Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: scottak on March 04, 2012, 11:38:33 AM

Title: better gameplay
Post by: scottak on March 04, 2012, 11:38:33 AM
Kamikazies should be able to be enabled for jap planes. Authentic engines sounds for all or at least MOST planes and vehicles. A bomb det.  delay should be easily available in the hanger. Delays should be from 0.0 sec. to 10 seconds. Skip bombing should also be available. When you hit the water with wheels down, you should flip over on your back like you would in real life. Sirens on the Stuka's wheels should sound when you deploy the dive brakes. Dust clouds should be seen coming up from when planes are taking off, close to ground, and when vehicles are moving. Encluded in the game should be rain, snow, dust storms in deserts, gales and other weather features. When something hits the water, explodes in the water or any other thing, you should be able to see ripple effects. You should also be able to name your plane or tank and paint that name on the vehicle. When you are in a vehicle,  particularly a ground vehicle, and it gets hit, you must be able to see the rounds passing thru your vehicle.
Title: Re: better gameplay
Post by: j500ss on March 04, 2012, 11:59:59 AM
  :huh

Ummm on the kamikazies....... NO! 

Engine sounds...... Tons of sound pack for the game out there, do a search.  Better yet, look under the "custom sounds and skins" header here on the boards.

Bomb det. delay???  You want it to detonate "x" seconds after you drop it right??   No use for that here imo.  If we had field artillery or troops to take out...... then maybe.  Same for skip bombing.

Why would you try to ditch in water wheels down??   Stuka request has been brought up before I know, not sure how folks felt about that one.

Take off on a runway and look back while still wheels down on terra ferma.... The dust is there grasshopper.

We have some weather, not so much in the MA's.  But scenarios and FSO's it's there, as is wind.   See thing it, while you may want it in the MA, there are probably 10 who do not, it would interfere with why most are here..... That's to fight, not to hide in weather.

You do see effects on water, not a bunch, but depending on your card and settings, we have effects on water.

No, you should not be able to paint what you like on your plane..... We won't go there as to why.

Now think about this one, in real life..... Do you really think you would see a round pass through your plane, tank, or other GV when you got hit      :headscratch:....... Didn't think so!

Title: Re: better gameplay
Post by: scottak on March 04, 2012, 12:09:58 PM
When i said "dust clouds" i meant when the engine was running, the clouds were at least 10 ft. high and going 20 ft. back from the spinning props. For wheels down, when you take off the carrier and don't make it. Skip bombing: flying low over WATER and dropping a bomb that skips across the water towards a ship. Great for high speed attacks. Names on vehicles to make it more personalized. Squadron art doesn't cut it. And yes i do think you can see a round pass thru because when a round hits metal, it slows down, how mush depends on the thickness of the armour. You won't be able to see it clearly, but you will be able to see a long blur. Yes i thought this thru to make it more realistic so stop.
Title: Re: better gameplay
Post by: scottak on March 04, 2012, 12:14:19 PM
When i said "dust clouds" i meant when the engine was running, the clouds were at least 10 ft. high and going 20 ft. back from the spinning props. For wheels down, when you take off the carrier and don't make it. Skip bombing: flying low over WATER and dropping a bomb that skips across the water towards a ship. Great for high speed attacks. Names on vehicles to make it more personalized. Squadron art doesn't cut it. And yes i do think you can see a round pass thru because when a round hits metal, it slows down, how mush depends on the thickness of the armour. You won't be able to see it clearly, but you will be able to see a long blur. Yes i thought this thru to make it more realistic so stop.
Bomb delay: for when you are making fast, low level runs to avoid flack. You don't want to blow up by your own bomb, do you?
Title: Re: better gameplay
Post by: MK-84 on March 04, 2012, 01:05:10 PM
 :rolleyes:
Title: Re: better gameplay
Post by: USAF2010 on March 04, 2012, 01:14:23 PM
davidwhales reborn!!!!!!
Title: Re: better gameplay
Post by: The Fugitive on March 04, 2012, 01:23:37 PM
Kamikazies should be able to be enabled for jap planes. Authentic engines sounds for all or at least MOST planes and vehicles. A bomb det.  delay should be easily available in the hanger. Delays should be from 0.0 sec. to 10 seconds. Skip bombing should also be available. When you hit the water with wheels down, you should flip over on your back like you would in real life. Sirens on the Stuka's wheels should sound when you deploy the dive brakes. Dust clouds should be seen coming up from when planes are taking off, close to ground, and when vehicles are moving. Encluded in the game should be rain, snow, dust storms in deserts, gales and other weather features. When something hits the water, explodes in the water or any other thing, you should be able to see ripple effects. You should also be able to name your plane or tank and paint that name on the vehicle. When you are in a vehicle,  particularly a ground vehicle, and it gets hit, you must be able to see the rounds passing thru your vehicle.

