Reasons why i severely lowered my BoS flight time lately [from a BoS enthusiast]

[303_Kwiatek]

They're showing you their data every time you play the game.

 

These is not any "hard" data just game calculation.

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

Okay, thanks for explaining, and I'm sincerely sorry if I seemed rude I didn't mean to be at all.

Still the questions stays. Having emotions about some plane's behavior is just not enough for a bug report. I personally don't like La-5, but I'm not saying it is wrong cause I got nothing to prove that with. That's what I mean by asking about player's expectations.

 

 

They're showing you their data every time you play the game.

 

According to Zak my feelings or your feelings about their data isn't relevant.

 

Unit documents are cited I don't care who makes their FM's whether it's Ilya, Christian God or whoever else - without the transparency in documentation that is required for the community to make claims, the developer's claims of accuracy mean nothing to me.

[II./JG77_Manu*]

I did read Celestiale's post carefully. As an aerospace engineer I always say the same thing: if you want to talk about FM, bring cold, hard, factual evidence. Bring data. Bring numbers. Otherwise it's just a matter of opinion, which is worthless in the merciless world of aircraft performance. Saying things like "The 109 (bulged one excluded) turns slightly better at low-to mid speed, but the 190 was leaps and bounds" is meaningless unless you come up with your airspeed, altitude, AoA, banking angle and turn rates. Define "low speed". Define "mid-speed". Define "leaps and bounds".

 

There is so much which can't be measured by data, by numbers, or just could not be measured back then in WW2.

Stuff like:

 

- Control responsiveness 

- High speed behavior overall

- dive speed limit exceed behavior (control stiffeness, i doubt that they had clamping force tester back in WW2; structural damage, they didn't do extreme dive tests with most planes;)

- flight "calmness"

- stall behavior (not the speed, but the indications the plane gives you before stalling)

and more...

 

so it's complete nonsense, that you can model a FM just with numeric data. You definitely also need to look at the anecdotal data, to model stuff like this.

 

 

 

Otherwise it's just a matter of opinion, which is worthless in the merciless world of aircraft performance

 

 

well, you have to model the stuff i put on stage above due to "opinions". Opinions of fighter pilots, opinions of test pilots, opinions of engineers. Opinions of historians. Worthless and merciless, not at all. 

As an aircraft engineer with modern aircraft, where you can gather and process every movement of the plane with a computer, this might be different. But for aircraft of WW2 that's nonsense. 

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

To be fair, Celestiale and the data he provided was one of the main reasons the last Fw FM's were reviewed by Han and eventually tweaked.

[BraveSirRobin]

Unit documents are cited I don't care who makes their FM's whether it's Ilya, Christian God or whoever else - without the transparency in documentation that is required for the community to make claims, the developer's claims of accuracy mean nothing to me.

 

Whether or not you approve of their documents is irrelevant.   If you don't have documents that show the game is flawed, they're not making any changes.  That's something you're just going to have to live with.

You probably should not expect them to make their source code public so you can approve it, either.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Customer: The dessert was quite tasty and the main meal very enoyable, but I feel there was a little too much salt in that soup.

 

Cook: Well, can you prove how much salt I put in there?

 

Customer: Uhm, no, how shall I know that?

 

Cook: Well, you see, unless you can prove it it's not wrong, period.

 

 

Typical FM buisness issue

Edited February 5, 2015 by Stab/JG26_5tuka

[BraveSirRobin]

Customer: The dessert was quite tasty and the main meal very enoyable, but I feel there was a little too much salt in that soup.

 

Cook: Well, can you prove how much salt I put in there?

 

Customer: Uhm, no, how shall I know that?

 

Cook: Well, you see, unless you can prove it it's not wrong, period.

 

 

Typical FM buisness issue

 

No, it's really more like this.

 

Customer:  I feel your soup has too much salt in it.  Let me see the recipe.

 

Chef:  $*#@ off.

 

You're being told to (*&% off as politely as possible.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

No, it's really more like this.

 

Customer:  I feel your soup has too much salt in it.  Let me see the recipe.

 

Chef:  $*#@ off.

 

You're being told to (*&% off as politely as possible.

That's because devs ask us fro actual proofs. That's totally legit given we have full acess to documentation of the planes ingame, which 1C of course aquired already.

