Yak can keep Up

[coconut]

Where are these files? I don't have an ai folder in luascrips

 

They are part of scripts.gtp, which can be extracted using a 3rd-party tool written for ROF called ungtp.

Edited June 12, 2015 by coconut

[Original_Uwe]

I may be wrong but it looks like the tas values are identical between the F4 and G2 atty SL, 3000 and 6000 meters.

Furthermore celestial and I have both had the F4 faster than 634 at 6000 meters so I wonder what these are?

Edited June 12, 2015 by forsale

[BeastyBaiter]

I'd love for you to start a new thread in the FM section with these figures but converted to TAS. The time over distance method seems to me to be the best measurement method and if you desire please feel free to use the 70km test track mission I posted in my thread on german fighter speeds. All you need to do is go into mission editor and change the aircraft and altitude as your heart desires.

I'd really be interested because in my tests the German fighters are rediculously well modeled (minus the F4 at 6000M).

 

And the devs have laid out the gauntlet, your tests are invalid without tracks to show your work. Please try to comply with their rules so we can get some valid consensus we can take to the devs.

 

The thing is, I don't have a problem with the flight models. I did those quick tests and listed them here because this thread had 2 pages of nonsense without numbers at the time. My results show that all of them appear to be about 8% faster than they should be under the listed conditions. But that is consistent with the cold air used in BoS. Even if it is slightly off, it is off by a universal percentage which doesn't fit what many posters were arguing at at the time.

 

Edit: The files above might have something to do with AI behavior rather than flight models. It doesn't look anything like flight model data to me unless you're playing Aces over Europe.

Edited June 12, 2015 by King_Hrothgar

[Original_Uwe]

The thing is, I don't have a problem with the flight models. I did those quick tests and listed them here because this thread had 2 pages of nonsense without numbers at the time. My results show that all of them appear to be about 8% faster than they should be under the listed conditions. But that is consistent with the cold air used in BoS. Even if it is slightly off, it is off by a universal percentage which doesn't fit what many posters were arguing at at the time.

 

Edit: The files above might have something to do with AI behavior rather than flight models. It doesn't look anything like flight model data to me unless you're playing Aces over Europe.

I understand, and if that's the car then please disregard my comments as they are intended toward the usual suspects who whine but never test or show their work.

 

Regardless I wish more people would do these tests so we can get more, better,and varied data.

[Wombat]

I like sims with as close to as potable flight modelling.  It makes you want to learn about each ac strengths and weaknesses if you want to see your kill rate rise and death rate drop. It's like a game of chess, each piece has it's own set movement. If you tried to play with just queens it just wouldn't be chess any more.  Some planes are great at turn fighting some are energy fighters, some light and frail some are tough and hard to bring down. Its these traits that made me fall in love with IL-1946 and it would be amazing if that could be done again.   

[Original_Uwe]

What do you feel is missing from this?

 

EDIT coconut I just checked the figures you posted against what I saw in game and they are REALLY close so o would love to know what they are.

Edited June 13, 2015 by forsale

[Wombat]

Hi forale, I think BOS is on the way to becoming a great sim.  I have not played a lot of late as I feel a bit burnt out after playing COD since release. I was hoping BOS would reignite my passion with introduction of the fw190 but it feels a little gamey atm. It's still a grate sim and it's nice to see people from other simming backgrounds getting into it. 

  As for your question I can only say a fw190 should be able to cut and run,regain e and re-enter a fight at will. Its speed down low was its strength. Atm you have to  cut and run a long time to get enough separation to even turn to face you pursuer. I could be wrong, it may just be me but I have flown (simmed) a long time. If there's a way to get more speed out of the bird I'd rely love to know. 

[6./ZG26_Custard]

I am amazed at just how many people on this forum are constantly critical of this issue or that "the flaps are wrong" "the flight model sucks" the "Yak over performs" etc and when you look at said critics flight time statistics they have 0 hours. I also hardly ever see any of the critics online.

