Junkers Ju-52 - workhorse of Stalingrad?

[BMW801]

Although I would like the Ju 52 as well when the development team gets around to it

[Zorin]

It's pure dogfighting, except for all the bombing and strafing.  It does appear that there won't be a lot of flying of transports or liaison aircraft.

 

No, you miss th epoint, there will be not only no flying for the player of these planes, which would be fine, but they simply will not make it into the game in the first place at all. A decision I just can't understand, that is all.

[Zorin]

Zorin why the hostility? BoS is what it is, if you are not interested it might be better to step away now.

 

 

Why do you insist on having this sort of attitude?

 

No one is hostil or having an attitude, I simply spell out facts so people don't have to read between the lines. Not sure since when that has become something bad. I prefer to be told the facts straight and true so I know where I am at and don't need to find out about it after months of pussyfooting around.

 

People have a right to know what the devs have in mind for the future of this "game" and apparently that is not to create an all encompassing environment that highlights all the aspects of the airwar.

 

I personally had hoped BoS would be taking the whole thing a step further, offering a much greater scope of missions, but we are actually moving backwards to a state that is more limited than the original IL-2 was. It had moving vehicle cloumns, firing Katyushas and collapsing landing gears in 2001 as well, plus AI planes, remember?

 

But hey, that is ok, all I ask is that this is put out there for all customers to know in advance. If you want to hate me for that, be my guest.

[BraveSirRobin]

No, you miss th epoint, there will be not only no flying for the player of these planes, which would be fine, but they simply will not make it into the game in the first place at all. A decision I just can't understand, that is all.

 

The fact that you won't be able to shoot at helpless liaison or transport aircraft does not make this a pure dogfight game.  You still get to shoot at various bomber types.

But hey, that is ok, all I ask is that this is put out there for all customers to know in advance.

 

The aircraft types that are in the game are listed on the order page.  That isn't "in advance" enough for you?

[Zorin]

The fact that you won't be able to shoot at helpless liaison or transport aircraft does not make this a pure dogfight game.  You still get to shoot at various bomber types.

 

The aircraft types that are in the game are listed on the order page.  That isn't "in advance" enough for you?

 

Various bomber types? Do I have to remind you how many AI bomber types, 4 engined especially, are in IL-2 and that therefor are not likely to make it to the game because there ia a) no business case to be made for them or b) not sufficient data to recreate them as flyable planes?

 

The ones that are in the game is hardly sufficient information on the matter for a game that aspires to become a series and therefor suggests that there will be new types of planes in the future and here is where they need to let the customer know which aircrafts he can expect. That is what I am talking about, not the blatantly obvious, I am not that daft, but thanks for implying it...

Edited July 31, 2013 by Zorin

[Jason_Williams]

Zorin Knock it off. We can't build everything, but this is (hopefully) just the beginning of hopefully a long series where we may be ble to add other non-combat types. Right now we are focusing on a functioning product with the planes we have promised. All Viks was trying to demonstrate is that it is not easy to port models or build just AI planes.

 

A nice static Junkers could be built and added as a scenery object to start. If someone was motivated enough they could already build one and test in the ROF engine today. Go for it. Impress us.

 

Jason

[BraveSirRobin]

The ones that are in the game is hardly sufficient information on the matter for a game that aspires to become a series and therefor suggests that there will be new types of planes in the future and here is where they need to let the customer know which aircrafts he can expect. 

 

I'm relatively certain that they have no idea which aircraft you can expect.  

[Zorin]

Zorin Knock it off. We can't build everything, but this is (hopefully) just the beginning of hopefully a long series where we may be ble to add other non-combat types. Right now we are focusing on a functioning product with the planes we have promised. All Viks was trying to demonstrate is that it is not easy to port models or build just AI planes.

 

A nice static Junkers could be built and added as a scenery object to start. If someone was motivated enough they could already build one and test in the ROF engine today. Go for it. Impress us.

 

Jason

 

I will happily knock it off, but why does it take a four page thread (plus abuse towards the guy who is digging deeper) to squeeze that information out of you guys? Do we not ALL know where not telling the customers all the facts leads? Creating a vaccum of wishful thinking and misleading maybes is certainly not helping, in my humble opinion at least.

