Original_Uwe Posted March 22, 2015 Posted March 22, 2015 La-5 good airplane. It just need to learn how to fly. The crux of many FM complaints I'd wager.
Jaws2002 Posted March 23, 2015 Posted March 23, 2015 Got to fly the new patch today. The better high speed handling of the 190 brings it much closer to the historical airplane we read about. I Flew four-five QMB sessions in the 190 spawning two three thousand meters above the enemy, to test this aspect and it is remarkably better, as it should. Then I went online in some quick easier servers, to test the theory and it looks good. I find the 190 to need quite a bit more work to compensate for yaw trim changes, but I can live with that. I think it's very fair modeled now. Thank you Developers! Awesome patch! 1
1CGS BlackSix Posted March 25, 2015 Author 1CGS Posted March 25, 2015 We've added a new rule today: http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/3-forum-rules-v102/ 18. Claiming that FM is incorrect without the required proof and starting a flame thread based on such claim is prohibited. The form for an FM claim consists of: short but consistent description of the claim; link to a reference and to a specific part of such reference that describes correct behaviour of a disputed element/situation; game track record and the list of conditions used to recreate disputed element/situation. Not following this form in its entirety will result in locking (locking and deleting) such thread and also in the following: Single offense - 1 days ban on entry Just FYI - I've updated the forum rules with p.18 that you'll find quoted above. It's not retroactive, so nobody will throw bans left and right. Still some topics may be locked down. 5
Original_Uwe Posted March 25, 2015 Posted March 25, 2015 (edited) Oh my, you guys just don't care about your image do you?[Edited] Edited March 25, 2015 by Bearcat 1
6./ZG26_Custard Posted March 25, 2015 Posted March 25, 2015 Flaming is very bad and I hate it but this does seem rather harsh.
Bearcat Posted March 25, 2015 Posted March 25, 2015 Maybe.. but given the history understandable. I see nothing wrong with this. If nothing else it will force people to do their homework and back up their claims rather than just using a lot of anecdotal or opinion based arguments that go on for pages.
71st_AH_Mastiff Posted March 25, 2015 Posted March 25, 2015 (edited) Maybe.. but given the history understandable. I see nothing wrong with this. If nothing else it will force people to do their homework and back up their claims rather than just using a lot of anecdotal or opinion based arguments that go on for pages. and conjecture! I would add their imagination too, based on their brain interpretation of reading pilot claims in book written to sell copies, and make monies. I read pilot claims in books con·jec·ture /kənˈjekCHər/ noun noun: conjecture; plural noun: conjectures 1.an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information. "conjectures about the newcomer were many and varied" synonyms: speculation, guesswork, surmise, fancy, presumption, assumption, theory, postulation, supposition; More verb verb: conjecture; 3rd person present: conjectures; past tense: conjectured; past participle: conjectured; gerund or present participle: conjecturing 1.form an opinion or supposition about (something) on the basis of incomplete information. "he conjectured the existence of an otherwise unknown feature" synonyms: guess, speculate, surmise, infer, fancy, imagine, believe, think, suspect, presume, assume, hypothesize, suppose "I conjectured that the game was over" Edited March 25, 2015 by 71st_Mastiff
SCG_Space_Ghost Posted March 25, 2015 Posted March 25, 2015 It certainly couldn't have anything to do with the fact that they know that absolute sources for VVS aircraft are rare outside of their country. Definitely not related to the ban on criticizing the Red Army. Nope. Never. Not at all. Until I see their graphs, their documentation, their testing and their evidence... Seems to me that they are violating the exact rule they are now expecting us all to follow.
BraveSirRobin Posted March 25, 2015 Posted March 25, 2015 It certainly couldn't have anything to do with the fact that they know that absolute sources for VVS aircraft are rare outside of their country. Definitely not related to the ban on criticizing the Red Army. Nope. Never. Not at all. Until I see their graphs, their documentation, their testing and their evidence... Seems to me that they are violating the exact rule they are now expecting us all to follow. You could create your own forum and ban them from it. 6
GOAT-ACEOFACES Posted March 25, 2015 Posted March 25, 2015 We've added a new rule today: 18. Claiming that FM is incorrect without the required proof and starting a flame thread based on such claim is prohibited. The form for an FM claim consists of: short but consistent description of the claim; link to a reference and to a specific part of such reference that describes correct behaviour of a disputed element/situation; game track record and the list of conditions used to recreate disputed element/situation. Not following this form in its entirety will result in locking (locking and deleting) such thread and also in the following: It is about time! As for the blue, What can I say, great minds think alike! Adler is interested in only one thing "Adler himself". no one else's opinion counts, only his. LOL You could create your own forum and ban them from it. 2xLOL
Feathered_IV Posted March 25, 2015 Posted March 25, 2015 GREAT! And create a separate sub-forum for such debate so that new and potential customers are not assaulted and turned away by relentless FM whining the moment they arrive in General Discussion.