 

 

When you have flown in BoS for an extended period of time and then try to return to what else is on offer in the WWII flight sim genre, you tend to realise just how advanced the FM's are in BoS, compared to what else is on offer.

[Wulf]

I am amazed at just how many people on this forum are constantly critical of this issue or that "the flaps are wrong" "the flight model sucks" the "Yak over performs" etc and when you look at said critics flight time statistics they have 0 hours. I also hardly ever see any of the critics online.

 

 

When you have flown in BoS for an extended period of time and then try to return to what else is on offer in the WWII flight sim genre, you tend to realise just how advanced the FM's are in BoS, compared to what else is on offer.

 

 

I'm critical of aspects of the flight model and I've been flying WW 2 flight sims for the past 20 years.  I also fly BoS online daily, in most cases - usually twice a day in fact.  That's more than can be said for most of the people around here whether for or against the issue. 

 

If the dev team are as good at FMs as you seem to suggest, why has the 190s FM changed so much over the past year?  Essentially, the status quo you're so happy to defend is in reality, a movable feast.

 

If there's one thing you can pretty much rely on with CFS it's the changing nature of the FMs over time.  The dev teams always claim, from day one, that they've got it just right (usually resulting from their ability to access secret archival documents unavailable to the general public) but then strangely, things gradually change over time.   Would they change without the carping complaints from disgruntled customers?   I somehow doubt it.  Is there a better way to achieve the desired results without unpleasant public spats?  Yes, but it would require the devs to devote a bit more time to the development of a constructive dialogue with the people who buy the game and actually give a monkey's.

[BlackDevil]

And often in the process of EA the change of the FMs were discussed, although they definitly didnt touch them. It was the placebo effect almost at every new patch. But the good thing was, most of the time it followed the line: "less wobbling now, lands better etc". Easy to see, the guys got some more training hours

Edited June 13, 2015 by BlackDevil

[6./ZG26_Custard]

I'm critical of aspects of the flight model and I've been flying WW 2 flight sims for the past 20 years.

 

 

I am critical of aspects of this sim too, the SP experience for one is dire, but thanks to the efforts of the community some fantastic missions have been created.

 

 

 

 

I've been flying WW 2 flight sims for the past 20 years

 

 

I like you also have a fair number of years experience with flight sims right back to Acornsoft's  Aviator in 1983.

 

 

 

If the dev team are as good at FMs as you seem to suggest, why has the 190s FM changed so much over the past year?

 

Are the FM's perfect? No they are not, but in my view they are significantly better than what else is available in this genre.     

 

The sim is being updated and changed over time because nothing is perfect.

 

 

 

Would they change without the carping complaints from disgruntled customers? I somehow doubt it

 

I remember all too well what happened with Clod in the early days when bowing to community pressure the Dev's tried to please everyone and look what happened there.

 

I am fairly sure the Dev's are trying to avoid that same mistake.

 

At least it is being updated and we still have a developer involved. If it goes belly up what we will be left with?

 

If we are left with development dead sims we have to then rely on the amateur modding community who are doing a great job but answer to no one. 

 

Who can prove that the handling characteristics FM's  DM's landing and takeoff procedures in modded sims are accurate? No one, because they aren't.   

 

 

 

Is there a better way to achieve the desired results without unpleasant public spats?

 

yes.

 

If people have issue with any aspect of this sim then as has been quoted by other people on here, post the findings in the appropriate section of the forum.

 

 

 

it would require the devs to devote a bit more time to the development of a constructive dialogue with the people who buy the game and actually give a monkey's

 

This works both ways doesn't it?  With respect to the OP a post that  ends with "please fix your Yaks" is about as useful as a fart in a spacesuit. And for the record, I do give a monkey's.

Edited June 13, 2015 by JG5_Custard

[coconut]

What do you feel is missing from this?

