Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: rough_wood on November 01, 2009, 03:00:51 PM
-
How would we go about making one? Once you are at a certain nose up attitude all you see is a black circle giving no situational awareness.
Looking for something like:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c5/VMS_Artificial_Horizon.jpg)
If it isn't available I'd like to know how to make one with Paint or something similar.
Since we can make gunsights hopefully we can do this as well.
Thanks
-
nvm
edit: I was just confused when looking at my signature :D
___________
But I think, the way as it is displayed now is just a matter of adjustment. After a few sorties, you will know your attitude. Even if it is "nose up"... :)
just my 0,02 €
Regards
SF
-
All gauges are hard wired in. There is no way to adjust, or customize them. Some planes and GVs do have these already.
-
I made one that works in Offline, but it won't let me use it in MA. Looks like I need to get it approved since the only way I could find to do it was make a new skin just to change the indicator.
-
That's a dual cue flight director seen in overlay on a modern attitude indicator.
You didn't find them in WWII airplanes during wartime.
-
I know, I was coming more from the standpoint of removing the sphere in the dial, and custom painting it.
No ILS, just angle increments etc.
I submitted it to support
-
I made one that works in Offline, but it won't let me use it in MA. Looks like I need to get it approved since the only way I could find to do it was make a new skin just to change the indicator.
can you post the file, I would really like to see it (even offline :()
-
If you follow the steps in
http://www2.hitechcreations.com/frindex.html (http://www2.hitechcreations.com/frindex.html)
all you gotta do is alter the HORZ bitmap to whatever you want.
-
I made one that works in Offline, but it won't let me use it in MA. Looks like I need to get it approved since the only way I could find to do it was make a new skin just to change the indicator.
AFAIK, HTC will not accept modified gauges. I think someone tried to even include a modified skin of just the interior cockpit bulkheads and the panel excluding the gauges (might have been something Krusty did on the P-40s) and that was rejected as well.
-
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.
I see WW2 Attitude Indicators with angle increments, so it would be historically accurate to have them.
-
It's too complicated to let everybody have a different indicator since a skin affects EVERYBODY (needs to be downloaded by everybody and rendered). Until they segregate the cockpit dials from the skin, such modificaiton will continue to be a problem. As it is now, something like the gunsight only affects YOUR viewpoint. Having a custom skin show up in-game could give a competitive advantage (if for example you perfectly camouflaged it) not to mention it's an ahistorical eyesore to everybody else. Custom gunsights on the other hand offer a negligible advantage and only YOU see the ahistorical-ness of it, nobody else.
What you want is a completely new system that allows custom dials which is completely separate from the skins system, and as such would not require submission for acceptance/rejection. Seems reasonable enough to me. :aok
-
correct me if wrong, but wouldnt a pilot cage the attiutde gyro anyway before any kind of aerobatics?
-
What you want is a completely new system that allows custom dials which is completely separate from the skins system, and as such would not require submission for acceptance/rejection. Seems reasonable enough to me. Thumbs UP!
How do you control making holes in the dash to see threw?
HiTech
-
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.
I see WW2 Attitude Indicators with angle increments, so it would be historically accurate to have them.
All of the WWII era Artificial Horizons I've seen (and quite a few up into the 70s even) were just a black background with a white horizon line, white airplane and a little white tick mark to show bank angle. The only way to tell you were upside down was the tick mark being on the bottom of the dial. (Well, that and the ashtray contents floating around the cockpit)
-
Hitech,
I am not an expert at all on this, but maybe:
Disable transparency or something on the dials, and require them to be present
Place a black plate behind the dash with holes in it
I realise this may be a bunch of work so it may not be worth it, but I'd really like to have a reference angle for roping in a P38 and divebombing. Maybe it would be easiest to just change the HORZ image to something similar to:
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Mab7wzYaOrQ/Rz7qKDnPc7I/AAAAAAAAAGU/2e21bj_u5pg/s320/P1010032a.jpg)
My main issue was more just having angle reference than being able to make any HORZ I want, though I admit it's what I would prefer. Hopefully it's an easy fix and time grows on trees over there.
I realise they may have not existed back then, but my viewpoint is neither did certain gunsights we make up necessarily. It was within their technological ability and comes down to a matter of preferance.
Colmbo,
I have found a few that wrent just plane, though yes the majority Ive seen were as you describe.
(http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://uscockpits.com/Early%2520Fighters/F8F-1%2520Bearcat2.JPG&imgrefurl=http://uscockpits.com/&usg=__h-RauF6gfr2XWBVlY0oX4Zb5Tsg=&h=569&w=660&sz=98&hl=en&start=3&sig2=SZ5PRIMK-_mviyofttOIfg&um=1&tbnid=VOBFpDDFEXEx8M:&tbnh=119&tbnw=138&prev=/images%3Fq%3DF8F%2Bcockpit%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26rlz%3D1T4GGLL_enUS334US335%26um%3D1&ei=RmfvSu2UD9O5lQe-quj_BA)
(http://uscockpits.com/Early%20Fighters/F4U-5P%20Corsair.JPG)
-
Real easy way to find your AoA:
Look left or right.
