How to make a valid claim something is over or under modeled

[Sunka]

I like how Karnak quoted himself as a "how not to". 

+ 1

[Plazus]

If only people would post facts and supporting evidence instead of posting useless garbage... Nice thread, Karnak. I approve.

Awaiting another smack talk insult from tyrannis...

[Vudu15]

very nice sir I think Snail at one time posted something similer to this although I think it was toward stats and not plane performance. or maybe it was a bug..... I cant remember now.

but a great post none the less and to the point.

[Karnak]

Thanks all.  I just want to see fewer of what are essentially whines and more actual data.  I think almost all of us want things to be as accurate as possible.

[Tyrannis]

If only people would post facts and supporting evidence instead of posting useless garbage... Nice thread, Karnak. I approve.

Awaiting another smack talk insult from tyrannis...

<3

[Yarbles]

I think it is worth pointing out that if a new armoured vehicle were brought out and it could be destroyed with a single hit form a .30 cal it is probably still worth mentioning even without presenting all the evidence why this would not be the case. If people are going to be emphatic and taken seriously they need to have evidence. I see no harm in people questioning the model if it does not correspond with anecdotal experience if it gives others who have more time and access to more empirical data to look into the suggestion or not.

Genrally I think its important not to take things too personally but obviously if someone commences with a rant they probably should not expect to be treated with kidd gloves.

[guncrasher]

hey can somebody remove 1/2 a wing on your plane so we can test ah theory that an airplane with 1/2 a wing can fly at full speed?  and oh yeah try the missing elevators plane dont crash theory  .


semp

[dtango]

I think it is worth pointing out that if a new armoured vehicle were brought out and it could be destroyed with a single hit form a .30 cal it is probably still worth mentioning even without presenting all the evidence why this would not be the case.

Truths that are self evident require no further evidence for proof like your example.  However most FM gripes are not self evident therefore require supporting evidence for proof.

I see no harm in people questioning the model if it does not correspond with anecdotal experience if it gives others who have more time and access to more empirical data to look into the suggestion or not.

Honestly this confounds me, but thanks for verbalizing this reasoning that seems common among FM skeptics.  A FM skeptic claims a belief but it's up to others to validate if the FM skeptic's belief is a justified true belief?    

I don't know, but that all seems backwards,... sort of like this...

[Karnak]

hey can somebody remove 1/2 a wing on your plane so we can test ah theory that an airplane with 1/2 a wing can fly at full speed?  and oh yeah try the missing elevators plane dont crash theory  .


semp

1) We only know how much wing is removed visually in the FM, we don't know how much wing is removed in the model.

2) It is possible to control an aircraft with no elevators via the throttle.  A cargo jet in Iraq was landed in such condition after being hit by a surface to air missile that took out its hydraulics.  The airliner that crashed in Sioux City, Iowa reached the airport by being flown with no controls other than the throttles for the engines.

Honestly this confounds me, but thanks for verbalizing this reasoning that seems common among FM skeptics.  A FM skeptic claims a belief but it's up to others to validate if the FM skeptic's belief is a justified true belief?    

I don't know, but that all seems backwards,... sort of like this...

(Image removed from quote.)

The worst part of it is that such FM skeptics, because they lack the knowledge to understand why the answer is what it is, never accept any supplied information in response to their claim unless it validates the claim.  They almost never say "Oh, so it could do that.  I was mistaken." Instead they raise nonsensical arguments why the data supplied by people who do know what they are talking about is wrong and their original claim is still correct.

[Changeup]

Nice post Karnak. +1

What about the cases where players have supplied data for modeling and then when the FM is questioned, their answer to supplying the evidence is that it's a state secret in Finland and Pyro has been given dual citizenship?  I don't want to tell you which player or what plane because that might cause a problem.

Changeup

[guncrasher]

1) We only know how much wing is removed visually in the FM, we don't know how much wing is removed in the model.

so the fm is correct as long as no pieces are removed from the plane, after that it's not.  so the best way to say is the flight model is correct as long as no pieces are removed?

2) It is possible to control an aircraft with no elevators via the throttle.  A cargo jet in Iraq was landed in such condition after being hit by a surface to air missile that took out its hydraulics.  The airliner that crashed in Sioux City, Iowa reached the airport by being flown with no controls other than the throttles for the engines.
The worst part of it is that such FM skeptics, because they lack the knowledge to understand why the answer is what it is, never accept any supplied information in response to their claim unless it validates the claim.  They almost never say "Oh, so it could do that.  I was mistaken." Instead they raise nonsensical arguments why the data supplied by people who do know what they are talking about is wrong and their original claim is still correct.

but there's lots more that crash.

semp

[Karnak]

Nice post Karnak. +1

What about the cases where players have supplied data for modeling and then when the FM is questioned, their answer to supplying the evidence is that it's a state secret in Finland and Pyro has been given dual citizenship?  I don't want to tell you which player or what plane because that might cause a problem.

Changeup

He's never made that claim though.  Putting words in his mouth doesn't do any good.

If you think the model is wrong, you need to be able to show why it is wrong or you need state outright that you don't think Pyro could judge the validity of the sources.  It handles like an aircraft with ~25lbs/sq.ft wing loading because that is what it is and most people expect it to handle like one with ~34lbs/sq.ft of wing loading because that is what US tradition says it was.

but there's a lot more that crash.

semp

What percentage in AH do you think crash?  We get a lot more tries and still have working ailerons and rudders, which neither of those jets did have.

[PJ_Godzilla]

This is very good - an attempt to standardize the rules of argumentation and to take the emotion out of modeling issues.
Any argument advanced without evidence should be dismissed without evidence. Everyone else needs to bring sourced data. It's the difference between railing at the dark and flipping on a light.