 

EDIT coconut I just checked the figures you posted against what I saw in game and they are REALLY close so o would love to know what they are.

 

Well, I have no more information beside what's in these files. I think we can take those as the performance the devs want to achieve, the desired outputs from the physics engine. That in-game measures match these numbers indicates the input parameters set by the devs in the physics engine are spot on, as far as the desired outputs are concerned. Then there will always be people who would wish the desired outputs were different, but unless historical data is provided I see no reason their wishes should prevail over someone else's wishes.

[Wombat]

Hi Custard not sure who you think is unqualified to have an opinion on fm, but I have been playing for close to 30 years.

 

Here's the stats of one month I was proud enough to screen shot off.

 

 

[6./ZG26_Custard]

 

 

Hi Custard not sure who you think is unqualified to have an opinion on fm, but I have been playing for close to 30 years.

 

I'm not questioning anyone's credentials or qualifications when it comes to FM's I am just giving my own opinion. I personally think that the FM's in BoS blow the rest away. If you spend a fair few hours flying in BoS and then go back to say Clod the limitations of that particular FM are apparent, and unless TF get their hands on the code (which I doubt) they will stay rudimentary, simplistic and unrealistic whether the "spits" catch fire or not.

 

This is of course my opinion, but like you I have 30 plus years of flight simming behind me.

 

Regards

 

Custard

[Original_Uwe]

yak can keep up and 109 cant stand

 

lets talk in rhyme for a time

 

people will thought more what they talk

 

besides in old times thats how they were the speeches

 

maybe next if we do best we can intone while singing a tune

A lovely suggestion

but here is another,

that we debate not as adversaries

but more as would brothers.

[IVJG4-Knight]

I'm not questioning anyone's credentials or qualifications when it comes to FM's I am just giving my own opinion. I personally think that the FM's in BoS blow the rest away. If you spend a fair few hours flying in BoS and then go back to say Clod the limitations of that particular FM are apparent, and unless TF get their hands on the code (which I doubt) they will stay rudimentary, simplistic and unrealistic whether the "spits" catch fire or not.

 

This is of course my opinion, but like you I have 30 plus years of flight simming behind me.

 

Regards

 

Custard

 

 

1.Look how the fw190 cockpit looked at release.I can't belive the developers has even sat inside a 190, ever. 

They raised the collimated gunsight artificially.Because otherwise you would see the crosshair target their unrealistic ,thick frame. You can't do such compromises if you want realism.

 

2.Untill a few patches ago the 190 controls became heavy at the same speed the 109 controls did. That's a hudge mistake.

 

3.The DCS 109 and 190 do not stall inverted like the BOS 109 and 190 do and DCS had the help of Erich Brunotte in development, a former Luftwaffe pilot.

 

4.Veao simulations will make their own "109" (a ha 1112) .They have access to the plane and a ton of pilots that fly the plane. You will not see that plane do inverted stalls like the BOS 109.

 

 

I like the 190 fm now and cockpit but that's because people like me whined on the forum.There is only the inverted stall part to fix.

 

I don't think the yak is a uber plane or that the yak flaps give it super powers.

 

 

"30 plus years of flight simming behind me" That proves what ?

 

 

To be fair to BOS it does have the best damage modeling I've seen. Best smoke, fire effects. Best clouds .

Edited June 13, 2015 by IVJG4-Knight

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

-snip-

 

This is of course my opinion, but like you I have 30 plus years of flight simming behind me.

 

-snip-

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

[6./ZG26_Custard]

1.Look how the fw190 cockpit looked at release.I can't belive the developers has even sat inside a 190, ever. They raised the collimated gunsight artificially.Because otherwise you would see the crosshair target their unrealistic ,thick frame. You can't do such compromises if you want realism. 2.Untill a few patches ago the 190 controls became heavy at the same speed the 109 controls did. That's a hudge mistake. 3.The DCS 109 and 190 do not stall inverted like the BOS 109 and 190 do and DCS had the help of Erich Brunotte in development, a former Luftwaffe pilot. 4.Veao simulations will make their own "109" (a ha 1112) .They have access to the plane and a ton of pilots that fly the plane. You will not see that plane do inverted stalls like the BOS 109. I like the 190 fm now and cockpit but that's because people like me whined on the forum.There is only the inverted stall part to fix. I don't think the yak is a uber plane or that the yak flaps give it super powers.