I don't see how ANY of this is for better game play. Half of it is eye candy, the other half is just not knowing how to play the game.  If you want to watch "cinematic cut scenes" go play your playstation.
Title: Re: better gameplay
Post by: scottak on March 04, 2012, 01:23:38 PM
davidwhales reborn!!!!!!

what?
Title: Re: better gameplay
Post by: Karnak on March 04, 2012, 01:44:58 PM
Ju87D-3 did not have a siren.  It is accurate as modeled.
Title: Re: better gameplay
Post by: scottak on March 04, 2012, 01:48:47 PM
Ju87D-3 did not have a siren.  It is accurate as modeled.
I know. forgot they didnt have the early models. Your right.
Title: Re: better gameplay
Post by: scottak on March 04, 2012, 01:50:05 PM
I don't see how ANY of this is for better game play. Half of it is eye candy, the other half is just not knowing how to play the game.  If you want to watch "cinematic cut scenes" go play your playstation.
NONE of it is eye candy, none of it is for cut scenes and ALL of it is for better gameplay. If you knew ANYTHING about how all of this can ACTUALY happen in life, you would know that this would make the game better. If you had any better ideas, lets hear them. Tell me ANY ideas that you have that ACTUALY happen when you do something in a tank, tank-detroyer, fighter, bomber, jet, rocket (me 163), jeep or any other thing in the game. Its not eye candy if you want it to be more REALALISTIC, not FLASHY. Eye candy is dressing up your plane or tank all in gold, making you plane so bright and coloured that you can see it from a mile away or making the explosions look like they belong in a movie. Come back when you have ONE better idea than we will talk. Until then, shut up.
Title: Re: better gameplay
Post by: ScottyK on March 04, 2012, 02:08:55 PM
GVs already throw up dust, granted its not alot but its there, i do not see how it would create better gameplay.
Title: Re: better gameplay
Post by: caldera on March 04, 2012, 03:48:08 PM
(http://i343.photobucket.com/albums/o460/caldera_08/png.jpg)
Title: Re: better gameplay
Post by: VonMessa on March 04, 2012, 03:59:51 PM
I know. forgot they didnt have the early models. Your right.

In addition, the trumpets of Jericho were on the wheel pants, not the dive brakes...  :rolleyes:
Title: Re: better gameplay
Post by: The Fugitive on March 04, 2012, 05:46:53 PM
NONE of it is eye candy, none of it is for cut scenes and ALL of it is for better gameplay. If you knew ANYTHING about how all of this can ACTUALY happen in life, you would know that this would make the game better. If you had any better ideas, lets hear them. Tell me ANY ideas that you have that ACTUALY happen when you do something in a tank, tank-detroyer, fighter, bomber, jet, rocket (me 163), jeep or any other thing in the game. Its not eye candy if you want it to be more REALALISTIC, not FLASHY. Eye candy is dressing up your plane or tank all in gold, making you plane so bright and coloured that you can see it from a mile away or making the explosions look like they belong in a movie. Come back when you have ONE better idea than we will talk. Until then, shut up.

LOL!!! First I have been 25 feet away from a large variety of WWII aircraft while they are running and taxing around the runways...which we have in the game by the way. This includes B17s, B25s, B29s, F4Us, P51s, Yaks, hurricanes, T6 trainers, goons and so on. After the belch of smoke when starting the engines....which we have in the game, there is very rarely any "dust clouds". This is the list of aircraft that will be at the show AND flown this year http://www.maam.org/wwii/ww2_acft.htm

Dust is created by a very dry environment which the game doesn't really simulate ...please see all of the green trees and bushes.

