On Thu, 9 Feb 2023 01:09:36 -0500, Metal Guru
<MetalGuru@NiceTrySpammer.com> wrote:

>But then I had an epiphany: what if I googled arcade flight sims with 12
>missions/campaigns/levels since that was the only thing about the game I
>still remembered vividly for some reason? I can't remember which key
>words got me this result but google eventually came up with:

>https://www.mobygames.com/game/windows/history-channel-battle-of-britain-world-war-ii-1940

Ayuh, that's the sort of game I envisioned when you initially posted
your request. At least from a graphics standpoint. Honestly, I don't
recall HC:BOB being very 'arcadey' but I'll admit, by that era I
wasn't giving my flight sims much attention... and HC:BOB didn't
immediately jump out at me as something that deserved a lot to begin
with.

Although in fairness, flying P-51 Mustangs aren't something I
immediately associate with the Battle of Britain ;-)

I remember when The History Channel started getting involved with
video games... they were all, pretty much, all universally awful
budget releases that did nothing to entice me to watch the TV series.
Already in 2004, the network was starting its long slide towards
decay; it was renowned as the 'ww2 channel' because that's all it
seemed to show. But nobody could predict the depths to which it would
soon sink...

And who's to blame for the destruction of that network. Look... I'm
not saying it was aliens... but it was aliens.*

* for those not in the know, The History channel aired a show -
"Ancient Aliens" - where the host pretty much gave credit to extra
terrestrial visitors for every advancement and ancient monument to the
point he became meme-worthy.

On 09/02/2023 16:33, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> I remember when The History Channel started getting involved with
> video games... they were all, pretty much, all universally awful
> budget releases that did nothing to entice me to watch the TV series.
> Already in 2004, the network was starting its long slide towards
> decay; it was renowned as the 'ww2 channel' because that's all it
> seemed to show. But nobody could predict the depths to which it would
> soon sink...
>
> And who's to blame for the destruction of that network. Look... I'm
> not saying it was aliens... but it was aliens.*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> * for those not in the know, The History channel aired a show -
> "Ancient Aliens" - where the host pretty much gave credit to extra
> terrestrial visitors for every advancement and ancient monument to the
> point he became meme-worthy.

I used to watch the History Channel sometimes even if it did have the
annoying habit of the person who complied the video part seem to have
very little knowledge of the subject in hand. Now I just can't be
bothered to trawl through a catalogue of ancient aliens, UFO's, the
paranormal, reality shows etc.

The fun part with Ancient Aliens is you have to wonder how many of the
presenters actually believe what they are saying as they almost never
come out and say this is what happened but instead phrase it along the
lines of some people believe or maybe it's possible.

On 10/02/2023 10:13, JAB wrote:
> On 09/02/2023 16:33, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>> [snipped]
>> * for those not in the know, The History channel aired a show -
>> "Ancient Aliens" - where the host pretty much gave credit to extra
>> terrestrial visitors for every advancement and ancient monument to the
>> point he became meme-worthy.
>
> I used to watch the History Channel sometimes even if it did have the
> annoying habit of the person who complied the video part seem to have
> very little knowledge of the subject in hand. Now I just can't be
> bothered to trawl through a catalogue of ancient aliens, UFO's, the
> paranormal, reality shows etc.
>
> The fun part with Ancient Aliens is you have to wonder how many of the
> presenters actually believe what they are saying as they almost never
> come out and say this is what happened but instead phrase it along the
> lines of some people believe or maybe it's possible.

My missus occasionally watches just to see what kind of rubbish they are
talking about.

Cheers

Geoff

On 2/10/2023 7:23 AM, Geoff May wrote:
> On 10/02/2023 10:13, JAB wrote:
>> On 09/02/2023 16:33, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>>> [snipped]
>>> * for those not in the know, The History channel aired a show -
>>> "Ancient Aliens" - where the host pretty much gave credit to extra
>>> terrestrial visitors for every advancement and ancient monument to the
>>> point he became meme-worthy.
>>
>> I used to watch the History Channel sometimes even if it did have the
>> annoying habit of the person who complied the video part seem to have
>> very little knowledge of the subject in hand. Now I just can't be
>> bothered to trawl through a catalogue of ancient aliens, UFO's, the
>> paranormal, reality shows etc.
>>
>> The fun part with Ancient Aliens is you have to wonder how many of the
>> presenters actually believe what they are saying as they almost never
>> come out and say this is what happened but instead phrase it along the
>> lines of some people believe or maybe it's possible.
>
> My missus occasionally watches just to see what kind of rubbish they are
> talking about.
>
The History Channel's programming ranges from the TV equivalent of
tabloids (like Ancient Aliens) to some good stuff. Almost all of it has
some aspect of popular appeal, they do want people to watch after all,
but there's some good stuff there. Personally I've been watching their
"Greatest Mysteries" which seems pretty good. I also watched the first
of their new "Greatest Heists" series which was entertaining and mostly
informative, especially about the weaknesses of the Antwerp Diamond
Exchange's security. :D