 

Apart from that, it is not my job to impress anyone, but thanks for mocking me anyway. Nothing nicer than bringing a discussion down to a personal level and labelling the uncomfortable one as a baddy.

[Heywooood]

expectations - definition - tool used to put a hole in the boat

 

the answers to our questions so far have been clear

 

to this particular question - the BoS initial release is focused on flyables listed previously for the purpose of meeting their contract.

it is a solid beginning.

 

Provided interest in the sim is strong based on sales both pre release and subsequent - the devs are planning on expansion.

What that expansion looks like is up to the quality of the initial release...not the number of flyables please - overall quality of what this product is will determine how it sells.

 

I expect this base to be very nearly flawless, once people have applied it to their various PC's for broader testing...thats why Premium purchasers are so important and then the Standard purchasers follow on to catch any minnows that might have slipped through the nets...

 

Remember with understanding - this is a base release...no one makes all of WWII in the air all at once (if they want it to not suck) with any fidelity at all - it must be done this way - same as RoF - same as DCS  - its just the only way.

 

Would I like to be able to fly this sim in all planes and all theaters of war right at release?  Yes ofcourse - but I know thats not possible unless I want crap buggy software that cost 500$ to buy and can only be played online...for about 10 days maybe

Edited July 31, 2013 by Heywooood

[Heywooood]

I will happily knock it off, but why does it take a four page thread (plus abuse towards the guy who is digging deeper) to squeeze that information out of you guys? Do we not ALL know where not telling the customers all the facts leads? Creating a vaccum of wishful thinking and misleading maybes is certainly not helping, in my humble opinion at least.

 

Apart from that, it is not my job to impress anyone, but thanks for mocking me anyway. Nothing nicer than bringing a discussion down to a personal level and labelling the uncomfortable one as a baddy.

you appear to be missing the point in all the developer input so far

this is a complete flight sim BASE - it will function as standalone software and serve as the FOUNDATION of an ongoing PROJECT - based on sales revenue. EXACTLY as RoF for all intent

you can BUY it or not - as you wish

there are NO secrets - only unknowable possibilities based on SALES.

if we were all as impatient as you APPEAR to be to have the entirety of WWII in the air and on the ground simulated in ONE kit and in ONE release

then we would ALL be missing the point

Edited July 31, 2013 by Heywooood

[ShamrockOneFive]

The aircraft flown by the AI aren't just going to be shapes with a basic flight model, but will be identical to the ones we get to fly, in other words even if they make AI only planes it will require a lot of work besides the 3D shape to bring them up to high enough standard that I think we want to see, and then having got the FM down you might as well add in the cockpit and make it flyable by that point. I do understand what you're saying, however we need to be patient and if we get to vote, to do so wisely.

 

I hope that made sense

Perfect sense

 

No matter what, I expect pretty much any aircraft to ultimately be a lot of work to get into the game and that it will take time to do these regardless of if a cockpit and other stations are laid out. If its decided to even make transports flyable... then cool... I guess 777 will have to decide ultimately. But practically speaking I don't think I need or want to fly everything... then again if things like artillery spotting were a part of the game then an army cooperation aircraft might be compelling to fly too.

 

I know they are focused on the key pieces of content. Makes total sense. Later I'd like to see some key types that may not be a compelling fly but are an important target. Basically my only point.

[Zorin]

you appear to be missing the point in all the developer input so far

this is a complete flight sim BASE - it will function as standalone software and serve as the FOUNDATION of an ongoing PROJECT - based on sales revenue. EXACTLY as RoF for all intent

you can BUY it or not - as you wish

there are NO secrets - only unknowable possibilities based on SALES.

if we were all as impatient as you APPEAR to be to have the entirety of WWII in the air and on the ground simulated in ONE kit and in ONE release

then we would ALL be missing the point

 

That is where you got me wrong. I know and have never thought anything else, that BoS will be just the base. I never disputed that, but if you want a project to succed in the long run, you have, in my opinion, to have your future clearly outlined now. Not only that, you have to tell your customers, who you want to buy the base, about what the future will hold if things go to plan. 