-
Tough to do when dive bombing.
-
How do you control making holes in the dash to see threw?
HiTech
Good concern, and I had thought of this. I assumed that the current system would prevent this from happening, but I don't know how the underlying code works.
Others have mentioned - disabling transparency. I was under the impression that underneath the dash is the airplane itself, so that there would be no such transparency problem.
Another solution would be to use the skins' underlying color as background for the dials. Transparency would only allow you to see the grey/black that's already underneath.
-
you realise why they werent graduated? because as soon as you pull any kind of ACM your instruments are somewhere between inaccurate and useless. I think it was JEJ mentioned that it would take literally minutes for his spit instruments to settle after maneuvering before they were usable.
-
So what you're saying is "Why have a horizon/attitude incicator at all"?
I hope and suspect not.
In the game they are stable, so maybe since they are, the angle graduations should be displayed?
Or at least selectable, like custom sights.
-
Others have mentioned - disabling transparency. I was under the impression that underneath the dash is the airplane itself, so that there would be no such transparency problem.
If you make a section of the bitmap transparent, it's transparent, period.
And, since it's transparent, and shapes that can't be seen are not textured (since there's no need to normally) you'd just see right through to the terrain.
So what you're saying is "Why have a horizon/attitude incicator at all"?
He's saying they're more harm than good in a combat situation. 99% of the time you're better off using the actual horizon rather than the artificial one.
-
If you make a section of the bitmap transparent, it's transparent, period.
And, since it's transparent, and shapes that can't be seen are not textured (since there's no need to normally) you'd just see right through to the terrain.
So the solution is segregate the "underneath" section of the dash from the "custom" portion.
The skin dictates the "underneath" texture and guarantees that it will be opaque so that even if the "custom" dash is completely transparent, it's only see-through down to the skin-dash.
This way, we wouldn't have to modify the skins - if you want the old (i.e., ones defined by the skin) indicators just set full transparency on the custom dash.
It's redundant, sure, but it solves both problems - wanting a custom dash and preventing the use of a transparent dash to cheat.
-
So what you're saying is "Why have a horizon/attitude incicator at all"?
no I'm saying that the instruments we have ingame are already far more useful than they were IRL, if you're aiming for realism you're heading in the wrong direction.
Real easy way to find your AoA:
Look left or right.
wise words :old:
-
Tough to do when dive bombing.
I find it pretty easy to just flick a look out to the side to get a quick estimate of angle. It doesn't need to be all that precise. Besides, having your head outside the cockpit is a good thing :)
-
Tough to do when dive bombing.
Funny you say that, since many dive bombers had angle markers etched/painted onto the sides of the canopy.
-
We don't have those markings
And I'd rather be able to look forward the whole time.
There are plenty of other ways to do it, heck I could use an astrolabe, but I'd rather have angle increments on my Attitude Indicator.
I'm failing to understand the big deal.
This is hardly different from having custom gunsights.
-
We don't have those markings
And I'd rather be able to look forward the whole time.
There are plenty of other ways to do it, heck I could use an astrolabe, but I'd rather have angle increments on my Attitude Indicator.
I'm failing to understand the big deal.
This is hardly different from having custom gunsights.
And IMO, HTC should drop the custom gunsights as well. ALL aircraft should be equipped their historical gunsight, period.
-
I'm failing to understand the big deal.
well the problem is the instruments we have ingame are already far more useful than they were IRL, if you're aiming for realism you're heading in the wrong direction.
I'd prefer historical gunsights as well.
-
That's a dual cue flight director seen in overlay on a modern attitude indicator.
You didn't find them in WWII airplanes during wartime.
Well, most planes didn't have ammo counters either. And yet....
-
Why are you (you being whoever wants a more detailed attitude indicator) looking at the AI during combat anyway? To be effective your head needs to be outside watching your enemy. The only thing I might look inside for is to keep an eye on engine temperature or oil level, especially critical if I'm fighting with a damaged radiator/oil system or the airspeed indicator.
If you're trying to get an idea for your pitch attitude for some reason then I'd like to hear what that reason is.
-
Well, most planes didn't have ammo counters either. And yet....
-1, that has been discussed time and time again, bad reason to try and fall back on Gabriel. Do you honestly want to make the new players spend countless hours learning the exact amount of firing time for each aircraft, lord forbit the 2 MG x 1 Cannon birds!
Ammo counters are there to make the already ocean deep learning curve a bit more shallow.
-
-1, that has been discussed time and time again, bad reason to try and fall back on Gabriel. Do you honestly want to make the new players spend countless hours learning the exact amount of firing time for each aircraft, lord forbit the 2 MG x 1 Cannon birds!
