I cannot be a defender of BoS anymore...

[Agilepig]

First of all, I am not living in English using nation(It is the reason why I do not write thread in this forum), so I am not good at English. If you guys find something weird, please understand.

 

 

I am a big fan of this game since the project of BoS was announced. and I was defend BoS from lot's of critics around me. I have the hope this game will be a great series like IL-2 1946, and I said "Shut up and take my money!" When this game was released and I already prepared money for C.202.

 

Still I want to be a defender of this game, but there is no way to do. Some players of BoS around me, call this game 'The Soviet Fantasy' or 'Final Fantasy: The Soviet' but I can't defend this game anymore! Because these guys were big fans of this game like me, and all of them is premium founders like me. All of them shouted "Shut up and take my money!" like me, and they were defend this game from WT simulator players who don't like BoS once. They are well skilled players and they already know everything I know. Even sometime I got same sentiment with them! How could I defend this game from them? I am waiting 1.009 update. After test it, I will decide tell some complain about FM/DM or not. So I will not tell about FM/DM now, but there are obvious problems about FM/DM. 

 

In my sight, Zak's question(For me, it looks like answer.) to Celestiale and the comment of FlatSpinMan makes me frustrate. If most of developers think they do not want critics and do not feel the problems... Oh god. I cannot find something right words to express my feeling. It will make me BIG HUGE frustrate. I know, there is no flight sim game have perfect FM, but flight simulation developers have to try it.

 

 

I agree Celestiale. When I bought DCS Bf109K-4 and P-51D, I was disappointed about it(Too easily stall, wing structure is too weak, firepower of german aircraft, ... and other things. Actually, before that things I don't like Eagle Dynamics games.), but I play DCS more and more, and play BoS less and less in these day. Even DCS 1944 players are fewer than BoS!

 

I still love this game and I still have the hope BoS will be great flight simulation game series like 1946. Please do not make us frustrate.

Edited February 7, 2015 by =Bout1=Gomwolf_K_

[Feathered_IV]

These games take time.  Try to be understanding.  Also, Zak does not live English using nation too.

[wellenbrecher]

 Also, Zak does not live English using nation too.

Same with Loft.

Which has lead to plenty of unfortunate situations in the past, and I am sure will lead to plenty more in the future.

 

And that's ignoring the fact that many things the devs tell the community have to be translated by other members of the community so that non-Russians even learn about them :c

[Jade_Monkey]

Same with Loft.

Which has lead to plenty of unfortunate situations in the past, and I am sure will lead to plenty more in the future.

 

And that's ignoring the fact that many things the devs tell the community have to be translated by other members of the community so that non-Russians even learn about them :c

 

I fully agree. Also, in my opinion, some languages tend to be more direct (russian) and others (english) focus more on the forms and being correct.

 

Just my opinion.

[303_Kwiatek]

I think the problem is not language barrier but rather mentality expecially about Russian planes performance and flying characteristic. It is barrier no to overcome.

 

I think there should be 2 version of game. One for  Russian customers and second for rest of the world. These would be more fair

Edited February 7, 2015 by 303_Kwiatek

[II./JG77_Manu*]

The reason for me, why i am at the edge of thinking about further supporting this sim is not the game itself, i think it's very good, surely it has it's flaws and limitations, just like any other sim out there. That's never gonna be a reason for me to abandon this game.

 

Quite the opposite, i have promoted this game on any possible occasion, and i have defended it, whenever i felt that "critics" (sometimes rather attacks then critics) from the community are not justified. In addition, (don't wanna boast myself, but that's what happened) i think i helped to get the 190s engine performance kinda "right" (especially climb rate and engine endurance, which have been utterly flawed before october) by providing a lot of sources to Han, and my topics back then definitely helped to open some peoples eyes in this regard (there have also been a lot of people who desperately wanted to not getting it fixed, and felt it was "alright" just like in my last post). 

 

The reason why i got more and more dragged away from this game rather lies in the development. I have heard a lot of stories from different people, who felt unfairly treated by the development. I listened to them, but "people can talk a lot when the day is long", so i didn't take them as fact, but they definitely got me to think about it a little bit. Didn't have to much contact with the development myself, only with Han and everything was alright.

 

Then two days ago i raise justified concerns again, the first time after a long time. Those concerns came up in my mind after i read about flight comparisons in Rechlin, and some other stories, which matched themselves to a 100%. 