Eye candy is just extra added things that look pretty. The new ground cover is eye candy. While it does look cool, I'd be willing to bet most GVers turn it off to make it easier to spot tanks. Also, not knowing the game, you wouldn't understand the issues involved with adding some of the ideas you think would help game play...names on planes and such. Each time another plane/tank came into view your computer would have to hunt for those names and other things. Most of the people playing wouldn't be able to run the game, so no it wouldn't help" game play but kill it.

Making better game play has very little to do with making things look prettier, or adding things that they had in real life. There was a ton of engine management things that had to be done while flying that we don't have and will NEVER have....Stated by HTC because all it is is some extra button pushes for nothing. This is a game and so some things will be by passed for playability.
Title: Re: better gameplay
Post by: scottak on March 04, 2012, 07:31:50 PM
In addition, the trumpets of Jericho were on the wheel pants, not the dive brakes...  :rolleyes:
i know but they sound when the dive breaks are deployed. i wish  people realize that when i say something should happen when you do another thing, it means that it is not always connected to that piece. it just means that it automaticaly happens to make it easier
Title: Re: better gameplay
Post by: MachFly on March 04, 2012, 07:46:01 PM
i know but they sound when the dive breaks are deployed. i wish  people realize that when i say something should happen when you do another thing, it means that it is not always connected to that piece. it just means that it automaticaly happens to make it easier

We do realize what your saying, the problem is that your simply wrong. Say HTC does add the siren and it would turn on when the drive brakes are down (just like you said), then you would come in here and complain that when your sitting on the runway with dive brakes down your siren is on for some reason.

HTC does not add things just to have them, they add things to make it more realistic and improve gameplay. In order to have the siren we'd need a whole new plane as the current Ju-87 did not have it and the siren would be useless in AH as we don't have civilians. Siren was made to scare the general population, in AH when you see a Ju-87 diving in you normally get really happy as it's an easy kill.
Title: Re: better gameplay
Post by: VonMessa on March 04, 2012, 07:48:19 PM
i know but they sound when the dive breaks are deployed. i wish  people realize that when i say something should happen when you do another thing, it means that it is not always connected to that piece. it just means that it automaticaly happens to make it easier

The Jericho-Trompete were driven by a prop on the main gear spat, made sound when up to speed and where in no way associated the dive brakes and, in addition, the dive brakes were not "deployed"  they came on automatically when the pilot pulled the dive lever to the rear, which also limited the travel of the control column.

You should read up on subjects before you make claims about them.   :aok
Title: Re: better gameplay
Post by: scottak on March 04, 2012, 09:10:43 PM
The  were driven by a prop on the main gear spat, made sound when up to speed and where in no way associated the dive brakes and, in addition, the dive brakes were not "deployed"  they came on automatically when the pilot pulled the dive lever to the rear, which also limited the travel of the control column.

You should read up on subjects before you make claims about them.   :aok
look  i been studying military history sense i was 10 so forgive me in my post if I do not put in my post EVERY thing that is related to my suggestions. I assumed that people know what i was talking about and wouldn't give me heat about what i left out. Yes i know that it was a prop. on the spats. Yes i know it was not automatically deployed with the dive brakes. I bet you didn't think that the slabs on the wings of the Me 109 was to keep it stable at low speeds and that it has almost no effect on actual gameplay but they probably put it in there to make it more authentic, like am trying to do. I was saying that to tell you that they should be turned on when the brakes were deployed instead of memorizing another button. Instead of giving me heat on what I left out or assuming I know nothing about the aircraft and vehicles in here, tell me whether it would be useful in the game or not. I though the game was supposed to be realistic, so i was giving suggestions to make it close to that point.
Title: Re: better gameplay
Post by: B-17 on March 04, 2012, 09:15:46 PM
The Jericho-Trompete were driven by a prop on the main gear spat, made sound when up to speed and where in no way associated the dive brakes and, in addition, the dive brakes were not "deployed"  they came on automatically when the pilot pulled the dive lever to the rear, which also limited the travel of the control column.

