Some Observations
Moderator: MOD_SPWaW
Some Observations
German Flak 88s can unload and fire in the same turn.
If a German Flak 88 can unload and fire in the same turn, then machineguns and medium mortars and light mortars should be able to do the same thing.
French AMR 33 and AMR 35 and FT17 and FT31 tanks are Size 1.
I thought that Size 2 was supposed to be the minimum size for all vehicles. I'm pretty sure that a Kubelwagen (Size 2) and a Jeep (Size 2) are smaller than French AMR and FT tanks.
If a German Flak 88 can unload and fire in the same turn, then machineguns and medium mortars and light mortars should be able to do the same thing.
French AMR 33 and AMR 35 and FT17 and FT31 tanks are Size 1.
I thought that Size 2 was supposed to be the minimum size for all vehicles. I'm pretty sure that a Kubelwagen (Size 2) and a Jeep (Size 2) are smaller than French AMR and FT tanks.
RE: Some Observations
ORIGINAL: vahauser
German Flak 88s can unload and fire in the same turn.
If a German Flak 88 can unload and fire in the same turn, then machineguns and medium mortars and light mortars should be able to do the same thing.
Well that would have required a Code change which we could not do.
The "Hvy Flak" class was coded to do that by the programmer, so we put it back into the game as the programmer had orinally intended.
Actually all 'Hvy Flak' class units can fire after unload if we had so chosen to class more guns that way.
Previous oob teams thought this was a 'bug' when in fact it was not.
French AMR 33 and AMR 35 and FT17 and FT31 tanks are Size 1.
I thought that Size 2 was supposed to be the minimum size for all vehicles. I'm pretty sure that a Kubelwagen (Size 2) and a Jeep (Size 2) are smaller than French AMR and FT tanks.
I once had an excell sheet from Mike Wood that explained the sizes, but have since lost it.
perhaps we missed a couple vehicles...oh well..
[:)]
- FlashfyreSP
- Posts: 1192
- Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2002 9:39 am
- Location: Combat Information Center
- Contact:
RE: Some Observations
ORIGINAL: vahauser
German Flak 88s can unload and fire in the same turn.
If a German Flak 88 can unload and fire in the same turn, then machineguns and medium mortars and light mortars should be able to do the same thing.
The 88 FlaK was designed in such a way that it could be fired, nearly fully-functional, while limbered. This is not the same as "unloaded", where trails are set, wheels removed, jackstands run down and the predictors connected and fired up. MGs and mortars, OTOH, when moved typically required some disassembly and reassembly (not all, but exceptions are not provided for in the abstract nature of the game) once brought to their new position. To head off "but what about thus-and-so" comments, remember that all weapons of a particular class MUST have the same class characteristics as every other weapon in that class. It is the "nature of the beast", that the game has a limited number of classes, each with its own characteristics, and weapons have to be fit into them. Of course, light mortars such as the British 2" and the US 60mm M19 had few parts and could be brought into action rapidly. But the Light Mortar class does not distinguish between the 2" and the German 5cm moerser, which requires some setup. All Light Mortar units act like one another; they all "lose shots" when moved.
The Heavy FlaK Unit Class was built specifically for this weapon, and no other large-calibre AA gun. However, some other nation's heavy AA guns (the US 90mm M1 is one example) were built under the same concept, and have been assigned the Heavy FlaK class. But, there is no provision for penalizing these units for firing "on the move", so to speak, or firing without their sights and other paraphernalia. So they are just as effective firing from their limbers as they are firing fully set up, which is something we have to live with.
RE: Some Observations
Alby,
My comment regarding size 2 vehicles was because I thought that a decision had been made somewhere that allowing any vehicle to be size 1 created the possibility of game-play abuses, which was why jeeps and kubelwagens were converted from size 1 into size 2. So even if a vehicle would technically be a 'size 1', all vehicles were given a minimum of size 2. To prevent game-play abuses. Right?
My comment regarding size 2 vehicles was because I thought that a decision had been made somewhere that allowing any vehicle to be size 1 created the possibility of game-play abuses, which was why jeeps and kubelwagens were converted from size 1 into size 2. So even if a vehicle would technically be a 'size 1', all vehicles were given a minimum of size 2. To prevent game-play abuses. Right?
- FlashfyreSP
- Posts: 1192
- Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2002 9:39 am
- Location: Combat Information Center
- Contact:
RE: Some Observations
ORIGINAL: vahauser
French AMR 33 and AMR 35 and FT17 and FT31 tanks are Size 1.