 

Like I said "nothing is perfect" so I don't really understand your point? I know it's not perfect..what is? I wasn't referring to DCS which in my view is a study sim. That too has it's problems, great FM's but appalling visual distance issues no WWII theatre of operations and ridiculous Uber AI. 

 

 

 

https://en.wikipedia..._from_authority

"No Argument from authority" from me. Wulf pointed out that he had 20 years of experience with flight sims and Wombat pointed out he had 30 years. I merely replied in kind. I'm allowed my opinion like you are.

 

 

"30 plus years of flight simming behind me" That proves what ?

It proves none of them a have 100% accurate because 30 years later people still whine about them.

Edited June 13, 2015 by JG5_Custard

[BeastyBaiter]

1.Look how the fw190 cockpit looked at release.I can't belive the developers has even sat inside a 190, ever. 

They raised the collimated gunsight artificially.Because otherwise you would see the crosshair target their unrealistic ,thick frame. You can't do such compromises if you want realism.

 

2.Untill a few patches ago the 190 controls became heavy at the same speed the 109 controls did. That's a hudge mistake.

 

3.The DCS 109 and 190 do not stall inverted like the BOS 109 and 190 do and DCS had the help of Erich Brunotte in development, a former Luftwaffe pilot.

 

4.Veao simulations will make their own "109" (a ha 1112) .They have access to the plane and a ton of pilots that fly the plane. You will not see that plane do inverted stalls like the BOS 109.

 

 

I like the 190 fm now and cockpit but that's because people like me whined on the forum.There is only the inverted stall part to fix.

 

I don't think the yak is a uber plane or that the yak flaps give it super powers.

 

 

"30 plus years of flight simming behind me" That proves what ?

 

 

To be fair to BOS it does have the best damage modeling I've seen. Best smoke, fire effects. Best clouds .

 

1) BoS raised the gunsight and altered the 3d model slightly to compensate for lack of refraction, DCS altered the 3d model only to compensate for lack of refraction. I prefer DCS's approach to it but both work.

 

2) True but as already noted by you, it was fixed months ago. It isn't like DCS doesn't have its share of errors and corrections.

 

3) You won't get that effect unless you very deliberately do it. But if you want to talk flight model problems, DCS has its share of problems too. For the Fw-190D9, it's the sticky tailwheel that makes raising the tail prior to lift off virtually impossible. It also has a takeoff speed of under 150km/h without flaps with full fuel and a 500kg bomb strapped to it.

 

4) They have several 109's planned including the gimp Spanish version. I have little confidence in their ability, however, given that they released their Hawk over a year ago and still haven't made a proper flight model for it yet.

 

Edit: A little more on the negative G stall, it occurs from exceeding max AoA downwards. This should result in a stall but probably shouldn't be possible to perform in the first place. The one issue I take with BoS's flight modeling is how much control input we get, it seems a little too generous in general. This is where some of our crazy AoA's and some unusual stall behavior originate.

Edited June 13, 2015 by King_Hrothgar

[Wulf]

 

 

 

"No Argument from authority" from me. Wulf pointed out that he had 20 years of experience with flight sims and Wombat pointed out he had 30 years. I merely replied in kind. I'm allowed my opinion like you are.

 

 

It proves none of them a have 100% accurate because 30 years later people still whine about them.

 

 

Yeah, because you said:  

 

I am amazed at just how many people on this forum are constantly critical of this issue or that "the flaps are wrong" "the flight model sucks" the "Yak over performs" etc and when you look at said critics flight time statistics they have 0 hours. I also hardly ever see any of the critics online.