The answer i got from the development in this topic was, let's at least say not polite. It definitely wasn't to severe, and i can take disrespectful answers, in fact i am quite familiarized with it in the internet. But i would have rather expected such an answer from a big company acting in a huge polypoly market, which doesn't have to care about it's customers (like Ubisoft or something like that).

 

In Germany we have the proverb "Der Kunde ist König" which means "The customer is king". If a company in Germany acting in a bilateral oligopoly market (Flight Sim would be in this category) wanna survive, it has to stick to this proverb to a 100%. I come from a 30.000 people town, and i have seen shops and service companies closing down more then i can count - the reason most of the time was not that the product(s) itself were bad, but that the owner/manager or even an employee was rude one time too often. So i am used to other standards. Of course you do not have to treat every customer like a "king", there are also a lot of d*cks out there, and nobody blames the service, if it treats them accordingly. But i really think i have showed enough, that i don't belong to this category. 

The product BoS is really god, but the augmented product is really bad. 

I am not condemning the development, because it comes mainly from Russia, and maybe they just have other standards there. But they would really do good, if they would hire an marketing expert from a western country, who teaches them once and for all how to deal with western customers. This would definitely pay off, i don't wanna even imagine how many people are not supporting this game, because of the behavior of the Devs (heard it already so many times). 

I still want to see this sim succeeding - other countries other customs. But there are a lot of people out there, who are not so understanding

Edited February 7, 2015 by Celestiale

[Agilepig]

Hummm... I do not want to this game made just I want.(I don't know, I write this rightly. I hope other guys understand this.) I do not want FM of this game change to customers wants.

 

Just I want FM of BoS to be historically accurate and at this time, something wrong in there.

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

As if it needs a defender..

 

Life is simple, you like something, stick with it, you don't like something, move on! No need to announce your dislike to the world, just move on..

 

Another good reason for not announcing your leaving to the world, it will make it allot easier for you to return, because you don't know it yet, but you will be back.. Assuming your into realistic flights sims, if not enjoy your time at world of what ever it is they are doing this week

[unreasonable]

I think the problem is not language barrier but rather mentality expecially about Russian planes performance and flying characteristic. It is barrier no to overcome.

 

I think there should be 2 version of game. One for  Russian customers and second for rest of the world. These would be more fair

Or just put bias on a slider

[SYN_Mike77]

Ah Luftwhiners...the one constant in WWII flight sims down through the ages.

[303_Kwiatek]

Well since old Il2 i fly all side planes but unfortunately in most sims made by Russian developers accidentaly Russian planes are always overdone comparing to others   Funny is that i started to play in Il2 in red side and initialy i was happy with these But knowledge and understanding some facts coming later.

 

Now i know that only people which are not any side biased could see these things. But such people are in minority. 

 

As i said Russian propaganda even todays is barrier not to ovecome easly

Edited February 7, 2015 by 303_Kwiatek

[taleks]

I think the problem is not language barrier but rather mentality expecially about Russian planes performance and flying characteristic.

 

Some players say that Soviet planes are too powerful, others say that Luftwaffe's planes are too powerful.

Who is correct, if both play the same game? 

 

Don't search black cat in a dark room, if there is no a cat in that room. The game is not rigged to give superiority to any side.

(BTW: when I fly in Soviet plane, all German planes are unbelievably strong, when I try German planes... well Soviet planes are super planes.)

 

I don't know what exact post topic starter speaks about, I've looked for latest Zak's posts and there are only posts like "i trust our engineers, if you have claims provide them with data to Han" in that thread . Don't see anything dramatic in his posts, data first approach as it was always.

 

The best advice is to cool down a bit. Everyone wants the most accurate FM, however it is not easy to achieve it.

Claims are not correct always, even if they always seem to be correct. Different sources may contradict other sources, some data may be absent (incomplete) or to be from untrusted sources only. Exact plane/engine modifications or conditions in which player performed testing in game may differ from conditions in tests, performed in sources, etc. Engineers can't just take some data and use it, because it seems valid. If it is not used, then it is not convincing enough for some reason. The only option is to convince engineers by providing more data and details. There is also other factor: noise is too strong that it is difficult to distinguish signal, thus there is filter.

 

Thus, even if someone's data is not accepted, it is not the end of this world. It just signal is not strong enough.

