[ACE-OF-ACES]

No, I can't.

No prob in that I didn't think you cold

But it's common sense;

Well I disagree

In that if it was common sense than it would be common

So common that an example could be provided easily

Yet you did not provide an example

Thus not common

Thus not really common sense IMHO

there is a chance you can model the FM similar to one of the aircraft that flew, but after months/years of repairs upgrades etc, planes will of course be different to eachother.

Well since IL-2 does not make any attempt to model ware and tear and/or field changes

You really can not expect IL-2 to exhibit attributes due to ware and tear

Even factory fresh A/C will handle slightly differently.

Interesting..

Can you point me to or give me an example of this?

Not that it is relative to the topic at hand

In that as with ware and tear IL-2 does not make any attempt to model production variances

I personally would just like to know what you base that statement on

In that I hear a lot of people say this

Yet I have yet to see anyone provide any proof of it

Let alone state just how much the differences were

Are we talking 0.050mph in top speed?
Are we talking 0.500mph in top speed?
Are we talking 5.000mph in top speed?
Are we talking 50.00mph in top speed?

Don't get me wrong

I am sure there are difference in that no two items are exactly the same

The question is are the difference something a human can notice, i.e. 50mph (read naked eye)

Or does it required a measuring instrument, i.e. 0.05mph (read in the noise)

One man's bread is another's poison. If a pilot found an aircraft sweet to fly, there'll be another who hated it.

Agreed 100%

But I am not sure what it has to do with your statement that real world data is not necessarily true

As far as graphs go, it's great that there's data to go by, but unless you've flown the plane in real life, you may never know if that graph is exactly true.

Disagree 100%

You don't have to fly it to know if the data is true or not

Or are you saying you know better than all the test engineers of WWII and they were fools to belive the data collected by their instruments during a test flight by a test pilot?

But please, if we wish to have these long-winded discussions, ask DM for a private section where you can do it. I do not want this to turn into another flame war about who has the best fm, which is the most realistic etc.

I don't see how pointing out one FM has more percent error than another is a flame?

It is just the facts

The numbers don't lie

Now I cant be held responsible for someone who gets upset with the truth of the numbers such that they feel the need to flame instead of fix the error

But I don't think we worry about such people that we feel the need to not post the truth in fear of upsetting someone