 

 

So yeah, actually, you were questioning peoples' credentials.

Edited June 13, 2015 by Wulf

[Potenz]

What??  Not play the game????  But I've already paid for it haven't I.  Why would I not play it then?

 

i bought CliFF on day one pre order, now i don't have it even installed it when i paid $49 for it

so yes if you are not satisfied with something and you can't return it. just put it in the bin

[6./ZG26_Custard]

 

 

So yeah, actually, you were questioning peoples' credentials.

I'm not questioning anyone's credentials, I'm expressing a point of view like you are. 

[6./ZG26_Emil]

Looks like it's that time of the month for some people 

[SR-F_Winger]

2) True but as already noted by you, it was fixed months ago

Improved. Not fixed. The bar is sitll FAR too visible since its not at all visile in the real thing. The things they changed were halvhearted.

Consequent would be to just delete the bar. Period.

Edited June 13, 2015 by VSG1_Winger

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

 

1.Look how the fw190 cockpit looked at release.I can't belive the developers has even sat inside a 190, ever.

They raised the collimated gunsight artificially.Because otherwise you would see the crosshair target their unrealistic ,thick frame. You can't do such compromises if you want realism.

 

2.Untill a few patches ago the 190 controls became heavy at the same speed the 109 controls did. That's a hudge mistake.

 

3.The DCS 109 and 190 do not stall inverted like the BOS 109 and 190 do and DCS had the help of Erich Brunotte in development, a former Luftwaffe pilot.

 

4.Veao simulations will make their own "109" (a ha 1112) .They have access to the plane and a ton of pilots that fly the plane. You will not see that plane do inverted stalls like the BOS 109.

 

 

I like the 190 fm now and cockpit but that's because people like me whined on the forum.There is only the inverted stall part to fix.

 

I don't think the yak is a uber plane or that the yak flaps give it super powers.

 

 

"30 plus years of flight simming behind me" That proves what ?

 

 

To be fair to BOS it does have the best damage modeling I've seen. Best smoke, fire effects. Best clouds .

I am inclined to agree with you on much except point 3. There is ample documentation that the 190's accelerated stall could be vicious and result in flipping over the opposite wing. I think it has been posted from allied tests in this forum but I could be mistaken.

 

I have been simming for at least a year

[Danziger]

If the front panel of the canopy is thick armoured glass it will have what looks like a thick frame around it but its just the sides of the thick glass being refracted. I've seen it a lot while trying to look out through small but thick armoured glass windows on humvees and other armoured vehicles in Iraq.

[Willy__]

Knight, I suggest you take another spin on the 190, that screenshot you posted is from months ago, heres whats its look like now. (no raised gunsight!)

 

Edited June 13, 2015 by istruba

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

Istruba caught me in an La-5 last week and stayed with me through all of my defensive maneuvers. I want my money back! The Fw is !@#$ ! Either that, or I made a mistake and stayed in a fight with a Yak for way longer than I should have, didn't look around, lost my E and SA, and then took it low to try and escape. Nah, must be a crap plane.

 

~S, Istruba, GF.

[Wombat]

I am amazed at just how many people on this forum are constantly critical of this issue or that "the flaps are wrong" "the flight model sucks" the "Yak over performs" etc and when you look at said critics flight time statistics they have 0 hours. I also hardly ever see any of the critics online.

 

 

I now feel like a complete [Edited], The only reason I posted my time I've spent playing sims is that I thought the above post was aimed at me. Discussion and practice is the fastest way to develop this sim. But putting down others does more harm than good.