I thought that Size 2 was supposed to be the minimum size for all vehicles. I'm pretty sure that a Kubelwagen (Size 2) and a Jeep (Size 2) are smaller than French AMR and FT tanks.
To my knowledge, there has never been a "set" rule as to Unit Size. Since it is an abstract concept anyhow, a Size 1 can mean many things: large mass over many parts (think squad of men), tall object but with small width (tanks like the FT17), wide but low object (the AMR series were very low-slung tanks, not more than 6' tall), or any number of other "size" conceptions. The AMR 35 is probably wrong, as it was over 2 meters tall and wide, which should qualify for a Size 2. However, the error may also be with the Jeep and Kuebelwagen units, which perhaps should be Size 1 instead.
The trouble is in determing exactly what the Size rating addresses, and what it measures. With so many interpretations, it's hard to say which is right and which is wrong.
-
- Posts: 563
- Joined: Wed Apr 24, 2002 2:46 am
- Location: Goldsboro, North Carolina
RE: Some Observations
ORIGINAL: vahauser
Alby,
My comment regarding size 2 vehicles was because I thought that a decision had been made somewhere that allowing any vehicle to be size 1 created the possibility of game-play abuses, which was why jeeps and kubelwagens were converted from size 1 into size 2. So even if a vehicle would technically be a 'size 1', all vehicles were given a minimum of size 2. To prevent game-play abuses. Right?
Alby?
RE: Some Observations
I dont recall any rule about all vehicles having to be size 2.ORIGINAL: vahauser
ORIGINAL: vahauser
Alby,
My comment regarding size 2 vehicles was because I thought that a decision had been made somewhere that allowing any vehicle to be size 1 created the possibility of game-play abuses, which was why jeeps and kubelwagens were converted from size 1 into size 2. So even if a vehicle would technically be a 'size 1', all vehicles were given a minimum of size 2. To prevent game-play abuses. Right?
Alby?
somewhere on this Forum sometime back, I posted the list of unit sizes and how they are obtained. I found it and posted below, but it is old, prior to Mike updating the mech and editor, so it doesnt help much.
We didnt 'convert' too many sizes that I recall, the programmers conventions says it "fixes" "some' unit size issues. so.......
The way Mike explained it to me, there is a formula used, height x width x length divided by something or another...I dont remember exactly....
anyway, I am sure some vehicles here and there were missed using the 'Conventions'
anyway it is a moot point now as Enhanced is what it is......If anyone can find a cleaner set of OOBs out there, then more power to them.....
[:D]
SPWaW Editor vs. 5.0 Menu Batch Option Features
1) Fix Known File Data Entry Errors: Changes the HEAT rounds in infantry anti-tank units from HEAT ammunition to the AP ammunition the program expects, deletes any APCR rounds in units if the weapon APCR maximum range is zero (a crash to desk top bug) or the weapon APCR penetration value is zero, deletes any HEAT rounds in units if the HEAT penetration value is zero, makes all bicycle and motorcycle units size one, cavalry units size two, changes non-vehicular size zero units of 5 or more men to size one, changes any size zero anti-tank guns or mortars to size one and changes some size one infantry and machine gun units of four or fewer men to size zero.
"Unit Size:
0 = Snipers, 4 man or less machine guns and 2 to 4 man recon patrols.
1 = Infantry, bicycles, crewmen, motorcycles, all mortars, all infantry guns, anti-aircraft guns up to 40mm, artillery up to 76.2mm and anti-tank guns up to 76.2mm.
2 = Anti-aircraft guns of 57mm to 76.2mm, artillery larger than 76.2mm, anti-tank guns larger than 76.2mm, cavalry, utility vehicles and other transport with a carry capacity of less than 10 (or 110),.
3 = Small armored cars, most armored vehicles without turrets such as self-propelled guns and tank destroyers, small tanks, anti-aircraft guns larger than 76.2mm, transport with a carry capacity from 10 (or 110) to 19 (or 119).
4 = Normal sized tanks, large armored vehicles without turrets such as self-propelled guns and tank destroyers, transport with a carry capacity of 20 (or 210) to 29 (or 219).
5 = Large tanks, very large armored vehicles without turrets such as self-propelled guns and tank destroyers.
6 = Very, very large vehicles.
