Page 1 of 1

Re: [DISCUSSION] Aircraft Regulations for Combat Squadrons

Posted: Sun Apr 02, 2017 6:52 am
by Swift
ZaurixAiprax wrote:
Sun Apr 02, 2017 6:25 am
Not only do they use "Improved" airplanes but I've found some using SpeedHack that gives them a lot of advantage over a DogFight, it's very stressful that that happens and you have to take action against these members, it's too unfair for others to have Deal with this :( :!:
I will have to say this. Squads use improved planes all around to give a competitive edge in squad vs squad fighting. Speedhacks work by slowing the game itself down or speeding it up, this would not work in a multiplayer environment for obvious reasons due to the fact that you'd have to slow every single other person down or speed them up to obtain the same effect.

I don't mean to be rude, but I have been told this myself and I think it applies to any new members getting into dogfights online: Don't wave a red flag around and cry cheater when a few hours of practice can make all the difference in a fight ;)

That being said, good luck to ya!

Re: [DISCUSSION] Aircraft Regulations for Combat Squadrons

Posted: Sun Apr 02, 2017 7:11 am
by ZaurixAiprax
Swift wrote:
Sun Apr 02, 2017 6:52 am
ZaurixAiprax wrote:
Sun Apr 02, 2017 6:25 am
Not only do they use "Improved" airplanes but I've found some using SpeedHack that gives them a lot of advantage over a DogFight, it's very stressful that that happens and you have to take action against these members, it's too unfair for others to have Deal with this :( :!:
I will have to say this. Squads use improved planes all around to give a competitive edge in squad vs squad fighting. Speedhacks work by slowing the game itself down or speeding it up, this would not work in a multiplayer environment for obvious reasons due to the fact that you'd have to slow every single other person down or speed them up to obtain the same effect.

I don't mean to be rude, but I have been told this myself and I think it applies to any new members getting into dogfights online: Don't wave a red flag around and cry cheater when a few hours of practice can make all the difference in a fight ;)

That being said, good luck to ya!
If I have multiplayer practice, for a week I've been practicing in multijudor all day and all that until today was my change, but today a few hours ago a fleet of another squadron had what was called Raptoring, this I had been told in another Forum too, I just know that practice is not lacking ...

Re: [DISCUSSION] Aircraft Regulations for Combat Squadrons

Posted: Sun Apr 02, 2017 7:39 am
by Swift
ahhhh raptoring, the other speedhack. don't worry about that ^-^ it's kind of a glitch in YS

if you want to jump on a server with me tomorrow you can, i wouldn't mind showing you some things i picked up.

Re: [DISCUSSION] Aircraft Regulations for Combat Squadrons

Posted: Sun Apr 02, 2017 10:11 am
by NightRaven
generally the salt nowadays is from non-sarf/non-grun people, me included. that's due to how ex-grun aircraft and current sarf aircraft out-perform other squad aircraft, so much so that people like dooms have had to resort to raptoring just to keep up.

currently my only real gripe with the sarf aircraft is how little the aircraft bleed speed in 90g turns. and probably the fuel consumption. i'm ok with the general high speed flight of the sarf aircraft, given that ac3 aircraft are faster, but the acceleration seems a bit overwhelming compared to current squad aircraft.

one recommendation from me is to pit yourself against your own squad aircraft, so u will get an understanding of what other squads experience when they go up against your squad. for example, if u are in sarf, try flying 171st/49th aircraft against sarf aircraft. if u can beat your squad aircraft, at least u have a stronger claim in asserting that your aircraft are not cheaty.

likewise, if u can't, my suggestion is not to engage these squads in your higher performing aircraft to prevent further salt/drama like this, or tune the performance down.

Re: [DISCUSSION] Aircraft Regulations for Combat Squadrons

Posted: Sun Apr 02, 2017 2:46 pm
by Neocon
NightRaven wrote:
Sun Apr 02, 2017 10:11 am
one recommendation from me is to pit yourself against your own squad aircraft, so u will get an understanding of what other squads experience when they go up against your squad.
That's very good advice.

Re: [DISCUSSION] Aircraft Regulations for Combat Squadrons

Posted: Sun Apr 02, 2017 4:54 pm
by Swift
That's also why you can have server owners balance the performance of a plane so that some john doe in the stock F-18 can have a decent chance against a squad plane. totally what happened to the cygnus and the F/A-28, with the cygnus being more of a comic joke in my opinion :lol: .