 

Just imagine yu are new to the whole WWII flightsim thing and think "Now that sounds all promising game and one day I will be flying a or against a B17/Lancaster when this series progresses", which would be a fair assumption based on what we knew until the revelatiosn in this thread. So that customer buys the base, equipment, the lot, cause he wants to commit to this game and then he will find out sometime later "Oh well, we never intended to release transports, big bombers, recon planes, etc. because it is too much work for too little gain and there is no revenue in it for us."

 

Well, I would be rather cross, would you not?

[01Wingchaps]

I can almost sympathize with the desire to know as much about the upcoming sim, and even advocate for particular things to be added. I'm going to pre-order the more expensive package tomorrow (after payday  ) so I can toss in my two cents worth regarding careers and campaigns, though if BOS's are the same as ROF's, or close, I won't have much to add.

 

But surely logic dictates that the developers can only say so much, lest they get carried away and get told "Son, your ego is writing checks your body can't cash."

 

MEANING,

 

If they come up with a 'nice to have', and tell us it's a 'nice to have', but end up not being able to get it into the game because it'll slow the release date down, or because it turned out to be a bad idea, they will be subjected to all kinds of abuse.

 

Said differently, they have to play their cards somewhat close to their chest, lest changes in the plan cause contention and bad feelings.

 

They can't tell us all the facts, because they don't know what the end of the development process will be.

 

It's not our place to squeeze. We can say "I'd like to have..."

 

The fact they tell us what they do is nice. Else, it could be like other games we buy based on the marketing alone. How many games have you bought expecting something you didn't get.

 

So back the heck off. If it were me, and I got a ton of grief every time I posted something I was excited about coming out of development, I'd stop posting.

 

As a final illustration, when I bought the original ROF, I had no idea two floatplanes and the Channel Map would come, and if I remember right not even that multi-crew aircraft would. But they were added, and now the FE-2 is coming. I expect BOS to evolve the same way, and I'm patient enough to watch it unfold, and will be grateful for what tidbits of intel fall my way.

[Zorin]

Perfect sense

 

No matter what, I expect pretty much any aircraft to ultimately be a lot of work to get into the game and that it will take time to do these regardless of if a cockpit and other stations are laid out. If its decided to even make transports flyable... then cool... I guess 777 will have to decide ultimately. But practically speaking I don't think I need or want to fly everything... then again if things like artillery spotting were a part of the game then an army cooperation aircraft might be compelling to fly too.

 

I know they are focused on the key pieces of content. Makes total sense. Later I'd like to see some key types that may not be a compelling fly but are an important target. Basically my only point.

 

Icefire, we know our fair share about the online crowd and what kind of plane the majority will want to fly, plenty of mission bulidng on our and campaign building on your part has proven that to us. That knowledge alone gives me a strong belief that we will never see quite a considerable number of important planes in this future series, cause the devs could never sell them to the majority of players. Don't you agree?

[Pharoah]

I'd certainly buy the JU52. Yeah sure its no BF109 but not everyone likes flying fighters. It would certainly provide more entertainment value in MP missions eg. trying to get into/out of Shhhtalingrud in a JU52 with lurking fighters would certainly be a lot more fun. I know, I've done this type of mission in IL2 and enjoyed it immensely. Sure not everyone will purchase it but its still a good option.

[Heywooood]

That is where you got me wrong. I know and have never thought anything else, that BoS will be just the base. I never disputed that, but if you want a project to succed in the long run, you have, in my opinion, to have your future clearly outlined now. Not only that, you have to tell your customers, who you want to buy the base, about what the future will hold if things go to plan. 

 

Just imagine yu are new to the whole WWII flightsim thing and think "Now that sounds all promising game and one day I will be flying a or against a B17/Lancaster when this series progresses", which would be a fair assumption based on what we knew until the revelatiosn in this thread. So that customer buys the base, equipment, the lot, cause he wants to commit to this game and then he will find out sometime later "Oh well, we never intended to release transports, big bombers, recon planes, etc. because it is too much work for too little gain and there is no revenue in it for us."

