A few new fighters

[Tank-Ace]

Did I piss you off or something? It seems you've done nothing but Jager bashing when replying to me.

[guncrasher]

Did I piss you off or something? It seems you've done nothing but Jager bashing when replying to me.

I actually never look at the name of whoever is posting.  I just thought it was funny that you list sources then discredit them.  I see you are a new guys (posting that is), and sometimes you dont realize that a lot of the arguments you are bringing up, have been brought up many, many times before.  which in itself is not a bad thing, but you have made some arguments that have been discredited or argued to death before and you still try to pass them as true/accurate.

nothing personal against you  .

semp

[Tank-Ace]

what arguments have been discredited exactly?

[guncrasher]

what arguments have been discredited exactly?

the ones you made here regarding zoom.

http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,316691.0.html

and your own posting here regarding discredit your own sources.  it's been said time and time again, if you dont trust your sources, dont use them or post them.

and dont forget the posting about the binocular shape views in TC.

and the proxie kills on buffs augering

and the whole camper thread you posted.

like i said it's nothing personal  .

semp

[Tank-Ace]

I'm sorry, maybe I'm not understanding exactly what you mean, but I don't see how any of the aformentioned posts have been discredited. I was asking HTC why they decided not to go with binoculars, and then said I thought it would be cool to have, just a bit of eyecandy.

my comment abouty the inability of the average player to identify a GV without using the icons is based on an in game observation. may be wrong, I may not be getting a good sample of players, etc, but its what I've seen.

And Wiki is accurate for armament and it seems to be close, if not exact, for speed, based on what their engines were capable of.

[guncrasher]

does what have long legs? the 410, or the IAR's?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reggiane_Re.2005

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_G.55

Untill I DO find credible sources, heres the always questionable wikipedia.

I'm sorry, maybe I'm not understanding exactly what you mean, but I don't see how any of the aformentioned posts have been discredited. I was asking HTC why they decided not to go with binoculars, and then said I thought it would be cool to have, just a bit of eyecandy.

my comment abouty the inability of the average player to identify a GV without using the icons is based on an in game observation. may be wrong, I may not be getting a good sample of players, etc, but its what I've seen.

And Wiki is accurate for armament and it seems to be close, if not exact, for speed, based on what their engines were capable of.

[/b]

semp

semp

[Tank-Ace]

so? thats not nessicarily all you need to look at to be a good source. From what I've heard, a lot of sections that touch on the planes manuverability are wrong.

If all you looked at were speed and armament, then why isn't the typhoon the uber-fighter you would expect?

[guncrasher]

so? thats not nessicarily all you need to look at to be a good source. From what I've heard, a lot of sections that touch on the planes manuverability are wrong.

If all you looked at were speed and armament, then why isn't the typhoon the uber-fighter you would expect?

I am not saying wikin is good or bad.  what i am saying is that you posted a link to a reference then said it was no good.  i hope you understand this point.

semp

[Tank-Ace]

I get your point, but the only reason I posted those was to let pple get a general idea of the plane (from its characteristics section, which seems to be within shouting distance of accurate).