Re: [DISCUSSION] Aircraft Regulations for Combat Squadrons

Posted: Sun Apr 02, 2017 5:10 pm
by Vic Viper
(What everyone else said), It's likely whoever you're fighting against is using planes with low mass and super high afterburner thrust (see NightRaven's comment) Anything 49th server related feel free to PM me with your concerns, I'll make sure to respond to your message quickly.

Re: [DISCUSSION] Aircraft Regulations for Combat Squadrons

Posted: Sun Apr 02, 2017 5:24 pm
by Swift
Vic Viper wrote:
Sun Apr 02, 2017 5:10 pm
planes with low mass
Totally forgot to mention that it's a rule of thumb to have your plane flying around with as little fuel as possible so anybody with a full tank of gas is pretty screwed.

Re: [DISCUSSION] Aircraft Regulations for Combat Squadrons

Posted: Sun Apr 02, 2017 10:07 pm
by m88youngling
Ah, back to this discussion. I'm glad we can talk about this.
As I have expressed in my past exchanges with Vic, I've made it clear that my goal is to balance aircraft performance in SARF planes with our other squadrons. I've taken initiative by getting actual aeronautical engineers involved in documenting aircraft performance data about our dats and we're making an effort to improve our maths. The other issue I have been pressed to overcome is the timing of SARF pack releases. I've been trying to compile new releases on a limited time schedule. This leaves large amounts of time where 'OP' planes like the F-16XF Block 3 (that one I will agree 100% is too maneuverable) are on the server. We're working on it. The scientific method is tedious. I expect pack 1.4 with the F-16XF Block 4 performance change to be sometime in the next 2 weeks.

Speaking of block numbers, I try to include these so everyone can see what version it is and know when to evaluate them. "Does this plane perform better or worse than before?" That sort of thing.

I think it's also fair to point out that pilot skill is a factor. There's very few SARF planes that ACTUALLY are too maneuverable, but I bet I can dig up lots of SARF replay data that shows that a few of our pilots are flying these so-called "OP" planes and are losing on average.

Also, a lot of our planes are based on HQP pack. F/A-18U Hornet ADV is based on HQP Superhornet. HQP is a good standard in my opinion. (unless you're Doomsday.)

I also believe that there should be some kind of challenge once in awhile. A super weapon, something unique, not employed all the time. Take the 49th's AC-130 we discussed earlier. It's not unkillable, but requires special stratagem to take on. A super fighter can definitely be taken down by multiple pilots working together. An airborne aircraft carrier with alot of armor and defenses can be defeated with the same logic. That's why I'm choosing to keep planes like the X-49 in our arsenal, and perhaps later the Aurora. You don't notice us flying these very much. Our XP based ranking aircraft restrictions have been preventing that.

SARF is a growing and learning squadron, and I encourage more feedback and more discussion on this topic to make combat on YSFHQ more enjoyable.

edit: I should probably add that some stats are based off of information provided on Acepedia (wikia) for AC3 plane performance like top speed and making dats be able to reach those speeds. They always seem...quick, compared to other squadron planes, even though the numbers make sense. Stock F-16 and most F-16s never seem to even reach the top speed of what the F-16 is said to be capable of in REAL LIFE. Is there something I'm missing? Speed logic isn't lining up here for me.

Re: [DISCUSSION] Aircraft Regulations for Combat Squadrons

Posted: Wed Apr 05, 2017 12:19 am
by Margatroid
m88youngling wrote:
Sun Apr 02, 2017 10:07 pm
I've taken initiative by getting actual aeronautical engineers involved in documenting aircraft performance data about our dats and we're making an effort to improve our maths.
Image

Re: [DISCUSSION] Aircraft Regulations for Combat Squadrons

Posted: Wed Apr 05, 2017 2:05 am
by Doomsday
m88youngling wrote:
Sun Apr 02, 2017 10:07 pm
Ah, back to this discussion. I'm glad we can talk about this.
As I have expressed in my past exchanges with Vic, I've made it clear that my goal is to balance aircraft performance in SARF planes with our other squadrons. I've taken initiative by getting actual aeronautical engineers involved in documenting aircraft performance data about our dats and we're making an effort to improve our maths. The other issue I have been pressed to overcome is the timing of SARF pack releases. I've been trying to compile new releases on a limited time schedule. This leaves large amounts of time where 'OP' planes like the F-16XF Block 3 (that one I will agree 100% is too maneuverable) are on the server. We're working on it. The scientific method is tedious. I expect pack 1.4 with the F-16XF Block 4 performance change to be sometime in the next 2 weeks.

