Jump to content

Game version 1.010 discussion


Recommended Posts

Jason_Williams
Posted

Guys,

 

We have created an FM discussion area. Put all your arguments in there. Just try to stay "scientific" and away from personal attacks and general nastiness.

 

As has been said many times and demonstrated by the team's actions over the past two years - well demonstrated proof of a problem backed up properly with video evidence and good sourcing may be considered by the team.

 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/forum/94-fm-discussion/

 

Jason

  • Upvote 8
Posted

 

 

As has been said many times and demonstrated by the team's actions over the past two years - well demonstrated proof of a problem backed up properly with video evidence and good sourcing may be considered by the team.

 

 

 

This... right here... I mean go taxi and fly the 190... stuff got said, stuff got did.

 

 

Some of ya'll be like:

 

PF-goldilocks_1393092c.jpg

 

ERMAGERD! DAS MINENGESCHOß EINE TOO COLDEN, KLAUS!!!

Posted

This... right here... I mean go taxi and fly the 190... stuff got said, stuff got did.

 

 

The takeaway from that is that stuff did not just get said.. stuff that was said was backed up... and there were results..

303_Kwiatek
Posted

Guys,

 

We have created an FM discussion area. Put all your arguments in there. Just try to stay "scientific" and away from personal attacks and general nastiness.

 

As has been said many times and demonstrated by the team's actions over the past two years - well demonstrated proof of a problem backed up properly with video evidence and good sourcing may be considered by the team.

 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/forum/94-fm-discussion/

 

Jason

 

And these is much better attitude.

 

Thx sir.

unreasonable
Posted

Excellent news! An FM debate area plus clear rules on what kind of presentation is needed to get a developer response.

 

I am sure very little moderation will be needed, since now the FM debaters will no longer clutter up the general discussion area, there will be no need for anyone who is not actually interested in FM topics to feel the need to make posts about how FM debates are pointless and annoying.

 

No-one needs to be banned, and no FM subject is off limits, provided discussion is phrased correctly.

 

Meanwhile those with expertise in designing and communicating convincing tests can make constructive suggestions that will be eagerly seized to improve on the initial efforts of novice FM debaters.

 

Everyone will be happy.

Jason_Williams
Posted

Excellent news! An FM debate area plus clear rules on what kind of presentation is needed to get a developer response.

 

 

Let me correct you a little bit. A possible developer response. We make no guarantees on that. Just to be clear. No matter what, in the end of every issue, the team may or may not hold an opposite or different view.

 

Jason

Posted

It's nice to see an FM discussion forum and I also appreciate rule #18. Both things should make this forum a much more enjoyable place.

 

On the other hand I'll never get why I am supposed to share my sources, for which I invested time and money, with the developers, for the sole purpose that they can improve their product and benefit from it, while they aren't willing to share their sources and thus offer nothing in return. It's either one hand washes the other, or a lot of dirty hands.

  • Upvote 1
BraveSirRobin
Posted

On the other hand I'll never get why I am supposed to share my sources, for which I invested time and money, with the developers, for the sole purpose that they can improve their product and benefit from it, while they aren't willing to share their sources and thus offer nothing in return. It's either one hand washes the other, or a lot of dirty hands.

 

You don't have to share your sources.  You can always use them to create your own flight sim.

  • Upvote 2
Posted

Been there, done that. They are still good sources.

BraveSirRobin
Posted

Been there, done that. They are still good sources.

 

If you've been there and done that, why are you here?  If I developed my own flight sim, I sure as hell wouldn't be helping these guys.  I'd be working on the next version of my game.

  • Upvote 1
Posted

You don't have to share your sources. You can always use them to create your own flight sim.

Haha +1
Original_Uwe
Posted

Haha +1

-1
  • Upvote 1
BraveSirRobin
Posted

You're off topic.

 

Just trying to help you out.

Posted

 

We have created an FM discussion area. Put all your arguments in there. Just try to stay "scientific" and away from personal attacks and general nastiness.

 

Hmmm. Has anyone considered the possibility that Jason might be laying a trap for some of the more contentious posters amongst us? :) One can hope anyway, can't one? :P

GOAT-ACEOFACES
Posted

On the other hand I'll never get why I am supposed to share my sources, for which I invested time and money, with the developers, for the sole purpose that they can improve their product and benefit from it,

Sole purpose?

 

No, you also benefit from it!

 

In that you as a user have a game with one less bug in it.

 

while they aren't willing to share their sources and thus offer nothing in return.

I can see both sides of this coin..

 

From the Dev's side I can understand why they would not want to share information (read sources) that they worked hard to find and maybe even paid for..

From the user's side I can NOT understand how the basic information of an aircraft can be considered 'secret' information (read source)..

 

Note.. wrt the user I specified 'basic information'

 

I can understand how the Dev's may not be willing to share information like the thickness of a wing spar, or the type of material used in making the landing gear, or the change in the cg of a plane due to a modification, or the drag coefficient of a plane due to a modification, etc.. etc.. You know the kind of stuff that may go into the development of the parameters of a flight model and could be used by their competitors.