Ammo counters are there to make the already ocean deep learning curve a bit more shallow.
+1 to me
The POINT is. Aircraft in flight have access to a long list of things they didn't have during the war. The counters are just one. So saying 'it didn't have xxx in 1943' is a rubbish reason. It's as stupid as the people who were talking about a no VOX WW1 arena.
And not that it's relevant, but I come from a sim where people ARE expected to rely on estimation and experience to know how many rounds they have left.
-
And not that it's relevant, but I come from a sim where people ARE expected to rely on estimation and experience to know how many rounds they have left.
-1 once again my friend. You came from a sim where that was the case, Aces High 2 is more user friendly than your previous sim.
-
I rarely look at my ammo counters, anyway.
-
I also rarely look at my ammo counters.
I tend to get too depressed by seeing full ammo and nothing but green too often. =(
-
Tough to do when dive bombing.
Easiest remedy to this...........
Do it again and again and again in the TA until you geta good sight picture burned into you skull.
Just like for shooting bullets.....
Just like everyone else.
It will eventually become instinct.
-
How would we go about making one? Once you are at a certain nose up attitude all you see is a black circle giving no situational awareness.
I think this is a great idea Wood. I've often wondered why someone took the time to put this guage in the plane, and then made it useless by not including the markings. Forget the customization which is complicated, can't HTC just update the bitmap to include the markings. It seems like an oversite.
-
Some of you guys need to work on "seeing through other peoples eyes" skills.
Do you honestly thing in the middle of a dogfight I think "ok turn 15 degrees left"? No. But there is a compass there.
Of course I'm not instrument flying a dogfight. But when I'm going vertical, and I have spare time while doing that (which I do), I'd like to have a vertical reference to know how to set up my stall.
Is that so hard to imagine? You really think this was brought up for anything related to hard break turning? When did I say or indicate that?
Or to be dive bombing while you aren't in the middle of a dogfight? Has that ever happened to you?
I think all that's been agreed upon is that half of you can't understand my simple motivations for having angle increments, and that most of us agree that functions have been added to the game to improve SA at the small cost of historical accuracy.
VonMessa, I see your point, but the same could be said for counting trigger pull time, or just about any other function that was added to the game that wasn't 100% accurate.
-
That would be enormously helpful for firing rockets and dive bombing.
-
Of course I'm not instrument flying a dogfight. But when I'm going vertical, and I have spare time while doing that (which I do), I'd like to have a vertical reference to know how to set up my stall.
Fly like real pilots do it, and just look out your left window.
HiTech
-
How real pilots do, or did? I've rode along in check rides that were pretty instrument biased, and I don't recall the chief pilot once saying to judge attitude by looking out the left window.
If you're determined to not change a bitmap just tell me, all of these obviouse responses giving me solutions that would cross the mind of one with down syndrome are obviously not helpful, and I assume they aren't meant to be.
I like to be able to see airspeed climb rate and attitude at the same time, looking out the window isn't a great way to judge speed. I just want angle increments on my attitude indicator, which I beleive involves changing a bitmap.
I know you are busy, so I'll save you the trouble of explaining these things to such a simple minded window licker like me, and just ask for a yes or a no.
-
How real pilots do, or did? I've rode along in check rides that were pretty instrument biased, and I don't recall the chief pilot once saying to judge attitude by looking out the left window.
Flying air combat, whether simulated or real, does not involve flying a line check in a transport airplane. Your comparison is apples to jackhammers.
Using your eyeballs to judge your attitude in reference to the horizon is the common/preferred/easiest/best/sometimes only method when flying aerobatics and it's especially critical when you have another pilot out there trying to kill you.
As far as the rest of your post and attitude I won't address it except to say that you aren't going to get what you want by throwing insults.
-
How real pilots do, or did? I've rode along in check rides that were pretty instrument biased, and I don't recall the chief pilot once saying to judge attitude by looking out the left window.
Sounds like you need a new chief pilot.
Basic attitude flying has you checking pitch by looking over the nose AND looking to the side to compare the wing to the horizon.
For any aerobatics you look at the wing to determine pitch attitude once the nose is high or low enough that you no longer see the horizon over the nose.
Some examples here. (http://www.dalefalk.com/Movies/T-6-Flight/7443717_QsSXY#480035091_rDqTV)
-
How real pilots do, or did? I've rode along in check rides that were pretty instrument biased, and I don't recall the chief pilot once saying to judge attitude by looking out the left window.
If you're determined to not change a bitmap just tell me, all of these obviouse responses giving me solutions that would cross the mind of one with down syndrome are obviously not helpful, and I assume they aren't meant to be.
I like to be able to see airspeed climb rate and attitude at the same time, looking out the window isn't a great way to judge speed. I just want angle increments on my attitude indicator, which I beleive involves changing a bitmap.
I know you are busy, so I'll save you the trouble of explaining these things to such a simple minded window licker like me, and just ask for a yes or a no.