Speaking of block numbers, I try to include these so everyone can see what version it is and know when to evaluate them. "Does this plane perform better or worse than before?" That sort of thing.
So you are saying that the rest of your planes are not OP? What about basically almost every single plane in your squad pack with an insane fuel economy where they can fly for about 8 minutes with full AB starting with 10% fuel, whereas almost everyone elses fighter planes can only last for a little over 1 minute using stock f-16 .dats. And that doesn't factor in all the other performances that you increased. What about your ridiculously fast planes that loads up on missiles to take potshots at the enemy going a tenth of your speed and is basically impossible for anyone to catch up to?
I think it's also fair to point out that pilot skill is a factor. There's very few SARF planes that ACTUALLY are too maneuverable, but I bet I can dig up lots of SARF replay data that shows that a few of our pilots are flying these so-called "OP" planes and are losing on average.


The reason your pilots keep losing in these planes is because they are abysmal at fighting. Every time when I get into an even turning battle with them, it is extremely obvious that your planes can easily outperform other squadron's planes. Even one time I jumped into your Berkut and absolutely destroyed everyone in my path, I know I gotten at least 15 kills and didn't die once, funniest part was being called a cheater by a member of your squadron when I was using the plane.
Also, a lot of our planes are based on HQP pack. F/A-18U Hornet ADV is based on HQP Superhornet. HQP is a good standard in my opinion. (unless you're Doomsday.)
Saying that the .dat for your Hornet is based on the HQP Superhornet is bullshit and you know it. I am comparing the two .dats right now and here are the changes I see where your Hornet is given the advantage.
  • Higher thrust with AB
  • Higher thrust at Military power
  • Lower weight of fuel
  • More than half the fuel consumption using AB
  • Half the fuel consumption using Military Power
  • Higher CPITMANE (The higher your number, the faster your plane turns)
  • Has higher stealth
The only advantage I see for the Superhornet is that you made the WEIGHTCLN for your Hornet 1 ton heavier. Obviously that balances out everything. Also, it is well known that the HQP Superhornet has a broken .dat that makes it not bleed speed when it turns. It was very obvious when it was first released and the .dat for it has never been fixed.
I also believe that there should be some kind of challenge once in awhile. A super weapon, something unique, not employed all the time. Take the 49th's AC-130 we discussed earlier. It's not unkillable, but requires special stratagem to take on. A super fighter can definitely be taken down by multiple pilots working together. An airborne aircraft carrier with alot of armor and defenses can be defeated with the same logic. That's why I'm choosing to keep planes like the X-49 in our arsenal, and perhaps later the Aurora. You don't notice us flying these very much. Our XP based ranking aircraft restrictions have been preventing that.
So you want to keep the X-49 plane that is basically classified as a fighter plane that has an insane acceleration, can turn on a dime, has a strength of 20, insane fuel consumption, a 0.1 factor for radar cross section (Which basically means you have to be extremely close to lock on), and a gun strength of 19. That makes sense. Compared to the 49th's AC-130 which is basically a slow turret gunship.
SARF is a growing and learning squadron, and I encourage more feedback and more discussion on this topic to make combat on YSFHQ more enjoyable.

edit: I should probably add that some stats are based off of information provided on Acepedia (wikia) for AC3 plane performance like top speed and making dats be able to reach those speeds. They always seem...quick, compared to other squadron planes, even though the numbers make sense. Stock F-16 and most F-16s never seem to even reach the top speed of what the F-16 is said to be capable of in REAL LIFE. Is there something I'm missing? Speed logic isn't lining up here for me.
You are forgetting that this is an arcade game, not a realistic game. The planes here will never match their real life counterparts. The stock f-16 .dat has been a fighting standard since the YSTK days, many squadrons have created their planes that revolved around the f-16.dat and competed against other squadrons in it. You are pulling flight characteristics for your squad planes from another game that is making it unfair for other squadrons to compete against you. By using stats from another game, you are using equipment balanced for that game, not the one you are using it in. When you are modifying existing .dats, you make changes to your plane that increases it performances, but didn't reduce anything to make it reasonably fair for the other squadrons. What really makes this game fun for a combatant is when you are competing against someone else or multiple people against planes that are similar to yours. Somewhat like Counter Strike: Source or CS:GO, you are competing against other players and the skill you have, not the gun, will dictate on whether you succeed or not. If you truly want you be viewed as a serious squadron, then you will have to release a new or a "clean" version of your pack so it can be more fair for all the existing squadrons when scrimmaging against each other.

