Custom Attitude Indicator

[boomerlu]

He dropped it once I explained the full reasoning.

In any debate, both sides must present their cases fully. He presented his and I added a few points to consider. HiTech did not fully present his, nor did the rest of the forum goers who were giving his idea the thumbs down. It took me to put it all together.

Gruff or not, poorly debated is poorly debated. HiTech failed to connect the dots in writing. He could blatantly insult me and I'd accept his turn-down so long as he gives the full reasoning. I might not like him for blatantly insulting me, but I would accept his decision immediately.

I know (and most of the people here know) that when HiTech turns down an idea that isn't completely bogus to begin with (e.g., laser cannons), the underlying reasoning is that "I don't have the time to code it versus all these other things which would benefit the game more, especially when you have easy workarounds."

Instead of acknowledging the possibility that RW doesn't know this underlying assumption and subsequently explaining it (and ending any debate), most of the people here chose to repetitively give him advice on how to fly even after he very reasonably objected that such advice does not in any way justify rejecting is request.

Thus the frustration.

[rough_wood]

rough wood, here's another answer/comment you seem to ignore.

Your refusal to admit that while you think your idea has merit, the over whelming response, as well as the helpful solutions suggesting ways to work around your "problem" might suggest that your idea really dosen't have merit. Had you dropped the idea instead of trying to defend an untenable position you may have come off looking like an adult.

I tried to be nice and point out to you how HT does business here. I didn't think your idea had merit but I did refrain from calling it ridiculous. While to you "newer people" HT may seem a but "gruff" to his subscribers, the rest of us know he believes he has the best interest at heart for HIS game and lively hood. If you think his handling of his subscribers is sub-par then you are free to move on.

Many people here have tried to help you out. You how ever seem to want to just jump up and down and call attention to yourself....like a 12 year old, well good luck with that.

You say that as if a certain percentage of people holding one opinion makes something a fact. I can assure you, it does not. I don't think I need to give examples, you wouldn't understand them anyway.

As far as calling what was said "solutions", though I find it laughable you would say that, I think you honestly mean that. I beleive Boomerlu's diagnosis was correct, after direct statements failed, even the analogies couldn't come across.

It isn't as if I didn't know there was this magical device that I can look through, even flies look through windows. So obviously my request for this wasn't to give me a single way to judge my attitude, it was suggesting I feel it is a way that would work better for me. Saying planes had angle marks on their side windows when we don't have them sounds helpful to you? How am I supposed to use that?

If my idea has no merit why do attitude indicators have precisely what I am asking for?

It seems like you are the one who lacks merit. It has been carried into practice in one of the most regulated safest forms of travel this planet posesses.

Perhaps you should look up the meaning of the word.

If this is you trying to be nice, please stop. I don't know you from adam, and those who profess HT as god or the all knowing will be ignored by me since he is just a man, and you don't speak for him. This is a matter for technical support, or the coders, which to my knowledge doesn't include you. To try to speak as if you speak for them leads me to beleive you are the type to spit out the first thing that comes to mind and insist you know what you're talking about. I will go with what someone is 75% sure of before I'll go for something they're 100% sure of, and that is because the only thing 100% certain is that we have nothing 100% certain. To seem like a blurter of self professed facts will get your words simply skimmed over by those posessing objective thinking.

Did I ever say some sort of tantrum throwing statement saying "I will leave if I don't get this and I won't be your friend anymore"? I don't think so. It is a very lame technique saying "if you don't like it get out". If its so bad I have to leave I won't seek your permission. And we are talking about a bitmap, maybe you consider such a trivial thing a quitting offense, but I'm not that weak.

I am sure he has the best interest in mind. That's why I brought this up, hoping for an answer instead of the "solutions" so generously provided. Plus his response reaks of arrogance as if he is part of some aristocracy, being a "real pilot" and all. A response like Boomerlu would suffice. Snobbish nose raising may be good and fun, but it still isn't an answer.

Few have helped, and those that have basically helped in showing me that the majority of you are unhelpfull.

This 12 year old can spot your logical fallacies like a, oh wait, you don't get analogies and therefore probably won't have the intelligence level to understand similes either.

Attitude indicator good. Windows bad.

[rough_wood]

I'd like to add HT's seeing through dashboards thing was one of the arguments I see as valid.

But instead of taking a normal course of discussion, things simply degenerated into a scene from a Monty Python courtroom.

[RTHolmes]

[Golfer]

Baghdad Bob, is that you?

The only merits your argument has is that attitude indicators are carried over into transport airplanes.  This is true.  These aren't modern transport airplanes.  They're computer renditions of WWII fighters.

It seems now "no" isn't doing the trick for you so you're parading your chapped rear around because it wasn't given in a manner deemed polite enough or well enough to your liking? I'm the wrong person to look to sympathy for that.

