Reviewing the "HO"

[humble]

Grizz,

I'd tend to agree with you if there was a bit of separation and even a subtle lead turn worked in...

If you look at the diagram as constructed and look at the "2". The typical baby seal reacts after the cross so any type of lead turn puts him at a disadvantage he can't even recognize and any "3D" lead turn has him dead man flying"...but look here and he's actually giving angles after the cross in full view. I've got to believe that the baby seal goes up and over more often then not.

Only way I'd fly that profile would be neg E at reasonable alt if I thought it was a good stick. I'd play for a vertical pitch back vs an aggressive off the gas lead in the vertical from a guy who was looking to avoid excessive separation and hunt for a belly shot on the cross and then a vertical rolling scissors...as he's got it its to late, to flat and all open and visable....vs a 2 week zipcode maybe...beyond that its just totally dependent on the other guy being stupid and blind...

[Demetrious]

but look here and he's actually giving angles after the cross in full view.

Uh... how? The point of the last-second reversal is to "show" the baby seal that you're breaking into a hard left turn, which almost always induces him to follow through in his own left-hand turn- especially because he's already turning hard-left to track you. They know you're turning left, they're already turning left... it feels instinctive, for your average seal, and that's why this merge works so well.

The last second reversal is also the time to throw in a climb or a dive; which results in a 3D offset at high deflection. Haven't had a noob make that shot yet.

beyond that its just totally dependent on the other guy being stupid and blind...

Betting on the other guy being "stupid and blind" in the MA during Squeaker Rush Hour is about the safest bet you'll find in this game.  

[humble]

So if you run into a two week zipcode your fine otherwise your dead meat...makes sense to me...not.

[Demetrious]

So if you run into a two week zipcode your fine otherwise your dead meat...makes sense to me...not.

Any proper merge used against competent pilots should involve a defense against merge snapshots that should be suitable to defend against the "piper on target" guys. Once you've got their number you can prosecute a fun fight, or extend through and come 'round for a quick lesson in merge mechanics with your friendly noob HO'er.

I said this a few posts ago.

There is a popular phrase percolating through the internets called "Derp." It is an acronym for Didn't Even Read Post, and has become a word unto itself, often rhymed with "herp" for rhythmic appeal, thus, "herp derp."

To you, sir, I can only say DERP.

[The Fugitive]

Uh... how? The point of the last-second reversal is to "show" the baby seal that you're breaking into a hard left turn, which almost always induces him to follow through in his own left-hand turn- especially because he's already turning hard-left to track you. They know you're turning left, they're already turning left... it feels instinctive, for your average seal, and that's why this merge works so well.

The last second reversal is also the time to throw in a climb or a dive; which results in a 3D offset at high deflection. Haven't had a noob make that shot yet.

Betting on the other guy being "stupid and blind" in the MA during Squeaker Rush Hour is about the safest bet you'll find in this game. 

.... now I'm confused, I thought you said you can't control another guys plane? (see below) Your forcing him into a position you know he'll (newb) be. Much the same as my example. If co-everything I pull into the vertical early giving my tail to the FM I am forcing the FM into a position. Same theory, different move.


 

Then that would make you unique in my experience. I have never, ever, ever heard anybody badmouth "In Pursuit." Most of it reads like "Shaw's lite."

I was unaware that one pilot was capable of dictating both his, and the enemies, course. Does he have a second stick in his cockpit that he uses to fly the other guys plane? 

I assume you didn't get that "Training Corps" logo in your avatar from a crackerjack box, so I'm certainly not dismissing you out of hand, but I must request that you elucidate your points further.

[humble]

lol...so you are dawgers wingman

Of course I read your post and my comment is simple and straight forward. What your saying and what the illustration is showing are separate things. A merge is intended to create either a measure of separation that allows for a lead turn or to maximize energy retention. What you picture is doing neither of those things. Most widely accepted merge doctrines call for angular attacks to commence before the planes reach each others 3/9 line.