If you believe that plane should fly with other characteristics and it is show stopper for you, then take a pause. There is no point in forcing yourself.

[voncrapenhauser]

I am sorry but I do not remember the old Il2 1946 being biased.

I thought it was very balanced IMO.

 

I do not think BOS is biased either, as Taleks says The FM is not a total showstopper and it is my hope that the little problems I see will be fixed.

I am not going to repeat what the problems IMO are as I am bored with the whole 190 FM subject as it has already been said many times over now.

Edited February 7, 2015 by voncrapenhauser

[Leaf]

If you honestly think that Russian planes are too strong, first look at the player. Is it MrX or one of his pals? No? Then look at your flying ability. Chances are your tactics may need some work. Russian planes are in no way "OP".

Personally I'd always blame myself and my flying before claiming something is unbalanced.

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

If you honestly think that Russian planes are too strong, first look at the player. Is it MrX or one of his pals? No? Then look at your flying ability. Chances are your tactics may need some work. Russian planes are in no way "OP".

Too strong, too weak, too ubar, too nerfed.. Until 1C/777 provides a way to log data during flight, as 1C did in IL-2 with DeviceLink, or as 1C did in CoD with C#, no one can say with any certainty how well the planes are matching the real world data. Just too many potential sim pilot errors can be made during testing that can corrupt the results.

 

This statement is based on the hundreds of test logs I have reviewed over the past 10+ from several different flight sim. I found that most of the errors were in the way the user performed the in-game test, and not an actual error in the FM. For example, not taking into account the difference in the in-game atmosphere and the real world data, which is typically corrected/converted to standard atmosphere, but not always! Another example, in WWII some countries the beginning of a rate of climb test started from a dead stop on the runway, where as others the beginning of a rate of climb test started with the plane air born at a low altitude. Not a big impact on the rate of climb data, but it does affect the time to climb results. Little difference like that can have a big effect on the results.

 

So, until we have a way to log the in-game data, any and all in-game testing should be taken with a grain of salt. As a bare minimum a video (track file) should be generated during the test so others can review the methods used during testing.

 

On a related note, Pilot Combat Accounts.. The are pretty much worthless to say anything about plane performance!

 

In that pilot combat accounts are typically one sided stories that says more about the pilot vs pilot skill than plane vs plane performance.. That and the pilot account typically does not contain enough information to recreate the scenario in-game to see if you can obtain the same results, let alone the other planes state..

 

For example, for every German pilot combat account of his Bf109 being able to out turn a Spitfire, their is a British pilot combat account of his Spitfire being able to out turn a Bf109..

 

Yet to this day people still think some sort of statistical average can be gleamed from pilot accounts.. But that is a pipe dream IMHO, for so many reasons, but probably the most important reason being, you never get a chance to read the after action report from the pilots that were killed in action!

[303_Kwiatek]

Some players say that Soviet planes are too powerful, others say that Luftwaffe's planes are too powerful. Who is correct, if both play the same game?

 

I don't count on what some says.  I try to make my opinion based on test planes performacne and flying charactersitic in game and compare to  known RL data and charts.

 

 

 

Don't search black cat in a dark room, if there is no a cat in that room. The game is not rigged to give superiority to any side.

 

I understand that there is really not easy to make some things realistic as possibe it is very hard task but unfortunately again Russian planes in another sim made by Russian developers got some more bonus that they  had IRL  ( e.x.  too high maximum dive speeds, roll rate of Lagg3 or La5, high speed controlability).  Other hand German planes in BOS got their adventages decrased for some degree  (  e.x. too slow maximum speeds at high alts, poor handling of Fw 190 at higher speeds, overdone nasty spin charactertic).  Wonder for example why Lagg3 spin charactersitic was changed in game?  Now it fly more like Yak-1, its nasty spin characterstic was noticable reduced?  Lagg3 similar to Fw 190 was known from nasty spin characterstic.

 

Im sure BOS engine is so good that could make things more historical accuracy. It is just question of good will of developers.   As a real life aerobatic pilot i really like for example Yak-1 flying characteristic in game. I think it is the best general flight model i have played in any sim.

 

 

 

I am sorry but I do not remember the old Il2 1946 being biased. I thought it was very balanced IMO.

 

I think you dont remember very old I-16 rocket plane or performance of La5 familiy in game. I remember that 1C used prototypes data for representing serial planes performance.

