Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: dtango on July 18, 2011, 02:22:33 PM
-
D'Alembert's paradox is famous in aerodynamics.
Here's a list of paradoxes related to FM skepticism to ponder. Please add your own!! :D
- Skeptics Paradox: Why are FM skeptics never skeptical of their own skepticism?
- Paradox of Relativity: How do FM skeptics know an airplane's FM is wrong compared to other airplanes if they don't know if the FM of other airplanes are right?
- Guilty FM Until Proven Innocent Paradox or Laziness Paradox: Why do FM skeptics assume their FM assertions are right and expect others to prove them wrong when they haven't gone through the trouble of proving their assertions were right to begin with?
- Paradox of FM Maid Services: Why do FM skeptics expect others to repair their badly mangled FM arguments & clean up their aero messes for them?
- Skeptics Conservation Paradox: Why is it when one FM skeptic disappears, a new FM skeptic takes his place?
- The Competence Paradox: How are FM skeptics competent to comment on HTC's FM competence when they are completely ignorant of their own incompetence?
- I can't explain it, therefore it is wrong Paradox: Why is it the reason an FM skeptic gives for something they can't explain ALWAYS explained as "the FM is wrong!"?
- The Pilot Skill (or lack thereof) Paradox: Why is it that FM skeptics always blame the FM when they are shot down by an "inferior" airplane?
- UFO Paradox: How can an FM skeptic accuse an AH airplane of being a UFO when there is no data on how a UFO flies?
- FM Skeptic in the Woods Paradox: If an FM Skeptic makes an accusation alone in a forest, was there really an FM accusation?
(http://thetongsweb.net/images/rocket_science.jpg)
-
:rofl
-
:lol
-
Classic stuff as always Tango! :aok
-
All very humorous from one perspective....
but rather down-putting from another perspective on people that don't have 20 years of mathematical engineering and yet still present valid concerns. In light of recent threads and discussions it sounds very much like a frustrated condemnation to anybody bringing up issues with the game.
To be fair to you, many of these issues/concerns are not presented very well, but to be fair to them you can't dismiss them all off-hand. So I'll give an answer to them in the spirit of open discussion and because I think some of them are heavily biased and some are rather myopic.
DISCLAIMER: Yes, I am taking something that was meant with a sense of humor and getting at the topic beneath the humor.
Question: Why are FM skeptics never skeptical of their own skepticism?
Answer: Why are FM defenders so absolute in their certainty that the FM is correct?
Question: Paradox of Relativity: How do FM skeptics know an airplane's FM is wrong compared to other airplanes if they don't know if the FM of other airplanes are right?
Answer: On the one hand I don't think "this plane compared to that" are all that strong due to the subjective nature of most claims (i.e. "The Fw190 out turned the spit!!"), but on the other hand if one takes a comparison to a plane in this game that is shown repeatedly through many references to be very close to the real aircraft in WW2, and then we have another that doesn't behave as it should... say you take a well established P-51D, and then compare a Bf109G-14 to this plane.... Well if in reality the Bf109G14 out climbs it but our in-game model did not (let's just say) then you would have a pretty solid argument suggesting our Bf109G14 isn't correct. You have to be careful, yes, and sometimes these arguments are flimsy, but relatively speaking, not all planes are "coaded" equal. Hitech has stick time in a P-51 and an RV-8, for example. There is a much better chance these 2 craft will match the real thing better than the Bf110C, for example. Well argued, this can start a good discussion/debate based on a reasonable assumption that certain planes ARE "relatively" accurate.
Question: Guilty FM Until Proven Innocent Paradox or Laziness Paradox: Why do FM skeptics assume their FM assertions are right and expect others to prove them wrong when they haven't gone through the trouble of proving their assertions were right to begin with?
Answer: This is a loaded and double-edged question. Being fair to you, some have been presented this way. To dull the accusation in your question: You are loading the entire burden on the one questioning a FM. Within reason some of the burden weighs upon the accuser, but at certain points in civilized discussion the burden is equally distributed on both sides. Given the scarcity of people schooled and "learned" in the physics of aerodynamics, the burden then is upon them to help both sides understand, or to answer questions or possibly clarify part of an issue. If you consider yourself one of the few that know the true answer and don't want that burden, don't participate in the conversation, perhaps? I sense you grow tired of them from tone and responses (and from this thread). If so, simply don't reply to these threads.