 

Well, I would be rather cross, would you not?

I cant draw any solid conclusions about what will or will not ever be added to this program -

You cant draw them

and the developers cant draw them

 

All we have to go by is the certain understanding that the people developing this program are:

1) Combat Flight Sim Enthusiasts like us only more so because they came to the position of creators 

2) Deeply Knowledgeable about the theatre of operations (BoS) and the airwar in general

3) Deeply knowledgeable about orders of battle and the equipment used as well as its relative importance to the battle field

4) Aware of what we as a community want to see, what we deem necessary to have included (at some point) to generate the illusuive ond overworked 'immersion factor'

5) Aware of their own limitations in Time, Money and Longevity - the last being dependant on the second, in a rolling reality as the orders come...or dont come in

 

I trust that Jason and the rest of this team will do what they can..as much as they can in the best way that they can, based on the above indications..

I do not know if that will match what I WANT or what you WANT or what anyone else WANTS

But I know they will do whatever they can do - to do this right

Thats enough for me - but maybe not for you...

I would suggest you do not preorder

I would suggest you wait a year or more to find out what they were thinking - maybe by then we can all know

just like RoF - people thought it was a huge rip off scam when it was released...NO PATIENCE - but had they just heard about it yesterday? Oh MAN, what a great simulator SO MANY PLANES

 

one last thing and I'm done - AS to Jason's replies to you that you deem impolite

 

If I had worked for a number of months - what is it 7, 8 9 months solid and put so much of myself into a project,  and been as forthright as I could be with the weekly updates and information and forum presence

all while working away as hard as I think most of us realise they have worked...only to see some really unfriendly...trashing...for lack of a better word - of his project, his people, and his integrity and character...all from

the community he is striving to provide a quality product for - I think I would have said far worse things, but thats just me

Edited July 31, 2013 by Heywooood

[Heywooood]

in fact - his ire only makes me more sure of my decision to buy in early...it tells me how much it means to him personally, you do NOT see that every day

Edited August 1, 2013 by Heywooood

[01Wingchaps]

And another thing!

 

It's not like we're starving for information. After the media event, we're DROWNING in it!

 

Sure, we'd love to know more, but my God, the videos on damage modelling, lighting, graphics... Watching that Russian fighter come in on a hard landing and breaking into pieces... Looking over the demo of the cockpit lights and the landing lights, headlights on truck convoys... Listening to that BF-109 flyby... Watching the fluid way in which the flying aircraft moved...

 

And knowing it's based on ROF. For those of us who fly ROF, that means a lot.

 

And Stukas.

 

So, I'm sold! Any more info is gravy, and I'll sop it right up, but I'm already sold. Way sold.

 

As far as the Tante Ju, I'd LOVE to fly that. I can see this team coding it for parachute drops, though I have no idea whether that happened at Stalingrad (I rather doubt it, actually). But whether or not it gets into the game, whenever it does, I'm already sold.

[dburne]

No one is hostil or having an attitude, I simply spell out facts so people don't have to read between the lines. Not sure since when that has become something bad. I prefer to be told the facts straight and true so I know where I am at and don't need to find out about it after months of pussyfooting around.

 

People have a right to know what the devs have in mind for the future of this "game" and apparently that is not to create an all encompassing environment that highlights all the aspects of the airwar.

 

 

 

 

Not really spelling out any facts for me, but thanks anyway. I have all the facts I needed to place my pre-order, just from reading this forum pretty much every week since it's inception... I have certainly gained enough knowledge on my part from what I have seen and read, to know this is a sim I want to have and to support.

 

Regarding what they have in mind for the future - just curious, how many years out do you expect them to have a vision and plan for? I am pretty sure they have made it clear from the beginning, much of that is all going to be determined by if and how successful this first incarnation is...

 

An all encompassing environment that highlights every aspect of WWII? Pretty tall task to ask for imho, especially any time soon.

I myself just hope it gets enough support from the community, and new comers to the community, to at least continue on after BOS.

I would really like to see this series continue on, for a long time.