DD_Arthur Posted March 25, 2015 Posted March 25, 2015 I think this is a pointless and counterproductive innovation. Are people scared of FM debates? Anyone with half a brain knows the difference between a fishing trip and a serious debate. Prohibition has always failed. It will just move elsewhere but - shock, horror - will still be visible on the interwebs. The devs need to relax. The game is maturing nicely. They just need to shoot a few foxes instead of their own feet.
6./ZG26_Custard Posted March 25, 2015 Posted March 25, 2015 (edited) I think this is a pointless and counterproductive innovation. Are people scared of FM debates? Anyone with half a brain knows the difference between a fishing trip and a serious debate. Prohibition has always failed. It will just move elsewhere but - shock, horror - will still be visible on the interwebs. The devs need to relax. The game is maturing nicely. They just need to shoot a few foxes instead of their own feet. Personally, I have never got into the FM debate simply because I'm not a pilot and have never sat in or "obviously" flown in any of the aircraft recreated in this game. Very few in the forum I suspect would have? So I'm in no real position to make comments about the handling capabilities of certain aircraft. I can look at all the files and graphs do in game tests et al but unless my backside has been parked in the driving seat of real Yak, 190 etc pulling G's, I don't think I will say too much about it. I do agree though that prohibiting debate however "lively" is never a good thing and I do agree that people can make their own informed choice about what is worth taking notice of and what is not. Constructive criticism never really hurt anyone, did it? Edited March 25, 2015 by OriginalCustard 1
GOAT-ACEOFACES Posted March 25, 2015 Posted March 25, 2015 Personally, I have never got into the FM debate simply because I'm not a pilot and have never sat in or "obviously" flown in any of the aircraft recreated in this game. First and foremost, being a pilot is not a requirement.. As a mater of fact, performance evaluation and performance comparison of real aircraft is typically done by non-pilots.. The only thing you need a pilot for is to fly the plane per the pre-determined test methods.. Something that in the very near future will not even be required, what with all the advancements being made in unmanned aircraft.. About the only thing pilots are good for is to obtain flying 'qualities' of aircraft, you know, stuff like, it makes this noise when you do this. I felt a vibration when I did that.. etc.. And even those kinds of things can be instrumented in modern testing.
Jason_Williams Posted March 26, 2015 Posted March 26, 2015 The team is clearly tired of conjecture, opinions and anecdotal evidence being used to criticize their work. I don't blame them for wanting to only handle these issues in a more formal way. Our programmers try to deal in facts. All they want is for you to show them empirical and video evidence of what is wrong backed up with your "official" sources that something is wrong. Han has already explained that they used Soviet tests for the majority of our flight data for BOS. Some of you want to kick out that data as biased because it was tested in USSR. Well, they can argue the same about German, Japanese and U.S. test data. Where users have provided clear information we got something wrong they changed it time and resources allowing. We've also explained that acquiring this test data was very difficult and we consider it a trade secret due to the rarity of acquiring such data so we do not release it publicly. But through the power of deduction you can find out what the data purportedly says by testing our aircraft in game as our goal has always been to get within a few percentage points of our source data. And there may be issues where the test data doesn't explain what should happen at a certain speed or in a certain situation. This is a grey area where there is no right answer and sometimes there is going to be a divergence of opinion. And there are real life pilots on this forum that say we got some things wrong and we have many pilots who have told us we have gotten things right so that is a loggerhead and goes nowhere really. There will never be a truly 100% accurate flight model in a flight sim due to a million factors. The only way is to go back in time and enlist. I'm sympathetic to both sides of the coin, but the team responds best to carefully researched and prepared arguments. Jason 12
6./ZG26_Custard Posted March 26, 2015 Posted March 26, 2015 (edited) First and foremost, being a pilot is not a requirement.. I can agree, but it certainly would help. From a gaming perspective I like the fact that the dev's and all involved are trying their best and I have mentioned before that they are clearly a dedicated bunch. The steady stream of updates are proof. It's impossible to please everyone and there are still things about BoS that I don't like very much (but there is a lot I do) Flaming, in my view is pointless and counterproductive but so too is prohibiting or stifling debate and discussion about certain elements of the game, but I can understand the frustration that this can cause.. Edit: There will never be a truly 100% accurate flight model in a flight sim due to a million factors. The only way is to go back in time and enlist. That about sums up the entire FM argument there for me Edited March 26, 2015 by OriginalCustard