Question: Paradox of FM Maid Services: Why do FM skeptics expect others to repair their badly mangled FM arguments & clean up their aero messes for them?
Answer: I don't see a question here, really. Simply a rant. I don't really see this happening much. If there is a badly formed or badly mangled argument most times (that I can think up from memory) it is easily dismissed or pointed the proper path with comments such as "you need to provide a better argument than that" and so forth. Nobody takes a 2-weeker rant about spitfires as an honest FM complaint.
Question: Skeptics Conservation Paradox: Why is it when one FM skeptic disappears, a new FM skeptic takes his place?
Answer: That's more of a skeptical comment than a question. Questioning the how and why of our game will never stop. And if it does, the game will be worse off for it. By no means a democracy, it nonetheless benefits from questioning the science and the methods employed by HTC. One person starts playing and their love for WW2 aviation grows, they learn more, and discuss more. With the high numbers, and the turnover rate, what you decry is simply a natural cycle.
Question: The Competence Paradox: How are FM skeptics competent to comment on HTC's FM competence when they are completely ignorant of their own incompetence?
Answer: How is one able to multiply numbers they haven't memorized before? How do you pronounce a word you've never spoken before and have only read? How do you find directions on a map to a place you've never visited? You preclude all and any human intelect, reasoning, logic, and "real world" experience. For example we've had hunters and shooters ask questions about bullet trajectory and ballistics and convergence and bring up good points based on what they know and see in the real world when they shoot. They were, however, "incompetent" or "ignorant" by your definition on the topics they brought up about how the game is modeled in AH. I read this as you saying you put all your faith in HTC and that any question is a direct affront to your faith, that anybody that questions authority when they are not themselves an equally famed authority is in the wrong. You can see the fallacy of this notion. Lack of articulation does not necessarily denote lack of intelligence.
Question: I can't explain it, therefore it is wrong Paradox: Why is it the reason an FM skeptic gives for something they can't explain ALWAYS explained as "the FM is wrong!"?
Answer: I feel as if that is aimed at me directly from the Ta152 thread and previous Ta152 threads as well. I won't speak for every instance of this type of thread, but I will add a word or two. Sometimes people do post baseless threads like this, and along the lines of the 2-weeker spitfire comments they are corrected or dismissed. However, there is also a big difference between logical well reasoned presentations of problems and a random 2-weeker whine. If somebody says "I was owned, the FM is wrong!" then they have a lot to back up. If, however, somebody says "This happens here, when no other plane in the game does that, it didn't do it before such-and-such a game update, and historically we have documentation that it shouldn't be" then you know what? You can't explain a bug, but you can spot a bug. Even HTC has hunted for bugs for a long time in their own game code. They would have bug reports of certain behaviors and know exactly the end result but not know where or what was causing it. So your problem with this one is your assumption (again) that the FM is always right. Even HTC has to hunt down bugs like any other programmers out there.
Question: The Pilot Skill (or lack thereof) Paradox: Why is it that FM skeptics always blame the FM when they are shot down by an "inferior" airplane?
Answer: Again see comments above. I don't think it happens all that often and usually the 2-weekers are enlightened or ignored.
Question: UFO Paradox: How can an FM skeptic accuse an AH airplane of being a UFO when there is no data on how a UFO flies?
Answer: How can you take a metaphor literally?
Question: FM Skeptic in the Woods Paradox: If an FM Skeptic makes an accusation alone in a forest, was there really an FM accusation?
Answer: If an hypothetical FM is inaccurate but nobody mentions it, no matter how long it lasts without being brought up -- is it still inaccurate?
-
*Low whistle* So that's where Krusty's button is...
No doubt in my mind that Hitech has the highest fidelity sim on the market- that's why I keep coming back for more. Perfection is elusive however, anything coaded is by definition a human endeavor.
How about this paradox: Two apparently opposing views that are both correct at their core.
Numbers win the day. Find the numbers and you find victory :old:
-
thats less flippant than it looks ... just substitute evolutionary theory, global warming or mainstream medicine for FM above. or just imagine Gaston is selling homeopathic "remedies" ;)
-
*Low whistle* So that's where Krusty's button is...
No, he didn't push a button. He put a lot of time typing that up and I felt a response in order. I wouldn't have been so long-winded if he hadn't made such a loaded list of questions :D
-
So Krusty you are reducing this fun parable to Pascal's Wager or Russell's teapot.
Which camp are you??