Edited June 18, 2015 by Bearcat
Moderation

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

And here are the numbers for the G2:

 

 

 

[performance]
    MaxSpeed           = 550.3
    MaxClimbRate       = 19.5
    ServiceCeiling     = 11500.0
    MinStructureHealth = 0.863
    MinEngineHealth    = 0.6
    EngineWarming      = true
    TurnRate           = 300.0, 67.0

    ////// ClimbTime = <float ALTITUDE>, <float TIME>
    ClimbTime = 0,0
    ClimbTime = 1000,54
    ClimbTime = 2000,107
    ClimbTime = 3000,162
    ClimbTime = 4000,222
    ClimbTime = 5000,285
    ClimbTime = 6000,358
    ClimbTime = 7000,450
    ClimbTime = 8000,575
    ClimbTime = 9000,687
    ClimbTime = 10000,854
    ClimbTime = 11000,1160

    ////// MaxAltTAS = <float ALTITUDE>, <float TAS>
    MaxAltTAS = 0,526
    MaxAltTAS = 1000,550
    MaxAltTAS = 2000,572
    MaxAltTAS = 3000,590
    MaxAltTAS = 4000,608
    MaxAltTAS = 5000,627
    MaxAltTAS = 6000,634
    MaxAltTAS = 7000,630
    MaxAltTAS = 8000,623
    MaxAltTAS = 9000,612
    MaxAltTAS = 10000,594
    MaxAltTAS = 11000,556

    ////// turn time at altitude (m/s) = <float ALTITUDE>, <float TIME>
    TurnTimeAlt = 0,23.7
    TurnTimeAlt = 1000,25.0
    TurnTimeAlt = 2000,27.6
    TurnTimeAlt = 3000,30.7
    TurnTimeAlt = 4000,33.7
    TurnTimeAlt = 5000,37.3
    TurnTimeAlt = 6000,42.4
    TurnTimeAlt = 7000,49.1

    ////// optimal turn CAS at altitude= <float ALTITUDE>, <float CAS>
    TurnOptimal_CAS_Alt = 0,250
    TurnOptimal_CAS_Alt = 1000,260
    TurnOptimal_CAS_Alt = 2000,260
    TurnOptimal_CAS_Alt = 3000,260
    TurnOptimal_CAS_Alt = 4000,270
    TurnOptimal_CAS_Alt = 5000,270
    TurnOptimal_CAS_Alt = 6000,260
    TurnOptimal_CAS_Alt = 7000,260

    MaxClimbCAS = 280
    MaxClimbRate = 19.5
    MaxAltitude = 11500.0
    CruiseFuelRate = 1.77  //[л./мин.] 280 км/ч (MinCruiseCAS); 1000 м; 50% бака, без подвесов, стандартная атмосфера
    PriorityType = 1				//FIGHTER=1,HEAVY_FIGHTER=2,LIGHT_BOMBER=3,BOMBER=4,LIGHT_RECON=5,RECON=6,SHTURMOVIK=7,CARGO=8
[end] 

 

 

 

And the FW190:

 

 

 

[performance]
    MaxSpeed           = 548.3
    MaxClimbRate       = 13.5
    ServiceCeiling     = 11300.0
    MinStructureHealth = 0.863
    MinEngineHealth    = 0.6
    EngineWarming      = true
    TurnRate           = 300.0, 67.0

    ////// ClimbTime = <float ALTITUDE>, <float TIME>
    ClimbTime = 0,0
    ClimbTime = 1000,74
    ClimbTime = 2000,151
    ClimbTime = 3000,238
    ClimbTime = 4000,332
    ClimbTime = 5000,431
    ClimbTime = 6000,534
    ClimbTime = 7000,655
    ClimbTime = 8000,803
    ClimbTime = 9000,993
    ClimbTime = 10000,1259

    ////// MaxAltTAS = <float ALTITUDE>, <float TAS>
    MaxAltTAS = 0,525
    MaxAltTAS = 1000,548
    MaxAltTAS = 2000,555
    MaxAltTAS = 3000,547
    MaxAltTAS = 4000,571
    MaxAltTAS = 5000,595
    MaxAltTAS = 6000,617
    MaxAltTAS = 7000,615
    MaxAltTAS = 8000,610
    MaxAltTAS = 9000,607