[II./JG77_Manu*]

I have links to plenty of data (especially 109-190) but i felt, and still feel no need to add them to my post, because in this Forum there is already plenty of data spread all over the topics, and there has always/mostly been an excuse, to "explain" it. I am just tired of that

[Nonolem]

Customer: The dessert was quite tasty and the main meal very enoyable, but I feel there was a little too much salt in that soup.

 

Cook: Well, can you prove how much salt I put in there?

 

Customer: Uhm, no, how shall I know that?

 

Cook: Well, you see, unless you can prove it it's not wrong, period.

 

 

Typical FM buisness issue

 

 

Except that there is no soup simulator, with the goal to simulate an historical soup known by some factual datas... Sorry, but your exemple means nothing.

[BraveSirRobin]

That's because devs ask us fro actual proofs. That's totally legit given we have full acess to documentation of the planes ingame, which 1C of course aquired already.

 

Yes, you're being asked to give actual proof.  And it's totally legit.  Telling them that the game is wrong and that you want to see the documentation they used is NOT totally legit.  It's like telling a chef that his food sucks, and you can confirm it sucks if he gives you the recipe.  It would probably be a very bad idea to eat at that restaurant after trying to pull a stunt like that.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

You seem to be over the top and missing the point totally. Sry that I appealed on a min of sarcasm from your side.

 

The point is, just as Celestiale explained, some thign can't be proven wiht math and calculations. Theres no way I, for example, can prove the 190s taxi behaviour to be worng as there's no documentation about it's behaviour with unlocked tailwheel.

 

I could, on the other hand, try to calculate the angular momentum of the wide landing gear combined with a rought interpretation of the 190's mass inertia and ground surface properties of airfields in Stalingrad, but do you think this would be a proper way of reporting a simple bug? If so I will have to lower my expactations for future fixes in BoS than I guess.

 

In the buisness I come from the "You have to prove it with documents" saying has been used to skip reports till oblivion.

Edited February 5, 2015 by Stab/JG26_5tuka

[BraveSirRobin]

The point is, just as Celestiale explained, some thign can't be proven wiht math and calculations. 

 

In those cases you're going to have to either live with their decisions, develop your own game, or hope someone else makes a game that matches everything you believe about how some of these aircraft performed.

[76SQN-FatherTed]

Customer: The dessert was quite tasty and the main meal very enoyable, but I feel there was a little too much salt in that soup.

 

Cook: Well, can you prove how much salt I put in there?

 

Customer: Uhm, no, how shall I know that?

 

Cook: Well, you see, unless you can prove it it's not wrong, period.

 

 

Typical FM buisness issue

 

 

The real point with this analogy is the word "feel".  That's where Zak has his issue.  Say "I've had this soup analysed and it contains 5.7% w/w NaCl, whereas several recipes for this soup that I've discovered in official archives give a figure of 3.6% w/w", and you may get a conversation.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

In those cases you're going to have to either live with their decisions, develop your own game, or hope someone else makes a game that matches everything you believe about how some of these aircraft performed.

I don't think that's fair either. While the hard data should be primary, circumstantial/anecdotal information, especially when corroborated by multiple sources, absolutely has value. The game is being made by enthusiasts for enthusiasts. If it deviates marginally I would always go with the numerical data. Where it significantly deviates, I'd give the anecdotal information a fair look. Not what it is/was like in another sim but what it is/was reported in historical documentation.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

In those cases you're going to have to either live with their decisions, develop your own game, or hope someone else makes a game that matches everything you believe about how some of these aircraft performed.

I don't think that's fair either. While the hard data should be primary, circumstantial/anecdotal information, especially when corroborated by multiple sources, absolutely has value. The game is being made by enthusiasts for enthusiasts. If it deviates marginally I would always go with the numerical data. Where it significantly deviates, I'd give the anecdotal information a fair look. Not what it is/was like in another sim but what it is/was reported in historical documentation.

[=AVG=Zombie]

Call of Duty Advanced Warfare on PS4 has been keeping me from flying.... got tired of the same ol air quak and snow....

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Mods, delete this post and one of the doubles above.

 

Thanks,

[Solmyr]

Can't understand how the guys here can love DCS : I tried the trial, flew the Mustang, and sorry for those who like it but it was pure sh** to my mind, sooo arcade style, a part from a nice clikable cockpit and very accurately implemented procedures.