GOAT-ACEOFACES Posted March 26, 2015 Posted March 26, 2015 The team is clearly tired of conjecture, opinions and anecdotal evidence being used to criticize their work. Not just the team.. Alot of users like myself are tried of it too 5
wellenbrecher Posted March 26, 2015 Posted March 26, 2015 Maybe you should make a rule against bug reports without attaching a fully fixed bit of code 3
GOAT-ACEOFACES Posted March 26, 2015 Posted March 26, 2015 (edited) I can agree, but it certainly would help. Well that depends IMHO.. On one hand you have open minded and seasoned pilots that realize the limitations of extrapolating their experiences in one type of plane to another.. Those types can HELP a flight simulation.. On the other hand you got closed minded newbie pilots that don't realize the limitations of extrapolating their experiences in one type of plane to another.. Those types can HURT a flight simulation. To make an analogy.. We have civilian pilots who have flown a 1972 180HP plane with a top speed of 97mph telling us how the in-game WWII 2000HP fighter with a top speed of 400mph does not 'feel' right compared to the planes they have flown.. So.. Would you take the word of a guy who drives a 1972 Ford Pinto telling us how the in-game Formula One racer does not 'feel' right based on the car he has been driving? Edited March 26, 2015 by ACEOFACES
6./ZG26_Custard Posted March 26, 2015 Posted March 26, 2015 To make an analogy.. Would you take the word of a guy who drives a 1972 Ford Pinto telling us how the in-game Formula One racer does not 'feel' right based on the car he has been driving. It's a good analogy but here is another ....Do we take the word of armchair pundits who has never sat in a warbird let along flown one, or do we listen to what pilots who have flown and are still flying in these machines have to say. I wasn't having a dig btw I was just generalising.
GOAT-ACEOFACES Posted March 26, 2015 Posted March 26, 2015 (edited) It's a good analogy What can I say.. It's a gift! but here is another ....Do we take the word of armchair pundits who has never sat in a warbird let along flown one, or do we listen to what pilots who have flown and are still flying in these machines have to say. Depends on the pilot.. I know of very few pilots here, if any, that have flown a WWII configured warbird.. So, your analogy is more of a 'what if'.. And the bad thing about 'what if' is they are typically extreme cases that are so far out there that they are not even worth considering let alone arguing about. That is to say, the 'exceptions' do not disprove the 'rule' But, assuming you could find someone that has flown a WWII configured plane, you would still have to determine which category (of the two types of pilots I listed above) the pilot falls into.. Assuming he is the open minded type that knows his limitations, you still have to contend with the FACT that humans, even open minded pilots, make terrible recording devices.. Even well trained test pilots are not great recording devices, hence the need to instrument planes to record data while flying.. Which bring us full circle.. Pilot accounts can be very Very VERY misleading! Best to crunch the data collected during the flight And, as I noted early on, you don't need to be a pilot to do that! I wasn't having a dig btw I was just generalising. Roger that bud! Edited March 26, 2015 by ACEOFACES
Bearcat Posted March 26, 2015 Posted March 26, 2015 OK enough of that. That kind of talk will not be tolerated at all. Testers do not get paid.
Original_Uwe Posted March 26, 2015 Posted March 26, 2015 (edited) Maybe you should make a rule against bug reports without attaching a fully fixed bit of code Spot on! Oh my, you guys just don't care about your image do you? [Edited] Edited? Seriously I don't get it it wasn't profane. [Edited] Yes edited. Please let this line of discussion go. Edited March 26, 2015 by Bearcat
9./JG27golani79 Posted March 26, 2015 Posted March 26, 2015 lol .. this whole "FM debate issue" just seems to be a problem on these forums - but well, even if I find it a bit ridiculous it´s their forums and they are free to enforce whatever rules they want ..
widgeon Posted March 26, 2015 Posted March 26, 2015 I think this is a pointless and counterproductive innovation. Are people scared of FM debates? Anyone with half a brain knows the difference between a fishing trip and a serious debate. Prohibition has always failed. It will just move elsewhere but - shock, horror - will still be visible on the interwebs. The devs need to relax. The game is maturing nicely. They just need to shoot a few foxes instead of their own feet. Agree with above. Half the fun of visiting the forum is reading the debates. If they are real issues, then someone proceeds with the formal data presentation. Simple. Bans are not good. 1
6./ZG26_Custard Posted March 26, 2015 Posted March 26, 2015 Depends on the pilot.. Or the armchair pundit... All joking aside though, I take your point that great flight data and crunching the numbers is scientific process. A marriage of the two though, Pilot info/data is probably the best of all?