    ////// turn time at altitude (m/s) = <float ALTITUDE>, <float TIME>
    TurnTimeAlt = 500,23.5
    TurnTimeAlt = 1000,24.3
    TurnTimeAlt = 2000,27.4
    TurnTimeAlt = 3000,31.0
    TurnTimeAlt = 4000,34.3
    TurnTimeAlt = 5000,37.9
    TurnTimeAlt = 6000,43.1
    TurnTimeAlt = 7000,49.7

    ////// optimal turn CAS at altitude= <float ALTITUDE>, <float CAS>
    TurnOptimal_CAS_Alt = 500,310
    TurnOptimal_CAS_Alt = 1000,300
    TurnOptimal_CAS_Alt = 2000,290
    TurnOptimal_CAS_Alt = 3000,290
    TurnOptimal_CAS_Alt = 4000,290
    TurnOptimal_CAS_Alt = 5000,290
    TurnOptimal_CAS_Alt = 6000,280
    TurnOptimal_CAS_Alt = 7000,280

    MaxClimbCAS = 295
    MaxClimbRate = 13.5
    MaxAltitude = 11300.0
    CruiseFuelRate = 1.72       //[л./мин.] 280 км/ч (MinCruiseCAS); 1000 м; 50% бака, без подвесов, стандартная атмосфера
    PriorityType = 1				//FIGHTER=1,HEAVY_FIGHTER=2,LIGHT_BOMBER=3,BOMBER=4,LIGHT_RECON=5,RECON=6,SHTURMOVIK=7,CARGO=8
[end]
 

 

 

Interesting find, coconut. WHile obviously not eal FMs (which they probably secured better) it can indeed point out target values. Those are most likely under ICAO stnamdard atmosphere so oone needs to compare them to test flights in special missions.

 

It's suprising though that the Fw 190 is stated to be slower at low altitude than the G-2 and that the "Max speed" value for the Yak is stated higher than for the Bf109 F-4 depsite having lower TAS values. But yea, don't want to go offtopic.

Edited June 14, 2015 by Stab/JG26_5tuka

[6./ZG26_Custard]

 

 

I now feel like a complete dick head, The only reason I posted my time I've spent playing sims is that I thought the above post was aimed at me. Discussion and practice is the fastest way to develop this sim. But putting down others does more harm than good.

 

Hi Wombat,

 

There is no need for you to feel like that at all, My post was not aimed at any particular individual and I was just generalising

 

This thread started out by saying that the Dev's need to fix the Yaks. I have no problem with constructive criticism and sure there are issues with BoS, but probably the best thing anyone can do is collate some information and maybe post some pictures data or video about the problem.

 

Here is a great example http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/9152-ultimate-fw190-photo-evidence-thread/  I am amazed at how detailed a report that I/JG27_Nemesis has complied  and while I can appreciate that many do not have the time and inclination to do this kind of detailed a report, I have to take my hat off to him.

 

There is a section here http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/forum/89-technical-issues-and-bug-reports/ for people to report issues they have with the Sim. When individuals berate, flame and throw hostile criticism about like this "is crap fix it!" that is what does more harm  than good. 

 

Everyone has their "go to"  Sim of choice and BoS will never please everyone. Like 100% of other Sims in this genre it has problems. Will all the issues be completely ironed out? It's doubtful because it would probably take too much time and cost too much money to get it just perfect. Let's be honest though, nothing is perfect is it?

 

 

Anyone seeking a damn good time while flying in BoS should head over to here and sign up http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/16833-friday-night-bomber-flights-mission-4/?do=findComment&comment=265899  Because these Co-Op missions are just fantastic and harp back to what was happening in IL2 years ago.

 

 

Meanwhile the developers appear to be doing the best they can with the resources and the directives that they have been given. It will never please everyone but the same issues and discussions have been going on for years.