 

Its good that at least La5 in BOS is not the same level like it was in old Il2.

Edited February 7, 2015 by 303_Kwiatek

[Potenz]

I am sorry but I do not remember the old Il2 1946 being biased.

I thought it was very balanced IMO.

 

The old 1946 was biased, planes like the UFO La5 series, or the I-16 with the flight performance of  a JET,

and what happened with the 190??? the russian community start such a rant that in a patch the made it

a brick, that was only corrected with the mod era

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

No flight simulator ever was, is, or will be perfect!

 

But, the generally accepted rule of thumb of PASS vs FAIL is for the simulated plane to fall within +/-5% of the real world data..

 

With that in mind, the worst FM I ever tested in IL2 was the Bf-109K4C3, where it had an ROC that was ~38% better than the real world data at around 15Kft if I remember correctly.

 

And when I say tested, I don't mean personally flying the plane, that 38% error came directly from the games data base using ZINFOMOD

[SvAF/F19_Klunk]

Another one? Seriously?? U have an identical thread started by Celestiale one mouse click away... Seriously??

Critique and opinions are welcome but lets keep the amount of identical threads Down' please

[D.B.Cooper]

What a drama.... Anyway... I still like Bos a lot... And i know for sure it will be even better in the future....

[Wulf]

Some players say that Soviet planes are too powerful, others say that Luftwaffe's planes are too powerful.

Who is correct, if both play the same game? 

 

Don't search black cat in a dark room, if there is no a cat in that room. The game is not rigged to give superiority to any side.

(BTW: when I fly in Soviet plane, all German planes are unbelievably strong, when I try German planes... well Soviet planes are super planes.)

 

I don't know what exact post topic starter speaks about, I've looked for latest Zak's posts and there are only posts like "i trust our engineers, if you have claims provide them with data to Han" in that thread . Don't see anything dramatic in his posts, data first approach as it was always.

 

The best advice is to cool down a bit. Everyone wants the most accurate FM, however it is not easy to achieve it.

Claims are not correct always, even if they always seem to be correct. Different sources may contradict other sources, some data may be absent (incomplete) or to be from untrusted sources only. Exact plane/engine modifications or conditions in which player performed testing in game may differ from conditions in tests, performed in sources, etc. Engineers can't just take some data and use it, because it seems valid. If it is not used, then it is not convincing enough for some reason. The only option is to convince engineers by providing more data and details. There is also other factor: noise is too strong that it is difficult to distinguish signal, thus there is filter.

 

Thus, even if someone's data is not accepted, it is not the end of this world. It just signal is not strong enough.

If you believe that plane should fly with other characteristics and it is show stopper for you, then take a pause. There is no point in forcing yourself.

 

 

You guys are making this much harder than it needs to be.  I don't believe anyone on this forum wants or expects the dev team to just roll over and submit to mob rule.  But neither do we appreciate being told that we must have faith.  We have all seem CFS FMs change too often in the past to accept blanket assurances that 'the engineers' have got it right.  

 

You guys have produced a FW 190 that is as good or better than any other attempt I have seen.  However, relative to the other aircraft in the sim, its capabilities still conflict with western understandings - especially as regards roll performance.  That suspicion, that things are not quite right, is deepened when we compare the 190 with the Bf 109, an aircraft that, like the 190, is very well understood in the West. 

 

If you really wish to maintain and expand your Western customer base you will have to do better than tell us that that we are wrong unless we can somehow disprove your secret data.  If you guys are correct (and who knows, maybe you are) then why not  demonstrate to the community why that is the case.  Being dismissive and abrupt is disrespectful and doesn't convince anyone.

 

As the old saying goes; 'you catch more flies with honey.'

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

Yea, listen us, you have to be patient and very very stubborn. If it is true what you fight for - maybe it will be like ROF albatroses speed that recently after 4 years of complaints was fixed )

[sallee]

I've said it elsewhere, but flying Luftwaffe is an utter piece of piss compared to flying VVS. And That is based on nothing but experience. Is this what the OP was getting at anyway?

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Infact, talkign about FMs, all planes ingame need revisions (and by that I mean ALL). There are so many bugs mostly unnoticed since they are of destinctive technical or aerodynamic nature and not obvious on first sight even a flight engineer might oversee them (or the game doesn't execute the parameters accordingly and thus things appear different ingame).