While this has led to the common "rocketman" merge it also has developed a tremendoud number of derivatives over time, many of the current style involve a lead turn to a flat reverse (or even pitch down) combined with an out of plane lead turn. The driving force in this is the need to hide the true nature of the lead turn as the "average" pilot has improved. An interesting offshoot of this is the  use of what I refer to as a "two circle" fight (think of a figure 8) when the other pilot converts away from the lead turn and creates a series of front quarter encounters. Now you have an E fight hidden in an angles merge where guarding against being roped or forced out in front in a rolling scissors becomes the primary concern.

If we look at the diagram the following is obvious...

1) No lead turn
2) No maximization of E state

So it fails right there

Beyond that it immediately gives away angles creating a "follow me" followed by a sharp reverse completely dependent on the opponents reactions and E state. What this really diagrams is a poorly done negative E defense. Correctly executed it would involve offering a low % out of plane snapshot on the merge with the reverse into the overshoot. Properly executed the defense against the guns solution is in itself the beginning of the offensive counter move...

To me this is still about as good a primer clip as I've ever taken on using someone else's aggression and perception of superiority and using it against them. The key here is that the bait is prior to the merge...had it been as per your diagram then more then likely the nikki goes up and over instead.
http://www.az-dsl.com/snaphook/P40vN1ki.ahf 

[grizz441]

Grizz,

I'd tend to agree with you if there was a bit of separation and even a subtle lead turn worked in...

If you look at the diagram as constructed and look at the "2". The typical baby seal reacts after the cross so any type of lead turn puts him at a disadvantage he can't even recognize and any "3D" lead turn has him dead man flying"...but look here and he's actually giving angles after the cross in full view. I've got to believe that the baby seal goes up and over more often then not.

You'd be surprised how often they will still think they can get guns by turning into you after their first miss and flying 150yds in front of your 30mm stream.  Also, the diagram at "2" doesn't give time markers where each aircraft is at relatively so separation is open to interpretation imo.  Good post though.

[humble]

Grizz I'm assuming relatively equal time lines since there is no indication of verticals and the flight path indicates a higher E bleed and possible throttle chop.

From my perspective as a former trainer here there are a couple of points I think are very relevant.

1) Best practice
2) recognition of gunnery as a key variable

It's very difficult when you meet an opponent who has a combination of outstanding gunnery and fundamentally correct ACM.

Your gunnery is so far superior to most of us (well me at least) that I think guys like you Kaaza and Bruv are playing a different game altogether. The combination of ACM savvy and formidable gunnery creates an entirely different set of options and opportunities. The number of times I've run into the "collective you" {meaning the guys with uncanny gunnery skills} and lost fights where I "just needed to sneak by" but never do is beyond frustrating.

If Kazaa had been in the nikki or you in a 109 that film clip would have ended at the 4 second mark:), but you try and teach correct fundamentals that maximize an average pilots opportunity for success based on a firm understanding and application of sound ACM. I'm with TC in that this type of "information" does not promote or even explain the underlying axioms of "correct" ACM.

I'll go as far as to say you've killed me more then once in this exact scenario because you can hit that low% shot I give, it's the trade off you take when your own gunnery requires you deliver your lead like a jar of grey poupon  

[grizz441]

One man's low % shot is another man's easy shot <G>

You're right though, there should be distinction made between textbook ACM and Advanced/Risky ACM

[Sonicblu]

# 1 - I would never encourage anyone wanting to learn online WWII AirCombat Sim Flying to purchase or read   "In Pursuit"



 What would you encourage them to read?

It seems to me that when I see only a negative statement there is some deep structure bias. Ill let you in on a secret, the rest of us can't see whats in the trash sack.

I find it interesting the couple of Ad hominem attacks here. It seems there is some old deep structure here in the communications.

Hey Snap,

I would like to know why Demetrious and Dawger are treated with such disdain? Is there a valid reason?

to be honest if you fly the merge as presented in that diagram the only folks you'll be killing are the "zip codes"....if the rest of the book is similar i'd say it'll probably do more harm then good....