Edited February 6, 2015 by Solmyr

[Nonolem]

Can't understand how the guys here can love DCS : I tried the trial, flew the Mustang, and sorry for those who like it but it was pure sh** to my mind, sooo arcade style, a part from a nice clikable cockpit and very accurately implemented procedures.

 

Maybe, I have not tried DCS.

 

But what I, also, can not understand is why so many people take the very outdated flight physic in CloD as a reference...

[Wulf]

They're showing you their data every time you play the game.

 

 

I find this sort of statement completely disingenuous. 

 

CFS FMs constantly evolve over the life of a game.  We've seen this many times now.  And yet at any point you care to mention, the Devs will always tell you that the FMs are, and always have been, spot on.  The original IL-2 is a classic case in point.  The original FM didn't look anything like the model we had when I left the game some years back.  God alone known what it must look like by now.  So please, forgive me if I get a little cynical when told that the engineers have 'got it right'.

 

Furthermore, if the Dev Team are so confident that they are right; why not release some numbers for us to have a look at?  A couple of graphs would go a long way to helping us understand where they're coming from.  We don't expect them to give us access to the actual material, but a few lines on a graph would help, and give us something with which to compare.

 

As far as the 190 goes, we have a real credibility problem.  We know what the RAF thought of the aircraft when they encountered it in late '41-early '42(because we have the tests they performed). We know for example that the British considered the Bf 109 F, at that time, to be  no better or worse than a Spitfire V.  And yet, in BoS, no one would seriously suggest that the 190 A 3 was even in the same class as a 109, let alone the aircraft that was at one point being seriously considered as the logical replacement for it. Now, at one point (before the last big patch) the BoS 190 was a reasonably good mount.  Not  as good as the 109 but certainly not the death trap it is today.  So what was it that the BoS engineers found out, in the months before Christmas, that led them down the current path?  What new historical material did they unearthed that led them to the most recent changes in the 190 FM? 

Edited February 6, 2015 by Wulf

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

-snip-

 

So what was it that the BoS engineers found out, in the months before Christmas, that led them down the current path?  What new historical material did they unearthed that led them to the most recent changes in the 190 FM? 

 

Maybe we'll never know. 

Edited February 6, 2015 by FalkeEins

[Jade_Monkey]

Customer: The dessert was quite tasty and the main meal very enoyable, but I feel there was a little too much salt in that soup.

Cook: Well, can you prove how much salt I put in there?

Customer: Uhm, no, how shall I know that?

Cook: Well, you see, unless you can prove it it's not wrong, period.

 

Typical FM buisness issue

 

You might have thought that was a clever analogy but it's fundamentally flawed.

Some people like more salt than others and there is no "right" amount of salt that can be applied to all customers of the fictional restaurant.

On the other hand, the planes did have a specific FM that applied to all pilots, whether they like it or not.

 

I am in complete agreement that "feel" is just not enough justification to demand changes, especially since none here have flown a WWII plane (afaik).

Therefore, provide data and I'm sure the devs will look into it. After all there is nobody who wants to make this a better game than themselves.

[Wulf]

You might have thought that was a clever analogy but it's fundamentally flawed.

Some people like more salt than others and there is no "right" amount of salt that can be applied to all customers of the fictional restaurant.

On the other hand, the planes did have a specific FM that applied to all pilots, whether they like it or not.

 

I am in complete agreement that "feel" is just not enough justification to demand changes, especially since none here have flown a WWII plane (afaik).

Therefore, provide data and I'm sure the devs will look into it. After all there is nobody who wants to make this a better game than themselves.

 

 

So what would we be comparing available data against exactly?  All we know is what the historical record tells us - in fact, what both British and German test pilots had to say, which is pretty much exactly the same thing.  That wealth of information, which has been presented, doesn't appear to accord with the 'secret information' held by the Devs.  So, you want us to accept that we must therefore be wrong?  Well, just on the basis of someone else's say so, I'm not prepared to believe that the historical record in in fact wrong.   

[BlitzPig_EL]

[BraveSirRobin]

 A couple of graphs would go a long way to helping us understand where they're coming from. 

 

Not on this or any other flight sim forum I have ever seen. 

 

If you think they got something wrong, provide some test data.  If there is no test data, learn to live with it or throw a really big pile of money at the issue by developing your own game.  Then you can get the perfect game with everything working as you believe it should.

[unreasonable]

I disagree with the premise that technical data is the sole relevant source of knowledge in this discussion, although it is understandable that skilled aerospace engineers might tend to think that way.