RE: Some Observations
Alby,
Okay. According to that Unit Size chart, those French AMR and FT tanks should be size 3 instead of size 1. Indeed, as I thought, no vehicular unit should be smaller than size 2, and indeed only utility vehicles should be size 2.
Personal customization of the Enhanced OOBs is not an option for me.
Okay. According to that Unit Size chart, those French AMR and FT tanks should be size 3 instead of size 1. Indeed, as I thought, no vehicular unit should be smaller than size 2, and indeed only utility vehicles should be size 2.
Personal customization of the Enhanced OOBs is not an option for me.
RE: Some Observations
ORIGINAL: vahauser
Alby,
Personal customization of the Enhanced OOBs is not an option for me.
Why not? It's easy to do.

- FlashfyreSP
- Posts: 1192
- Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2002 9:39 am
- Location: Combat Information Center
- Contact:
RE: Some Observations
The chart is a guideline. It is not a set rule to follow. Until someone can define "Size" explicitly, none of the current settings are "wrong". you may not agree with them, but that's why it's called an opinion. [;)]
There is some experimentation going on out there with a few of the Unit Data fields, to determine what settings are optimal; Size values according to that chart are off by a factor of 1, minimum.
There is some experimentation going on out there with a few of the Unit Data fields, to determine what settings are optimal; Size values according to that chart are off by a factor of 1, minimum.
RE: Some Observations
Erwin,
It has nothing to do with my ability to customize the Enhanced OOBs. There are outside influences and factors involved. So, it's not an option for me.
And besides, I chose the title of this thread carefully. I didn't say errors or problems. I said observations. As in 'things I find curious'.
EDIT: That said, however, there were valid reasons for making the minimum vehicle size 2. I remember very well the abuses and exploits using size 1 vehicles back in the old days. French players will be able to take advantage of those abuses and exploits with the AMR and FT tanks. That's all I'm saying.
Bottom line: size 2 minimum is a game-play issue and not an historical issue. History must be subordinated to the demands of the game in order to prevent game-play abuses and exploits. That's all I'm trying to say.
It has nothing to do with my ability to customize the Enhanced OOBs. There are outside influences and factors involved. So, it's not an option for me.
And besides, I chose the title of this thread carefully. I didn't say errors or problems. I said observations. As in 'things I find curious'.
EDIT: That said, however, there were valid reasons for making the minimum vehicle size 2. I remember very well the abuses and exploits using size 1 vehicles back in the old days. French players will be able to take advantage of those abuses and exploits with the AMR and FT tanks. That's all I'm saying.
Bottom line: size 2 minimum is a game-play issue and not an historical issue. History must be subordinated to the demands of the game in order to prevent game-play abuses and exploits. That's all I'm trying to say.
RE: Some Observations
I also am for making small vehicles size "1", in that current size "1" units are either squad sized or a gun team of some kind, generally.
Even spread out the mass of a squad is certainly larger than a jeep?
Besides, I'm tired of seeing recon jeeps go around a ridge and getting pasted on a 1st shot by a 75L70....[:D]
Even spread out the mass of a squad is certainly larger than a jeep?
Besides, I'm tired of seeing recon jeeps go around a ridge and getting pasted on a 1st shot by a 75L70....[:D]

RE: Some Observations
m10bob,
That is precisely why the minimum size of all vehicles was made to be 2. If the minimum size of vehicles is not size 2, then there are all kinds of abuses and exploits that can be employed with size 1 vehicles. I know this for a fact since I used to perform those abuses and exploits back in the days of version 7.1 with size 1 jeeps and kubelwagens.
This is a game-play issue and not an historical issue. It would be a big mistake from a game-play perspective if somebody decided to "fix" this. I have no desire to go back to the days of version 7.1 abuses and exploits using size 1 vehicles. [And I've recently been able to re-live those unhappy version 7.1 days fighting against the French in 1939-40 with their size 1 AMR and FT tanks. This is a warning to anybody who plays against the French in 1939-40.]
Repeat, this is a game-play issue that has nothing to do with history.
Bottom line: The game plays better if the minimum size for vehicles is 2.
That is precisely why the minimum size of all vehicles was made to be 2. If the minimum size of vehicles is not size 2, then there are all kinds of abuses and exploits that can be employed with size 1 vehicles. I know this for a fact since I used to perform those abuses and exploits back in the days of version 7.1 with size 1 jeeps and kubelwagens.