You do realize I am a real pilot also like gulfer, and that I have many many hours of aerobatics? One of the first things you learn is to be able to fly your plane with out ever looking forward. Of course when you learn this, you have some one else doing collision avoidance with you.
HiTech
-
When flying aerobatics in a Chipmunk you cage the artificial horizon, otherwise it goes all over the place and takes forever to reset. As aerobatics are flown in VFR conditions, the visibility outside the cockpit's good. I know we're 'flying on instruments' to a certain extent all the time when simulating flying on a computer but you should still observe the basic rule - 'keep looking out of the office windows to see what's going on'.
HT, how about detailing the grass alongside the runways? Then I can assess the correct moment to flare the same way as I used to for real - 'when you can distinguish the individual blades of grass'.
;)
-
It is amazing that adding a few marks – maybe two lines showing 45 degrees nose up and down and two dots indicating straight up and straight down – to a 32x64 bitmap is the only difference between “real” pilots and cartoon pilots. I would have thought that a vague statement like, “The current instrument in the game is a compromise between what they had back then and a computer simulation” would have been enough. Instead we got “real” pilots saying that sitting at a computer that is running Aces High is exactly like flying a real, honest to goodness, aeroplane. Obviously, anyone who disagrees has never flown a plane or, at the very least, is not a “real” pilot and should be looked down upon.
I salute all you “real” pilots who have the ability to keep the dirty side down by just looking at their left wing tips.
MachNix
-
How else do you do it when you don't have an attitude indicator installed? :headscratch:
While I'm not the one tasked with coding, drawing, making or implementing a change like that it seems like wasted effort. Effort that can be much better spent doing other things rather than putting something in that isn't intended to be used in accordance with conventional use or logic. The current attitude indicator works to orient the wings up or down. So does looking out the window in the AH world of good weather. Flying an airplane is not rocket science and wanting an attitude indicator so you can orient yourselves in the middle of a fight isn't something I'd qualify as necessary/useful hence at least my asking for the reasoning.
-
How else do you do it when you don't have an attitude indicator installed? :headscratch:
While I'm not the one tasked with coding, drawing, making or implementing a change like that it seems like wasted effort. Effort that can be much better spent doing other things rather than putting something in that isn't intended to be used in accordance with conventional use or logic. The current attitude indicator works to orient the wings up or down. So does looking out the window in the AH world of good weather. Flying an airplane is not rocket science and wanting an attitude indicator so you can orient yourselves in the middle of a fight isn't something I'd qualify as necessary/useful hence at least my asking for the reasoning.
I just throw my empty beer bottles out the window and see which way gravity takes them. :D
The best advice given to me was ..... "go offline or to the TA and drop bombs and rockets over and over and over again until you have got the sight picture burned into your retina"
Amazingly, it worked. Same for a guns solution. I hardly use the pipper anymore as I am usually looking behind me most of the time I am on a con.
-
You do realize I am a real pilot also like gulf er, and that I have many many hours of aerobatics? One of the first things you learn is to be able to fly your plane with out ever looking forward. Of course when you learn this, you have some one else doing collision avoidance with you.
HiTech
OK I'm not denying that the ability to fly without this gage is obvious, but if it so useless and not required as the naysayers keep stating, can anyone explain why they put them in planes?
I can drive my car without staring at the speedometer or even looking at it for long periods of time, but we all know it's value, because every once in a while it's nice to know exactly how fast I'm going. Not because of speed limit laws, but because I might be clocking time, distance, and other things. Isn't it possible that to learn more about my aircraft and it's flight modelling, run preplanned dive bombing attacks or practice dive bombing I might want a working gage? I fail to see why the explanation that some in game don't care if this gage functions, is an explanation for why the numbers were left off an otherwise functioning gage? The obvious fact that you took the time to include, design, and program the gage, but then left of the numbers that make it useful, and then explain that you don't need it is starting to sound like a 'Who's on first?' routine.
-
Again I'd like to say this isn't for aerobatics, I don't do multivariable calculus and decide on a number of radians per second to change the heading of my plane and follow the path of a gradient.
I want it for roping and divebombing. When I am divebombing, maybe I'm doing this wrong, I look forward. I divebomb in P38's (cause my aim is terrible otherwise, and don't say learn), so I need to be able to keep a close eye on my airspeed while judging angle etc.
I realise there are other ways to do things, like count trigger time instead of have ammo counters, and the same can be said for every single indicator we have in the aircraft your company has modeled. That goes for both historically accurate indicators and the ones you guys added yourselves to increase situational awareness.
No matter how many simple "solutions" you guys give me to this I can give you the same for every single indicator in the planes. You can count flap notches, you can judge airspeed, you can count the number of times you hit backspace to know what your secondary is, etc etc.
This seems like a very simple request, those of you who wont use it, it will effect your ability to fly in no way whatsoever. Especially since you aparently never look at the thing.
