Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Rama

  1. Nan, c'est pas prévu. Et il n'y a aucune chance que cela le soit dans un futur proche.
  2. Loki Better stop this childish attitude right now..... If not,I think will remember I have the moderation rights.
  3. Better don't try to read too much in this test screenshot. The final texture/rendering will probably be very different.
  4. I allready posted this screenshot one week before there It's an early test. Zeus will not talk about.
  5. Also Thank you to communicate about the right way to help improving the game and to demonstrate it actually works. These kind of posts really helps.
  6. First: the tests conducted by Celestiale are the way to go in order to make a point and are a good feedback to the dev. Good work. Second: some little answers to the resurgence of an "allready old discussion". It was certainly not worthless for the RAF HQ, as an input into tactical questions material policies. I still doubt very much it could be of any use to build a FM. This raise the hability of interpreted facts to question the fidelity (I prefer to use "accuracy") of a model. I would certainly find valuable any reporting, including about "flight feelings", made by a pilot wit
  7. Yes I did. And since you asked, I did it again, in order to be reasonably sure I didn't miss anything. So if I really missed something, could you report the post in which BlackDevil suposedly insulted 5tuka? TY
  8. BlackDevil didn't insult you in any way, and wasn't even agressive. By using a sarcasm in which you insulted yourself, you are using an agressive tone toward him.... so please, don't reverse the roles.
  9. If the strip is free from snow, probably, since the contrast will be high For snow-covered strips, it's another story. (like sometimes it's not that easy to spot from far away, if you don't know well the landscape, a small grass-strip airport in our countries).
  10. Some pilots of the Normandie-Niemen had probably a different opinions when they never found their base at the end of a training mission in a snowy day.... and had to land in the middle of nowhere with dry tanks.
  11. When you buy the licences, you'll get the keys, and you're not obliged to activate them (so to attach them to your account or another) Later on, when you decide to do so, you can either gift the licence key to someone, or create an account, to which you will "gift" the key, and then activate it on the new created account. I don't think you can activate 2 keys corresponding to the same package on a single account.... but I can be wrong, I never tried.
  12. 1) So far, nobody forbide anybody to participate in FM discussions and to write subjective, anecdotal or qualitative stuff. 2) Off-topic is something you find in every thread. When the mods try to limit the off-topic, then the forum crowd is screamming about censorship, super-heavy moderation, etc.... If you want to say I was on the off-topic border in the closed thread, Yes, you'll be right (some would see it Inside the limit, other would see it outside) 3) You're asking for the impossible. If the topics are not moderated, then some will be (no just feel..) taunted, and so will feel rebuff
  13. So an altitude difference isn't a quantity? Since when?
  14. Ok, proove me that you can answer your question (the altitude loss in this condition), with an anecdotal evidence.... BTW... the only way you could proove it is if the pilot has provided a quantitative measurement, since it would mean that the pilot had read the altimeter before the spin and at recovery.... so that he had "measured" the altitude loss.... and so has provided us a quantitative data which can be added to the others.
  15. And of course you have an anecdotal evidence that will proove us that the altitude loss in this condition was 3800 ft? Don't feel any need to reply... it's not a question.
  16. Correct, but I collected data for peoples who did. BTW, did you programm a flightmodel for a WW2 aircraft? Don't know for Fw190 high speed snap roll, but yes, I think at least some factory test flight data can be found. Maybe I'm wrong, but you don't know. For the P-40 spinning characteristices, yes, they are plenty of descriptive and quantitative data, for almost all the versions, data include: - Loading conditions (load description and weight) for different tests - description of methods to enter spins - attitude angle change at spin start for both left and right spins - governs
  17. Someone's really watching the loading screens? No kidding...
  18. It was never my goal to try to shut down "anecdotal évidences" in FM discussions. It would be equivalent as trying to shut down all FM discussions, something not achievable by a simple discussion (and I'm usually too lazy to try to achieve what can't be done). Now, I just wanted to show, probably too loudly, to those that display (also loudly) some kind of "astonishment" for the non-use of the "truth" of these anecdotal-evidences driven FM discussions, that they're in fact asking the dev to square the circle.... And also, knowledge epistemology is one of my favorite subject.... sorry for tha
  19. I agree that the bayesian approach is very attractive. But... the drawback of it is that everyone making research about WWII plane performances will set up his own prior probabilities to a given set of "anecdotal evidences", according to his own expertise and mental representation of the "WWII plane piloting feeling".... and will disagree with others about the same set of "anecdotal evidences". The result is to feed the FM debates on forum, up to the inevitable neverending loop (and I can't see any other possible concrete result, unless the researcher works in the same lab or team and acce
  20. Nope, you don't understand. The paragraph is not full of hypothesis, There's an error margin (sorry, I should say "uncertainty") on everything, so X exist and is different from 0, and it's value is unknown; that's a fact that should be added to your statement. The rest is standard statistics. The "if" Inside are logical if. Moreover, the measurement being different from the statements is not "unlikely", since you don't know anything about the value of "X"... and using your presentation, that 2 statements out of 20 are of the same sign that the measurements, then the measurement are in fact
  21. Not really. 1) 20 statements is not really enough to be statistically meaningfull 2) A>B is equivalent to A-B>0, if you don't know the error margin of A-B (so the error margin of the 0 value of the statement), then your 3 B>A measurements may very well be totally correct, Inside the uncertainly of your statements. 3) Even if you had 20 ou of 20 statements A>B, if the real error margin (that you don't know) of the 0 value is X, then the result of the statistic is that X/squareroot(20)>ABS(B-A)... so if your 3 measurements B>A and B-A<X/4.5 then your 3 measurements are co
  22. I allready answered to you that FMs are subject to changes, like any model output when you change the parameters (or sometimes a component, if you really need to).... this doesn't make the model "bad" or "obsolette", nor does it change it anything in the "physics and math behind" (and which is more complex than you seems to think... but it does'nt matter). The "science behind" doesn't change a bit when the outcomes of a model changes because you change the value of a parameter or even just the initial conditions. Yes, I do remember the early versions of BoS, and other versions, and I can tell
  23. I still miss the funny part.... too bad for me, I'm gonna miss a laugh or a smile That's probably because I'm not paid enough.... More seriously, you can find the procedure to address your concern in post #255 of this very same thread
  • Create New...