This is a game-play issue and not an historical issue. It would be a big mistake from a game-play perspective if somebody decided to "fix" this. I have no desire to go back to the days of version 7.1 abuses and exploits using size 1 vehicles. [And I've recently been able to re-live those unhappy version 7.1 days fighting against the French in 1939-40 with their size 1 AMR and FT tanks. This is a warning to anybody who plays against the French in 1939-40.]
Repeat, this is a game-play issue that has nothing to do with history.
Bottom line: The game plays better if the minimum size for vehicles is 2.
- FlashfyreSP
- Posts: 1192
- Joined: Sat Jul 06, 2002 9:39 am
- Location: Combat Information Center
- Contact:
RE: Some Observations
ORIGINAL: vahauser
m10bob,
That is precisely why the minimum size of all vehicles was made to be 2. If the minimum size of vehicles is not size 2, then there are all kinds of abuses and exploits that can be employed with size 1 vehicles. I know this for a fact since I used to perform those abuses and exploits back in the days of version 7.1 with size 1 jeeps and kubelwagens.
This is a game-play issue and not an historical issue. It would be a big mistake from a game-play perspective if somebody decided to "fix" this. I have no desire to go back to the days of version 7.1 abuses and exploits using size 1 vehicles. [And I've recently been able to re-live those unhappy version 7.1 days fighting against the French in 1939-40 with their size 1 AMR and FT tanks. This is a warning to anybody who plays against the French in 1939-40.]
Repeat, this is a game-play issue that has nothing to do with history.
Bottom line: The game plays better if the minimum size for vehicles is 2.
Again, I must reiterate this, this is ONLY your opinion, vahauser. The majority of players seem to prefer certain vehicles being Size 1, and even Mike Woods indicated that vehicles similar to the Jeep or other light utility car be made Size 1.
If it's a gameplay issue for you, then change your OOBs to suit your style. But, please...stop making out like your OPINION is in any way the definitive word on the issue. You are NOT an official Matrix representative, nor do you have any standing in the community that gives you a special platform to try and "mold" the game in your very narrow parameters. You are a player like every other player in the world. If you don't like the way the game is made, you have all the tools at your disposal to adapt it to your own style. Which, by the way, does not seem to be very popular with others.
RE: Some Observations
ORIGINAL: vahauser
It has nothing to do with my ability to customize the Enhanced OOBs. There are outside influences and factors involved. So, it's not an option for me.
And what are these "outside influences and factors" ?

RE: Some Observations
Okay. Look. All I'm saying is this. There is a reason that the current minimum vehicle size is 2 in the game (with certain anomalies and aberrations like the French AMR and FT tanks).
I didn't change all those size 1 vehicles to size 2 vehicles. What I'm commenting on is a FACT, not an opinion. Somebody changed all those size 1 vehicles into size 2 vehicles several years ago (my memory says that version 7.1 had size 1 vehicles, but later versions changed all those size 1 vehicles into size 2 vehicles, although my memory is not what it used to be). And what is also a fact is that the change from size 1 to size 2 was made for a reason. And that the reason had nothing to do with history and everything to do with game-play issues arising from people complaining that size 1 vehicles led to too many abuses and exploits. This is also not an opinion. This is a fact.
Indeed, my memory tells me that at that time (post version 7.1 several years ago) I was opposed to changing all those size 1 vehicles into size 2 because I enjoyed abusing and exploiting the game using size 1 vehicles at the time. Anyway, the point is that it wasn't ME who changed all the size 1 vehicles into size 2, and made the minimum vehicle size 2 in the game. Somebody on the Matrix Staff did it. And that is also a fact, not an opinion.
And just look at me now. I'm actually saying that size 2 minimum for vehicles is good for the game, which is the exact opposite from the position I took several years ago when size 2 vehicles were made the minimum in the game. Today, I'm not so interested in abusing and exploiting the game as I used to be. These days I'm more interested in finding ways to make the game more challenging instead of ways to exploit and abuse. I've changed.
But what I find curious is that people today want to turn the clock back to the days before size 2 was made the default minimum for vehicles in the game. And when I point out that these discussions and debates have already occurred several years ago (size 1 versus size 2 minimum), I am told that my opinion is only a small voice in a larger universe. As if I didn't know that.