[rough_wood]

Baghdad Bob, is that you?

The only merits your argument has is that attitude indicators are carried over into transport airplanes.  This is true.  These aren't modern transport airplanes.  They're computer renditions of WWII fighters.

It seems now "no" isn't doing the trick for you so you're parading your chapped rear around because it wasn't given in a manner deemed polite enough or well enough to your liking? I'm the wrong person to look to sympathy for that.

I'm flattered.

Actually HUDs have angle increments also. Interesting little known fact there. In fact they have angle increments in the F-22, so perhaps they have some use to a fighter. So maybe there is a little more merit in addition the "THE ONLY MERIT" you mentioned.

I skimmed back and found your "no", I must have overlooked it. I actually didn't know you worked for HT until now, so I didn't take it as official.

There is no chapping by the way. I just saw a large lack in the ability to put together arguments and wanted to wake people up to how useless their replies were here. Frankly I couldn't care less, it doesn't effect me in any way, I just don't like seeing adults who could have middle schoolers running rhetorical circles around them. The "helpful" posts were full of ignorance, the only way to stop ignorance is telling someone what's going on.

[Bronk]

I'M only against it be cause of historical inaccuracies. Yes, I'm talking about changing the color.

That stinks I wonder what the rational would be for a denial. I understand changing the functions of it, I just want to change the paint on the spherical doodad, something that surely would have been easy to do back then and quite possibly was done.

What you're talking about here is a field mod.HT doesn't do field mods for a reason. This would open up a big ole can of worms.
I for instance would want P-39 to run on Russian settings. It's just a bit more boost... it should be easy to code.
This is just my opinion as to why. I return you now to your regularly scheduled soap opera "All my Dweebs". 

[Baumer]

First let me say that I am against this from a historical perspective. The PoH's for the following planes (that I have) all instruct the pilot to cage the artificial horizon before combat or acrobatic flight.

• F4F-4
• FM-2
• F4U-1
• F4U-1A
• F4U-1C
• F4U-1D
• F4U-4
• F6F-3
• F6F-5
• P-38H
• P-38J
• P-38L
• P-40L
• P-51D
• B-25C
• B-25H
• B-25J

Second let me make an attempt at a logical argument for you,

H makes all decisions about AH

R asks H to make a change to AH

H responds with,

Fly like real pilots do it, and just look out your left window.

R continues to drag out the discussion and complains about the lack of maturity of others responses, or the inability of others to form a logical argument.

[The Fugitive]

Sorry RW I'm going to slip into an analogy. You suggest something to your boss at work, and he says no. He either doesn't give you a reason why, or gives you a flipant 'off the cuff" answer. As stubborn as you seem to be do you pester him for a real reason, or do you just except that thats that?

By calling HT "god" I as many others do NOT pray to him nor do we revere him above all others. He is god because he has the power of creation. It's his world we play in by his rules. He has decided that you should look out the window to figure out your dive angle like everyone else has for over 10 years. For those of us who have been here for years we know that HT very rarely changes his mind once made up, and if someone pushes him too hard on a matter he isn't afraid to use his big old ban stick on an irritant that he has had enough of. It's his play ground and we either go by his rules, or we leave, your choice.

As we ALL have been trying to tell you HT HAS given his answer as well as his reason when he said to look out the window. Time to move on. <S>   

[rough_wood]

Sorry RW I'm going to slip into an analogy. You suggest something to your boss at work, and he says no. He either doesn't give you a reason why, or gives you a flipant 'off the cuff" answer. As stubborn as you seem to be do you pester him for a real reason, or do you just except that thats that?

By calling HT "god" I as many others do NOT pray to him nor do we revere him above all others. He is god because he has the power of creation. It's his world we play in by his rules. He has decided that you should look out the window to figure out your dive angle like everyone else has for over 10 years. For those of us who have been here for years we know that HT very rarely changes his mind once made up, and if someone pushes him too hard on a matter he isn't afraid to use his big old ban stick on an irritant that he has had enough of. It's his play ground and we either go by his rules, or we leave, your choice.

As we ALL have been trying to tell you HT HAS given his answer as well as his reason when he said to look out the window. Time to move on. <S>   

I hope you can see how an argument might not come across as a no to someone who hasn't dealt with the guy before. "real pilots do this" open the arguments that real pilots didn't use ammo counters etc, and won't be accepted as no by pretty much anyone but the people that know the guy for his strange responses.

Either way, the thread is over.

And actually with the analogy, I'd keep going until I got an answer. For several reasons.

I've also made suggestions all my collegues were against since it would make them look bad, but presented it to management anyway. It wasn't negative, its just I was the new guy doing better. Not ratting people out or anything.

