Doesn't A-10C feel more flight capable in real life?

I would not be surprised if various factors made it difficult to match a sim exactly to real life, either due to practical difficulty (eg: having to base in on tables of numbers instead of climbing into an operational aircraft) or due to classified information (eg: tables not available for all possible contexts).

This is acceptable to me and I would still consider a sim with these limitations "authentic".

However, I think many of these perceptual problems are due to (or at least, made worse by) one thing:

None (very rare examples excepted) of us have ever flown in a fast jet, let alone the specific model being simmed.

Thus our expectations are based on only a few indirect things, like "how it looks on camera".

I once had a conversation with someone about crash test dummies. This guy was saying that they couldnt be realistic because a real person would "hold their limbs in" and not flail about like the crash test dummies. We had an interesting conversation where my point was that these dummies exist specifically to test forces which the human body almost never experiences. Have you ever actually seen a human body exposed to high-rate-of-onset, 200G de/accelerations? Have you ever been exposed to those kind of forces?

Expectations are a powerful thing, it is an important skill to know when to take them with a pinch of salt.

Thus, crash test dummies flail, and military jets still, even today, cannot be flown around the sky without restriction.

There is a reason it takes times on the order of years of full-time training to be any kind of professional pilot - its harder than it looks.

Very well said, p1t1o!

There is a reason it takes times on the order of years of full-time training to be any kind of professional pilot - its harder than it looks.

I think it's not the flying itself that is hard or complicated, but all the stuff that comes with it: knowing the emergency procedures, operating the systems in a tactical environment without getting overwhelmed by people talking at the same time on different radio channels, etc etc. I think sensory overload is one of the main challenges to overcome IRL.

Obviously this is not first-hand experience, but just from what I gathered over the years.

I would not be surprised if various factors made it difficult to match a sim exactly to real life, either due to practical difficulty (eg: having to base in on tables of numbers instead of climbing into an operational aircraft) or due to classified information (eg: tables not available for all possible contexts).

 

This is acceptable to me and I would still consider a sim with these limitations "authentic".

 

However, I think many of these perceptual problems are due to (or at least, made worse by) one thing:

 

None (very rare examples excepted) of us have ever flown in a fast jet, let alone the specific model being simmed.

 

Thus our expectations are based on only a few indirect things, like "how it looks on camera".

 

 

I once had a conversation with someone about crash test dummies. This guy was saying that they couldnt be realistic because a real person would "hold their limbs in" and not flail about like the crash test dummies. We had an interesting conversation where my point was that these dummies exist specifically to test forces which the human body almost never experiences. Have you ever actually seen a human body exposed to high-rate-of-onset, 200G de/accelerations? Have you ever been exposed to those kind of forces?

 

Expectations are a powerful thing, it is an important skill to know when to take them with a pinch of salt.

 

Thus, crash test dummies flail, and military jets still, even today, cannot be flown around the sky without restriction.

 

There is a reason it takes times on the order of years of full-time training to be any kind of professional pilot - its harder than it looks.

Spot on. The thing that makes me bang my head against the wall is that there are a few real life pilots on here. Specifically ones that have flown the A-10, the Harrier, and the Hornet. They kindly give feedback to the forum on occasion and are immediately told they are wrong by some 14 year kid because he saw a chart. And people wonder why they don’t give more feedback to the community. People ask for real life experience, and then turn around and disparage the pilot because they got an answer that didn’t fit their unrealistic expectation.

I think it's not the flying itself that is hard or complicated, but all the stuff that comes with it: knowing the emergency procedures, operating the systems in a tactical environment without getting overwhelmed by people talking at the same time on different radio channels, etc etc. I think sensory overload is one of the main challenges to overcome IRL.

Obviously this is not first-hand experience, but just from what I gathered over the years.

You are probably correct. No real flight experience here. But had a career in the Fire Dept. Learning the skills is not hard. The repetition required to build true muscle memory for the task at hand is what takes time. You go into automatic mode in high stress situations and especially when woken up at 3 am for a medical call. That just takes sheer volume of repetition.

Spot on. The thing that makes me bang my head against the wall is that there are a few real life pilots on here. Specifically ones that have flown the A-10, the Harrier, and the Hornet. They kindly give feedback to the forum on occasion and are immediately told they are wrong by some 14 year kid because he saw a chart. And people wonder why they don’t give more feedback to the community. People ask for real life experience, and then turn around and disparage the pilot because they got an answer that didn’t fit their unrealistic expectation.