I thought they started to wind up as they went into the dive and hit a certain speed..? Sorta like the little spinner on the front of the 163. That's why there was a eeeeeeeeoooooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooowwwwwwww w kind of thing. Like bagpipes starting up :lol
Title: Re: better gameplay
Post by: scottak on March 04, 2012, 09:20:18 PM
I thought they started to wind up as they went into the dive and hit a certain speed..? Sorta like the little spinner on the front of the 163. That's why there was a eeeeeeeeoooooOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooowwwwwwww w kind of thing. Like bagpipes starting up :lol
they press a button which releases a break, if you will, on the prop. and the air rushing thru the blades makes it turn. the air forcing its way thru the spinning blades produces the siren. imagine blowing on the edge of a piece of papper and the whistling sound it makes.
Title: Re: better gameplay
Post by: B-17 on March 04, 2012, 09:26:55 PM
they press a button which releases a break, if you will, on the prop. and the air rushing thru the blades makes it turn. the air forcing its way thru the spinning blades produces the siren. imagine blowing on the edge of a piece of papper and the whistling sound it makes.

I know, that's what I meant. Like the 163's spinner provided electricity (?)
Title: Re: better gameplay
Post by: The Fugitive on March 04, 2012, 09:31:57 PM
look  i been studying military history sense i was 10 so forgive me in my post if I do not put in my post EVERY thing that is related to my suggestions. I assumed that people know what i was talking about and wouldn't give me heat about what i left out. Yes i know that it was a prop. on the spats. Yes i know it was not automatically deployed with the dive brakes. I bet you didn't think that the slabs on the wings of the Me 109 was to keep it stable at low speeds and that it has almost no effect on actual gameplay but they probably put it in there to make it more authentic, like am trying to do. I was saying that to tell you that they should be turned on when the brakes were deployed instead of memorizing another button. Instead of giving me heat on what I left out or assuming I know nothing about the aircraft and vehicles in here, tell me whether it would be useful in the game or not. I though the game was supposed to be realistic, so i was giving suggestions to make it close to that point.

Did YOU know they were called "slats" not slabs and that they were spring loaded?

(http://www.taphilo.com/photo/pictures/ME-109-slats-flaps.jpg)

and yes I believe that they are modeled in the game and work as the real planes did.
Title: Re: better gameplay
Post by: scottak on March 04, 2012, 09:33:08 PM
I know, that's what I meant. Like the 163's spinner provided electricity (?)
sorry i thought that you were actualy asking how it works.
Title: Re: better gameplay
Post by: scottak on March 04, 2012, 09:36:13 PM
sorry i thought that you were actually asking how it works.
and yes  i knew they were spring loaded and yes they did serve a function in the game, just not a major one as i said.
Title: Re: better gameplay
Post by: VonMessa on March 04, 2012, 09:41:59 PM
look  i been studying military history sense i was 10 so forgive me in my post if I do not put in my post EVERY thing that is related to my suggestions. I assumed that people know what i was talking about and wouldn't give me heat about what i left out. Yes i know that it was a prop. on the spats. Yes i know it was not automatically deployed with the dive brakes. I bet you didn't think that the slabs on the wings of the Me 109 was to keep it stable at low speeds and that it has almost no effect on actual gameplay but they probably put it in there to make it more authentic, like am trying to do. I was saying that to tell you that they should be turned on when the brakes were deployed instead of memorizing another button. Instead of giving me heat on what I left out or assuming I know nothing about the aircraft and vehicles in here, tell me whether it would be useful in the game or not. I though the game was supposed to be realistic, so i was giving suggestions to make it close to that point.

Look, you should have been studying English composition for the past 4 years instead.

Why would you assume anything at all, instead of just portraying it correctly the first time?

I am not assuming that you do not know anything about the aircraft.  I do not need to as you have proven it yourself and at a high rate of speed, no less.

First of all, they are slats, not slabs.  Second of all, they are primarily not to improve handling.  That is a secondary effect.  They are a way to maintain airfoil efficiency at high angles of attack, not just "slow speed" although slower speeds are more likely to happen in a high AOA situation.  As the airfoil pivots at a greater angle from the direction of airflow, the point at which the flow detaches from the upper wing surface moves further and further towards the front of the plane.  Eventually, if this condition continues, the airflow "detaches" or "unsticks" completely from the top surface, and creates a condition in which the wing stalls.  In order to delay this action, the slat on the 109 extends outwards under aerodynamic pressure, channeling airflow back up and over the wing upper surface, subsequently maintaining the effectiveness of the airfoil.   In a fashion, it MAY help slow-speed handling, but only because planes tend to handle better when flying, as opposed to, when they are stalling.