[hitech]

boomerlu and rough_wood, I will give you a response which is much more than you both deserve. Your post in here are a great example of why I rarely respond in the wish list section.

1. First read my post again, you guys state I said no, I did no such thing. I simply stated a better way to perform the OP desired out come with out having to change AH.

2. The response to my post of trying to state how much knowledge of flying with instruments rough_wood had is almost laughable. And after which you both reach at straws of why I should implement your desire including stupid stuff like to paraphrase, (well if it is not much work it should be implemented) and the the (well other things are not realistic so this should be implemented).

3. Again note, I have not said no in any of my posts.

4. Other people have told you pretty much how it is, this is not an arrogant statement I am going to make but really a simple statement of fact. This is my game and hence I get to choose what goes in or out, It is primarily I who suffers or gains from the out come of any changes , and also I who pays for these changes or additions we make.

5. As other people have told you, you will not get very far in a request by being belligerent in your presentation. You can disagree with my choices but as soon as you start trying to use the tactic of "calling me names or what ever " because you disagree with my choice, you are very quickly digging a deep hole.

6. Do not expect another response from me in this thread, take my statements how every you wish, I am not going to get into a stupid debate if this idea has merit or not, neither of you have even a frame of reference as to if it is worth implementing.

HiTech

[rough_wood]

boomerlu and rough_wood, I will give you a response which is much more than you both deserve. Your post in here are a great example of why I rarely respond in the wish list section.

1. First read my post again, you guys state I said no, I did no such thing. I simply stated a better way to perform the OP desired out come with out having to change AH.

2. The response to my post of trying to state how much knowledge of flying with instruments rough_wood had is almost laughable. And after which you both reach at straws of why I should implement your desire including stupid stuff like to paraphrase, (well if it is not much work it should be implemented) and the the (well other things are not realistic so this should be implemented).

3. Again note, I have not said no in any of my posts.

4. Other people have told you pretty much how it is, this is not an arrogant statement I am going to make but really a simple statement of fact. This is my game and hence I get to choose what goes in or out, It is primarily I who suffers or gains from the out come of any changes , and also I who pays for these changes or additions we make.

5. As other people have told you, you will not get very far in a request by being belligerent in your presentation. You can disagree with my choices but as soon as you start trying to use the tactic of "calling me names or what ever " because you disagree with my choice, you are very quickly digging a deep hole.

6. Do not expect another response from me in this thread, take my statements how every you wish, I am not going to get into a stupid debate if this idea has merit or not, neither of you have even a frame of reference as to if it is worth implementing.

HiTech

I can tell you just skimmed the thread, which is where a large amount of the frustration came from. People would post replies in here to things I never said.

1. In fact one of the things we said was we prefered "no" over "real pilots look out the window".

2. I never tried to say "how much I know" about flying. I said I was on check rides, and that what I'd observed on them supported my stance.

You calling our points reaching at straws makes you look pretty biased. We had plenty of points that went unadressed, none of which were straw grasping.

"It isn't accurate to add it"
"Neither are ammo counters, but they were added"

That isn't grasping at straws. Sounds more like direct rebuttal with unbiased internal evidence.

3. We said you never gave a direct answer, I said I wanted a yes or no, that implies that we said and thought that you hadn't said no.

4. I realise that, there is nothing wrong with that. There is nothing arrogant about that.

5. I feel we weren't being beligerent, and that the response "real pilots do this" was. That's when we said we wanted an answer and not obviouse "solutions" like looking out a window.

6. I don't, in fact I already said the thread was over in the post directly above this one. I hadn't seen an admins no, which Golfer pointed out. Nothing more needs to be said here.

[boomerlu]

HiTech,

If you read my posts in detail, you'd realize that I do not care if we get an attitude indicator or not.

Nor am I trying to push for one. Nor did I get belligerent. In fact, I (assuming, perhaps wrongly, that you had refused his request) also defended your apparent refusal and gave what would be the underlying reasons.

The only part where I believe you had failed was properly explaining your apparent refusal. None of us contend that your word is final.

Most of us understand the reasons you would turn down a request - either it's not realistic (within a certain gray area), would kill gameplay, or it simply takes too much effort to code relative to its benefit.

Given that, I thought it just stupid that nobody else took the time to articulate this to rough_wood.

The only criticism I have here is that this thread has exhibited a huge failure to communicate.

That is all. This thread has gotten far more attention from me than it has been worth.

Edit: just because I defend another person's frustration at your decision does not mean I disagree with your decision. Only with how you and everybody else expressed/explained it. I know most don't expect a person to see both sides or to disagree with some parts and agree with others, but... well I do.

[VonMessa]

And to think.............

All this time spent posting could have been used for practicing dive bombing in the TA............

[RTHolmes]