My time was "limited" and I would rely on a more seasoned pilot that didn't have an almost 14 year gap on recollection.

However, the A10's performance is similar enough to me (as stated in replies above). I am not sure you will ever exactly get it correct as the A10C has not been retired and fully unclassified. DCS is working with knowledge best at hand and there are a multitude of other factors like dynamic real life weather conditions, fuel grade, mechanical issues, human error..etc..

There are some things I would love to see added as upgrades to the A10 but what we have already is so good it feels needy to even ask..

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Spot on. The thing that makes me bang my head against the wall is that there are a few real life pilots on here. Specifically ones that have flown the A-10, the Harrier, and the Hornet. They kindly give feedback to the forum on occasion and are immediately told they are wrong by some 14 year kid because he saw a chart. And people wonder why they don’t give more feedback to the community. People ask for real life experience, and then turn around and disparage the pilot because they got an answer that didn’t fit their unrealistic expectation.

The thing that makes me bang my head against the wall is when people compare performance chart citations to ''a 14 yo kid''. Those charts are not arbitrary nor random, and are a lot more reliable references than even a real pilot's ''feelings''. Why?

The ''real pilot'' is not flying the ''real plane''. His ''feelings'' are by definition completely different, including the lack of centrifugal force, a different sensation of speed due to ''looking at the world through a 24'' screen and/or a low resolution headset, the lack of peripheral feedback those sensations give, and the different controls that may or may not be worth a crap but are definitely absolutely nothing like what he actually used and very probably affect his sensations and precision. Or do you really think the ''real pilots'' that reviewed crappy 90's flight sims with glowing terms like how ''real'' it was ACTUALLY were flying something even remotely ''real''?

That's not to disparage any specific rl pilot, just a general fact that YES EVEN PILOTS cannot be relied on for ''feeling'' alone. They can help you dial in some things if you're already close, but they are far from infallible references... thus the usage of charts for the bulk of it.

If a pilot says a plane could do 500kts clean at a given altitude, but it only does 300kts clean at that altitude in game, that's a pretty big discrepancy, but such a glaring mistake will also be readily visible in the charts, too. See, when they make these things, they're not likely to be using only the first one they turned up in a Google search, they'll have lots of them that cover a variety of envelopes.

An ACTUAL original performance evaluation document will trump anybody's feelings any day.

The thing that makes me bang my head against the wall is when people compare performance chart citations to ''a 14 yo kid''. Those charts are not arbitrary nor random, and are a lot more reliable references than even a real pilot's ''feelings''. Why?

 

The ''real pilot'' is not flying the ''real plane''. His ''feelings'' are by definition completely different, including the lack of centrifugal force, a different sensation of speed due to ''looking at the world through a 24'' screen and/or a low resolution headset, the lack of peripheral feedback those sensations give, and the different controls that may or may not be worth a crap but are definitely absolutely nothing like what he actually used and very probably affect his sensations and precision. Or do you really think the ''real pilots'' that reviewed crappy 90's flight sims with glowing terms like how ''real'' it was ACTUALLY were flying something even remotely ''real''?

 

That's not to disparage any specific rl pilot, just a general fact that YES EVEN PILOTS cannot be relied on for ''feeling'' alone. They can help you dial in some things if you're already close, but they are far from infallible references... thus the usage of charts for the bulk of it.

 

If a pilot says a plane could do 500kts clean at a given altitude, but it only does 300kts clean at that altitude in game, that's a pretty big discrepancy, but such a glaring mistake will also be readily visible in the charts, too. See, when they make these things, they're not likely to be using only the first one they turned up in a Google search, they'll have lots of them that cover a variety of envelopes.

 

An ACTUAL original performance evaluation document will trump anybody's feelings any day.

We are checking instruments at all times during flight relative to dive angles, entry and exit to turns, egress, climb rate, hack times, G meters, etc.

The feeling comes where all that information feels accurate from DCS to memory.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

My time was "limited" and I would rely on a more seasoned pilot that didn't have an almost 14 year gap on recollection.

Besides my real flying, I'm designing flight models for slightsims as well and pireps are a great additional source for development.

I was always surprised how incredible accurate recollections from military pilots are, even after many decades. :thumbup:

Concerning zhukov032186s comment that original performance evaluation document will trump anybody's feelings, I doubt that there would be a really big difference between charts and pireps.