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On 2/9/2023 11:22 AM, JAB wrote:
> On 09/02/2023 06:09, Metal Guru wrote:
>>
>> https://www.mobygames.com/game/windows/history-channel-battle-of-britain-world-war-ii-1940
>
> Well I hope it's the right one but I'm not sure a flight sim is off to a
> good start when they put the wrong version of a Spitfire on the box art!

Haha, I don't know anything* about fighter planes - what do you mean by
wrong version?

*even though my brother and I were heavily into Revell models growing
up. We also had a few Rat Fink models by the same company, remember those?

On 2/9/2023 11:33 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Feb 2023 01:09:36 -0500, Metal Guru
> <MetalGuru@NiceTrySpammer.com> wrote:
>>
>> https://www.mobygames.com/game/windows/history-channel-battle-of-britain-world-war-ii-1940
>
> Although in fairness, flying P-51 Mustangs aren't something I
> immediately associate with the Battle of Britain ;-)

Sorry, major brain fart on my part there - meant to say Spitfires.

> I remember when The History Channel started getting involved with
> video games... they were all, pretty much, all universally awful
> budget releases that did nothing to entice me to watch the TV series.
> Already in 2004, the network was starting its long slide towards
> decay; it was renowned as the 'ww2 channel' because that's all it
> seemed to show. But nobody could predict the depths to which it would
> soon sink...

Ah yes, and a similar fate (perhaps to a lesser extent) that was about
to send the "Learning" Channel, Discovery and even NatGeo into the
depths of irrelevancy.

> And who's to blame for the destruction of that network. Look... I'm
> not saying it was aliens... but it was aliens.*
> * for those not in the know, The History channel aired a show -
> "Ancient Aliens" - where the host pretty much gave credit to extra
> terrestrial visitors for every advancement and ancient monument to the
> point he became meme-worthy.

https://i.imgur.com/P1EAQL8.png

:)

On Fri, 10 Feb 2023 16:09:26 -0500, Metal Guru
<MetalGuru@NiceTrySpammer.com> wrote:

>On 2/9/2023 11:22 AM, JAB wrote:
>> On 09/02/2023 06:09, Metal Guru wrote:
>>>
>>> https://www.mobygames.com/game/windows/history-channel-battle-of-britain-world-war-ii-1940
>>
>> Well I hope it's the right one but I'm not sure a flight sim is off to a
>> good start when they put the wrong version of a Spitfire on the box art!
>
>Haha, I don't know anything* about fighter planes - what do you mean by
>wrong version?
>

There were numerous variations of the Spitfire used during the war but
I'm not confident enough to say which was in service during the Battle
of Britain. One of the more obvious changes was to the armament; the
earlier spitfires were armed only with 6 (or was it 8?) machine guns
embedded in the wings, visible only as small muzzle-holes in the
wings' leading edge. The one on the box-art features two honking 2mm
cannons (the plane in the background seems to be lacking these
cannons).

There were changes, too, to the fuselage, wings and engines of later
variants but its hard to tell the exact shape/proportions of the plane
in the box art, especially because of the viewing angle. The cockpit
looks more like a dome than in earlier versions of the plane, a
feature which didn't really come into use until later in the war...
but since the wing is blocking our view of the trailing edge of the
cockpit dome it's hard to tell.