Bearcat Posted March 26, 2015 Posted March 26, 2015 I think this is a pointless and counterproductive innovation. Are people scared of FM debates? Anyone with half a brain knows the difference between a fishing trip and a serious debate. Prohibition has always failed. It will just move elsewhere but - shock, horror - will still be visible on the interwebs. The devs need to relax. The game is maturing nicely. They just need to shoot a few foxes instead of their own feet. Perhaps.. but I don't think anyone is afraid of FM debates.. it is just that too many FM debates get turned into fishing trips ... As for it moving elsewhere.. well that goes without saying.. There are some places in cyberspace that only seem top come to life if there is something negative to talk about.. That will not change. I think the team is just basically getting tired of having their work constantly dumped on no matter what they do by a small band of folks who have done the same thing in at least 3 sims to date over the last 15 years.. lol .. this whole "FM debate issue" just seems to be a problem on these forums - but well, even if I find it a bit ridiculous it´s their forums and they are free to enforce whatever rules they want .. The whole "FM debate" has been a problem since flight sims began to exhibit higher fidelity FMs. The issue with this is not debate in and of itself.. but when that "debate" begins to morph into what amounts to "The devs got it wrong, they don't know what they are doing, they are intentionally hobbling certain aircraft while intentionally enhancing others.. etc etc etc.. instead of "This FM is off because: Fact-1 , Fact-2, Fact-3 .... " It can become problematic. How would you feel if certain people continued to dump on your work.. when you know that you have done your best to deliver.. Debate is one thing.. but multiple threads with multiple pages demanding that the devs "fix" things to individual liking with no proof that anything is even wrong other than opinion or feel is another... IMO the operative phrase to take away from this rule is this: 18. Claiming that FM is incorrect without the required proof and starting a flame thread based on such claim is prohibited. The form for an FM claim consists of: short but consistent description of the claim; link to a reference and to a specific part of such reference that describes correct behaviour of a disputed element/situation; game track record and the list of conditions used to recreate disputed element/situation. Not following this form in its entirety will result in locking (locking and deleting) such thread and also in the following: So if you think you have an issue.. do your homework instead of spamming the boards with your opinions and state it in the correct manner. It really is that simple. There are too many folks who even at this juncture will still latch on to any straw they can find to shoot down this sim and it's team or try to spam these boards with negativity. That there are still flaws with the sim is obvious and to be expected.. no sim is perfect nor will one ever be.. but consider that this decision was probably reached after not one but two updates .. that addressed many of the FM issues that some were complaining about.. and in spite of that there were still some who insisted that it was still wrong and that the devs did not do their homework properly.
6./ZG26_5tuka Posted March 26, 2015 Posted March 26, 2015 (edited) I don't think FM debate threads per se are the real issue. Infact I've seen some examples of quite reasonable cnversations about ingame FM and real aircraft performance on this forum. It's important and a nessety to both exchange inagme expiriences to determine possible bugs as well as educating people about real world aerodynamics and technical aspects of the aircraft The real issue are guys stepping in with no intent to carry the discussion but derailing it with sentences like "Typical Luftwhiner post", "Luftwaffe not OP enought" and "But I can do fine with it, get better and stop complaining" ect. Those guys tend to unleash the fire and not the OP or constructive contributers. As long as FM discussions remain on subject and don't get derailed by being tunrned into personal bashing threads by people who don't want things to be changed (to their favour) or have absolutely no interest but trolling I see no reason why such threads should be locked. Edited March 26, 2015 by Stab/JG26_5tuka 6
StG2_Manfred Posted March 26, 2015 Posted March 26, 2015 (edited) What can I say.. It's a gift! Depends on the pilot.. I know of very few pilots here, if any, that have flown a WWII configured warbird.. So, your analogy is more of a 'what if'.. And the bad thing about 'what if' is they are typically extreme cases that are so far out there that they are not even worth considering let alone arguing about. That is to say, the 'exceptions' do not disprove the 'rule' But, assuming you could find someone that has flown a WWII configured plane, you would still have to determine which category (of the two types of pilots I listed above) the pilot falls into.. Assuming he is the open minded type that knows his limitations, you still have to contend with the FACT that humans, even open minded pilots, make terrible recording devices.. Even well trained test pilots are not great recording devices, hence the need to instrument planes to record data while flying.. Which bring us full circle.. Pilot accounts can be very Very VERY misleading! Best to crunch the data collected during the flight And, as I noted early on, you don't need to be a pilot to do that! Roger that bud! I know that you know completely nothing! I'm still waiting for your first post where you contribute something to a subject instead of people telling how they should do things. I give you tip: Start testing things in your plenty of time adviced perfectly manner and post your experiences here. But this won't ever happen for sure, because [Edited]... @Mods: Sorry, but this was necessary Edited March 26, 2015 by Bearcat
