Lex Talionis

This is the issue with "arguments from authority", not everyone is going to believe in the authority referenced. Especially when the authority sighted goes against the rest of the comunity the authority is from. And when you have minimal knowledge on your own to logically formulate your own argument without the need for the authority. As said before, i belive you are misconstruing much information from the videos arriving to incorrect conclusions. I don't believe he was "free" to blatently break rules, or that he was making an argument that doing so would allow him to out perform superior aircraft "every time". Each of those videos has a context you are cherry picking information from. And if we asked him in person and it does turn out he actually meant everything in the way you think he did, you will have decades of military testing that would argue against him. You simply believe more in the authority than the rest of the comunity, religiously. I have already addressed one video referenced, how it would only work against a single pilot in only a training environment. I am pretty sure if i reviewed others i would discover much context that would isolate those examples as painfully unique and only applicable in very unique, non real world non combat environment when a myriad of other variables must be considered. But again, you religiously believe in your interpertation of a single individual's videos. And your motivation for the argument in the first place, im fuzzy on this but if it was to argue against the G limitations in the competition sighting it was unrealistic, i guess i would have to ask "what "realisum " are you referring to" (pains me to even say that) because if it is all centered around your interpertation of the videos, well we already discussed how sighting to the authority is not a good argument. Good arguments do not need an "authority ", "arguments from authority " are generally considered "bad arguments " because they lack intellectual/logical validation. If you cant argue a concept free of an authority it typically means you have a weak argument. I try to never argue from authority and always explain concepts free of leaning on credentials. The devil is always in the details. We get it, this is your guy and there is no talking you out of anything he says. But the rest of us don't need whatever list of accreditations next our name to know logical fallacies when we see them. It has been intresting, thanks for the generally civilized conversation.

Im not debating anything. Rounds (especially intended for military use) are often advertised with an "effective range". Am i saying it will suddenly stop flying mid air or that it will do no damage the seccond that number is exceeded, heck no. But what i am saying is, if you have a weapon system with a function that tells the user when they can expect a repeatable and/or expected outcome from that weapon, (i.e. an "in range" cue) i think it is safe to asume the powers that programmed that system used something quantifiable and didnt just guess. In short, something had to define what "in range" means and i promise it isn't just how far the round flys. Marines memorize these "effective range" numbers for the weapons they train on as part of the , um, education package in boot camp. What i am referring to is not some fringe concept. A quick google search (avoiding wikipedia of course) Most 20mm rounds balastic charts end around 2000m. Doesn't mean that is the "effective range", it may just be the "max range" with the effective range something less than. Still more research needed. Treat it like any other long range round hand loaded to achieve a task. The round has a BC, muzle velocity, a distance it slowes to tran/sub sonic then becomes a tumbling rock, calculate-able drop values, etc. The equations are out there . There is much to this than simply, the game is messed up because it is not like other parts of the game. Discovering these numbers will give you much context of what "in range" should mean and what might actually be wrong in the game. I may be drowning in the deep end with the "realism " but it is being talked about so im guessing someone is digging the hole for a reason.

If you are having a hard time landing (or taking off) with the NWS on (the jet is designed to keep it on) i would look more at fixing my rudder skills and technique than trying to keep the NWS off. Many of these NWS problems are a product of the gaming rudder peddles on the market. The real hornet peddles are designed to be actuated with your heel on the deck. If you are using peddles that keep your entire foot on the controls, it is probably your issue.

:thumbup:

... the nuance of the frequency of an over G is being conflated with intentional over G. You have moved the goal posts. I think it is safe to say mover is not in agreement with you here ... By his response here ....

You are leaving out some very important nuances. It was not frequency of the over Gs that was in question, you argued that if a pilot was presented with the decision of over Ging the aircraft for a shot, to do so was acceptable.

Ok.... in an effort to conclude this sh!t show .... Remember you have argued many things so far. You have argued for over Ging , pulling circuit brakers, arriving at the merg with barely enough gas for a single set, some times in the context of a real fight during war sometimes in the context of training, basically that every video that you have watched with Snodgrass telling stories of unique instances, with seemingly complete disregard for the context of those unique instances, you have demonstrated that his videos should be viewed as all encompassing universally applied and unquestionably ubiquitous concepts with only your perspective as context. And in this last message you are using a single statement from a single person, who is your token "argument from authority" pilot, and reference the f15 as a representative of all fighters. So your conclusion from all your youtubing is what exactly? And how does it relate to Movers charity event exactly? Spell it out please because i am throughly bamboozled by all the BS. Just A few sentences please.

