Oh you know what, thank you for letting me know I'm misguided since I haven't played AH for as long as you have...I tend to forget that one has to be a 10 year veteran armchair cyber ace pilot to be able to form a valid opinion...forgive me for not bowing down to the supreme level of greatness around here...<whatever>
I think you need to settle down. Your reactions to some of the posts in this thread are borderline ridiculous.
I have stated *that* your opinion is misguided, not *why* your opinion is misguided.
I have not mentioned the length of time I have spent playing AH or any other online flight sim of a similar nature. By default then, I have also not made any comparison between one's time spent playing and the validity of one's opinion.
By putting words in my mouth to "create" an argument, you are only arguing with yourself, which is silly.
Your analogy between game play and boxing is out in left field...one is direct interaction between 2 people with no pre-programmed influences (unless the fight is fixed)...the other is interaction of 1 person and a large amount of computer code...in online multiplayer games it's multiple people with the same computer code exchanging bits of that computer code over various distances...if the code is bad, the interaction is bad...look around these forums at the number of complaints about one factor or another in the game...those little glitches and anomalies directly affect the "quality" of game play for those who experience them...do I have to dummy this down further?
Actually, my analogy is 100% accurate. The collection of words you have piled together, above, is jibberish.
Simplify the discussion and draw a logical conclusion. We can use the form of a multiple choice question if it helps.
Q: Two cartoon airplanes positioned nose to nose in a virtual arena are as...
A. Two virtual arenas comprising the Matrix, within which Neo resides, and HO's you.
B. A whole bunch of computer "bits" and "code" and glitchy forum servers placed at the warning track in left field of Wrigley Park.
C. Skuzzy loves you.
D. Two boxers positioned toe to toe in a tangible ring.
The correct answer is D. Two cartoon airplanes positioned nose to nose in a virtual arena are as... Two boxers positioned toe to toe in a tangible ring.
Now, that didnt really need to be said, but it was fun, so thanks. On to the next.
Your idea of "relevance" is as far off as your misguided sense of superiority...(1) real life combat hours - relevance: no one without first hand knowledge of combat can authoritatively dictate absolute knowledge of said subject to anyone...(2) aerial combat tactics and technology - relevance: historical documentation shows that aerial combat tactics in WWI were different than those developed in WWII due to the technological advances in aircraft, (i.e. faster planes, more guns, additional armaments, etc...)...similar documentation shows that aerial combat tactics in turbine powered jet aircraft is far different than the tactics used in WWI or WWII...(i.e. dogfights now involve onboard radar and guided missile systems at long ranges rather than large caliber bullets at short ranges...a head on attack can occur at super sonic speeds using both hyervelocity solid projectiles as well as guided missile systems).
Ack. Again with the "word piling." Paragraphs are everyone's friend. Use them and be well.
I will again state that what you have written in jibberish. Nevertheless, I will make an attempt to respond after putting your words through my HAL9000 Translator v.2.0.
:::buzzing, beeping, etc:::
Ok. By point, then:
1.) Untrue. While first hand knowledge is always preferable, it is not the only absolute perspective from which to gain understanding. In fact, you could make a very good argument that a similarly myopic perspective would hinder full understanding.
For example, if you attend a hockey game and sit right up against the glass, its neat and fun and you can impress the dame on your arm. But... you cant see whats going on. You need to be in the mezzanine level to really watch the ice.
By the same token, there are countless, first-hand accounts from Allied pilots about the Fw-190's "superior" turning ability. Today, we know these claims to be incorrect due to mathematical impossibility. All you need is a calculator and the appropriate inputs which, in that case (simplified), would be weight and wing area.
2.) Untrue. Im am unsure to which "historical documents" you are referring because you have not cited sources, but the fundamentals of air combat have remained the same since, in the words of Chuck Yeager, "...the first idiot brought a pistol with him, decided to shoot at the other idiot, and ruined a perfectly good thing."
There might be a difference between us with respect to the definition of "fundamentals." You cite technology as your primary example of a catalyst for change. While technology alters the ability and the means, the end is always the same. From the first bloke to take a pistol into the cockpit to Luke Skywalker's X-Wing, the fundamental rule (in reality) is to approach without detection, with every conceivable advantage, and to end the "fight" before one begins.
Technology does not change this fundamental. Whether you are diving out of the sun or firing a missile beyond the radar detection range of your target, you are still approaching unseen, with every attainable advantage, and ending the fight before it becomes one.
You really don't understand the concept of "context" do you?...in the "context" that the words "little kid" were written, I was suggesting that anyone who feels the need to complain about or ridicule someone for something as trivial as a head on attack is acting childish.
I understand the concept of context quite well. Contextually speaking, it is entirely possible that you do not understand the concept of satire.
You may and you have...though I have yet to see any sort of sound advice in this thread directed toward myself...it's all opinion...there is no good or bad, it's just opinion...and I never get "emotionally charged" over anything as trivial as what happens in a video game...unlike a large number of the people around here...it's actually quite humorous.
We agree on something! This is humorous.