As it stands I can make a skull and crossbones gunsight, which damages nobody, is of whatever use you personally make it, and not historically accurate. I fail to see how a few simple lines on the indicator at certain angle increments is hardly any different. We don't even need sites we can guess where we're aiming right? We can just practice that till its second nature, just like I can judge angle.
This is getting old, I don't like the run around, all I ever wanted was a yes or a no, I never asked for "why invent a seatbelt when you can just not crash your car" responses.
-
ok ...
no.
-
I never asked for "why invent a seatbelt when you can just not crash your car" responses.
Yeah, this is why I've lost faith in the Wishlist forum, along with the people who will thumbs down you without reading the thread, understanding what you want, or giving any legitimate reasoning. It seems only the most obvious suggestions get argued coherently.
"Because you could do it another way" is not a legitimate refutation.
"Because you could do it another way with such minimal effort that it's a waste of time to code it" - that would be legitimate. I think that's the real reason you're getting a "no" here. Why nobody has taken the time to post the critical words "with such minimal effort that it's a waste of time to code it" is beyond me.
Edit: No it's not as simple as you think, rough_wood. Right now, the indicator overlays are part of the skin. Allowing custom overlays would mean custom skins. Giving you what you want means reworking the whole system.
To do it properly you need to separate the dashboard graphics from the skin. This makes sure that you can't "cheat" and make the dashboard transparent. Once you do that, you'll need to redo all the skins to work with the system. Only then can you churn out a custom indicator.
Edit edit: Why nobody has cut to the heart of the matter and mentioned this is beyond me as well.
-
in the middle of a fight isn't something I'd qualify as necessary/useful hence at least my asking for the reasoning.
I'm not going to look back to confirm this, but I'm pretty sure I said I want this for the opposite reason you mention at least 3 times.
In fact I've not only said what I meant, but I've directly said that what you mention is NOT what I meant.
This sounds like a Monty Python bit. "you stay here and don't let my son out" "right, we'll let your son out and not let you leave" "no, no, I mean I will leave, but you will stay, and not let my son out till I return" "right sir, we wont let your son out untill anybody comes to get him"
-
I just throw my empty beer bottles out the window and see which way gravity takes them. :D
The best advice given to me was ..... "go offline or to the TA and drop bombs and rockets over and over and over again until you have got the sight picture burned into your retina"
Amazingly, it worked. Same for a guns solution. I hardly use the pipper anymore as I am usually looking behind me most of the time I am on a con.
The same could be said for counting ammo, judging altitude, judging airspeed, judging distance to an enemy, etc etc. Which is my point. Features have been added to the game to improve SA, this is simply one thing that is lacking, but fits directly in that category with all the other indicators and features that were deemed necessary. It's a bitmap.
-
Yeah, this is why I've lost faith in the Wishlist forum, along with the people who will thumbs down you without reading the thread, understanding what you want, or giving any legitimate reasoning. It seems only the most obvious suggestions get argued coherently.
"Because you could do it another way" is not a legitimate refutation.
"Because you could do it another way with such minimal effort that it's a waste of time to code it" - that would be legitimate. I think that's the real reason you're getting a "no" here. Why nobody has taken the time to post the critical words "with such minimal effort that it's a waste of time to code it" is beyond me.
Edit: No it's not as simple as you think, rough_wood. Right now, the indicator overlays are part of the skin. Allowing custom overlays would mean custom skins. Giving you what you want means reworking the whole system.
To do it properly you need to separate the dashboard graphics from the skin. This makes sure that you can't "cheat" and make the dashboard transparent. Once you do that, you'll need to redo all the skins to work with the system. Only then can you churn out a custom indicator.
Edit edit: Why nobody has cut to the heart of the matter and mentioned this is beyond me as well.
Exactly.
I still hope they do it though. I changed mine to work in Offline in 10 minutes. They don't have to make it custom I'd like to add. I just want the angle increments, even if it's standard and you can't pick or choose.
-
Do you realize that HiTech is the owner don't you.
Given his response earlier in this thread I doubt he will be adding your request soon, but who knows, maybe you won him over with your persuasive argument.
-
Do you realize that HiTech is the owner don't you.
Given his response earlier in this thread I doubt he will be adding your request soon, but who knows, maybe you won him over with your persuasive argument.
True, but HiTech's responses did not give sufficient reason about why he would not be including a custom attitude indicator.
If HiTech had simply stated that it would take too much effort (because it'd require huge changes in the game system) instead of rerouting the conversation towards "Oh, real pilots didn't do it, neither should you", you would have seen the conclusion of this thread much sooner.
Edit: RW, your second suggestion would take quite a lot of work too. If standardized, it would entail changing ALL the skins in the game.
-
Arlighty then. My hypothesis:
"No."
"It would take too much effort due to the changes required in the game system for such a marginal and unnecessary change."
I don't think that attitude indicator is happening.