(I'm not a Spitfire expert. I just have books on the subject.
Certainly I'd never have noticed any discrepancies on my own. Anyway,
I was always more fond of the bombers ;-)

On Fri, 10 Feb 2023 16:28:34 -0500, Metal Guru
<MetalGuru@NiceTrySpammer.com> wrote:
>> And who's to blame for the destruction of that network. Look... I'm
>> not saying it was aliens... but it was aliens.*
>> * for those not in the know, The History channel aired a show -
>> "Ancient Aliens" - where the host pretty much gave credit to extra
>> terrestrial visitors for every advancement and ancient monument to the
>> point he became meme-worthy.

>https://i.imgur.com/P1EAQL8.png

Yup, that's the one.

And look, I guess he should know, seeing as he is obviously a member
of the Centuari species from "Babylon 5".

On 11/02/2023 16:19, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Feb 2023 16:09:26 -0500, Metal Guru
> <MetalGuru@NiceTrySpammer.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2/9/2023 11:22 AM, JAB wrote:
>>> On 09/02/2023 06:09, Metal Guru wrote:
>>>>
>>>> https://www.mobygames.com/game/windows/history-channel-battle-of-britain-world-war-ii-1940
>>>
>>> Well I hope it's the right one but I'm not sure a flight sim is off to a
>>> good start when they put the wrong version of a Spitfire on the box art!
>>
>> Haha, I don't know anything* about fighter planes - what do you mean by
>> wrong version?
>>
>
> There were numerous variations of the Spitfire used during the war but
> I'm not confident enough to say which was in service during the Battle
> of Britain. One of the more obvious changes was to the armament; the
> earlier spitfires were armed only with 6 (or was it 8?) machine guns
> embedded in the wings, visible only as small muzzle-holes in the
> wings' leading edge. The one on the box-art features two honking 2mm
> cannons (the plane in the background seems to be lacking these
> cannons).

During the Battle of Britain, most were either Mark I or II and most had
8 0.303 Browning machine guns.

I suspect the one on the box appears to be a Mark VI. This wasn't a
major version and was effectively a Mark V with a 4-bladed propeller.

> There were changes, too, to the fuselage, wings and engines of later
> variants but its hard to tell the exact shape/proportions of the plane
> in the box art, especially because of the viewing angle. The cockpit
> looks more like a dome than in earlier versions of the plane, a
> feature which didn't really come into use until later in the war...
> but since the wing is blocking our view of the trailing edge of the
> cockpit dome it's hard to tell.
>
> (I'm not a Spitfire expert. I just have books on the subject.
> Certainly I'd never have noticed any discrepancies on my own. Anyway,
> I was always more fond of the bombers ;-)

Cheers

Geoff

On 2/10/2023 3:32 PM, Dimensional Traveler wrote:

> Personally I've been watching their
> "Greatest Mysteries" which seems pretty good.  I also watched the first
> of their new "Greatest Heists" series which was entertaining and mostly
> informative, especially about the weaknesses of the Antwerp Diamond
> Exchange's security.  :D

I love these types of shows so I've just binge watched the three Roswell
episodes, it was pretty good indeed (not too crazy about Morpheus
narrating it though). Season 3 seems to have lots of interesting ones,
thanks for the heads up.

"Unknown Mysteries" on NBC was one of my favorite shows back in the day
because every week I thought I'd be able to solve one of the cases but
somehow that never happened :(

Will have to give the new Greatest Heists a whirl sometime, sort of
Ocean's Eleven but non-fictional I'd imagine :)

On 10/02/2023 20:32, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> On 2/10/2023 7:23 AM, Geoff May wrote:
>> On 10/02/2023 10:13, JAB wrote:
>>> On 09/02/2023 16:33, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>>>> [snipped]
>>>> * for those not in the know, The History channel aired a show -
>>>> "Ancient Aliens" - where the host pretty much gave credit to extra
>>>> terrestrial visitors for every advancement and ancient monument to the
>>>> point he became meme-worthy.
>>>
>>> I used to watch the History Channel sometimes even if it did have the
>>> annoying habit of the person who complied the video part seem to have
>>> very little knowledge of the subject in hand. Now I just can't be
>>> bothered to trawl through a catalogue of ancient aliens, UFO's, the
>>> paranormal, reality shows etc.
>>>
>>> The fun part with Ancient Aliens is you have to wonder how many of
>>> the presenters actually believe what they are saying as they almost
>>> never come out and say this is what happened but instead phrase it
>>> along the lines of some people believe or maybe it's possible.
>>
>> My missus occasionally watches just to see what kind of rubbish they
>> are talking about.
>>
> The History Channel's programming ranges from the TV equivalent of
> tabloids (like Ancient Aliens) to some good stuff.  Almost all of it has
> some aspect of popular appeal, they do want people to watch after all,
> but there's some good stuff there.  Personally I've been watching their
> "Greatest Mysteries" which seems pretty good.  I also watched the first
> of their new "Greatest Heists" series which was entertaining and mostly
> informative, especially about the weaknesses of the Antwerp Diamond
> Exchange's security.  :D
>

I assume the selection of programmes that are the History Channel varies
by region and I just find too much of it is absolute pap so I don't even
bother having a look to see if there's something on I fancy.