Furthermore the performance of a plane which has been in use for many years can differ quite a bit from a new one.

E.g. in airliners you usually have to enter a fuel flow factor value into the FMC. On older airplanes it's not unusual that fuel flow is 5% higher than on the new one.

Having an old engine on the left side and a new engine on the right side will result in different EGT values etc. etc.

That said, when I was much younger, comments like the one about unreliable pireps, made me leave the forums for quite some time, but once you get older, you get used to it.;)

Besides my real flying, I'm designing flight models for slightsims as well and pireps are a great additional source for development.

 

I was always surprised how incredible accurate recollections from military pilots are, even after many decades.

 

Concerning zhukov032186s comment that original performance evaluation document will trump anybody's feelings, I doubt that there would be a really big difference between charts and pireps.

 

Furthermore the performance of a plane which has been in use for many years can differ quite a bit from a new one.

 

E.g. in airliners you usually have to enter a fuel flow factor value into the FMC. On older airplanes it's not unusual that fuel flow is 5% higher than on the new one.

 

Having an old engine on the left side and a new engine on the right side will result in different EGT values etc. etc.

 

That said, when I was much younger, comments like the one about unreliable pireps, made me leave the forums for quite some time, but once you get older, you get used to it.;)

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

Spot on. The thing that makes me bang my head against the wall is that there are a few real life pilots on here. Specifically ones that have flown the A-10, the Harrier, and the Hornet. They kindly give feedback to the forum on occasion and are immediately told they are wrong by some 14 year kid because he saw a chart. And people wonder why they don’t give more feedback to the community. People ask for real life experience, and then turn around and disparage the pilot because they got an answer that didn’t fit their unrealistic expectation.

I've tried to bring this up to people who can make a difference. You sir, are 100% accurate.

-Habu

That's probably one of the design flaws that a new super warthog would fix, if that happens, these are compromises that shouldn't have happened, you're suppose to fit as much on and still work great, not barely at the limits, I see it everywhere in engineering how machinery is poorly designed for maximum loads, you can see trucks, and things constantly breaking down and all of this drama on the TV "Oh may gawd an excavator has broken down and now John will have to replace the rubber seal" well spfnškfdplasdmsdmk make the friggin thing stronger and up to standard for the conditions!!!!

 

 

 

The trucks, the machinery, it's all way below what is required to beat the Australian outback, for example. It's just such a pity how more than half of this worlds effort/time is wasted on using subpar solutions and nobody seems to notice it and keeps chugginn on losing nerves, why can't the freaking truck have a set of hydraulic legs to lift it up from the mud, and more set of legs to step by step go forward enough, one good pair of mehanics could do this as a custom mod on an existing truck in less than 1 month FFS, sometimes I feel like throwing the TV out the window or jump into it and LET ME FIX IT !!!

First you say that you need to carry 1.5 tons. Then you design new vehicle that does it well.

That gets noticed and now as you have capability for 2 tons, you are expected to carry that.

Now you design new vehicle that does improve performance to carry 2 tons, and it is found you can do 2.5 tons if even 3 tons. So again vehicle is pushed to limits and you are designing one that can do it at better way. And again the increased performance gets noticed and you must carry max load.

At any given time is it not realized that it is cheaper, more efficient and faster to send two vehicles with both at 60-75% load than one with 90-105% load. As no one is changing the environment and the conditions where the vehicle needs to travel. And doing so you create more jobs, where workers spend their income to their living by buying stuff and paying taxes, rent etc.

This is horribly inaccurate..

 

We are checking instruments at all times during flight relative to dive angles, entry and exit to turns, egress, climb rate, hack times, G meters, etc.

 

The feeling comes where all that information feels accurate from DCS to memory.

 

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

No, it's not ''horribly inaccurate''. A tldr version is this:

If the performance charts say one thing, and a pilot says something substantially different, the chart is the thing you should go with. Those charts are not random, nor generated from only a single evaluation.

These forums are not a ''pirep'', the pilot is not using controls or in an environment where his rl experience will be substantially similar to his virtual experience. If a pilot, flying a real plane, makes a report about his plane and how it ''feels'' compared to normal, that is reliable.