Yet what you are missing is this. Somebody on the Matrix Staff had the vision to make size 2 the default minimum for vehicles because it was good for the game. I don't know who did it. I suspect Paul Vebber (at least that's who I remember arguing with the most about it [I remember arguing with Paul Vebber about most things, and my arguments with FlashFyre these days are very tame compared with my arguments with Paul in those days]). And at the time it happened I opposed the size 2 minimum for vehicles. But today I have changed my position, and I now agree that whoever made the change (to size 2 default minimum for vehicles) in the game did the game a favor. And that my opinion at the time several years ago to retain size 1 vehicles was selfish and based on taking advantage of the game instead of making the game better. Paul (or whoever) was right by changing the default minimum for vehicles to size 2, and I (and those like me) was wrong by wanting to keep size 1 vehicles in the game.
But if today somebody wants to change the game yet again back into a world of abuse and exploit by re-introducing size 1 vehicles as the default minimum (version 7.1 and earlier), then I find myself in the curious position of defending a position that I opposed several years ago.
And what I find even more curious is that now that I'm defending something that actually makes the game better (size 2 minimum default for vehicles), I am being called out for it.
All I am saying is that this issue was debated and argued about several years ago. And that several years ago somebody on the Matrix Staff changed the minimum default vehicle size to 2. And that several years ago I argued in favor of size 1 vehicles because several years ago I was selfish and liked to take advantage of the game using size 1 vehicles. And that several years ago somebody on the Matrix Staff had the best interests of the game in mind when they changed the game to a size 2 minimum default for vehicles. And that today I've finally come around to the position of making the game better instead of making the game easier to abuse. Which means that I finally agree with whoever on the Matrix Staff had the good sense and vision to change the game to a size 2 minimum default for vehicles. Which means that today I oppose changing the game back to version 7.1 by re-introducing size 1 vehicles.
I didn't change all those size 1 vehicles to size 2 vehicles. What I'm commenting on is a FACT, not an opinion. Somebody changed all those size 1 vehicles into size 2 vehicles several years ago (my memory says that version 7.1 had size 1 vehicles, but later versions changed all those size 1 vehicles into size 2 vehicles, although my memory is not what it used to be). And what is also a fact is that the change from size 1 to size 2 was made for a reason. And that the reason had nothing to do with history and everything to do with game-play issues arising from people complaining that size 1 vehicles led to too many abuses and exploits. This is also not an opinion. This is a fact.
Indeed, my memory tells me that at that time (post version 7.1 several years ago) I was opposed to changing all those size 1 vehicles into size 2 because I enjoyed abusing and exploiting the game using size 1 vehicles at the time. Anyway, the point is that it wasn't ME who changed all the size 1 vehicles into size 2, and made the minimum vehicle size 2 in the game. Somebody on the Matrix Staff did it. And that is also a fact, not an opinion.
And just look at me now. I'm actually saying that size 2 minimum for vehicles is good for the game, which is the exact opposite from the position I took several years ago when size 2 vehicles were made the minimum in the game. Today, I'm not so interested in abusing and exploiting the game as I used to be. These days I'm more interested in finding ways to make the game more challenging instead of ways to exploit and abuse. I've changed.
But what I find curious is that people today want to turn the clock back to the days before size 2 was made the default minimum for vehicles in the game. And when I point out that these discussions and debates have already occurred several years ago (size 1 versus size 2 minimum), I am told that my opinion is only a small voice in a larger universe. As if I didn't know that.
Yet what you are missing is this. Somebody on the Matrix Staff had the vision to make size 2 the default minimum for vehicles because it was good for the game. I don't know who did it. I suspect Paul Vebber (at least that's who I remember arguing with the most about it [I remember arguing with Paul Vebber about most things, and my arguments with FlashFyre these days are very tame compared with my arguments with Paul in those days]). And at the time it happened I opposed the size 2 minimum for vehicles. But today I have changed my position, and I now agree that whoever made the change (to size 2 default minimum for vehicles) in the game did the game a favor. And that my opinion at the time several years ago to retain size 1 vehicles was selfish and based on taking advantage of the game instead of making the game better. Paul (or whoever) was right by changing the default minimum for vehicles to size 2, and I (and those like me) was wrong by wanting to keep size 1 vehicles in the game.
But if today somebody wants to change the game yet again back into a world of abuse and exploit by re-introducing size 1 vehicles as the default minimum (version 7.1 and earlier), then I find myself in the curious position of defending a position that I opposed several years ago.
And what I find even more curious is that now that I'm defending something that actually makes the game better (size 2 minimum default for vehicles), I am being called out for it.