 

Regarding the "Russians Fantasy" thing: Russian planes have always been favoured by different factors:

- increased flight stability

- more accurate shooting due to less bullte spread

- (arguably) higher shell damage

- higher performance boost compared to Luftwaffe planes (including max. dive speeds)

- only the most competetive models, which didn't serve in wide spread by that time, have been chosen as standard oppoments as means of balance

 

In addition to that there are still obvious bugs like unbreakable VVS fighter engines, IL-2 helicopter (if flown without gunner), Yak's highly questionable handling at high AoAs and the Lavotchkins effectively superiour-to-anything roll rate relating back to their state in EA Alpha, when all planes in general rolled compareably fast.

 

They are not superiour in any way even takign all those attributes into account and a simple man could say "hey it's fine as long as I can compete". It's not about competition though, at least to those who open ssuch threads, but accurancy.

 

There're a bunch of things FM wise that should have been fixed already during EA - as it originally was announced. Things obvious to the naked eye and yet still there. Looking back at my FM reports I feel sad nothing, not even an answer nor any sign of recognition has been given back to me leavign my faith grounded.

 

Still, IF BoS shall improve and expand in 2015 FM revisions are indeed nessecary. It's not wise to collapse under the weight of building new content for an generally great game flawed by bugs and issue devs couldnt fix in time (the "Gaijin-tragedy").

Edited February 7, 2015 by Stab/JG26_5tuka

[-NW-ChiefRedCloud]

First of all, I am not living in English using nation(It is the reason why I do not write thread in this forum), so I am not good at English. If you guys find something weird, please understand.

 

 

 

Your English is better than you give yourself credit for. I'm American and I can guarantee most Englishmen knows we Americans have butchered the English language.

 

Chief

[MiG21bisFishbedL]

These games take time.

This.

 

With the largest issue facing BoS mostly done away with, the game should do a lot better. If this were any other genre, I'd say it would be DOA. However, given that flight sim nerds don't care much about visuals and are willing to buy ancient games, BoS should see a turn around in popularity eventually.

 

These new games will always be anemic, it's just the nature of the beast. And, there will ALWAYS be dissatisfaction with the flight models. It's made doubly hard in a game like BoS due to the nature of the aircraft represented. These are piston fighters that flew 70 years ago. The flight envelopes of these aircraft are difficult to find. It's made all the more difficult when you're trying to represent aircraft that lack any flying examples anymore, such as the Lavochkins. Those that do are exceedingly rare, worth millions, and are, obviously, not very well suited for demo flights with a passenger in toe, with the Yak being the only exception with the Yak-11/C-11.

 

Although, with all the drama surrounding the 190, I wonder how much could be calmed if they actually just phoned up the Flying Heritage Collection and asked them about their Fw-190.

[LukeFF]

I think there should be 2 version of game. One for  Russian customers and second for rest of the world. These would be more fair

 

That has to be one of the most ridiculous ideas I've ever heard. 

Although, with all the drama surrounding the 190, I wonder how much could be calmed if they actually just phoned up the Flying Heritage Collection and asked them about their Fw-190.

 

Museums don't fly their aircraft to the max, and for good reason. 

[taleks]

Russian planes in another sim made by Russian developers got some more bonus that they  had IRL

 

Let me translate one post for you from Russian forum about what data was used for Soviet planes.

 

ALL soviet planes in BoS are tuned using data, received either from check run or State performed tests of serial machine. And there are different copies of test results both from different samples from one factory and serial machine samples from different factories.

 

PS: about Germans [planes]. It would be interesting to see not mark "added to arsenal" (as it is honestly is written) [not sure how to translate correctly, means test sample is good enough for series and State decides to produce it], but to read "test sample: serial machine".

Note PS, AFAIK it is one of common mistakes that players make, while claiming some data. BTW: that thread on Russian forum is 160 pages long and players are trying to prove one or other issue with FM (German planes as well), some found issues were correct and changes were made or will be included in next versions. If you see some difference between version to version and it is not recent bug (that may be), than actual data used to tune plane was made more accurate.

 

You like to talk about Russian propaganda from WWII as barrier for correct FM, but German or Western propaganda also exists in their's sources.

Moreover, Western, German and Soviet tests of the same planes contain different performance results.