Re: [DISCUSSION] Aircraft Regulations for Combat Squadrons

Posted: Wed Apr 05, 2017 2:23 am
by Flake
Oh wow :lol: #Destroyed

Re: [DISCUSSION] Aircraft Regulations for Combat Squadrons

Posted: Wed Apr 05, 2017 3:07 am
by PilotC
Honestly, it seems different squads have different goals for how they want to go about combat. I am looking at this from a racing standpoint as an example here. Each car is unique but are generally powered by very similar engines. What makes the difference in a race is the drivers management of his car and how he utilizes the cars strength and weaknesses. What would the point of a race be where its how much better of an engine you can make. Sure, they fine tune cars and always improve performance, but all that technology is contributed to each racer. I think if you are looking to have serious squadrons and conflicts, you need to standardize the performance of your aircraft across the board for each squad, and allow minute fine tuning to occur, similar to a NASCAR race. This puts it upon the pilot to master his craft, and not putting MARW AFTARBuRnER and such. I mean, I just don't see a point in trying if you know the aircraft you are up against can do completely unimaginable things.

Re: [DISCUSSION] Aircraft Regulations for Combat Squadrons

Posted: Wed Apr 05, 2017 7:48 pm
by m88youngling
Doomsday wrote:
Wed Apr 05, 2017 2:05 am
The reason your pilots keep losing in these planes is because they are abysmal at fighting.
Flake wrote:
Wed Apr 05, 2017 2:23 am
Oh wow :lol: #Destroyed
I'm disappointed that our staff is condoning pilot skill shaming and this kind of aggressive accusatory strategy of trying to sort out the problem. This can be solved civily, you just are angry that a rising group doesn't happen to be doing the things you want as quickly as you'd like. You make good points, and you also miss some things, but calling our pilots "abysmal at fighting" is just bullying, and I ask that this sort of behavior not be tolerated by our staff or anyone. We should be encouraging pilots to learn how to get better, as I currently am doing by working to solve this problem so our pilots can learn to fly planes with the performances that they should have. Our pilots train nearly every day and we share training content with them to encourage them to get better. Small combat with other people outside the squadron also helps them build experience. Let's be more positive and try to help them.

Staff, and everyone else on this 'opposing side' that you have created, by approaching this problem with aggressive, profane and antagonistic attitudes you are just going to make SARF pilots and myself feel even worse. We are all on the same side because we all want to help stimulate combat on YSFHQ. If you're going to continue to approach this like you are, that goal can't be accomplished with SARF.

You pose that respect is only earned after our planes are up to your personal standards. I warrant that respect should be for those who attempt to listen and compromise. I acknowledge the faults of SARF's aircraft, and I am attempting to work with you all to come to a compromise and a solution. Can we all respect one another and continue this maturely, or should I expect more bullying and antagonization? I'd like to know this before we continue.
Margatroid wrote:
Wed Apr 05, 2017 12:19 am
m88youngling wrote:
Sun Apr 02, 2017 10:07 pm
I've taken initiative by getting actual aeronautical engineers involved in documenting aircraft performance data about our dats and we're making an effort to improve our maths.
Image
One of our members is an aeronautical engineering major. Sorry, that should have been expanded upon.

Re: [DISCUSSION] Aircraft Regulations for Combat Squadrons

Posted: Wed Apr 05, 2017 7:56 pm
by ZyreaxGaming_YT
Doomsday wrote:
Wed Apr 05, 2017 2:05 am
The reason your pilots keep losing in these planes is because they are abysmal at fighting. Every time when I get into an even turning battle with them, it is extremely obvious that your planes can easily outperform other squadron's planes. Even one time I jumped into your Berkut and absolutely destroyed everyone in my path, I know I gotten at least 15 kills and didn't die once, funniest part was being called a cheater by a member of your squadron when I was using the plane.
Image