More harm then good to What? If you are flying against noobs it will do more good than harm. The only way it can do more harm that good is if you change the premise. Now that's not a fair argument.

this is ad ho hominem. < did you get the clever play on words here. Then your proceed to future time travel with different premise and conclusions,  something the diagram or any diagram is not capable of.

I just don't see where he communicated anything else. but you try to re frame the argument, just seems like throwing mud.

A static diagram can only show a very narrow point of view to begin with. It could never even come close to show what will happen in real time. It can  show what did happen. Your trying to show how it falls short of what will happen if the premises change. Which is just crazy because almost everyone knows that every merge will be different. It can only try to predict what will happen if the pilot does "those exact things".

Of course it doesnt paint a picture of what to do against anyone other than " zipcodes" because it Can't. Its static.

I'm sorry but what you posted in the diagram has no bearing on HO's, it is the singularly most unrealistic merge diagram I've ever seen...your not dawgers wingman....are you?

NO bearing on Ho's???????????????? does it not show a separation at the merge?

The diagram  is a sound argument as the conclusions follow the premise..

You are trying to prove it as unsound by changing the validity of the conclusions. Again not an good argument, it just shows deep structure bias of some kind, that at least I am not aware of. Maybe something happen back in the old AW days or whatever game it was. leave it in the trash sack please guys.

 

One of the problems I see in here is the lack of distinction between noob and vet when framing your arguments. One guy makes an argument and frames noob and to rebut the argument the other guy argues about how to do it against a vet.

[humble]

Sonic....

I think Dawger is clueless and he feels the same way about me...take your pick

Since when does anyone teach a subject to it's lowest common denominator? You can't preface a concept with the caveat:

"This will get you killed vs 60% or more of the player base but make you look god like vs the bottom 10%"

I'm not throwing mud I just find his presentation to be overly simplistic and condescending. The simple reality is that it is not entirely possible to avoid a FQ shot window...you can only work to minimize your exposure and maximize your potential advantage.

The entire objective (from my perspective) is to present a set of fundamentally sound tactics that can be employed somewhat universally. Given all the wonderful write ups and film on proper merge technique why put forth stuff with marginal application....I haven't seen anyone flying around with a flashing "noob light" so how do you tell?

My objective was (and still is) to take anyone with a measure of plane handling ability and give them a grasp of fundamentals that allow them to be competitive with the majority of the player base very quickly (normally in 1 or 2 hours).

[Buck]

[Quote - i did type a post here, but i actually took it off and re-typed it] can you believe it ?! yahoo for me, now I'll just follow what the thread says, even though i posted something on here already but as always only swishes right by muuhahaha, (that's fiiiiinnneeee with meeeee <--- singing).


your view (HO) - 1000k - 900k stop! break! (witch way?) left - right (up! no) down ? yes... (your thinking - move maybe)

opponents point in view - ho ? break ? ho ? break ? left ? right ? up ? down ? (his thinking - move i possibly might, but probably won't)

Here's what you do, (HO) 1000K to 900k break away, break left right and down, never up. Bottom line, just keep your plane out of his sights, which can't be very hard since you have lots of space to move around in.

When ever i got hit from a head on, is when i wanted to go threw with it and not move out of the way, which actually happened a lot of times . If i posted this and you guys are discussing something else, well i guess just swish by it again  .

[TequilaChaser]

I have been down and out from a bad accident over two weeks ago roughly........ fractured left cheek,cut throat inside & out, and internal bleeding, so I will keep this short

Demetrious : I never BAD MOUTHED ?"Thomasons/Thompson's"?  book "In Pursuit"... I simply said I would not encourage someone to buy it to learn ACM ....... you calling it "Shaw Lite" is a slap in the face to Robert Shaw in my opinion, and to me the book is nothing more than a good fictional/non-fictional read regarding an online simmer's experience playing an online Combat flying sim/game...... with addages used from all over from other people's proven facts, yet used out of context and used improperly....