 

But none of that type of information is what I would consider to be 'basic information'

 

When I say basic information, I am referring to things like the planes top speed, climb rates, turn rates, (read performance) etc.. basically the outputs of the flight model.

 

That makes no sense to me and makes any FM testing of the in-game planes kind of useless in that we don't know what the planes performance values should be!

 

Because as we all know, there are conflicting performance values out there!

 

So, we, as users could be reporting allot of FALSE FM error thread!

 

For example say the Dev's info/source says plane X should do 333mph @ 20kft, and the info/source a user has says plane X should do 366mph @ 20kft.. And we tested plane X and found it only does 333mph..

 

In such a case, the user would post a thread stating that there is a BUG in plane X's top speed, when in fact there is no bug

  • Upvote 1
Posted

If you've been there and done that, why are you here?  If I developed my own flight sim, I sure as hell wouldn't be helping these guys.  I'd be working on the next version of my game.

John-Wayne-p15_zpsx7rlmqii.jpg

Slow your roll there Pilgrim. You're out of line ....

 

 

I can see both sides of this coin..

 

From the Dev's side I can understand why they would not want to share information (read sources) that they worked hard to find and maybe even paid for..

From the user's side I can NOT understand how the basic information of an aircraft can be considered 'secret' information (read source)..

 

Note.. wrt the user I specified 'basic information'

 

I can understand how the Dev's may not be willing to share information like the thickness of a wing spar, or the type of material used in making the landing gear, or the change in the cg of a plane due to a modification, or the drag coefficient of a plane due to a modification, etc.. etc.. You know the kind of stuff that may go into the development of the parameters of a flight model and could be used by their competitors.

 

But none of that type of information is what I would consider to be 'basic information'

 

When I say basic information, I am referring to things like the planes top speed, climb rates, turn rates, (read performance) etc.. basically the outputs of the flight model.

 

That makes no sense to me and makes any FM testing of the in-game planes kind of useless in that we don't know what the planes performance values should be!

 

Because as we all know, there are conflicting performance values out there! So, we, as users could be reporting allot of FALSE FM error thread!

 

For example say the Dev's info/source says plane X should do 333mph @ 20kft, and the info/source a user has says plane X should do 366mph @ 20kft.. And we tested plane X and found it only does 333mph..

 

In such a case, the user would post a thread stating that there is a BUG in plane X's top speed, when in fact there is no bug

 

Go into IL2 and look at the "Objects>Aircraft" screen.. Now something like that I can see posted.. basic information about what the plane is supposed to do.. but consider that given the stage that BoS is at in it's development and the scale of "what needs to be done next" I can see where something like this would be a low priority.. Especially since nothing like it exists for RoF.. that I know of.. but to expect a developer to tell you how they arrived at their conclusions as far as FMs go  is silly. To expect any dev to divulge that information is naive at best... In my opinion anyway..

GOAT-ACEOFACES
Posted

Go into IL2 and look at the "Objects>Aircraft" screen.. Now something like that I can see posted.. basic information about what the plane is supposed to do..

 

Agreed, that is a good example of basic information..

 

Bigger problem with those is they typically only give you the top top speed, as in the fastest speed the plane could obtain, and they typically don't even tell you at what altitude that top top speed was obtained.

 

In English, basic yes, but pretty useless for testing the validity of the flight model

 

but consider that given the stage that BoS is at in it's development and the scale of "what needs to be done next" I can see where something like this would be a low priority..

 

Sad but true

 

Especially since nothing like it exists for RoF..

 

Which is also one of the biggest complaints about RoF in the RoF forums with regards to flight model accuracy

 

but to expect a developer to tell you how they arrived at their conclusions as far as FMs go  is silly. To expect any dev to divulge that information is naive at best... In my opinion anyway..

 

I am so glad to hear you agree with me!

 

And just to be crystal clear

 

I don't know of any flight sim maker that has shared how they arrived at their conclusions with regards to the development of the 'inputs' to their flight model..

 

So, as I already noted above, I don't condemn 1C/777 for that!

 

But I do know of a few flight sim makers that has shared the 'output' (read results) of their flight model!

 

Best example being ACES HIGH at hi-tech creations, i.e.

 

http://hitechcreations.com/gameinfo/plane-performance

 

At that link they show you the top speed and rate of climb performance values for every plane in the game, and, not only that you can do a side by side comparison of two planes. A very useful tool, that I hope 1C/777 finds the time to move up on their list of what is important to do. Because providing this would eliminate alot of the FM debates in this fourm, which I believe can have and does have a negative effect on some of the more impressionable users of the game, such that they start to believe some of the unfounded complaints about the BoS FM being 'arcadish' when in fact it may simply be a case of the user using the wrong values.

 

 

GOAT-ACEOFACES
Posted
Here is another way of looking at it..

 

When the plane manufactures made a plane, they knew they had to provide the pilots with the 'basic' performance values of the plane..

 

And most if not all pilots manuals provide the top speeds and rates of climb for a range of altitudes..

 

When the Deve make a simulated plane, they 'should' provide the sim pilot with the 'basic' performance values of the simulated plane..

 

We need a sim pilots manual that provides the top speeds and rates of climb for a range of altitudes..

  • LukeFF locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...