If engineer take German version, every player who sticks to Western's data will say that it is not correct. If engineer take Western version, every player who sticks to German's data will say that is not correct. And to answer your yet unasked question, AFAIK, Soviet's data is not used to tune German planes to avoid accusations of using wrong data, although from my opinion for Soviet's pilots it was matter of survival to know accurate characteristics of enemy's planes, thus theirs result as much credible as results of other sides.

 

 

We have all seem CFS FMs change too often in the past to accept blanket assurances that 'the engineers' have got it right.  

 

You're omitting a certain piece of phrase, dev's stance is "the engineers have got it right, if not proven otherwise".

If you're honest to yourself, then you can't deny that there were related to proven claims changes in FM of several planes after release.

 

 

unless we can somehow disprove your secret data.

 

It is not secret, take your money and visit Military Archive, you will have the same data as devs.

Obtained data is property of 1CGS or its partners. If there was no concurrency on market, or there was less black PR and nasty tricks to ruin BoS, then probably 1CGS would be more keen to post it open. That, as well as all my posts on this forum, is my personal opinion.

However it is not relevant to issue you're pointing to. You confuse disproving of dev's data with proving your data. When your achieve later goal you'll achieve former as well. If you can't prove your data, how can you disapprove any dev's data?

Final judge of data credibility will be 1CGS. You may not like it, but there are engineers with education in field of aerodynamics / flight vehicles construction, who have more knowledge than average player, and on base of theirs experience have more chance to select more correct data if there are several sources contradicting each other. If, for example, you have three reports from German side, each one contains different although similar tests and each one have some certain differences, which one should be taken in account? I'm not engineer, for me it is random choice. Players suggest to chose theirs, but why, if there are other two tests? Current answer is "because we think that our data is more correct than other correct data from other trusted source". Don't you see that it is ridiculous argument in that situation? Yet players are doubting other trusted sources and telling here and there [rough translation of a lot of angry words] that developers are stubborn retards that don't want to hear other points of view.

 

There is no goal to make some plane weaker or stronger because someone loves LaGG or 190, there is goal to make most accurate model based on proven historical data, even if it contradicts some deep-rooted myths.

[Wulf]

Taleks, thanks for taking the time to respond.  I don't think you've really addressed my concerns but as I say, I do appreciate the response nevertheless.

 

There is one point I would just like to make concerning your statement that the "final judge of data credibility will be ICGS."  Actually, I think you'll find that it is the consumer who makes the final judgement on that issue.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Thx for your response taleks. I know how much work is required to create detailed and accurate FMs. The thing we still have "minor" issues that don't effect performance of the aircrafts majorly, but still are ingame.

In my opinion the FM report department needs to be revised as well. FM debates will always continue and it's important to not overload devs with testing while also not neglecting to deal with them due to time.

 

Maybe you can incooperate some alpha testers to confirm FM reports after performing ingame test for ensurance they are valid on a game base. Than you can pass them to the engineers to let them check over with their ressources and tools.

 

Talking about things that dont require data I still have 2 reports open:

 

- Yak-1, Lagg-3 and IL-2 engines cant overrev at max dive speed (700+km/h). They'll never exeed their max RPM even beyond safe diving speed.

 

- Ju-87's engine overrevs at take off forth and back when using Notleistung (1.42 ata, 2600 RPM). You can notice that easily by the back and forth jumping RPM needle and the strange wiggling sound. None of my data on the Jumo 211 states any abnormal behaviour like that during TO. In addition to that the He 111, which uses a slight modification of the same engine, does not behaving anything alike, which again leeds to the conclusion of the Stuka being bugged.

 

These are some of the basic things I'm talking about. You probably wont find sufisticated data on them (well more likely about the engine overreving speed) since issues like those didn't even exist in reality. That's why they're not mentioned and explained in manuals, pilot notes ect. and need to be accepted equally without backup (if confirmed).

 

Again thx for taking your time to respond to us. For 2015 I strongly wish an improved focus on the FM part of BoS to gurantee it's the most unique and accurate WW2 sim availabel on the market.

Edited February 8, 2015 by Stab/JG26_5tuka

[Dakpilot]

Taleks, thanks for taking the time to respond.  I don't think you've really addressed my concerns but as I say, I do appreciate the response nevertheless.

 

There is one point I would just like to make concerning your statement that the "final judge of data credibility will be ICGS."  Actually, I think you'll find that it is the consumer who makes the final judgement on that issue.