(3) wonderful reads and can even be classified in my mind ( think Ack Ack termed it very nicely a while back.... ) are No Guts No glory, Boyd's and then Robert Shaw's Air Combat and Maneuvering..........

could call No Guts No glory , the old testament,
call Boyd's Doctrine the new testament
and call Shaw's AC & M the Revelations.... or the final Book of the ACM bible......

everything else is / are just good reads  ( most anyway )

takes "1" to HO, takes "2" to Joust

Sonicblu, I don't care much to respond to you, especially by the way you selectively try to pick and choose which threads you think you might possibly be able to make yourself look like you have won or chaulked yourself up another browniep oint for the BBS masses...... let me let you in on a little secret here......... I never made a NEGATIVE STATEMENT, and the only possible structured bias that might possibly come from me is seeing certian bbs names pop up and try to put in another "PLUG" for a certain book someone may have wrote.....

but pleae show me where I posted a negative statement,  and when you are done.... please be true to yourself and repost the actual truth of my post which was:

I would never encourage anyone wanting to learn online WWII AirCombat Sim Flying to purchase or read   "In Pursuit"

where in any part of that is NEGATIVE? where in any part of that is there "some deep structure bias"?, as you have quoted me and claimed of me.....  point blank, their is none of what you have accused of me.....

I hope to be back when my face and body and arm has healed up


I appreciate ya humble, for not answering for me, and I have a strong feeling you have viewed the posted diagram from that book and have discovered it holds as much wrong information as most people think is the right thing to do when in game.......

I got a chuckle out of the cracker jack box comment,..........made my cracked ribs hurt to laugh....... I recommend you go and read the In Pursuit for its Entertianment value, of a good story..... I also recommend that people wanting to learn and learn from reading to not purchase anything, unless they reall want a great book, by Shaw, Air Combat and Maneuvering..... but everything out there is FREE, all the ACM , BFM, reports, etc...... is free and has been free for over what 50+ years...... everything one reads on the internet is the same thing except sometimes the words have been changed around or changed altogether......... 

will be back soon to make more post, and hope to be back in game soon helping, practicing and playing once I get healed up some....

~S~ all my AH Brothers , Sisters & Friends.......

[Airborne]

you realize that the guy that posted the op is one that can take a tbm and outfly most of us in the plane of our choice, right? 

I'd go against him in my plane of choice with him in a TBM  just to see how it goes... 

Anyways, I've read through most of the posts but not all...

I typically avoid the HO if I can.... I.E. if we are merging and it will cost me E to bank/rudder over for a snap shot then yes, I avoid it..... but from a distance on the merge if I try to nose over/under and the opponent matches me then I assume that he isn't looking for the cold merge to begin the jockeying for position, he's looking for a guns solution- meaning if I continue to merge clean he gets a FQ shot because my guns are off.. So instead I kick in a little rudder, kick in opposite bank, which slides my tail around and gives my plane an "awkward" look and give him a spray or two as he runs his guns out... Does it work all the time? no. Does it work often enough? Yeah, I don't get all pissy about HO's- for the most part 

don't get me wrong, I prefer to shoot your tails off after saddling up on you. however, if I hate merges, generally dont do so well in them even if we both go cold merge, so I dont usually get to see that fight develop. And if I enter an ongoing fight or one in which my squaddies and I am outnumbered- make no mistake I will take every shot I have- snap, ho, FQ, RQ, whatever in an effort to survive the fight and to help my squaddies... Anyways, I've flown AH for about 3 years and flew FA since I was 14.. Im 27 now... I could fly against the best in FA and break even on k/d... (I AM NOT A SCORE TARD.. just saying) but in here I tend to do the fly-15-minutes-to-die-in-1-to-3-minutes routine. (Yeah, I make it past 15 seconds XD)

[Lepape2]

Sorry to hear what happened TC. Consider yourself lucky and with a second chance at life.