Re: [DISCUSSION] Aircraft Regulations for Combat Squadrons

Posted: Wed Apr 05, 2017 8:02 pm
by ZaurixAiprax
Doomsday wrote:
Wed Apr 05, 2017 2:05 am
m88youngling wrote:
Sun Apr 02, 2017 10:07 pm
Ah, back to this discussion. I'm glad we can talk about this.
As I have expressed in my past exchanges with Vic, I've made it clear that my goal is to balance aircraft performance in SARF planes with our other squadrons. I've taken initiative by getting actual aeronautical engineers involved in documenting aircraft performance data about our dats and we're making an effort to improve our maths. The other issue I have been pressed to overcome is the timing of SARF pack releases. I've been trying to compile new releases on a limited time schedule. This leaves large amounts of time where 'OP' planes like the F-16XF Block 3 (that one I will agree 100% is too maneuverable) are on the server. We're working on it. The scientific method is tedious. I expect pack 1.4 with the F-16XF Block 4 performance change to be sometime in the next 2 weeks.

Speaking of block numbers, I try to include these so everyone can see what version it is and know when to evaluate them. "Does this plane perform better or worse than before?" That sort of thing.
So you are saying that the rest of your planes are not OP? What about basically almost every single plane in your squad pack with an insane fuel economy where they can fly for about 8 minutes with full AB starting with 10% fuel, whereas almost everyone elses fighter planes can only last for a little over 1 minute using stock f-16 .dats. And that doesn't factor in all the other performances that you increased. What about your ridiculously fast planes that loads up on missiles to take potshots at the enemy going a tenth of your speed and is basically impossible for anyone to catch up to?
I think it's also fair to point out that pilot skill is a factor. There's very few SARF planes that ACTUALLY are too maneuverable, but I bet I can dig up lots of SARF replay data that shows that a few of our pilots are flying these so-called "OP" planes and are losing on average.


The reason your pilots keep losing in these planes is because they are abysmal at fighting. Every time when I get into an even turning battle with them, it is extremely obvious that your planes can easily outperform other squadron's planes. Even one time I jumped into your Berkut and absolutely destroyed everyone in my path, I know I gotten at least 15 kills and didn't die once, funniest part was being called a cheater by a member of your squadron when I was using the plane.
Also, a lot of our planes are based on HQP pack. F/A-18U Hornet ADV is based on HQP Superhornet. HQP is a good standard in my opinion. (unless you're Doomsday.)
Saying that the .dat for your Hornet is based on the HQP Superhornet is bullshit and you know it. I am comparing the two .dats right now and here are the changes I see where your Hornet is given the advantage.
  • Higher thrust with AB
  • Higher thrust at Military power
  • Lower weight of fuel
  • More than half the fuel consumption using AB
  • Half the fuel consumption using Military Power
  • Higher CPITMANE (The higher your number, the faster your plane turns)
  • Has higher stealth
The only advantage I see for the Superhornet is that you made the WEIGHTCLN for your Hornet 1 ton heavier. Obviously that balances out everything. Also, it is well known that the HQP Superhornet has a broken .dat that makes it not bleed speed when it turns. It was very obvious when it was first released and the .dat for it has never been fixed.
I also believe that there should be some kind of challenge once in awhile. A super weapon, something unique, not employed all the time. Take the 49th's AC-130 we discussed earlier. It's not unkillable, but requires special stratagem to take on. A super fighter can definitely be taken down by multiple pilots working together. An airborne aircraft carrier with alot of armor and defenses can be defeated with the same logic. That's why I'm choosing to keep planes like the X-49 in our arsenal, and perhaps later the Aurora. You don't notice us flying these very much. Our XP based ranking aircraft restrictions have been preventing that.
So you want to keep the X-49 plane that is basically classified as a fighter plane that has an insane acceleration, can turn on a dime, has a strength of 20, insane fuel consumption, a 0.1 factor for radar cross section (Which basically means you have to be extremely close to lock on), and a gun strength of 19. That makes sense. Compared to the 49th's AC-130 which is basically a slow turret gunship.
SARF is a growing and learning squadron, and I encourage more feedback and more discussion on this topic to make combat on YSFHQ more enjoyable.

