weight for the comparison you are making.

I never actually disagreed with your theory that you

used to back the comparison you were making.

I simply offered that more information is needed

to make an accurate comparison.

You also admit this in the text of the comparison.

Quote:Than I would have someone to kick some ideas around with

sounds great, but wouldn't you need to take them seriously?

Quote:Actully it is you that has the limited picture

And you proved it by saying HSFX made changes to the stock flight model

And your proof of it was to send me a link to an UltraPack topic that said nothing about the stock flight modles in HSFX being change

Actually, i have more information for you,

but if your gonna air it out over the public forum then

why would i share any private thought with Ace of Aces.

Proving you wrong in public

only does more damage to the reputation of the game, not you Aces.

I hope your not gonna hold a grudge now that this thread lies in rubble. (sarcasm)

Pluss, this is no way to have a conversation,

"snip and clip" trolling is bottom of barrel when it comes to talking on forums.

good day

Bill

- ACE-OF-ACES - 15.04.2010

BillSwagger Wrote:Hey look, i can "snip and clip" too.

What you want a cookie?

BillSwagger Wrote:Ever more reason to show me some respect and stop treating me like a half wit, telling me i need to read things twice.

That is your theory

And it like the rest is in error

Here is the real deal

There are ignorant people in this world

But ignorant does not mean you incapable of learning things (read stupid or halfwit)

It just means you have not been exposed to the info yet

What defines a stupid (read halfwit) is someone who has been exposed to something but they are still not capable of learning it

There is another case between those two types

A person that has been exposed to the info, but is so closed minded (read thinks they are right so they don't listen anymore) that the apear to be stupid

I for one think you are one of those types

Your not stupid

In that you could learn

Your just not willing to open your mind to the posibility that you are wrong

BillSwagger Wrote:Time line wise, i read it a week or so ago when you first posted it. Then it was brought to my attention again by other people that read it.

I've read it three or four times and still can't find a bibliography or reference material,

nor are the methods for flight stipulated.

It just gives the game settings.

Well your never going to get a bibliogrphy

Your wrong about the reference material, it is in there

But for you Ill take what I have from the FM ANALYSIS documents and put it into the REALISM RATING documents that explanes the in-game data obtained using the zINFOMOD

The same mod that is used to generate the data files for IL2Compare

But that is besides the point

The point your trying to avoid here is the one I made

You were commenting on things you had not even read yet

In that it was not until after you commented on it that you figrued out how to click on the link to read the pdf file

BillSwagger Wrote:Its not a bad job either ace, and my only challenge was really only

related to the reference material.

I have yet to even touch on your methods, and at this point its probably a waste of time to do so.

Promise?

Because to be honest I dont see any value in the two of us talking about any aspect of this further

Your goinng to belive what you want to belive no mater how many times I show you your mistakes

Thus I am pretty much done trying

So lets just agree to disagree

You go your way and Ill go mine

Deal?

BillSwagger Wrote:Actually, that doesn't bother me so much,

That is good beacuse I don't see any value in your theories

BillSwagger Wrote:only that your giving your theories more weight for the comparison you are making.

I never actually disagreed with your theory that you

used to back the comparison you were making.

Whoops

It looks like your still confusing 'compare' with 'theory'

Scroll up and re-read the definitions I gave you

BillSwagger Wrote:I simply offered that more information is needed

to make an accurate comparison.

Agreed you have offered nothing but theories

That is to say you have provided nothing to support your theory that more info is needed

It is just a gut feeling that you have that is based on nothing at all

BillSwagger Wrote:You also admit this in the text of the comparison.

Quote:Than I would have someone to kick some ideas around with

sounds great, but wouldn't you need to take them seriously?

Ah, I see the problem here

You think tossing out silly theories should be taking seriously!

That is just not how it works in the real world

You come up with a theory

Than you do the research to find info that supports your theory

Any dimwit can say "Hey what about sun spots, they might have an effect on the top speed of the plane"

To which I would say

That is a neat theory

Now what data or info do you have to support that theory?

So it should be clear to you now

If you wanto to be taken seriosly

Your going to have to do more than what you have done thus far

SAVVY?

BillSwagger Wrote:Actually, i have more information for you,

but if your gonna air it out over the public forum then

why would i share any private thought with Ace of Aces.
Proving you wrong in public

only does more damage to the reputation of the game, not you Aces.

If belivng that helps you get to sleep at night

So be it

No skin off my back

But the fact remains that the link you provided as proff that HSFX has modified the stock FMs makes no mention of HSFS modifying the stock FMs

So one has to wonder where you got that idea from

In that it was clearly not from reading the link you provided

BillSwagger Wrote:I hope your not gonna hold a grudge now that this thread lies in rubble. (sarcasm)

Pluss, this is no way to have a conversation,

"snip and clip" trolling is bottom of barrel when it comes to talking on forums.

good day

Trust me when I say I feel no since of loss with the idea of you leaving the topic at hand

If anything I am going to have alot of spare time to type/talk to people who have an open mind

Instead of trying to get you to open yours

Take care

And good luck