Jump to content

Anw.StG2_Tyke

Founders [premium]
  • Content Count

    288
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

103 Excellent

About Anw.StG2_Tyke

  • Rank
    Founder
  1. Funnily, I've the observation that Ingame this Energy still is enough to follow a steep climb without problems and with nearly full control authority.
  2. Well your criticism might be right, If we question of a specific type of ammo is underperforming, but do we question this? For me, I would only question the following: Question: Is the MG151/20 in its current iteration and ammo modeling underperforming? I ntroduction: Here we should state our feelings and base this on as many historical data as possible about the damage of MG151/20 against different targets and materials. Every picture we find and every test trial/videos we find. Methods: Due to the limitations in our system we can only test the current iteration of MG151/20 with our given Ammo-Preset HE/AP/HE. Due to that limitation, possible variance in our results have to be cleared out by a lot of repititions and different testers. The technical replicate of each experiment should lie at n=50. The biological replicates should be =< than 3. (3 different people performing this test atleast). The Test-Method: 2 Aircrafts (YAK or 109), flying in a straight line at constant Speed (400 km/h). An only Cannon Burst of 1s or 0.5s (its discusable) is fired at a certain aimed spot. (We should discus this spot.) The damage is observed via Video and the Damage has to be somehow scored. (Lethal, Non-Lethal and so on). For analysis we can use a normal statistical approach I guess an ANOVA would be finde to do so, maybe with an Post-Hoc Test afterwards. The Results we get will actually answer our Question in the beginning. Okay, now we need atleast 3-6 People performing those tests, anybody got time?
  3. should be, actually forcing AA is something which is software side option. The Card's are all capable of doing AA and AF. I can do it with my 290X.
  4. Thats not a good answer, because you intend with the last question that the players are bad. Furthermore, because in your opinion nothing is wrong, it doesn't mean that there is everything right. There are some things definetly wrong with this game, otherwise it wouldn't be in the current problematic stage. This is a logical fact, which you can't deny. In other words, for a bunch of players IL-2:BoS has some major flaws which have a negative effect on the game experiance, it lies on your side Threadstarter, If those issues play a role for you.
  5. Yeah, and you don't see any connection between players, multiplayer and singleplayer playerbase and a success of the game...
  6. Which is not true, because in CloD I see depending on the time 3-4 populated servers. 2 ATAG-Server, the Storm of War Server and the Dogfight-Server. Same for BoS and guess what, we need Charts because your method is simply bullshit. What about the Single-Player players? What about a great data set with several timepoints? We can actually see that in those charts.
  7. No it wouldn't be interesting, becaus what was in the past is not relevant for the current status when we compare both games. Look, I try to explain it with my not so good english. I understand this, compare it to the release stated of CloD thing, but it is not relevant. BoS is released in the here and now, and it has to compete at the market which is now existent. It has to compete with the current DCS, CloD and IL-2 1946. It doesn't matter how they were 2 month after their release, because it is far to way back in the history. If BoS wants to dominate the market, it has to be compared to the current market leaders and their current status and NOT what was in the past. It's not working like that. Istruba, yes that is true but we don't have any further data for BoS nor CloD. But we can make some asumptions based on those data's. Furthermore, we can see how many people purchased atleast the steam keys since the release on steam and are playing that game.
  8. Yeah, wait and I had the opposite observation... and now I post some steamcharts because they are the only tool we currently have to compare numbers... http://www.xup.to/dl,14627310/1946.JPG/ http://www.xup.to/dl,10205258/cliffs_of_dover.JPG/ http://www.xup.to/dl,99606655/battle_of_stalingrad.JPG/ But hey, this says nothing I guess...
  9. I wonder which great numbers does he mean? Yesterday Peak were around 60-70 People online? I mean, its not more than in CloD or Il-2 1946 for a game released last month a really bad sign.
  10. He climbed at 1.30 ata 270 Km/h as stated in his first post. So yes the 109 F-4 is definitly overperforming in climbing, I tested it yesterday evening also. But Funnily not that mutch compared to the Yak-1. I don't have the data aviable now but I think it came out only a bit slower than the 109.
  11. Technically, yes you were vulching. Is it bad? Depends on the opinion of someone. Should you bitch about it? Nah in my opinion not Do I bitch about it sometimes? Yep, because when my emotions break through but actually what you did there was okay. I mean hell a Yak tried yesterday evening to kill me while I took off, and he failed. Was a funny moment but :D
  12. With the undieing words of Napolen the III: Less Q.Q moar Pew Pew. Stop bitching like a girl. This Vulching-Thing is independent from the sides.
  13. Welcome to the reality! From a Developer Point of View, a Flightsimulation which requires more than a mouse and keyboard is not viable. It isn't, because of the market change in the last 20 Years. Look back in the Year 1998, in that year it was nearly mandatory to have atleast a joystick to your pc. Because the Joystick was a great Input Device for a lot of games. Now we look in the Year 2014, tell me how many Game-Genres are needing a Joystick? And you can go through that List with other Input-Devices too. Racing Wheels? Gamepads are doing the same, sometimes even better. Yeah Wheels are mandatory when you go into the Hardcore Simulation branch, like rFactor2 but actually in the most arcade games, a Gamepad is doing a better job. And look we live in a time, where the majority of Gamers are the Children of the gamers lived in the late 80's and early 90's. So the old Spirit of Gaming and Gamedeveloping is simply gone, and the new generation is different. Thats the change of time, and no BoS, no Flight Simulation leaps to another target audience or anything else could change that. Live with it, or gather enough money to make an independent game which don't need financial success. This is the only way to achieve that.
  14. Oh wait oh wait oh wait... so you say there are 3 Versions of the game right? 1 Version with 8 Planes + 2 DLC Planes/Premium Planes. 1 Version with 8 Planes aaaaaaand 1 Version with 2 Planes only for a fifth of the price, but you have to grind for the other 6 planes... So essentially you have 3 choices... pay 90$ for 8+2 Premiumplanes... pay 50$ For 8 Planes or pay 12$ for 8 planes, but you have to invest a couple of hours to get the other 6 planes... but for investing 38 $ more you get essentially the same but without the time investment, which you have to do anyway because unlocks... Yeah for sure, nor "microtransaction" policy... nope I don't see any coincedence here.. man..... how can I be so blind. Atleast the customer don't have the option to pay for accelerating the progress here...
  15. Good God, you described the drive behind microtransaction... you have the choice: Buy the stock game with 2 Planes and grind your way to the rest OR invest money to have them already... Helloooo thats the core concept between Microtransactions... let the customer pay for something which is repetetive and timeconsuming... AND GUESS WHAT! The BoS Campaign is BOTH!
×
×
  • Create New...