[ACE-OF-ACES]

using only this to know a FM is totally ridiculous !

I disagree 100%

If we don't base the quality/fidelity/accuracy of the simulation on how well it matches the real world performance numbers..

Than what should we base it on?

In WWI, WWII and KOREA they did rate-of-climb (ROC) and top-speed-per-alt (TSPA) testing as a minimum to determine the performance of the plane.

Are you saying they were ridiculous to do such testing?

The game is not like the real world , there is a lot of errors in the code ,

Well, no flight sim ever was, is, or will be perfect!

But other planes (read FMs) are 'simulated' within reason (5 to 10 % error) in this game.

So the game code is capable!

It is just 'your' implementation of the FM that is in error.

There is an old saying.

garbage in garbage out.

It is not the game codes fault you put garbage in.

so if you want a good simulated plane this method is totally wrong !

I disagree 100% still!

As for the rest of your statements and question.

I was going to reply but I decided not to, in that it is clear you are very upset.

To the point that you can not tell the difference between a ROC graph and a TSPA graph.

Just know that I have been testing IL2 planes for years now.

And yours is the first I have seen that exceeds the 30% error mark!

Also you should read what I wrote, in that I clearly stated IL2C data is not 100% accurate and that I plan on doing a formal test.

At which point we will see if your theory/guess/excuse that the IL2C infomod by SJack does not see your Java class changes.

In summary

You should NOT say things like this..

Use your brains, test in game, and only consider what you think is the most credible

And

[quote="Freddy"]You too can access films, documents, books, and can decide for yourself what is credible and what is not