-
True, but HiTech's responses did not give sufficient reason about why he would not be including a custom attitude indicator.
If HiTech had simply stated that it would take too much effort (because it'd require huge changes in the game system) instead of rerouting the conversation towards "Oh, real pilots didn't do it, neither should you", you would have seen the conclusion of this thread much sooner.
Edit: RW, your second suggestion would take quite a lot of work too. If standardized, it would entail changing ALL the skins in the game.
What JG11 said.
Yes he's the owner, which tends to mean being accomadating to customers is a good idea. Generally when I can't do something for a customer I give them a reason rather than saying "Why not make the car out of clay instead" or "why not tell the union workers they have to lift more than 20 lbs instead of me changing this product for you"
This isn't rocket science, when a customer wants something they can't have, give them a reason so everyone can just move on.
-
I would think the fact that hitech even SAID no is reason enough. But then, that's just me.
-
I would think the fact that hitech even SAID no is reason enough. But then, that's just me.
He never said no, he said "real pilots don't use attitude indicators"
Plus just cause he owns this company doesn't make him a nazi leader like some people seem to think. He's a guy that owns a company whose revenue comes from people like you and me. He's not out to throw us in gulags or make us feel honored he set foot in our little simpleton thread, he's here to make a living (I assume).
You speak of him as if he is god. He's just another person like any of us, his word is final yes, when it comes to this place, but it isn't sacred. But saying "Real pilots do this" isn't a final word, it isn't an answer, it's a remark. Until I hear the final word with a simple reason why, I'm going to continue to seek it.
-
Keep diggin!
-
He never said no, he said "real pilots don't use attitude indicators"
Plus just cause he owns this company doesn't make him a nazi leader like some people seem to think. He's a guy that owns a company whose revenue comes from people like you and me. He's not out to throw us in gulags or make us feel honored he set foot in our little simpleton thread, he's here to make a living (I assume).
You speak of him as if he is god. He's just another person like any of us, his word is final yes, when it comes to this place, but it isn't sacred. But saying "Real pilots do this" isn't a final word, it isn't an answer, it's a remark. Until I hear the final word with a simple reason why, I'm going to continue to seek it.
Once you have been here as long as most of the "nay sayers" that have been jumping on you you will realise that HT IS god, that this is his little world he has CREATED and he will, and DOES run it as he wants.
Gauges in the planes are just training wheels. As you get better, and practice you too will do away with the training wheels. To become a decent cartoon pilot you need to fly.... and I love this term.... "outside the plane". It's a quote from one of our favorite vets, it means you must be focused on everything outside your plane to stay on top of the situation. Your plane has to become almost instinctual. While I'm no super pilot, I almost never look at my gauges, and the best never do. Those guys can tell you how fast they are, what angle of climb and altitude as well as attitude without ever looking down. Not to mention the same info of at least 3 guys in the area as well.
And the final comment I have. HTC has given you his answer. You have made it sound as if this is a make or break type item for you. HTC has become the premier Air Combat game by building his game they way he knows it should be built. He does listen to his customers, but he does NOT bow down to every persons wants/request. He leaves that to the owners of Warbirds and IL2 neither of which comes any where close to what HTC pulls in for money..... which as YOU stated is what he should be worried about.
-
HiTech does have the final say, but that does not mean he is perfect nor does it mean he is giving the right type of answer.
It was plainly obvious to me that all RW wanted here was a GOOD REASON for his request to be turned down. No, "good pilots don't fly like that" is not a good reason. That violates the "you can do what you want" nature of this game. No, "it's not historical" is not a good reason either as this game does make ahistorical concessions for gameplay.
It's a basic principle of people skills that when you turn somebody down, you better have a reason. It can be as simple as "takes too long to code because of XYZ," and in this case that would have been good enough as I've plainly demonstrated.
And yet instead of just SAYING it, everybody in this thread (HiTech included) just kept on insisting that RW should learn to fly without his indicator. Instead of cutting to the heart of the matter, everybody kept on rerouting the topic towards what RW could be doing better. RW also REPEATEDLY complained about this type of thinking. After maybe the third post in that vein, I would have thought it'd be obvious.
YES I agree it's easy to just look out the window, but what if it were equally trivial (or even easier) to change the code? The difficulty of coding it is the key point here.
-
what I see here is RW just ignoring all the arguments against his idea, perhaps its him that needs to work on "seeing through other peoples eyes" skills.
To summarize:
* the instrument is an artificial horizon, not an attitude indicator. primarily used for determining bank angle.
* not all fighters had grads on their artificial horizon. in fact we dont know how many did because no one has posted any evidence apart from one unnamed cockpit photo (looks a bit like a jug to me but thats just a wild guess.)
* its works using a gyro which is usually caged before maneuvering, so would be unavailable in the situations RW describes it being useful.