-
I'm with Bertrand ;)
-
Bustr, I saw it as amusing from one perspective but with serious undertones. I chose to address the undertones as if he had presented them sans humor. If you got a chuckle at his original post: good for you!
If you didn't get a chuckle, then maybe my response was geared towards you and others like you. Take it as you wish.
-
rather down-putting from another perspective on people that don't have 20 years of mathematical engineering and yet still present valid concerns.
I was a military history major in college and work as a construction manager. What we talk about in here does not require a graduate degree in aerodynamic engineering or physics. Those things certainly help, but ultimately, its all about how bad you want to understand something...
-
I don't know what's more humorous, Krusty's attempt at being serious, or him pretending his buttons weren't pressed ;), or the fact that he just krusty-jacked this thread as only he can :D. Only a paranoid egomaniac would believe this thread was written for them personally. ;)
bustr - I'm with Pascal ;)
-
I'm reasonably certain that all known teapots orbit the Sun.
-
I'm reasonably certain that all known teapots orbit the Sun.
but do all crackpots? :headscratch:
-
but do all crackpots? :headscratch:
Of course,they're steeping in the teapot!
:salute
-
I remind myself often that there was a time where getting to 'fly' a P-38 was nothing more then a dream. I remember lying on my bed as a kid looking up at the formation of model B-17s and 24s hanging from my ceiling with the model 109s, Spits, 51s etc 'fighting' around them. I wondered what it would be like to be able to shrink down enough to get in one of them to see what it looked like. Unlike my cartoon 38, I would have not been 'moving' and seeing through the glue stained windscreens, product of a 10 year old's modeling skills might have ruined the view!
As the model building got better it was to detail them, or even better build the old Monogram "Phantom" Mustang with the battery powered prop and gear that you could lower and raise. The ping pong table made a great carrier deck for those Monogram USN birds. You could take your SBD out and drop it's bomb, or take the TBF and drop the torp. Of course those P51Bs raced around an imaginary sky chasing imaginary 109s too.
Flying lessons follow and while expensive, you at least could pretend you were really flying a WW2 fighter. I remember vividly my instructor getting on my case about squaring off my downwind, base and final legs during landing. "You aren't flying a P51!" He told me. Of course there was the time a buddy and I, both having just soloed, worked it out so we both went up at the same time. We tried to fly formation without much luck and then 'dive bombed' a couple of farm houses. We tried to talk to each other, thinking we were on the right channel. Turns out we were on the Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport approach frequency. If two 17 years olds in Piper Warriors could do a quick double take and try and hide in the sky, it was us, as we both broke opposite directions and ran for 'home' as fast as we could.
College comes along as does going broke. Marriage, kids, and still broke. Along comes this thing called a computer and a green screen game called Microsoft Flight Simulator. It's got a dogfight game! OK so it's stick airplanes that can only shoot each other in the face. No matter how you try and tail chase, it's always nose on. But the imagination of that little kid comes back in a flash. SWOTL, Aces over Europe and then a chance meeting with Airwarrior on AOL. I get to fly with and against real people! Into Relaxed Realism we all go turning like mad, never blacking out and having an absolute blast!
It's then you run into the purists and the flight model critics. Full Realism is the place to be! That's how it feels to fly a real plane! So you make the move and struggle along trying to learn the 'right way'. It's then, while sitting at the home of an actual WW2 combat pilot who also flies Airwarrior that you hear him say that he preferred relaxed realism because it compensates for the 'feel' of actually flying. "Is it anything like the real deal? The vet gives you a smile and says no, but it's fun. He goes on to explain that he prefers trying to sink carriers with a TBM.
On to AH and the graphics are better, and the game overall just seems nicer. The Flight model critics are out in even greater force. But having done this long enough, it's hard to get too worked up about the flight model anymore. All I know is that little kid in me, who dreamed of flying glue spattered model planes, still can't get over the fact he gets to 'fly' his cartoon 38s with his buddies and pretend he's a cartoon fighter pilot! :)
-
Well written, dtango and guppy.
I don't think the orbits of the teapots feel right, though...
-
I remind myself often that there was a time where getting to 'fly' a P-38 was nothing more then a dream. I remember lying on my bed as a kid looking up at the formation of model B-17s and 24s hanging from my ceiling with the model 109s, Spits, 51s etc 'fighting' around them. I wondered what it would be like to be able to shrink down enough to get in one of them to see what it looked like. Unlike my cartoon 38, I would have not been 'moving' and seeing through the glue stained windscreens, product of a 10 year old's modeling skills might have ruined the view!
