[Aymar_Mauri]

it was to start with , but then i truned my attention to you (Aymar_mauri).I suppose i should of been clear on that. :lol:

Ok. I think it might go from here:

And how do you know what is exactly historical correct? Vamir already proved with his findings that the Ta152c was near as dam to olegs "interpretation" of historical data.

Correct. Oleg's "interpretation" of historical data. And look where that lead the in-game Antons. Models exhibiting in some major areas (acceleration, energy retention) behaviour far away from the RL planes.

And I had already said I did not knew anyone was working on new Ta-152C slot planes. So, I could not comment on Vanir's findings, could I?

Then you whine about the spitfire`s climb rate which tbh is pretty much comparable in game (MkV 3,140 ft/min, 109 g-1 3,427 ft/min)

Oh! I see. So you want "comparable" instead of historical accurate? So, why not remove all planes except one and just change the skins and markings to differentiate them in battle? Seems that would cater to what you are proposing.

It is not a question of "comparability" but of accuracy to RL data and behaviour.

Infact your totally missing the point on which im trying to get across, changing Fm or talioring exsiting planes on "new slots" because an individual thinks its "wrong" is ludicrous.

No. You're the one missing the point as I have pointed out already. It's seems that you just won't listen.

I am not tailoring anything to my taste. I'm not basing what I said in just what I "think" in regard to Spitfires. I'm basing it in what several persons with good knowledge of physics, the planes and it's behaviour have found out after extensive testing in-game and by comparation with RL data. You seem to have reached different conclusions about in-game behaviour. Fine for you. Go show them that.

Do you think that you gain some kind of godly like status by saying "that plane does not fly correctly" of it doesnt fly like it looks". No you dont. I feel for oleg in the old days.. listening to people constantly whining about thier favourite rides and how wrong it is. Now its the people at AAA i feel sorry for.

Well, this text really points out that I seem to be talking to a child. It's sad that when someone posts a diferent point of view (or in this case comments on the findings of other knowlegeable people) there are always "people" that, for lack of better arguments, try to drive the conversation in to an ego mud-match of some sort. They start by implying the poster is just using "feelings" and "thoughts", then proceed to keywords like "whining" and finaly top it of with an impersonation of the "emotional defender of Oleg's martyrdom".

So mature, really... :roll:

At the end of the day you should be gratefull that someone has taken the time out of thier lives to offer you something remotley close to how something flew with the OLD FM engine of this game.

You lost me here. Maybe you should try to read posts before babbling. This was posted in the beggining of the thread:

Thanks for the link. I was oblivious to any work being done on the Ta-152C. Nice to know about this.

If your still not happy then maybe you should be looking at getting flying lesons buy a warbird THEN tell us it doesnt fly right. OR quite simply wait for B.O.B?

get a grip and learn to fly your ride properly.

It seems to me that you are the one who should be "getting a grip". Not reading what people have wrote, mixing up quotes of different persons, insulting said people and posting incoherent altercations that are unrelated to the subject at hand, seem to me a case worthy of an "anger management course" or "attention span deficit disorder" psychotherapy...

P.s if you strugling in offline games , i wouldnt cross over into online dogfights if i were you

Well, let me give you some info on my ability. I am exclusivelly an offline player. I refuse to play any game online nowadays. This happens because of two reasons:

- Lack of extensive free time due to professional and personal responsabilities.
- Having, years ago, a slight addition when I played other games online (FPSs & RPGs) that lead to professional and personal problems.

Since I adquired IL-2 (5 years ago), I planned never to play and I will never play IL-2 online.

I despise "Quake-fests" and, although I have no experience in IL-2 online, my oppinion of "Air-Quake-fests" is no different. I'm not a pimpled teen with an ego problem trying to show my e-penis in aerial combat. I'm a 37 year old technical designer with a background in mechanical engineering and a passion for history (ancient, medieval and modern).

For online play, only coops could interest me, but need team schedules and coordination that is impossible for me to dispose of.

I only care for reproducing (sometimes building) and playing offline historical missions and campaigns. And for that, I always hope to be able to have at my disposal planes, maps and objects that reproduce, as much as possible, the expected behaviour of their historical counterparts. Therefore my points and concerns about the planes' FM, DM and geometry, etc...

To answer your sarcastic remark, in offline play, only ever using full switch, I can defeat several Ace AI planes in any setting using any plane. With comparable year matched planes I have no problem fighting vs 6 Ace AI by catering my style to my plane's strong points. In an inferior plane I can take on 2 or 3 Ace AI. In more extreme matches, even a CR42 vs 2xFW190 Ace AI is achievable although very hard and ending in a tie.

So, no, I haven't had any problems with the AI since after the first 6 months of playing the game.

In conclusion, I must say that trying to take the conversation in to the land of "you say that you want new FM because you suck and need an