Prove to me that HiTech has not coded this into his flight model.  Why would he not have?

With regard to the authenticity of this game, the emphasis is on the flight model which is about as accurate as one is going to find, not the bells and whistles.

Lastly, to have a cranial hemorrhoid over "getting heat" because of the content of your posts is quite nervy considering the fact the you have told long term members of this community to "shut up" during the expansive career of your first 20 posts which, by the way, also immediately quantifies your maturity level and depth of your intellect.

Title: Re: better gameplay
Post by: B-17 on March 04, 2012, 09:43:18 PM
Look, you should have been studying English composition for the past 4 years instead.


:rofl I was thinking the same thing
Title: Re: better gameplay
Post by: tokenjo on March 04, 2012, 09:49:36 PM
Scottak, take breath,  if you went and searched for pics from
AH ver 1 u would be blown away at were this game is now.  I
May be wrong, seem to be relatively new?  Many players have
been here for years.... People have come along and asked why not
More & better etc ... You need to be careful.  Enjoy the game
for what it is,  fly it for 6 months w/o complaining what it isnt.

You will see.

Enjoy,

Tokenjo
Title: Re: better gameplay
Post by: scottak on March 04, 2012, 09:57:15 PM
Look, you should have been studying English composition for the past 4 years instead.

Why would you assume anything at all, instead of just portraying it correctly the first time?

I am not assuming that you do not know anything about the aircraft.  I do not need to as you have pr oven it yourself and at a high rate of speed, no less.

First of all, they are slats, not slabs.  Second of all, they are primarily not to improve handling.  That is a secondary effect.  They are a way to maintain airfoil efficiency at high angles of attack, not just "slow speed" although slower speeds are more likely to happen in a high AOA situation.  As the airfoil pivots at a greater angle from the direction of airflow, the point at which the flow detaches from the upper wing surface moves further and further towards the front of the plane.  Eventually, if this condition continues, the airflow "detaches" or "unstuck" completely from the top surface, and creates a condition in which the wing stalls.  In order to delay this action, the slat on the 109 extends outwards under aerodynamic pressure, channeling airflow back up and over the wing upper surface, subsequently maintaining the effectiveness of the airfoil.   In a fashion, it MAY help sloped handling, but only because planes tend to handle better when flying, as opposed to, when they are stalling.

Prove to me that Hi Tech has not coded this into his flight model.  Why would he not have?

With regard to the authenticity of this game, the emphasis is on the flight model which is about as accurate as one is going to find, not the bells and whistles.

Lastly, to have a cranial hemorrhoid over "getting heat" because of the content of your posts is quite nervy considering the fact the you have told long term members of this community to "shut up" during the expansive career of your first 20 posts which, by the way, also immediately quantifies your maturity level and depth of your intellect.


my "intelect" is that of a 14 year old student with an I.Q. of 156 studying military history, human history, and quantum mechanics getting ready for oxford. i do not want to get into proper grammar, punctuation, and English comp. because this is a forum, not school. i don't  really care what you bring up to make me look like a subnormal human being, whether its my English, spelling or whatever. I can easily answer any question about any of the vehicles in here with 99% certainty that i am correct. Forgive me if i do not wish to check if my English is correct in my post which most of the time, only get 20 comments from complete strangers who i bet get most of the info of planes and ground vehicles from t he internet. notice i said most, not all, if you do not do that.
Title: Re: better gameplay
Post by: climber on March 04, 2012, 10:01:03 PM
Ornery little bugger ain't he...
Title: Re: better gameplay
Post by: VonMessa on March 04, 2012, 10:02:17 PM
my "intelect" is that of a 14 year old student with an I.Q. of 156 studying military history, human history, and quantum mechanics getting ready for oxford. i do not want to get into proper grammar, punctuation, and English comp. because this is a forum, not school. i don't  really care what you bring up to make me look like a subnormal human being, whether its my English, spelling or whatever. I can easily answer any question about any of the vehicles in here with 99% certainty that i am correct. Forgive me if i do not wish to check if my English is correct in my post which most of the time, only get 20 comments from complete strangers who i bet get most of the info of planes and ground vehicles from t he internet. notice i said most, not all, if you do not do that.