As the model building got better it was to detail them, or even better build the old Monogram "Phantom" Mustang with the battery powered prop and gear that you could lower and raise. The ping pong table made a great carrier deck for those Monogram USN birds. You could take your SBD out and drop it's bomb, or take the TBF and drop the torp. Of course those P51Bs raced around an imaginary sky chasing imaginary 109s too.
Flying lessons follow and while expensive, you at least could pretend you were really flying a WW2 fighter. I remember vividly my instructor getting on my case about squaring off my downwind, base and final legs during landing. "You aren't flying a P51!" He told me. Of course there was the time a buddy and I, both having just soloed, worked it out so we both went up at the same time. We tried to fly formation without much luck and then 'dive bombed' a couple of farm houses. We tried to talk to each other, thinking we were on the right channel. Turns out we were on the Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport approach frequency. If two 17 years olds in Piper Warriors could do a quick double take and try and hide in the sky, it was us, as we both broke opposite directions and ran for 'home' as fast as we could.
College comes along as does going broke. Marriage, kids, and still broke. Along comes this thing called a computer and a green screen game called Microsoft Flight Simulator. It's got a dogfight game! OK so it's stick airplanes that can only shoot each other in the face. No matter how you try and tail chase, it's always nose on. But the imagination of that little kid comes back in a flash. SWOTL, Aces over Europe and then a chance meeting with Airwarrior on AOL. I get to fly with and against real people! Into Relaxed Realism we all go turning like mad, never blacking out and having an absolute blast!
It's then you run into the purists and the flight model critics. Full Realism is the place to be! That's how it feels to fly a real plane! So you make the move and struggle along trying to learn the 'right way'. It's then, while sitting at the home of an actual WW2 combat pilot who also flies Airwarrior that you hear him say that he preferred relaxed realism because it compensates for the 'feel' of actually flying. "Is it anything like the real deal? The vet gives you a smile and says no, but it's fun. He goes on to explain that he prefers trying to sink carriers with a TBM.
On to AH and the graphics are better, and the game overall just seems nicer. The Flight model critics are out in even greater force. But having done this long enough, it's hard to get too worked up about the flight model anymore. All I know is that little kid in me, who dreamed of flying glue spattered model planes, still can't get over the fact he gets to 'fly' his cartoon 38s with his buddies and pretend he's a cartoon fighter pilot! :)
That story kind of sounds familiar. :D Although, I did my dive bombing in a Cessna 150 against I-29 vehicle traffic, comms chatter with a "wingmate" in a Cessna 173 on the Sioux Falls airport frequency, at the age of 35. ;) Oh, but being broke as can be, too.
-
I had to stop work on AH this morning.
I had ran smack dab into a very definite problem that had to be solved immediately.
I had to go back to the drawing board and completely come up with a new design for my krusty meter. You see my old one finally was pegged to the limit after this thread, and a new design that could read larger quakes was needed.
HiTech
-
:lol
I can't lie..... I found Krusty's word to hold far more truth than might have been seen, or understood!
-
I suggest using an advanced ww2 trainer designed to mimic ww2 fighter flight characteristics before proposing any flight model problems with AH to give credibility to any suggestions you feel compelled to make.
all data thus must be filtered through the high decible noise and vibration of a radial engine of at least 600hp.
aircraft weight of 5700lbs is preferable as is a birdcage canopy and fabric covered control surfaces.
at least two large calibre machine guns installed is a plus.
(http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x205/p38fester/SNJT-6Texansinformation054.jpg)
(http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x205/p38fester/SNJT-6Texansinformation042.jpg)
(http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x205/p38fester/056.jpg)
-
You know what I don't see in AH that I used to see in WB? Flight Testing.
Now I KNOW HT does good work. But one of the ways I KNOW it is the full and comprehensive flight testing that used to be done in WB. I see Krusty complaining all the time but I don't see him bringing *data* to the table to back it up.
I'm not talking data read from a book or a story. I'm talking a comprehensive study, using repeatable documented scientific methods with test plans and results that can be re-run by multiple people to verify both the methods and the results. Then posting ALL of the information - methodology, findings, results and variations from manuals/manufacturers documentation.
Let me show you an example http://www.rdrop.com/users/hoofj/index.html (http://www.rdrop.com/users/hoofj/index.html) of a test suite doing just that.