[ShamrockOneFive]

Icefire, we know our fair share about the online crowd and what kind of plane the majority will want to fly, plenty of mission bulidng on our and campaign building on your part has proven that to us. That knowledge alone gives me a strong belief that we will never see quite a considerable number of important planes in this future series, cause the devs could never sell them to the majority of players. Don't you agree?

That's up to the developers isn't it? We'll see what they choose to do... but at the moment I think they are pretty focused on delivering on what is promised. More will have to wait.

Edited August 1, 2013 by IceFire

[BraveSirRobin]

Icefire, we know our fair share about the online crowd and what kind of plane the majority will want to fly, plenty of mission bulidng on our and campaign building on your part has proven that to us. That knowledge alone gives me a strong belief that we will never see quite a considerable number of important planes in this future series, cause the devs could never sell them to the majority of players. Don't you agree?

 

Are you trying to blame the community for your future unhappiness with a game that hasn't even been released yet?

[Zorin]

Are you trying to blame the community for your future unhappiness with a game that hasn't even been released yet?

 

No and I have no clue how you could end up with that conclusion.

[BraveSirRobin]

No and I have no clue how you could end up with that conclusion.

It seems pretty obvious.  You don't think we're going to get any transport aircraft because the community won't buy them, and you're not going to enjoy this game if you can't blast some helpless transport aircraft out of the sky.  

[Zorin]

It seems pretty obvious.  You don't think we're going to get any transport aircraft because the community won't buy them, and you're not going to enjoy this game if you can't blast some helpless transport aircraft out of the sky.  

Mind taking your false and uninformed assumptions elsewhere? No one wants the non-combat types to blast them to bits, how stupid would that be? They are meant to open up scenarios and allow campaign builders to create immersive missions, that has nothing to do with providing cannon fodder. Honestly, I can't stand people who make such dumb assumptions.

Edited August 1, 2013 by Zorin

[TheBlackPenguin]

Mind taking your false and uninformed assumptions elsewhere? No one wants the non-combat types to blast them to bits, how stupid would that be? They are meant to open up scenarios and allow campaign builders to create immersive missions, that has nothing to do with providing cannon fodder. Honestly, I can't stand people who make such dumb assumptions.

 

They could end up cannon fodder . Seriously though, I know you're passionate and want the title to succeed, but for that to happen its needs to be successful financially to enable the team to bring in these 'non-combat' types into the game if enough interest is shown. I like the idea behind it, and the chance for danger in various circumstances. Patience is a virtue.

 

Mentioning patience, I've been waiting for a nice Lancaster to show up in a sim (aside from FSX etc), modelled with H2S etc and I will have to wait an undetermined amount of time longer, actually make that the bombing offensive on the West and include Halifax's, Mosquito's, B-17's, 24's during the day etc. When or if perhaps, and I see the success of BOS as being the best hope of ever seeing this and I know if 777/1C have the funds and the interest to get enough ROI then the likelihood increases manifold (other theatres, interests notwithstanding and delaying this).

 

Sit back and watch this episode from Pathfinders in the meantime:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oH6SBD_zzsI

 

[Panzerlang]

I will happily knock it off, but why does it take a four page thread (plus abuse towards the guy who is digging deeper) to squeeze that information out of you guys? Do we not ALL know where not telling the customers all the facts leads? Creating a vaccum of wishful thinking and misleading maybes is certainly not helping, in my humble opinion at least.

 

Apart from that, it is not my job to impress anyone, but thanks for mocking me anyway. Nothing nicer than bringing a discussion down to a personal level and labelling the uncomfortable one as a baddy.

 

It may interest you to know that Oleg Maddox himself, with the original IL2, had no idea or intention to produce more than the IL2 as a flyable GA plane with a handful of AI Germans to attack it.

Look where that ended up.

 

There is no reason why BoS won't experience the same journey across a similar road-map. I do kind of feel that if we cooperate with each other and I buy a plane that I don't particularly like or want so long as you do likewise (and everyone does likewise) we'll get every plane we desire, eventually.

 

Ditto new theatres.