... ug. That sounds gruesome. There are lots of techniques of how to anchor your head on the head box before G on set. Every pilot i know that flew pointy nose planes developed some neck problems in their careers. During defensive BFM looking over my left shoulder pulling Gs trying to make the adversary over shoot, my head slipped off the corner of the headbox and folded backwards, I herniated two disks in my neck. Didn't realize it untill i noticed my left hand pinkey and ring finger were numb from a pinched nerve.

Have you intentionally ignored previous conversation regarding Capt Snodgrass? You are conveniently ignoring context of this very conversation. I am noticing a trend, or an attempt in moving the goal posts. ... this is becoming quit painful. "Chess with a pigeon " i think it has been called.

You are misunderstanding my point and possibly trying to move the goal posts. Im not calling him a liar or disputing the video exists. I am challenging your conclusions of these videos. That these examples somehow illustrates a widely accepted practice. Context is what you are lacking in all of this, context of how the comunity operates and the logic behind it. Gamers seam to conclude that their logic is simply more acurate based on a very limited context. The idea that youtubing "experience " some how trumps actual "experience ", or that one can conclude they understand all that is going on from a video, especially when they have limited contextual knowledge of what they are viewing, is quite humorous.

No, but what i believe you are doing is cherry picking unique instances and passing them as the normative. Taking quite complex concepts and over simplifying them. And i also believe the lack of greator context is clouding your restraint in confidence of your opinion. These logical fallacies seem to be the norm on most forums and wikis.

..... how to deductivly reason, employ the scientific method, or avoiding logical fallacies. Example: you know you can barely, if at all, move your head greator than 8Gs? Why are those championing realism not insisting on something to hinder head movement in the game ? Because it has nothing to do with actual "reality" and everything to do with perception and an individuals preferred playing style. People just want implemented what allows their play style to be accepted, especially if it gives an advantage. Then they cherry pick evidence and reverse engineer the logic to try and justify it under the facade of "realism ". It is an arguing tactic seen in politics when using "safety","social justice ", etc, as an excuse.

........ You tube/google/wikipedia + the 21st century notion that every opinion is valid = the dunning kruger effect.

^^^ No one straifs a target with an intention of hinting anything from 17 ThOuSaNd feet. I would highly recommend looking up the affective range of the M61 20mm gun, specifically the ballistics of the 20mm round used. That will put into perspective what accuracy you should expect. I am pretty sure it is hardly 1 mile let alone almost 3.

This is an outstanding implementation for the tournament. The necessity of worrying about getting back on deck forces the gamer to evaluate what they are doing with their airframe while bending it arround in ACM. If the community is thirsty for realisum, this is an absolute must.

The gamer was refering to the YouTube video in context as a seeming means to justifying all fights being the like. More to the point, that an emotionally invested IP being out smarted, some how enforces the premise that over G ing/speeding, dumping to bingo, and a other anecdotes is some how taken as the norm implementation of the airframe. Willingly ignoring all context of the very story told, let alone the profession. That was the point and the context i (and others) was trying to explain, in adnasium. I dont know what context you are refering to... ? I dont follow the point. (Great you were able to meet him and get a signature. Hold on to that and dont be tempted to let it go on ebay. :) and when ya get on discord, come say hi and share a picture of the book)

What Snodgrass did worked because the "Kids" judgement was clouded by ego. Not because of some super-special secret-squirrel f14 wild-card "During war" natops magic flying . In this instance it worked because the cocky over confident 18 pilot played right into Snodgrass "cheats" and flew over aggressive. This was the basic plot of his entire speech. A clear headed pilot would not have fallen for it. He was very much a "kid" such that his cocky-ness showed his hand for which Snodgrass could formulate a precise counter before the wheels were in the wells. Snodgrass started the fight with a "bluff", hell he had the gas for a single merge, for which if anyone would have called him on it (i.e. flown a proper jet and prolonged the fight) he would have probably lost. All that to try and illustrate: He would not have done what he did had he not known the "kid"" would over aggressively fight his jet out of emotion. Your attempt to use this as a justification to break "things" is not happening here. What he did was not realistic war fighting, it was a poker game and the "kid" lost before he got in the aircraft. Hell in this instance , Snodgrass is a rockstar not because of his pilot ability, but for sizing his adversary up without even flying. That probably flew over everyone's heads. (pun intended) "End of lesson", you have no idea how you have missed everything about his lesson. Of all the things talked about in my previous post, the justification of me calling the 18 driver a "kid" was your go to, and that because he won = your point justified .... You did with my multiple points what you have been doing all along. You are cherry picking information and drawing incorrect conclusions from misinterpretations of various online sources because you lack much context. You are oversimplifying a complex concept and are very confident about it despite multiple individual's who do understand the context trying to point you in the right direction. Dunning Kruger effect. Sorry to monopolize the thread, i digress ....