If a pilot, flying an imaginary plane using very different and unrealistic controls, makes a report, it MAY be accurate. It depends on what he's reporting. The ''feel'' of the virtual aircraft will by definition be wrong. You compare what he is describing to the performance charts to determine whether or not he is correct.

A pilot saying it ''feels weird'' is not very helpful depending on circumstances. Of course it does, it's not real, and his precision is likely altered by his controls and lack of physical feedback. If he says he can perform a certain maneuver in rl, or fly a certain speed at a certain altitude, etc, that is different. That is information that can easily be compared to known values.

What you guys are saying is 100% in line with my statement : the pireps tend to be inline with the charts. The charts are not random, useless info dug up by ''14yo'' like that one dude said. They are official technical documents.

You use the charts for accuracy, and can fine tune with RL pilot feedback. The two should not significantly depart from each other. If they do, the charts take precedence.

No, it's not ''horribly inaccurate''. A tldr version is this:

 

If the performance charts say one thing, and a pilot says something substantially different, the chart is the thing you should go with. Those charts are not random, nor generated from only a single evaluation.

 

 

 

These forums are not a ''pirep'', the pilot is not using controls or in an environment where his rl experience will be substantially similar to his virtual experience. If a pilot, flying a real plane, makes a report about his plane and how it ''feels'' compared to normal, that is reliable.

 

 

 

If a pilot, flying an imaginary plane using very different and unrealistic controls, makes a report, it MAY be accurate. It depends on what he's reporting. The ''feel'' of the virtual aircraft will by definition be wrong. You compare what he is describing to the performance charts to determine whether or not he is correct.

 

 

 

A pilot saying it ''feels weird'' is not very helpful depending on circumstances. Of course it does, it's not real, and his precision is likely altered by his controls and lack of physical feedback. If he says he can perform a certain maneuver in rl, or fly a certain speed at a certain altitude, etc, that is different. That is information that can easily be compared to known values.

 

 

 

What you guys are saying is 100% in line with my statement : the pireps tend to be inline with the charts. The charts are not random, useless info dug up by ''14yo'' like that one dude said. They are official technical documents.

 

 

 

You use the charts for accuracy, and can fine tune with RL pilot feedback. The two should not significantly depart from each other. If they do, the charts take precedence.

You're that guy.. Please continue.. Sorry I told you you were wrong about pilots observing flight DATA and recalling that information as part of their feeling that it is accurate..

By all means..please continue..

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

You're explaining what a pilot does to a former pilot?

 

You're that guy.. Please continue.. Sorry I told you you were wrong about pilots observing flight DATA and recalling that information as part of their feeling that it is accurate..

 

By all means..please continue..

 

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

This was my point exactly lol.

This all comes down to HOW accurate is the A-10C? (Never enough right and never will be)

We always have had someone saying "This pilot said" and always will.

The A-10C is accurate enough across the spiderweb of equations that make up it's FM and for it to hit 97 to 99% of the chart numbers.

That 1 to 3% would take ED years to get and possibly impossible.

Is the A-10C good enough or possibly better in many area's then most D level sims?

Could this be use as a D level trainer IRL?

didn’t fit their unrealistic expectation.

I've tried to bring this up to people who can make a difference. You sir, are 100% accurate.

-Habu

This all comes down to HOW accurate is the A-10C? (Never enough right and never will be)

 

We always have had someone saying "This pilot said" and always will.

 

The A-10C is accurate enough across the spiderweb of equations that make up it's FM and for it to hit 97 to 99% of the chart numbers.

 

That 1 to 3% would take ED years to get and possibly impossible.

 

Is the A-10C good enough or possibly better in many area's then most D level sims?

Could this be use as a D level trainer IRL?

Agreed. I don’t know h0w many levels of sims there are. However I saw a video somewhere that this is a D 0r maybe E? Level flight sim. It was not clear if what we have is rated at that or if they were talking about one of Eagle Dynamics other non public products.

What part of what I'm saying is missing you two? My original comment was referring to ''some 14yo referencing a chart'' over a ''pilot's feelings''.

A performance chart.

Takes precedence over.

Anybody's feelings.

If those feelings contradict.

The performance chart.

That is not unreasonable. It has nothing to do with ''mansplaining to a pilot about pilots''. That's just a pretentious mentality to take, btw. The 14yo remark was stupid, and I explained why.

Technical performance charts are not random internet wikipedia articles. Pilot & chart should agree. If they don't, the chart is the default.