It's probably not helped by I don't have a great deal of confidence in
the editorial standards when it comes to is this actually history or
just something you've cobbled together. I still remember watching
something with Sherman tanks in it where they repeated some of the myths
about issues it had as fact.

On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 11:24:15 +0000, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:

>
>I assume the selection of programmes that are the History Channel varies
>by region and I just find too much of it is absolute pap so I don't even
>bother having a look to see if there's something on I fancy.
>
>It's probably not helped by I don't have a great deal of confidence in
>the editorial standards when it comes to is this actually history or
>just something you've cobbled together. I still remember watching
>something with Sherman tanks in it where they repeated some of the myths
>about issues it had as fact.
>
Same. It's current selection of shows is attrocious (even though the
channel actually has slightly improved from its darkest days, it's
still pretty poor) but even in its heyday, the History Channel
documentaries were extremely superficial, biased, and poorly
researched. They were rarely better than secondary school summaries on
a topic, except with well-produced multimedia flourishes.

Side note: You know what is a personal peeve of mine? Documentary
footage that overlays modern sound effects on the film. Like all
those grainy black-n-white films of the D-Day landings where you hear
the machine-guns blazing and the planes flying overhead. That's all
been added later by modern 'documentarians'. It isn't so much the
added sounds that bother me (although too often those are inaccurate)
as the fact that there's never any notice that the sound wasn't part
of the original footage but a 'best guess' addition by a modern
editor. It gives people an unrealistic view of the world and is, IMHO,
an incredibly dishonest move on the part of the documentarian. And
History Channel did it all the time.

On 2/11/2023 10:19 PM, Metal Guru wrote:
>
> Will have to give the new Greatest Heists a whirl sometime, sort of
> Ocean's Eleven but non-fictional I'd imagine :)
>
That's ... actually a pretty accurate description based on the one
episode aired so far.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On 12/02/2023 17:08, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Feb 2023 11:24:15 +0000, JAB <noway@nochance.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> I assume the selection of programmes that are the History Channel varies
>> by region and I just find too much of it is absolute pap so I don't even
>> bother having a look to see if there's something on I fancy.
>>
>> It's probably not helped by I don't have a great deal of confidence in
>> the editorial standards when it comes to is this actually history or
>> just something you've cobbled together. I still remember watching
>> something with Sherman tanks in it where they repeated some of the myths
>> about issues it had as fact.
>>
> Same. It's current selection of shows is attrocious (even though the
> channel actually has slightly improved from its darkest days, it's
> still pretty poor) but even in its heyday, the History Channel
> documentaries were extremely superficial, biased, and poorly
> researched. They were rarely better than secondary school summaries on
> a topic, except with well-produced multimedia flourishes.
> > Side note: You know what is a personal peeve of mine? Documentary
> footage that overlays modern sound effects on the film. Like all
> those grainy black-n-white films of the D-Day landings where you hear
> the machine-guns blazing and the planes flying overhead. That's all
> been added later by modern 'documentarians'. It isn't so much the
> added sounds that bother me (although too often those are inaccurate)
> as the fact that there's never any notice that the sound wasn't part
> of the original footage but a 'best guess' addition by a modern
> editor. It gives people an unrealistic view of the world and is, IMHO,
> an incredibly dishonest move on the part of the documentarian. And
> History Channel did it all the time.
>

I'm all for pop-history that is accessible but that doesn't mean it
shouldn't be true. The more of their programmes I watched (with a
subject I knew something about) the more I thought do they do their
research on Facewank.

My pet peeve, Hollywood making films based around true events and then
pretty much re-writing history to what they think is their audiences
tastes in particular it was the US that did it. Yes U-571, I'm looking
at you.