"It isn't that i was that much a better pilot, it is that i cheated better". I'm sorry my friend, you are lacking so much pilot culture context that many of your conclusions are derived from misconstruing information. Everything he discribed in this video was tantamount to pulling the paddle switch in the hornet. For which his cocky young marine adversary did not do, and the 18 lost for "not cheating better" . The nuance is that it had very little to do with the raw performance and/or limitations of the aircraft involved, and everything to do with that he simply out smarted the young 18 driver. He broke natops limits resulting the 18 driver to mis judge and fly his aircraft incorrectly. His entire point was that he could trick the cocky pilot into flying poorly. To conclude that over G-ing an aircraft, pulling circuit breakers, manually sweeping the wings and dumping to bingo fuel is the norm is ridiculous. CAPT Snodgrass made a HUGE gamble that he was hoping the 18 drivers ego would deliver on, and it did. Had he done that against someone who knew better, he would have got his ass handed to him, which he also knew. It was a calculated decision with a spacific goal, and that goal was not to prove the performance of the 14 vrs the 18, it was basically "despite the performance of the hardware, ya don't know everything, kid". Since this thread is chock full of theory crafting, an alternate and much more "realistic" scenario could easly be: Had the 18 driver been patient and flew the aircraft correctly, he would have flowen the hornets superior alpha turning inside to deny his shots (abiding by all natops limits mind you) all while letting the 14 driver beat up his own aircraft untill it performed like a tin can only exacerbating the 18s nose authority advantage, or simply wait for him to try all his AB vertical maneuvers burning down his thimble size amount of gas he dumped down to (probably one chance at most given the numbers he sighted). Hell, had the smart ass marine been able to curb his attitude, he could have easly scored a deck kill without ever having to pull the trigger when the 14 simulated flamed out from lack of gas . Then the 14 driver gets to go home and look all his maintainers in the eyes explaining why he did what he did. You are having a hard time deducing success from what can be attributed to the performance of the aircraft, what is between the pilots ears, and when someone is intentionally risking breaking "things" to teach a much needed lesson to better his aviation legacy. He proved his point by "cheating better"and that ego clouds your judgment. Not that the 14 was better because of some gaming easter egg that few know, or that the 18 is worse, and certainly not that risking breaking the jet was a legitimate or expected practice. To come to the last conclusion is plainly nieve. Captain Snodgrass is a renowned pilot, i think you are doing him a disservice by misrepresenting his experience. Your "argument from authority " is used incorrectly. You sound much like the 18 driver Sondgrass taught the lesson to. I have no delusions that anyone will be able to convince you what has already been explained, i would simply encourage you to research the "dunning kruger effect". Good luck.

If there were a proper over G damage model, the paddle switch wouldn't be so tempting . The Dunning-Kruger effect is being exacerbated by the false rewards for poor in game flight technique.

... because it is a game ? No idea. I have never used an ADF even when an aircraft i was in had the equipment for it.

.... what's more, the information is not sent in the same format. The hardware uses different logic to make sense of the different signals. Im sure the tech exists now to create equipment capable of handling both, but ADF is practically out dated now so the motivation to do so is probably lacking. And back when ADF was ubiquitous the technology to shoe horn ADF and VOR receiver's in the same "box" i dont think exist. Educated guess.

Sure, but you are missing the nuance ADF operates in the 200 - 1700 ish Khz range (give or take , i forget the exact numbers) VOR operates in the 110 - 117 ish Mhz range (give or take)

ADF and VOR (khz Mhz respectively) operate on different frequency bands. Incompatible hardware generally speaking.

I am not suere I understand your question... .. are you asking if other games have multiplayer aspects that do not universally sync? I would imagine, sure. Not sure the relevance however.

... just make weather on all the clients the same as the server. It is unbelievably frustrating when you are flying around trying to pass a location of a target to your wingman, just for them to say "i am in a cloud". It is the one meteorological aspect that prevents a level playing field, not to mention ridiculously unrealistic. The rest is just varying levels of eyecandy quality.