* its unecessay because you can look along your wing and see the horizon
* its always good weather and daylight in AH so we dont need to fly on instruments
* largely irrelevant for dive-bombing; sideslip indicator (so you're not slewing the sight) and g-meter (to confirm airframe is unloaded) are far more useful. practice is even more useful.
* for roping airspeed is far more crucial (ie for your E-state) and you should be out of the cockpit anyway (ie. for his E-state)
theres probably more but that all I got off the top of my head...
-
None of these things matter if it's easy enough to code. How are we to know he has experience with coding or knows the underlying software mechanics well enough to see that it'd be difficult?
Once I mentioned that it would be difficult and gave good reasons, there was no more need for argument. Yes the "it's easy because you can look out your window" is important to the explanation. However, we missed one thing - it's easy relative to WHAT (coding/modifying the skins in our case here)? This is the key part of the explanation that was missing. Instead of driving for it, everybody kept on repeating the same thing.
Edit: There's no reason to repeatedly post the same explanation. If he understood it (and I believe RW clearly did in this case), you're just wasting time reiterating a point he understands. If he doesn't, a few attempts at explanation are sufficient, but beyond that hopeless is hopeless.
-
None of these things matter if it's easy enough to code. How are we to know he has experience with coding or knows the underlying software mechanics well enough to see that it'd be difficult?
doesnt make sense - laser beams are easy to code, you think we should we have them? I'm guessing not.
-
doesnt make sense - laser beams are easy to code, you think we should we have them? I'm guessing not.
Realism is a requirement, but our realism is such a grey area (Combat Trim, Custom Gunsights, Pony vs Pony, Standard units on indicators, indicators that are too effective, English writing on foreign aircraft, etc), that a custom attitude indicator isn't beyond reason. That's why "it's not realistic" is not a sufficient justification for refusing a custom attitude indicator.
Laser beams on the other hand are so unrealistic that rejecting them on the basis on the realism is perfectly justified. Not to mention the adverse gameplay implications.
To "win" the argument, you need to provide both an alternative (which everybody has), and a reason why the original idea is worse than the alternative (in this case, the difficulty of either completely changing the skin system or manually changing every skin).
Having one without the other is half-baked. If the idea is difficult to implement but necessary (and justified/realistic) for the game, the rejection should fail. If the idea is unnecessary (but within the bounds of reason - no laser cannons) for the game but easy to implement, the rejection should once again fail. That isn't to say that the idea should be implemented immediately (priorities come into play here), but it should not be rejected. It may be on the bottom of the list, but at least it makes the list.
Only if the idea is both difficult to implement and unnecessary (or beyond reasonable reality) should the proposal be outright rejected.
-
Another reason it may be outright rejected is the simple notion of tasking the company's resources to projects that would give the greatest benefit to the most customers.
There are probably a couple hundred customer suggestions, all ready in the wishlist forum, that would benefit a larger percentage of the player base.
-
Another reason it may be outright rejected is the simple notion of tasking the company's resources to projects that would give the greatest benefit to the most customers.
Right, that's basically what I'm getting at. But if for example, an idea would benefit a small group without hurting anybody else, that idea could be put at the BOTTOM of the priority list (but still be on the list). There's no need to completely reject it, although there's great reason to delay implementing it.
-
, but if it so useless and not required as the naysayers keep stating, can anyone explain why they put them in planes?
For those times when you can't fly visually, for instrument flight.
Gyro instruments of that era were "caged" (locked in position) before any extreme attitude flight to prevent them from tumbling which is bad for the instrument.
-
the answer to the question was No, the reason was "because HT said so" which should be good enough. Thousands of people have learned to rope and dive bomb with out this suggested gauge modification. So if some one comes in here and suggests we have a pink wing tip so that it makes it easier to fight HTC should them drop everything to add pink wing tips?
-
Another reason it may be outright rejected is the simple notion of tasking the company's resources to projects that would give the greatest benefit to the most customers.
There are probably a couple hundred customer suggestions, all ready in the wishlist forum, that would benefit a larger percentage of the player base.
Exactly, if he just came out and said something like this the subject would have been over. But when someone says "I can't see at night, I need a flashlight" and the guy at the store that would sell flashlights says "just do it during the day", it becomes a situation where you are trying to debate/explain the situation with someone giving circus remarks. As long as he keeps giving refutable points, I will continue to refute. When he gives irrefutable points like the ones JG11 brings up, there is nothing to explain or debate.
@RTHolmes
I'll do this point by point, and this time I will take the liberty of using some of the rhetorical techniques that have been pointed at me
Why not remove it since we can look out the window
Not all fighters had ammo counters
Why is the attitude indicator not caged during maneuvering in the game then
Who needs windows when you can remember how long you held the stick in certain directions, you should just know your orientation
I bet frame rates would improve if ALL instruments were removed
Why use the sideslip indicator or g-meter when you can just look out the window
Why not just stop roping all together. If its a tactic for your favorite plane just get a new favorite plane.