*when determining accuracy of a simulation*

Agreed. I don’t know h0w many levels of sims there are. However I saw a video somewhere that this is a D 0r maybe E? Level flight sim. It was not clear if what we have is rated at that or if they were talking about one of Eagle Dynamics other non public products.

One of ED's / former BelSimTek's D level simulations.

From the pilots I've talk to. The A-10C would be a step up from some of the flight test type rating sims they have used lol. Not sure about the military side, from what I've seen the graphics is certainly better.:)

They do use DCS at the Air Force ROTC for training.

What part of what I'm saying is missing you two? My original comment was referring to ''some 14yo referencing a chart'' over a ''pilot's feelings''.

 

A performance chart.

Takes precedence over.

Anybody's feelings.

If those feelings contradict.

The performance chart.

 

That is not unreasonable. It has nothing to do with ''mansplaining to a pilot about pilots''. That's just a pretentious mentality to take, btw. The 14yo remark was stupid, and I explained why.

 

Technical performance charts are not random internet wikipedia articles. Pilot & chart should agree. If they don't, the chart is the default.

 

*when determining accuracy of a simulation*

Pilots are trained observers and docmenter's. Pilots are trained in manuevers using velocity benchmarks that relate to turns for lead, exact and lag pursuits.

The point you are missing is that knowledge does not generally go away and depending on their flight time, some more experienced pilots can rattle off those numbers in their sleep. The reason they can do this is because they have the data in front of them in the form of instruments. All they have to do is read and recall the data, which they absorb over time.

Some minor details do deteriorate over time but however it translates where a pilot tries to pull the exact 3g turn at 250 kts and gets a different outcome in DCS than when in reality.

I honestly have not had that problem as I stated early in this thread buy I have seen where with some loadouts I believed drag on the pylons and mounted payload was too high as it was bleeding energy in an inaccurate way to real life. The reason I feel that way is because I recreated a previous flight where loadout and weight was known and the simulated aircraft underperformed to the real life scenario.

So when a pilot states something feels inaccurate it very well could be because he/she is basing that belief of recalled data from repetitious manuevers and loadouts and not just some physiological response.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

I am not a pilot. So, maybe avionics is the exception to the rule. That being said, I have dealt with a lot of charts and theoretical performance standards in my life. I was a professional firefighter until I retired. My area of responsibility when it came to the budget was the equipment program. It was my job to know everything about said equipment. Things in the first responders world are similar to that of aviation in respect to performance and safety factors. Things like self contained breathing apparatus, hydraulic rescue tools, portable pumps, thermal imaging cameras, the pumps on the engines etc. etc., all have charts and performance standards to pass NFPA certification along with many other certifications. I can tell you, those numbers on those charts from the engineers rarely represented real life performance. Was it close? Yep. Was it perfect? No. The way we did things was the total opposite of what you explain. If the person with the institutional knowledge based on real world “feel” didn’t match the chart, typically you go with the person. Not the theoretical numbers from an engineer that say what max performance “should” be.

I build houses for a living now. Same thing. What the engineer says on paper, never matches real world reality. It is close. There is a lot of “field engineering” done by the contractor and building inspector together to try and make theoretical number provided by an engineer work. What usually results is something that is close to the spec but the folks with the institutional knowledge and experience make the real life thing actually work.

An engineer can put down whatever he wants on paper and all the math will work on paper. That changes as soon as you add real life to the equation. Infinite variables apply. The DCS’ flight physics model is supposed to mimic this variability. So while you don’t get real life sensations in sim, that doesn’t mean that real pilots don’t know more than the charts. I would trust the expert over the chart any day. You would be hard pressed to follow the conditions exactly in sim to replicate the exact conditions experienced when the engineer was calculating the chart. In sim you would need engines with the same amount of hours, an aircraft that weight exactly the same amount as the chart aircraft, the wind, temperature, and humidity along with barometric pressure and altitude would all have to match perfectly to be able to say the chart carried more weight than the pilot.

Thanks for clearing that up. I knew I remembered seeing it somewhere!

It didn’t quote you David OC for some reason. But I was responding to your response to me.