 

Regards

 

Custard

[Wulf]

Hi Wombat,

 

There is no need for you to feel like that at all, My post was not aimed at any particular individual and I was just generalising

 

This thread started out by saying that the Dev's need to fix the Yaks. I have no problem with constructive criticism and sure there are issues with BoS, but probably the best thing anyone can do is collate some information and maybe post some pictures data or video about the problem.

 

Here is a great example http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/9152-ultimate-fw190-photo-evidence-thread/  I am amazed at how detailed a report that I/JG27_Nemesis has complied  and while I can appreciate that many do not have the time and inclination to do this kind of detailed a report, I have to take my hat off to him.

 

There is a section here http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/forum/89-technical-issues-and-bug-reports/ for people to report issues they have with the Sim. When individuals berate, flame and throw hostile criticism about like this "is crap fix it!" that is what does more harm  than good. 

 

Everyone has their "go to"  Sim of choice and BoS will never please everyone. Like 100% of other Sims in this genre it has problems. Will all the issues be completely ironed out? It's doubtful because it would probably take too much time and cost too much money to get it just perfect. Let's be honest though, nothing is perfect is it?

 

 

Anyone seeking a damn good time while flying in BoS should head over to here and sign up http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/16833-friday-night-bomber-flights-mission-4/?do=findComment&comment=265899  Because these Co-Op missions are just fantastic and harp back to what was happening in IL2 years ago.

 

 

Meanwhile the developers appear to be doing the best they can with the resources and the directives that they have been given. It will never please everyone but the same issues and discussions have been going on for years.

 

Regards

 

Custard

 

 

The work done by Nemesis is certainly informative.  As I recall, the devs unveiled their 'revised' (but still incorrect) 190 frontal armoured glass rendering well before Nemesis produced his video on refraction.  So in other words, we're still waiting for the devs to come up with the goods.  In reality of course that's not going to happen.  I think the 190 community has generally accepted that is now the case.

 

So yeah, great work Nemesis; I guess a moral victory is better than no victory at all but maybe not by much.  

 

So ... whatever happened to Nemesis?  Is he still playing the game?

 

.

[Wombat]

 No worrys Custard.  I know what you mean about supplying dater but some times it's just a feeling. My own opinions and observation of the fw190 are just that and by no means fact. I said I could be wrong and if there is a way to get more speed from my beloved fw190 I'd rely like to know. I'm dabbling with the DCS  prop fighter, BOS and COD but none have yet reignited my passion. 

 

Oh and I was wrong about how long I've been simming, I stared when 30 year old and that was 20 years ago not 30. At my age it's easy to forget dates.

Edited June 14, 2015 by Wombat

[Stallion]

As someone primarily flying the Yak, I have NEVER chased down a 190 that was climbing/diving/extending unless I already had a monstrous energy advantage...

[Dr_Molenbeek]

190 are not that fast when he dives you just keep level and wait for him to raise slower than you one or two minute later

 

Unless the 190 pilot is smart and he does not dive for "getting a separation then run away" but to get some speed then start a high speed climb that the Yak-1 cannot follow.

[SYN_Vorlander]

I personllly think that FM are being tested on the open MP server that are not correct.

[Original_Uwe]

I personllly think that FM are being tested on the open MP server that are not correct.

Im sorry but I think there are unintended typos in your post, could you please clarify? You don't like the FMs or the manner of testing? Do you think that the servers are being used as a test for the FMs?

Edited June 15, 2015 by forsale

[SYN_Vorlander]

I think its possible that some beta testers are testing newer FM on the MP servers. So the FM for a specific plane will differ for some beta testers

Edited June 15, 2015 by SYN_Vorlander

[Original_Uwe]

Wow that's quite a supposition, I have to ask any evidence?

[LukeFF]

Wow that's quite a supposition, I have to ask any evidence?

 

It's complete, utter nonsense.