Wechsler or Bovine scale?

Title: Re: better gameplay
Post by: ScottyK on March 04, 2012, 10:03:04 PM
The 2nd coming of David Wales!   :O
Title: Re: better gameplay
Post by: B-17 on March 04, 2012, 10:03:14 PM
my "intelect" is that of a 14 year old student with an I.Q. of 156 studying military history, human history, and quantum mechanics getting ready for oxford. i do not want to get into proper grammar, punctuation, and English comp. because this is a forum, not school. i don't  really care what you bring up to make me look like a subnormal human being, whether its my English, spelling or whatever. I can easily answer any question about any of the vehicles in here with 99% certainty that i am correct. Forgive me if i do not wish to check if my English is correct in my post which most of the time, only get 20 comments from complete strangers who i bet get most of the info of planes and ground vehicles from t he internet. notice i said most, not all, if you do not do that.

He wasn't doing that, he was simply saying that if you can't even type accurately in your mother language, then why should we believe what you have to say on vehicles or whatever?
Title: Re: better gameplay
Post by: tokenjo on March 04, 2012, 10:03:40 PM
Also keep in mind the staff that creates this envirment for us ww2
nuts is small, 4-5 developers.  $15 a month x 1500 paying player?
Guessn here, but even at that thats $22,500 a month before
taxes before payroll, employee insurance utils etc.  give them some
credit.   Learn the game, the skills to fite 1v1. Or 5v1.  Then comment.

Again enjoy it first

Tokenjo
Title: Re: better gameplay
Post by: VonMessa on March 04, 2012, 10:07:10 PM
Also keep in mind the staff that creates this envirment for us ww2
nuts is small, 4-5 developers.  $15 a month x 1500 paying player?
Guessn here, but even at that thats $22,500 a month before
taxes before payroll, employee insurance utils etc.  give them some
credit.   Learn the game, the skills to fite 1v1. Or 5v1.  Then comment.

Again enjoy it first

Tokenjo

Joe is a lot smoother than I  :D
Title: Re: better gameplay
Post by: scottak on March 04, 2012, 10:12:48 PM
Also keep in mind the staff that creates this envirment for us ww2
nuts is small, 4-5 developers.  $15 a month x 1500 paying player?
Guessn here, but even at that thats $22,500 a month before
taxes before payroll, employee insurance utils etc.  give them some
credit.   Learn the game, the skills to fite 1v1. Or 5v1.  Then comment.

Again enjoy it first

Tokenjo
sorry i just thought the team would be around 35 because the game seems so in-depth than most. i dont think about the teams much. and the first scale is for children, which i have surpassed.
Title: Re: better gameplay
Post by: ScottyK on March 04, 2012, 10:14:25 PM
  So, your 14 and studying military history for only 4 years?
Title: Re: better gameplay
Post by: B-17 on March 04, 2012, 10:14:53 PM
  So, your 14 and studying military history for only 4 years?

LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOL. Pwned :D
Title: Re: better gameplay
Post by: scottak on March 04, 2012, 10:19:17 PM
 So, your 14 and studying military history for only 4 years?
every week i finish 2 300-400 page books on human and military history. i have a personal library of 65 history books at my disposal and 23 159-241 page books on historic battles and combat vehicles.
Title: Re: better gameplay
Post by: VonMessa on March 04, 2012, 10:20:48 PM
 So, your 14 and studying military history for only 4 years?

He can also accurately "predict" the solutions to Quantum Mechanics equations because he has read books about it, even though he has not the foggiest idea about how to prove these "predictions" with mathematical equations as of yet.
Title: Re: better gameplay
Post by: VonMessa on March 04, 2012, 10:22:44 PM
every week i finish 2 300-400 page books on human and military history. i have a personal library of 65 history books at my disposal and 23 159-241 page books on historic battles and combat vehicles.

I have more books than that on a single bookshelf and hundreds more on my kindle.

That does not make me an expert, though.

Although you are amusing, I should go pick up my cheesesteak before the sandwich shop closes...