 

It's all about the money in the final analysis...effectively we are hiring these guys (1C and 777) to make planes and environments for us and so long as we keep the cash flowing they'll keep on doing their thing.

 

So chill Zorin. In the fullness of time we might even have a full planeset for RoF.  

[bzc3lk]

 

 

No one is hostil or having an attitude, I simply spell out facts so people don't have to read between the lines. Not sure since when that has become something bad. I prefer to be told the facts straight and true so I know where I am at and don't need to find out about it after months of pussyfooting around.

 

 

  Are these the same " facts" as " spelled " out by you concerning the " 2D " cockpits?

 

  http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/541-developer-diary-part-ix/

 

Zorin, on 02 Mar 2013 - 08:14,said;

 

"You apparently have very bad eyesight. It is the same model, yet in direct comparison you can spot several parts that where 3D in the CloD version and now are 2D with faked 3D textures for BoS... Apart from that, the screenshot of the CloD version is oddly distorted hence the over scretched frame and pronounced "edges" on it."

 

                                              

                                                                                                                                                       

[Zorin]

 

 

 

  Are these the same " facts" as " spelled " out by you concerning the " 2D " cockpits?

 

  http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/541-developer-diary-part-ix/

 

Zorin, on 02 Mar 2013 - 08:14,said;

 

"You apparently have very bad eyesight. It is the same model, yet in direct comparison you can spot several parts that where 3D in the CloD version and now are 2D with faked 3D textures for BoS... Apart from that, the screenshot of the CloD version is oddly distorted hence the over scretched frame and pronounced "edges" on it."

 

                                              

                                                                                                                                                       

 

 

Not sure why you laugh about making yourself look like a fool. Jason himself felt the need to dig out a better picture on a weekend night to prove that the shot they had chosen was crap and had to be replaced with a better one to actually show the details as it was blatantly obvious that my conclusion was drawn rightfully due to the lack of perspective and lighting in the original. So please, don't try to make me look like a fool, you won't succeed with such pathetic attempts.

[BraveSirRobin]

Zorin, when someone proves you wrong about something, that's not exactly evidence that your conclusion was right.

[SKG51_robtek]

Is this a thread about the Ju 52 or a "bashing Zorin thread"??

 

Everybody has a right to his/her opinion as long as it is presented inoffensive.

 

IMO

[BigC208]

I know what I'm going to get for my $89. What I don't need to  know is what I might be getting in the future.

Jason's pretty clear up to this point. No evasive manouvering or deceptions like with the CloD launch. If the

CloD team had let a bunch of journalists play the game one month before release it would've never sold a  single

copy. The fact that the media Hornet event made a couple of pretty savy simmers endorse the program was enough

for me to pull the trigger. I remember when Il2 came out in 2001 there were hardly any aircraft at all. Heck, the demo

had me going for weeks just trying to get the P39 of the ground without torque rolling it into a wreck. I hope BoS is the

new beginning of a coninuation of what the original Il2 was. Boxed theatres with a fixed plane set that was expanded with

mostly "FREE" airplanes. "Free" has gone the way of the Dodo. If I can buy good quality airplanes to add to the theatre box

sets I will certainly do so. it's a win win situation for most of us.  

[Heywooood]

Is this a thread about the Ju 52 or a "bashing Zorin thread"??

 

Everybody has a right to his/her opinion as long as it is presented inoffensive.

 

IMO

I agree - I feel that my post, which only suggested Zorin was being impatient, seems to have opened an onrush of criticism - I apologise to Zorin for my part

this is a community reliant on co operation for its strength

this is a small niche market - Combat Flight Simulation for PC - and we need to try our best to stick together

[Panzerlang]

Indeed. People like Zorin are as valuable to a community like this as the cheer-leading type. They keep things grounded.

[Bearcat]

I think quite a few folks in this thread need to:

 

A-Step away from the keyboard for a spell.

B-Think before they hit send and read whatg they are typing.

C-Loose the attitude and ratchet down the personal rancor.

D-Remember that thiks is a process and the devs have a plan.