Brano Posted March 26, 2015 Posted March 26, 2015 Personally, I have never got into the FM debate simply because I'm not a pilot and have never sat in or "obviously" flown in any of the aircraft recreated in this game. None of those selfproclaimed FM gurus here on forum did fly any of the warplanes presented in this sim.Some of them are real life pilots flying commercial or small aerobatic planes.That does not make them experts on 1940s fighters.Its like letting yourself to be patronized by scooter owner about how ducati superbike should behave on the road.It is ridiculous and funny,all in one sentence. Jason,for those vocal few,it is futile to explain anything.They made up their minds long ago and they will not change it,whatever you do or how well you explain it.Just do your job and dont get bothered by them. 3
GOAT-ACEOFACES Posted March 26, 2015 Posted March 26, 2015 (edited) Or the armchair pundit... Agreed 100% There are examples of good and bad in every aspect of life All joking aside though, I take your point that great flight data and crunching the numbers is scientific process.Bingo! A marriage of the two though, Pilot info/data is probably the best of all?Agreed 100% I know that you know completely nothing!Ah, I see where you made your mistake.. Apparently you have me confused with someone that values your opinion of me.. Hope that helps! Edited March 26, 2015 by ACEOFACES
GOAT-ACEOFACES Posted March 26, 2015 Posted March 26, 2015 Sure they can. Bring data to the discussion and you can have all the constructive rivet counting talk that you want. Troll with no data and you're not exactly being "constructive".Bingo!
303_Kwiatek Posted March 26, 2015 Posted March 26, 2015 (edited) Well nobody knows everything. Such topics could be a start for something more. Around here are knowledge people who could help in some observations and for proved some hypothesis. Censoring such things will really not help these sim to be better but just do otherwise. But it looks that some are happy with these. Edited March 26, 2015 by 303_Kwiatek
BraveSirRobin Posted March 26, 2015 Posted March 26, 2015 Such topics could be a start for something more. Bring data to the table and they will be. Troll with insults and no data and it looks like you'll get a vacation you can use to find the data. 1
widgeon Posted March 26, 2015 Posted March 26, 2015 I submit that an active forum is indicative of a sim or game that is popular, and vibrant. Case in point was the original Il-2 ubi forums, there were plenty of useless forum debates back then. The fact that people want to post should be looked at as a sign of healthy activity, not something to be squashed. In the end the useless posts fade away into eternity.
SharpeXB Posted March 26, 2015 Posted March 26, 2015 one of DCS flight engineer willingly take a part in FM diccusions. Getting pulled into pointless forum arguments is a total waste of time for these guys. Seriously. Come to them with real data and you're actually doing them a favor. Otherwise they have real work to do. 2
voncrapenhauser Posted March 26, 2015 Posted March 26, 2015 (edited) There will never be a truly 100% accurate flight model in a flight sim due to a million factors. The only way is to go back in time and enlist. +1 Near enough to match anecdotal evidence will always make me happy. Been playing Resident Evil Revalations II to death at the moment so haven't tried latest patch yet. Edited March 26, 2015 by voncrapenhauser
6./ZG26_Custard Posted March 26, 2015 Posted March 26, 2015 None of those selfproclaimed FM gurus here on forum did fly any of the warplanes presented in this sim.Some of them are real life pilots flying commercial or small aerobatic planes.That does not make them experts on 1940s fighters.Its like letting yourself to be patronized by scooter owner about how ducati superbike should behave on the road.It is ridiculous and funny,all in one sentence. I understand your point, but I would never just take just take the word of a self-proclaimed FM gurus or pilots of Cessna 172's when referring to the flight characteristics of 1940's combat aircraft. In many interviews with WWII pilots that I have seen over the years most will say, in combat the flight manual goes out the window and they pushed themselves and their aircraft to the absolute limit. I think the point I was trying to make was I am not really confident to engage in FM arguments because.... Well Jason summed it up better than I did... There will never be a truly 100% accurate flight model in a flight sim due to a million factors. The only way is to go back in time and enlist.
Recommended Posts