 :salute
Title: Re: better gameplay
Post by: scottak on March 04, 2012, 10:28:42 PM
He can also accurately "predict" the solutions to Quantum Mechanics equations because he has read books about it, even though he has not the foggiest idea about how to prove these "predictions" with mathematical equations as of yet.
look can we please stop arguing about my intelligence when you clearly do not know how other people's minds work other than your own? I think like Feynman did: my own way, my own subconscious calculations about an proton emitting an electron and then reabsorbing it, as well as the infinity puzzle of quantum electrodynamics.
Title: Re: better gameplay
Post by: j500ss on March 04, 2012, 10:30:52 PM
So Scottak,  I have a few  questions for you now.  Tell me, how much time have you actually spent flying or GV'ing for that matter in game?  How much time offline?  Do you have a favorite plane or GV as of yet?

Now there is a pretty good reason I ask these questions, ya see as you spend time in the MA's, you will get to know a few folks, and if you pay close attention you will learn a great deal, not just about the game, but also about the people.  Browse these forums, look at and read the posts, and who makes them.

We, just like yourself are quite versed in aircraft, their history, their strengths, their weaknesses, quirks, inner workings and technical aspects.   Yes, some folks here know more than others, or are quite versed in a specific plane, or those from a specific country.  Take VonMessa for instance.... He's been around a while, spends quite a bit of time in Luft iron.   I don't think for a minute I would question info he states about a German ride.

I personally have noted in reading this thread,  that not one member of this forum has suggested that you are subhuman.  I think from the get go, we did a pretty fair job of suggesting you look more into what you were suggesting what might make the game better.

In the end, as already stated by several of us, this is not so much about the "eye candy"  so much as the flight model.  We are not here to look pretty, we are here for the rush of the fight, and eye candy is not going to do a thing to make that better.  

I can tell you this.  Come here with open mind, state your case, learn from the replies you get, and respect those replies and the folks who make them, the same as you expect them to respect you, and you will be amazed how much better things go.

 :salute

JDog
Title: Re: better gameplay
Post by: scottak on March 04, 2012, 10:34:00 PM
look can we please stop arguing about my intelligence when you clearly do not know how other people's minds work other than your own? I think like Feynman did: my own way, my own subconscious calculations about an proton emitting an electron and then reabsorbing it, as well as the infinity puzzle of quantum electrodynamics.
yes you proably do, but i cant get more books except every 3-4 months because i don't have enough time.  I don't have any electronic book either. The only reasonable source of my learning is my school library. I have no public library in my town. And please ask me any question of any ww2 vehicle you want to prove to you that i know what i am talking about. I don't feel like dragging this out any longer.  my favorite plane is the f4u because it is fast enough to get out of the way and to catch up to most of the planes in the game. it is also very maneuverable at low speeds.(answer to the previous question)
Title: Re: better gameplay
Post by: VonMessa on March 04, 2012, 10:36:16 PM
 :headscratch:
Title: Re: better gameplay
Post by: j500ss on March 04, 2012, 10:39:32 PM
:headscratch:

    :aok
Title: Re: better gameplay
Post by: USAF2010 on March 05, 2012, 03:33:27 AM
This is that person who while I'm trying to recieve a statement from that I want to take out my extenable steel baton, start swinging, and let the smile grow on my face........

... but I digress...

And please ask me any question of any ww2 vehicle you want to prove to you that i know what i am talking about. I don't feel like dragging this out any longer. 

^This request is dragging this out longer, and second off, this thing called the internet is right in front of you. Hell ask me any question about drawing or farming. I've never really done much of either, but in about 30 seconds, I too can sound like an expert.

No offense, but IMHO it's character's like this that make me believe there is no hope sometimes. Intelligent, but so socially awkward that if something dosen't go your way, your head will implode with calculations while murmuring "This simply isn't possible".......
Title: Re: better gameplay
Post by: Wildcat1 on March 05, 2012, 07:50:44 AM
In my experience, if your intelligence quotient is above 145 and you know it, your arrogance quotient is off the scale. Here's proof.

I wouldn't question anyone who's been playing for more than 5 years. Especially if you're 14. Not to criticize you for your age but don't expect these guys not to give you crap if you question their knowledge.
Title: Re: better gameplay
Post by: hitech on March 05, 2012, 09:34:48 AM
This has gone just a LITTLE off the tracks.

I believe it is best just to end it.