 

It never ceases to amaze me how this flight sim lot can be so touchy at times and how easy it is to misconstrue true intentions in posts. We all are here because we really really like this stuff.. so let's all try to keep that in mind.. There is nothing for anyone to get bent about at this juncture.. The futuire looks very bright and you may not get that great ride pof your dreams when you want it but from where I sit there is no reason to think that it will not come and that at somepoint this next generation IL2 cannot be almost as well stocked as it's predecessor. I see us reaching that destination in time...

 

but first we have to get out of the hangar, onto the runway.. and off the ground.

[Zorin]

Let me apologize to all I might have offended. There is no point in prolonging this discussion as it has ran its course now and everyone had his fair share of "out-of-lineness". I said what I felt had to be said and now it is back to gathering patience and keeping fingers crossed that everything will turn out well.

[Freycinet]

I will happily knock it off, but why does it take a four page thread (plus abuse towards the guy who is digging deeper) to squeeze that information out of you guys? Do we not ALL know where not telling the customers all the facts leads? Creating a vaccum of wishful thinking and misleading maybes is certainly not helping, in my humble opinion at least.

 

Apart from that, it is not my job to impress anyone, but thanks for mocking me anyway. Nothing nicer than bringing a discussion down to a personal level and labelling the uncomfortable one as a baddy.

 

I find it really weird to see someone take it for granted that the developers of a flight sim should automatically be, not only reading, but responding to a posting in a forum thread. The usual info from developers was, for many years, occasional updates on development, or - more frequently - nothing at all. Along comes Jason Williams and 777 Studios and BoS and now we get - rather incredibly - weekly updates. Yet, somebody comes along and complains that it took four pages in a thread (among hundreds of threads) to get a reply from the producer of the sim. Not even a tiny "thanks for replying" or "thanks for popping by!"

 

It says a lot about a person.

Edited August 1, 2013 by Freycinet

[Zorin]

I find it really weird to see someone take it for granted that the developers of a flight sim should automatically be, not only reading, but responding to a posting in a forum thread. The usual info from developers was, for many years, occasional updates on development, or - more frequently - nothing at all. Along comes Jason Williams and 777 Studios and BoS and now we get - rather incredibly - weekly updates. Yet, somebody comes along and complains that it took four pages in a thread (among hundreds of threads) to get a reply from the producer of the sim. Not even a tiny "thanks for replying" or "thanks for popping by!"

 

It says a lot about a person.

 

I am not intending to get into this again, but he has done it for years with RoF and other devs I have encountered in recent years also answer directly to their audience, so personally it is nothing special to me anymore. So how about we all settle in to reality? Everyone is networking now and seeking direct contact, so this is no longer fairytale land, but becoming the norm.

 

So yes, if that says a lot about me, like that I enjoy being in touch with people I buy stuff from and to consider this not to be unusual, so be it. At least I don't judge people by some random forum posts.

Edited August 1, 2013 by Zorin

[Sven]

In any case, this thread has showed us that there are drawbacks to the concept that every plane needs to have the same FM as a player controlled aircraft. A bomber or transport plane can have a simple version of the FM and yet retain realistic performance and behaviour. We are now pretty much stuck with planes which a lot of players want to fly, but miss aircraft like small unarmed transports or reconnaissance planes which can 'fill up' missions. By  losing this content the appeal to fly long campaigns and play the sim for several years drops off quick. This is has been my experience with ROF in the past, I hope the team reconsiders using simpler FM for simple AI aircraft (relative). 

Edited August 1, 2013 by Sven

[Zorin]

In any case, this thread has showed us that there are drawbacks to the concept that every plane needs to have the same FM as a player controlled aircraft. A bomber or transport plane can have a simple version of the FM and yet retain realistic performance and behaviour. We are now pretty much stuck with planes which a lot of players want to fly, but miss aircraft like small unarmed transports or reconnaissance planes which can 'fill up' missions. By  losing this content the appeal to fly long campaigns and play the sim for several years drops off quick. This is has been my experience with ROF in the past, I hope the team reconsiders using simpler FM for simple AI aircraft (relative). 

 

Thank you.

[Feathered_IV]

So, we're all agreed. The Ju-52 is pivotal to this phase of the Battle of Stalingrad.