 

Yes....the same type of consumer who insists Luftwaffe only lost 600 aircraft on eastern front in all of 1942, with credibility like that, the 'average consumer' can make as many judgements as they want...

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[JtD]

Well taleks, thanks for your response and I see your point. But, for example, the Fw190, according to the pilot handbook and pilot reports, had "no tendency to break out" when taking off. I wouldn't really describe the BoS model the same way. Now I know you've got a pilot handbook, too, so what would be the point of me starting a campaign to make you "fix" the ground handling, based on a pilot handbook, anecdotal evidence and common sense, if I don't know what sources your team bases the current handling on? Clearly, it either is a very obvious bug, or you have better sources than anyone else in the world. In both cases, no point in campaigning, I'm afraid, it would just be a waste of time. Unless you state your sources.

[SKG51_robtek]

Yes....the same type of consumer who insists Luftwaffe only lost 600 aircraft on eastern front in all of 1942, with credibility like that, the 'average consumer' can make as many judgements as they want...

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Now, that is typisch knie jede reaction.

All reflexes to defensiv and noch time to think.

It is weil known that the great majority of the german planes lost on the eastern front were lost because of ground fire.

So the number could be possible as the losses to the vvs air force only.

[Feathered_IV]

Ah Luftwhiners...the one constant in WWII flight sims down through the ages.

 

[Edited]

 

PM sent.

Edited February 8, 2015 by Bearcat

[Wulf]

Yes....the same type of consumer who insists Luftwaffe only lost 600 aircraft on eastern front in all of 1942, with credibility like that, the 'average consumer' can make as many judgements as they want...

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

 

As I suspect you have a chip on your shoulder about something or other (I can't imagine what that might be) I'll just ignore the smoldering underlying hostility.  If it's a communication issue (I assume from your posts that English is not your native tongue) just let me know and I'll make allowances in future for unintended rudeness.  I can also use smaller words, if that would help.  Please, don't be embarrassed to ask.

 

As regards the figures I quoted, they are not mine.  I did mention that before but again, perhaps we are having communication problems.  As I have already mentioned (but perhaps you didn't understand), the figures were assembled by Claes Sundin and Christer Bergstrom.  I tend to agree that the 600 total quoted for 1942 seems a little low, even allowing for the heightened combat effectiveness of the Germans at this stage of the War.  The material in question is translated from Swedish so it is possible the figure is intended to refer to total fighter losses rather than total aircraft losses, I don't really know.  But even if that should prove to be the case, it is nevertheless an extraordinary military achievement.

[Wulf]

[Edited]

 

Oh good.  Why don't we just start calling anyone who disagrees a 'Nazi'.   Charming. 

Edited February 8, 2015 by Bearcat

[II./JG77_Manu*]

[Edited]

That is indeed the most disgraceful nonsense post i have ever seen..he probably doesn't even know what a "Nazi" is

Edited February 8, 2015 by Bearcat

[J2_Trupobaw]

There is one point I would just like to make concerning your statement that the "final judge of data credibility will be ICGS."  Actually, I think you'll find that it is the consumer who makes the final judgement on that issue.

That way, War Thunder lies...

 

Back to  original post, there is no need to "defend" any game. Just do it justice when it needs to and don't mix your opinion on team and product. Me, however sexist it may sound , am treating the team as whole more and more like a woman; not trying to understand or judge by standards I apply to myself, just ask myself If I want what they have to offer in my life more than less . It simplifies things a lot. 

 

 

[Edited]

 

Except there were fewer Nazis among actual Luftwaffe servicemen... Misaimed fandom ?

Edited February 8, 2015 by Bearcat

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

And we have just reached War Thunder forum level again...jeez.

 

You guys posting nonsense and hostile comments need a mental doctor, not those who post their concerns and issues with the game. If you dislike people exchanging their issues than why don't you ignore and leave the discussion?

 

I'm well disappointed and while I don't agree with everything the devs said, they might be right with their opinion about this comunity....sad.

 

If anybody is open for a mindfull discussion I'll continue to participate, but only if the War Thunder forum warriors leave the room.

Edited February 8, 2015 by Stab/JG26_5tuka

[ST_ami7b5]

[Edited]

 

Unbelievable!

Edited February 8, 2015 by Bearcat