I am not a pilot. So, maybe avionics is the exception to the rule. That being said, I have dealt with a lot of charts and theoretical performance standards in my life. I was a professional firefighter until I retired. My area of responsibility when it came to the budget was the equipment program. It was my job to know everything about said equipment. Things in the first responders world are similar to that of aviation in respect to performance and safety factors. Things like self contained breathing apparatus, hydraulic rescue tools, portable pumps, thermal imaging cameras, the pumps on the engines etc. etc., all have charts and performance standards to pass NFPA certification along with many other certifications. I can tell you, those numbers on those charts from the engineers rarely represented real life performance. Was it close? Yep. Was it perfect? No. The way we did things was the total opposite of what you explain. If the person with the institutional knowledge based on real world “feel” didn’t match the chart, typically you go with the person. Not the theoretical numbers from an engineer that say what max performance “should” be.

 

I build houses for a living now. Same thing. What the engineer says on paper, never matches real world reality. It is close. There is a lot of “field engineering” done by the contractor and building inspector together to try and make theoretical number provided by an engineer work. What usually results is something that is close to the spec but the folks with the institutional knowledge and experience make the real life thing actually work.

 

An engineer can put down whatever he wants on paper and all the math will work on paper. That changes as soon as you add real life to the equation. Infinite variables apply. The DCS’ flight physics model is supposed to mimic this variability. So while you don’t get real life sensations in sim, that doesn’t mean that real pilots don’t know more than the charts. I would trust the expert over the chart any day. You would be hard pressed to follow the conditions exactly in sim to replicate the exact conditions experienced when the engineer was calculating the chart. In sim you would need engines with the same amount of hours, an aircraft that weight exactly the same amount as the chart aircraft, the wind, temperature, and humidity along with barometric pressure and altitude would all have to match perfectly to be able to say the chart carried more weight than the pilot.

Except you cannot get Yo-Yo to reverse engineer a feeling.;)

It's Engineer vs Pilot. Not so much the chart. ED and parties build the aircraft piece by piece to makeup the model for the FM. If it's correct it should closely match the charts. It does.

All the aircraft are reversed engineered first.

They do get feed from pilots back as the model is made. They still cannot get away from the design and physics. Yo-Yo will not play with the spiderweb of equations based on those feelings. He wouldn't no where to start.

Will the A-10C be perfect? No, If you want that last 3% you need to fly the real thing and have all the variations of the real thing too.

Except you cannot get Yo-Yo to reverse engineer a feeling.;)

 

It's Engineer vs Pilot. Not so much the chart. ED and parties build the aircraft piece by piece to makeup the model for the FM. If it's correct it should closely match the charts. It does.

 

All the aircraft are reversed engineered first.

 

They do get feed from pilots back as the model is made. They still cannot get away from the design and physics. Yo-Yo will not play with the spiderweb of equations based on those feelings. He wouldn't no where to start.

 

Will the A-10C be perfect? No, If you want that last 3% you need to fly the real thing and have all the variations of the real thing too.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

I managed to sum up this thread in one picture

 

Funny but I didn't exactly demand anything. I'm just saying how it's fitting that old modules get a refresh every now and then, except I'm a fan of the slow paced "service pack" style updating versus fast paced trickle-by-trickle, but either way it's no big deal. Nothing wrong if improvements come later, 6 months, 1 year, it's just my subjective thing.

There was a thread, years ago, where discussion about TIT temperature and engine thrust went deep. Documents were posted, ....

I don't mind if the inoptimalness is due to mistakes, when it gets found by community or internal or anyone else, it get's fixed if possible, no drama needed, and I think I read that in the new rules it's still ok to send docs confidentially to devs, as long as it's not forum, right? So it should be fine and remove any tension.

There are some things I would love to see added as upgrades to the A10 but what we have already is so good it feels needy to even ask..

Yeah I'm not hiding that I don't really have a good overview of what's missing

I'm wasn't even meaning the more sensetive things that were said to be completely ignored, like not even mentioned in manual with a name of what it is, that's fine but

The other thing is, it's natural progression, as the community grows older, established, people skills go up, naturally the standards will go up and the bar would need to raise, so we're really acting normal even tho it feels as if we're not satisfied, not at all, it's unfortunate that it does indeed feel as if I don't do anything other than spend time focused so much into various minor discussions, yes it feels like that to me too but still when I'm playing, and currently I'm doing A-10C campaigns, it doesn't bother me, I enjoy it when I play without thinking constantly about these discussions, I let my self enjoy it and as long as there's no tiny-iny annoyance-type bugs then it's great.