edit: I should probably add that some stats are based off of information provided on Acepedia (wikia) for AC3 plane performance like top speed and making dats be able to reach those speeds. They always seem...quick, compared to other squadron planes, even though the numbers make sense. Stock F-16 and most F-16s never seem to even reach the top speed of what the F-16 is said to be capable of in REAL LIFE. Is there something I'm missing? Speed logic isn't lining up here for me.
You are forgetting that this is an arcade game, not a realistic game. The planes here will never match their real life counterparts. The stock f-16 .dat has been a fighting standard since the YSTK days, many squadrons have created their planes that revolved around the f-16.dat and competed against other squadrons in it. You are pulling flight characteristics for your squad planes from another game that is making it unfair for other squadrons to compete against you. By using stats from another game, you are using equipment balanced for that game, not the one you are using it in. When you are modifying existing .dats, you make changes to your plane that increases it performances, but didn't reduce anything to make it reasonably fair for the other squadrons. What really makes this game fun for a combatant is when you are competing against someone else or multiple people against planes that are similar to yours. Somewhat like Counter Strike: Source or CS:GO, you are competing against other players and the skill you have, not the gun, will dictate on whether you succeed or not. If you truly want you be viewed as a serious squadron, then you will have to release a new or a "clean" version of your pack so it can be more fair for all the existing squadrons when scrimmaging against each other.
Do not forget when they started, you were also not skilled in combat, please stop insulting and intimidate and begin to be mature, instead of speaking badly, because you do not help to improve others? If you do not like the way we fight because we are beginners and we are not at your level, for you it is advisable to advise and train or help the other to stay at your level and have your satisfaction in combat, but, save your comments That is useless, you only look bad in front of a whole community ;)

Re: [DISCUSSION] Aircraft Regulations for Combat Squadrons

Posted: Wed Apr 05, 2017 9:05 pm
by PilotC
m88youngling wrote:
Wed Apr 05, 2017 7:48 pm
Staff, and everyone else on this 'opposing side' that you have created
Isn't the point of a discussion to take all viewpoints and hear what they have to say, regardless if they align with your views?

Re: [DISCUSSION] Aircraft Regulations for Combat Squadrons

Posted: Wed Apr 05, 2017 9:21 pm
by ZyreaxGaming_YT
Do not forget when they started, you were also not skilled in combat, please stop insulting and intimidate and begin to be mature, instead of speaking badly, because you do not help to improve others? If you do not like the way we fight because we are beginners and we are not at your level, for you it is advisable to advise and train or help the other to stay at your level and have your satisfaction in combat, but, save your comments That is useless, you only look bad in front of a whole community ;)
a.)What was the point of this. Doomsday (or "Doomsy" to some of SARFs new pilots) was merely pointing out that select pilots lack the capabilities of other pilots, and on top of that, they go after the superior pilots by making false accusations. Anyway, look at that improper english tally!
"advisable to advise"
"Do not forget when they started, you were also not skilled in combat"
"you only look bad in front of a whole community"
"because you do not help to improve others?"
"begin to be mature"
"save your comments that is useless"

Re: [DISCUSSION] Aircraft Regulations for Combat Squadrons

Posted: Wed Apr 05, 2017 9:22 pm
by Swift
No f*cking wonder I stopped flying for a squad.

Re: [DISCUSSION] Aircraft Regulations for Combat Squadrons

Posted: Wed Apr 05, 2017 9:56 pm
by Flake
m88youngling wrote:
Wed Apr 05, 2017 7:48 pm
I'm disappointed that our staff is condoning pilot skill shaming
Welcome to the world of Combat.

This is entirely fair I believe. If you are the type of pilot who can only win with overpowered aircraft or if you are the type of pilot who decides to bail a dogfight when things go sour, you definitely deserve to be called out for it. Why should the veterens of our community have to put up with unfair play from the noobs? They deserve to enjoy the game too!

And here's another thought: I don't care how disappointed you are in the "staff" for their opinions. I'm a forum member first and a staff member second - I am allowed, and justified in having and sharing my opinions as a forum member.

When I am acting in a staff capacity, you will know about it.
m88youngling wrote:Do not forget when they started, you were also not skilled in combat
The difference is the veterans of 2007 era didn't up the performance of their planes when they lost. They tried harder to be better and understood why we lost. BFM videos, combat techniques discussion etc. were frequent in these days. I would like to see the community move back to this style of combat. You only improve as a pilot when you put in the effort to up your own skill.

EDIT: One last thing: I'm not angry, upset at, or trying to bully anyone here. I want an open and candid discussion about skill levels and aircraft performance, that's all. Please don't interpret my laid back and joking nature as some degree of hatred or cynicism, I'm not that kind of person.