 

We are talking about historical phenomena here, not a current scientific experiment where we can replicate controlled variables to isolate their effects. We can do that to an extent with the FM, but we cannot do it to an Fw190.

 

This means that all of the available evidence has to be judged on its credibility with respect to everything else we know.

 

The devs have access to historical source documents that we cannot see and other source documents that we can see. From them they have built a model (not a Fw190!). Some of the results of this model appear to contradict other evidence that we can see. On examination this other evidence is in some cases discarded as being the result of illusion, misunderstanding or exceptionally bizarre circumstances. Some remains.

 

This is a problem.

 

BSR's response amounts to "lump it or leave it". This maybe a practical way to approach the matter, but it is neither satisfying nor what Zak actually said. He says give us data and we will look at it, which is fine as far as it goes. The problem is what he, or the team, define as data.

[Wulf]

Not on this or any other flight sim forum I have ever seen. 

 

If you think they got something wrong, provide some test data.  If there is no test data, learn to live with it or throw a really big pile of money at the issue by developing your own game.  Then you can get the perfect game with everything working as you believe it should.

 

 

Well, there's the problem, I can't.  I don't have a secret stash of tatty, coffee-stained Soviet era archives documenting the world beating roll-rate, UFO-like energy retention and light speed-like acceleration of the class of '39 era Soviet fighters.   But then, I don't really believe the Devs do either.

 

I believe in markets and bottom lines.  I believe that there is little point producing a multi-million $$ game that's going to sink without trace in its biggest market, simply because the Devs didn't understand that the country that sacrificed the most in the world War 2 isn't going to willingly cough-up its hard earned cash for the dubious privilege of being kicked to death again in 2015. 

 

Now I understand that and acknowledge the reality of the environment into which the game has been launched.  I just don't think you have to make the existence of an economic bottom-line quite so bleeding obvious.

Edited February 6, 2015 by Wulf

[BraveSirRobin]

I just don't think you have to make the existence of an economic bottom-line quite so obvious.

 

If that economic bias is so obvious you should have no problem finding the data to prove it.

[303_Kwiatek]

Regarding FW 190 climb rate community posted original German data for A-3.  Still Fw 190 got climb rate no beetter then ISA condition where all other planes got better climb rates due to winter cold air.

 

Asking community about show "hard" data and the same  knowing that they are not avaliable data for e.x. Russian planes is little absurd for me.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

You might have thought that was a clever analogy but it's fundamentally flawed.

Some people like more salt than others and there is no "right" amount of salt that can be applied to all customers of the fictional restaurant.

Anyway I see I made a mistake. Sry for hurting your and BraveSirRobins feelings. I will stop arguing with you both now to let you recover.

 

"Feelings" or better say Impressions are a vital part of FM development, no matter it's your own or the ones written in pilot reports. It's commonly neglected as it's not "put in numbers" and can't be determined mathematically easily, but those information indeed make planes feel like having their own character.

 

Why do you think the devs hooked their Flight engineer up into a Yak-54 and even demonstrated him a fake dogfight? Yes, to give him an impression of flight and physical air combat.

 

As some wise man, FMs are always WIP (or never going to be "spot on", whatever you chose). There's always room for tweaking and refining. Why? Simply because it's a game world with limited aerodynamic and atmospheric properties defined by virtual parameters. It will never reach the complexity and accurancy of a real atmosphere and real airplane.

 

Again, I have an insight in that buisness, most don't. The most important aspect in revisiting FMs is time, which not any dev can affort. That's why I hoped for future revisions in 2015, which basicly had been promoted for beta in EA already.

Edited February 6, 2015 by Stab/JG26_5tuka

[VRPilot]

It's surprising how grown up men can whine so much. Should I start a new threat every time I launch something different from BoS? Well, ok, to all the glory community, I bought RoF and I enjoy the career at the moment.

 

OT: DCS FM is far from the holy gral, I find BoS and RoF much more "believable" than DCS, CloD is simply dated, even TF can't change much.

 

My favorite WWII flight sim? CloD, simply because of the BoB theatre

[JtD]

Looking at FM issues raised in this forum, the FM right now is more often right than the community. Which makes forum discussions useless as a way of giving the developers feedback on the FM. They are good for educating the community, though.