Having said all of this, I trust HT is *getting it right*. I'm not being a fanboy, it's just that I've had years of experience with his product(s) and I've seen that he gets it right much more often then not.
shdo - AH
shdo 157 TFG, The Swamp Foxes - WB
-
You know what I don't see in AH that I used to see in WB? Flight Testing.
Now I KNOW HT does good work. But one of the ways I KNOW it is the full and comprehensive flight testing that used to be done in WB. I see Krusty complaining all the time but I don't see him bringing *data* to the table to back it up.
I'm not talking data read from a book or a story. I'm talking a comprehensive study, using repeatable documented scientific methods with test plans and results that can be re-run by multiple people to verify both the methods and the results.
We do have quite a number of players that have done this stuff in the past and are still doing it. Some had run quite extensive tests, accompanied with full descriptions, graphs & films. Almost all the tests in your link have beeb done for most planes and the data been compiled & published in various places. Players like Widewing, Kweassa, Badboy, and many, many more come to my mind. But being a community larger by magnitudes, this stuff is often kinda buried under a pile of "FIX THE XXX - I don't care about data, I once saw one in a museum, I know what I'm talking about!" threads that generate much more attention. Reason, sound data and a lot of patience has lead to some changes and adjustment in the past, and most probably will continue to do so.
-
I remind myself often that there was a time where getting to 'fly' a P-38 was nothing more then a dream. I remember lying on my bed as a kid looking up at the formation of model B-17s and 24s hanging from my ceiling with the model 109s, Spits, 51s etc 'fighting' around them. I wondered what it would be like to be able to shrink down enough to get in one of them to see what it looked like. Unlike my cartoon 38, I would have not been 'moving' and seeing through the glue stained windscreens, product of a 10 year old's modeling skills might have ruined the view!
As the model building got better it was to detail them, or even better build the old Monogram "Phantom" Mustang with the battery powered prop and gear that you could lower and raise. The ping pong table made a great carrier deck for those Monogram USN birds. You could take your SBD out and drop it's bomb, or take the TBF and drop the torp. Of course those P51Bs raced around an imaginary sky chasing imaginary 109s too.
Flying lessons follow and while expensive, you at least could pretend you were really flying a WW2 fighter. I remember vividly my instructor getting on my case about squaring off my downwind, base and final legs during landing. "You aren't flying a P51!" He told me. Of course there was the time a buddy and I, both having just soloed, worked it out so we both went up at the same time. We tried to fly formation without much luck and then 'dive bombed' a couple of farm houses. We tried to talk to each other, thinking we were on the right channel. Turns out we were on the Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport approach frequency. If two 17 years olds in Piper Warriors could do a quick double take and try and hide in the sky, it was us, as we both broke opposite directions and ran for 'home' as fast as we could.
College comes along as does going broke. Marriage, kids, and still broke. Along comes this thing called a computer and a green screen game called Microsoft Flight Simulator. It's got a dogfight game! OK so it's stick airplanes that can only shoot each other in the face. No matter how you try and tail chase, it's always nose on. But the imagination of that little kid comes back in a flash. SWOTL, Aces over Europe and then a chance meeting with Airwarrior on AOL. I get to fly with and against real people! Into Relaxed Realism we all go turning like mad, never blacking out and having an absolute blast!
It's then you run into the purists and the flight model critics. Full Realism is the place to be! That's how it feels to fly a real plane! So you make the move and struggle along trying to learn the 'right way'. It's then, while sitting at the home of an actual WW2 combat pilot who also flies Airwarrior that you hear him say that he preferred relaxed realism because it compensates for the 'feel' of actually flying. "Is it anything like the real deal? The vet gives you a smile and says no, but it's fun. He goes on to explain that he prefers trying to sink carriers with a TBM.
On to AH and the graphics are better, and the game overall just seems nicer. The Flight model critics are out in even greater force. But having done this long enough, it's hard to get too worked up about the flight model anymore. All I know is that little kid in me, who dreamed of flying glue spattered model planes, still can't get over the fact he gets to 'fly' his cartoon 38s with his buddies and pretend he's a cartoon fighter pilot! :)
One of the best things ive ever read on these boards.......Thanks :aok
-
True Lusche,
knowing the people who used to fly this when it started and knowing the kind of people that fly these type of sims i'm sure people did/do test.
still frustrating when those who yell down anticdotes use them to prove thier points and see nothing wrong with doing it both ways.
C'est la vie.
shdo