I'm sure it is
-
Another reason it may be outright rejected is the simple notion of tasking the company's resources to projects that would give the greatest benefit to the most customers.
There are probably a couple hundred customer suggestions, all ready in the wishlist forum, that would benefit a larger percentage of the player base.
If HiTech said that there would have been nothing to say and this thread would be 5 pages back.
Instead he said "real people don't wear shoes" instead of "just double knot them so they stop untying" when asked about how to solve tripping on shoe laces. This leaves something to refute since it can be assumed he isn't helping based soley on his beleif that people don't wear shoes.
-
the answer to the question was No, the reason was "because HT said so" which should be good enough. Thousands of people have learned to rope and dive bomb with out this suggested gauge modification. So if some one comes in here and suggests we have a pink wing tip so that it makes it easier to fight HTC should them drop everything to add pink wing tips?
It would be clear to an 8 year old with average reading comprehension to know that all the people you are arguing against (me, JG11, etc) would want is either to have the pink wing tips, or a reason why they couldn't have them. A good, actual reason, not a goofy remark you say to your friends, it's not typical customer-company relationship.
It's self obviouse. You are trying to redirect the argument and compare my request to something completely ridiculus.
You are intentionally making yourself look stupid. You can't actually think what you're saying. This has to be a troll.
-
This has diverged quite a bit and I still don't think you're going to get your attitude indicator change.
-
Me either
As far as it diverging, it was diverged into this parallel crap since the first page. Dissapointing considering this is more of an adults game, I could see this happening with 12 year olds playing Call of Duty etc.
-
Me either
As far as it diverging, it was diverged into this parallel crap since the first page. Dissapointing considering this is more of an adults game, I could see this happening with 12 year olds playing Call of Duty etc.
Funny thing is CoD has a bunch of mods no? I'm guessing that's why this is more of an adult game. :neener:
-
Funny thing is CoD has a bunch of mods no? I'm guessing that's why this is more of an adult game. :neener:
Touche
-
Keep diggin!
Was that meant to be helpful or one of those remarks I previously mentioned?
-
Another reason it may be outright rejected is the simple notion of tasking the company's resources to projects that would give the greatest benefit to the most customers.
There are probably a couple hundred customer suggestions, all ready in the wishlist forum, that would benefit a larger percentage of the player base.
I also mentioned that if this is the reason it can't be done let me know.
If I recall, I said if it isn't too much trouble can you do this, though it isn't a direct quote. Right on the first page.
In fact here it is
I realise this may be a bunch of work so it may not be worth it, but I'd really like to have a reference angle for roping in a P38 and divebombing
Yet the thread turned into a bunch of worthless noise.
-
Touche
I'm glad you took that in the spirit it was intended.<S>
-
I'm glad you took that in the spirit it was intended.<S>
:cheers:
In what spirit do you suspect the "Why wear a life jacket when you can just not ski" remarks are intended?
See, this would be funny if I thought this was a joke. But the fact that I think these are seriouse responses, it's loitering closer to tragic.
Interested in your reply.
-
I'm starting to think they don't understand your analogies. :bolt:
-
Put it in the wishlist where it belongs then.
I get why you say you want one. I don't get why you won't take into consideration alternate methods that are more effective to achieve your desired goal. The best I can suggest is practice and experience.
-
Personally I was an avid dive bomber for a few tours, and I always seemed to know my AoA, it is pretty obvious...if you see blue, your going up, if you see green, you are going down...
-
Personally I was an avid dive bomber for a few tours, and I always seemed to know my AoA, it is pretty obvious...if you see blue, your going up, if you see green, you are going down...
There ya go, it's all clear to me now.
In this immense universe, there exist 2 directions:
Up, and down
Time to throw in the towel on all this vector calculus, it's all rubish.
Thanks Spikes, that was more helpful than you can possibly imagine.
-
I'm starting to think they don't understand your analogies. :bolt:
I was using them simply because they don't make sense, just like what they're saying.
Logic wasn't working, so "their logic" was my next best shot.
They don't even understand their own logic.
Sounds like some of you need to practice some of the old:
All wags are tags
If some nags are tags
All nags are wags
True or False
And learn how to apply them to other areas of your life.
What's crazy is how people can do these and not form valid arguments on their own. :headscratch:
-
Personally I was an avid dive bomber for a few tours, and I always seemed to know my AoA, it is pretty obvious...if you see blue, youre going up, if you see green, you are going down...
You must fly "up" into the water based on that flawless system.
-
Put it in the wishlist where it belongs then.
I get why you say you want one. I don't get why you won't take into consideration alternate methods that are more effective to achieve your desired goal. The best I can suggest is practice and experience.
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.
-
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, 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.
-
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.
-
(http://i.pbase.com/o4/98/583898/1/63713938.qaEEdjG9.popcorn.gif)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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". ;) :D
-
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.
-
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>
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
And to think.............
All this time spent posting could have been used for practicing dive bombing in the TA............
-
:lol