Edited February 6, 2015 by JtD

[312_Tygr]

+1 the 190 is definately far from being the plane one expects. (And on this every simmer luftwhiner i personally know agrees with).

It has only 2 good things. Firepower and levelspeed in certain heights.

Everything else is practically total crap as is.

 

Fixed that for ya.

[SR-F_Winger]

Fixed that for ya.

Troll.

Edited February 6, 2015 by VSG1_Winger

[Tektolnes]

Can't understand how the guys here can love DCS : I tried the trial, flew the Mustang, and sorry for those who like it but it was pure sh** to my mind, sooo arcade style, a part from a nice clikable cockpit and very accurately implemented procedures.

 

Guess all those RL Mustang pilots who've flown it and said it's very close to the real thing just haven't a clue. 

[II./JG77_Manu*]

Looking at where this discussion went, i see the exact same nonsense posts from a lot of people like the last time i (and also a few others) said the 190 is wrong (compared to the rest of the fighters). They desperately try to defend the current state of the game, just like it was last time when we complained about the engine performance. Last time i also only presented facts, without the sources, because i was eager to see the reaction. Right now it's just the same panic reaction like the last time from certain people. Seems like all the mainly russian pilots just fear to get an even better opponent, and try desperately that this scenario won't come, no matter if historic right or wrong. 

Last time it was eventually "easy" (still took weeks, and tons of redundant data till they actually "excepted" it, and fixed it), because there is a lot of numeric data available about the speed, climb rate, engine limitations and stuff like that.

Like the last time, i have a lot of sources who proof what i said. Only problem is that it is incomparable harder, because there is mainly anecdotal data, and i am sure the Devs won't accept that. Thing is that a lot of those things i said in my topic post only can be measured by anecdotal data. Even the roll rate, because from a certain speed on, you just can't use full aileron, and it depends from pilot to pilot, how much force he has (i can tell you from the gym, that there is a huge difference (~300%) between people.

But interesting reaction again, from some people.

 

Those anecdotal data are not some fighter pilot opinions, but real flight tests, including mock dogfights. 

Anyone who is interested in those data, just write me a PM, just like the last time. I will give you all the links i could find so far in the internet (a lot of them german though, and i don't have the time to translate them. I will translate the crucial parts). There are definitely much more, but again, i don't have the time to search after them, it took me already quite some time to find the few i have now, and after all it's not my job to get the FMs modeled right. 

Edited February 6, 2015 by Celestiale

[SR-F_Winger]

I dont get why anecdotes are ignored totally. Why not give them at least a little weight. I mean if lots and lots of diffrent people from BOTH SIDES have similar subjective impressions on the performance of a plane they cannot all be totally wrong!

Ignoring them is stubborn and narrow minded IMO.

 

Just like not fixing the BAR. Just stubborn.

There is absolutely no reason to just delete it. Its proven FACT that it was not visible. So i cannot think of any other reason to leave it in but to worsen the FW pilots frontview to a bad quality it DID NOT have.

I mean if my engine cant model refraction - fine. Then i fix it with the instruments i have.

The accurate recreation is the goal of a sim. Isnt it?

And hopefully there are many more planes to come that would benefit from fixing it the right way - from all participating countries in WWII. Not just the germans.

Edited February 6, 2015 by VSG1_Winger

[9./JG27golani79]

Can't understand how the guys here can love DCS : I tried the trial, flew the Mustang, and sorry for those who like it but it was pure sh** to my mind, sooo arcade style, a part from a nice clikable cockpit and very accurately implemented procedures.

 

DCS arcady?

lol .. sure you haven´t played in game mode? ....

[JtD]

...Like the last time, i have a lot of sources who proof what i said...

Look mate, last time you gave a Springer Verlag (for none-Germans: a publisher mostly known for yellow press) online article as one of your references. I had already read it for amusement, and it was really, really bad. So bad not even funny. Sources like that don't contribute anything useful, they are just repeating some stereotypes gathered from superficially written books. And it does not help if you refer to them. Not you, not the discussion.

 

If you try to get to know the aircraft, write to the NASM (National Air and Space Museum). They have an archive, and will be happy to copy microfilms for you at a fair price. If you ask them to copy anything that has something on Fw190, BMW801 or Jumo213, they'll be able to provide a hundred films with a thousand pages each of copied primary sources. It will take a couple of years and a few thousand bucks, but it's worth it, if you want to know more.

Edited February 6, 2015 by JtD