All I am saying is that this issue was debated and argued about several years ago. And that several years ago somebody on the Matrix Staff changed the minimum default vehicle size to 2. And that several years ago I argued in favor of size 1 vehicles because several years ago I was selfish and liked to take advantage of the game using size 1 vehicles. And that several years ago somebody on the Matrix Staff had the best interests of the game in mind when they changed the game to a size 2 minimum default for vehicles. And that today I've finally come around to the position of making the game better instead of making the game easier to abuse. Which means that I finally agree with whoever on the Matrix Staff had the good sense and vision to change the game to a size 2 minimum default for vehicles. Which means that today I oppose changing the game back to version 7.1 by re-introducing size 1 vehicles.
RE: Some Observations
I would like to think part of that "size" thing also reflects the noise made by the vehicles, (noise being tied in with detectability).
Of course a jeep is louder than a squad of walking infantry, but their are recorded instances of jeep-type vehicles having their mufflers removed and made to backfire so behind a treeline or ridges, the enemy might feel they were fronted by tanks, because "stock jeeps" would not be as detectable as tanks, other-wise.
Of course a jeep is louder than a squad of walking infantry, but their are recorded instances of jeep-type vehicles having their mufflers removed and made to backfire so behind a treeline or ridges, the enemy might feel they were fronted by tanks, because "stock jeeps" would not be as detectable as tanks, other-wise.


RE: Some Observations
m10bob,
Sigh. I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, but you are missing the point. You are still mind-locked on "historical" reasons for size 1 vehicles. That is NOT the problem.
The game originally had size 1 vehicles. People complained that size 1 vehicles created game imbalances and exploits and abuses. THAT is the problem. And that is a fact.
So, somebody on the Matrix Staff changed the default minimum for vehicles to size 2 several years ago. And that solved the problem of game-play imbalances and exploits and abuses.
Size 2 vehicles make the game play better. That is a fact. It is a fact because it eliminates the game-play imbalances and exploits and abuses created by size 1 vehicles.
Several years ago I argued in favor of size 1 vehicles. Why? Because at the time I liked to exploit and abuse the game.
Today I argue in favor of size 2 vehicles as a default minimum. Why? Because I'm no longer interested in exploiting and abusing the game (been there done that) and am more interested in eliminating game-play imbalances and exploits and abuses.
This is a game-play issue that has nothing to do with anything "historical". It is a game-play issue that was resolved favorably several years ago by somebody on the Matrix Staff who made size 2 the default minimum for vehicles. That person did the game a valuable service, even though I argued against it at the time.
Sigh. I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, but you are missing the point. You are still mind-locked on "historical" reasons for size 1 vehicles. That is NOT the problem.
The game originally had size 1 vehicles. People complained that size 1 vehicles created game imbalances and exploits and abuses. THAT is the problem. And that is a fact.
So, somebody on the Matrix Staff changed the default minimum for vehicles to size 2 several years ago. And that solved the problem of game-play imbalances and exploits and abuses.
Size 2 vehicles make the game play better. That is a fact. It is a fact because it eliminates the game-play imbalances and exploits and abuses created by size 1 vehicles.
Several years ago I argued in favor of size 1 vehicles. Why? Because at the time I liked to exploit and abuse the game.
Today I argue in favor of size 2 vehicles as a default minimum. Why? Because I'm no longer interested in exploiting and abusing the game (been there done that) and am more interested in eliminating game-play imbalances and exploits and abuses.
This is a game-play issue that has nothing to do with anything "historical". It is a game-play issue that was resolved favorably several years ago by somebody on the Matrix Staff who made size 2 the default minimum for vehicles. That person did the game a valuable service, even though I argued against it at the time.
RE: Some Observations
ORIGINAL: vahauser
m10bob,
Sigh. I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, but you are missing the point. You are still mind-locked on "historical" reasons for size 1 vehicles. That is NOT the problem.
No, I did not miss "the" point, not even missing "YOUR" point.
I was merely making an observation.
I tolerate you, friend, so there is no need for the condescending "sighs", or some other intended expression of derogatory impatience toward a percieved intellectual inferior, (which would be an error on your part).
To give your threads more credence, in future, here is the the only known pic of that "somebody at Matrix" known to exist.
Use it freely.......

- Attachments
-
- somebodyatMatrix.jpg (67.2 KiB) Viewed 259 times
