Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

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

Tbh. That makes no sense at all. Beta testing is done on special closed servers. Anything else would be ridiculous.

  • Upvote 2
StG2_Manfred
Posted (edited)

If you search pilots which constantly stating here everything is correct on www.il2.info you see that a lot of them have almost or completely no online experience. Interesting isn't it? They draw their conclusions from where?

Edited by StG2_Manfred
  • Upvote 2
Posted

If you search pilots which constantly stating here everything is correct on www.il2.info you see that a lot of them have almost or completely no online experience. Interesting isn't it? They draw their conclusions from where?

.. +1  :good:

Posted

Online human pilot or offline AI pilot.Both fly same machines with same FM.Why should be online "experience" some kind of prerequisite to judge smtg?

StG2_Manfred
Posted

Online human pilot or offline AI pilot.Both fly same machines with same FM.Why should be online "experience" some kind of prerequisite to judge smtg?

 

lol, if you think this would be the same it explains everything....

 

Does that show all servers? Twb or syn for example? Its a 3rd party app is it not? If it doesn't show all servers it isn't fair to judge people's opinions from it.

 

Agreed, it's not completely fair. But some people here with the loudest voices have completely no record there, not a single one. Really? Wings of liberty is the most polulated server for weeks now and they dind't fly on this server? And this one counts the statistics.

 

Yes, if one fly only on single player, empty servers, or normal servers I'm not surprised people come to their (wrong) conclusions, like Brano above (sorry Brano....)

Posted

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

LoL " my , my "  what a thread this has turned out tobe .

Posted

 

 

Yes, if one fly only on single player, empty servers, or normal servers I'm not surprised people come to their (wrong) conclusions, like Brano above (sorry Brano....)

 

Wow ... I really feel put in my place right now.  I spend 99% of my flying time on 'Normal' servers and in my experience, prosaic as it  may be to an Expert server guy such as yourself, I've run into some pretty darn good online flyers there.  And as far as I know, the issues with flaps, speed, roll and energy retention are no different on Normal to what they are on 'Expert' where you tough guys fly.

Posted

Human "octopus" will always game the game.And I have my share of online sessions,too.Mostly flying on russian servers (DED).Not everyone can spend hundreds of hours online,but when I connect,I give LW a good beating,be sure :)

And that my assumptions are wrong? Well,thats your oppinion,Manfred.We can agree to disagree here.

Happy hunting :)

Posted

If you search pilots which constantly stating here everything is correct on www.il2.info you see that a lot of them have almost or completely no online experience. Interesting isn't it? They draw their conclusions from where?

 

same as everyone else, by "flying" the planes in-game and comparing the results to historical flight tests and empirical, verifiable data. The FM is the same in SP and MP.

 

playing "online" while sitting in your room holding a plastic joystick in front of a computer screen does not give anyone a special insight on FMs.

 

Now if someone has actual real world flying experience on these or comparable aircraft types, that would be pertinent. Does anyone here have that?

StG2_Manfred
Posted

same as everyone else, by "flying" the planes in-game and comparing the results to historical flight tests and empirical, verifiable data. The FM is the same in SP and MP.

 

playing "online" while sitting in your room holding a plastic joystick in front of a computer screen does not give anyone a special insight on FMs.

 

Now if someone has actual real world flying experience on these or comparable aircraft types, that would be pertinent. Does anyone here have that?

 

Firstly, it would be better you say MAYBE the FM is in SP and  MP the same, because what evidence do you have for this statement?

 

Secondly, let's assume it is the same, the AI flies never ever as hard as a human pilot do. And on 'normal' MP, players fly without full CEM at least.

 

That's why I mentioned the statistics site....

  • 1CGS
Posted

 

 

Firstly, it would be better you say MAYBE the FM is in SP and  MP the same, because what evidence do you have for this statement?

 

It is the same FM in whatever game mode one plays, and it's been that way since ROF. 

 

Seriously guys, where do you come up with some of these conspiracy theories? First accusations the beta testers are using different flight models than everyone else, and now this? 

  • Upvote 3
Posted

Going back to RoF and up to the present day, one of the chief claims of this team is that the flight models are the flight models.  They are the same for the players and the ai, they are the same off line and on line.  It is one of the things they are very proud of and any claim that they have changed that is the claim that has to be supported.  You, Manfred have the burden of proof here, not the other way around.

  • Upvote 1
Original_Uwe
Posted

It doesn't matter who you are or where you fly, it matters that you can conduct documented, repeatable tests and post them for the consideration of others.

 

Personally I don't play anymore because it's just boring, I've been spending my time over the western front in a SPAD or DR1. That doesn't mean I can't create a test track, eliminate as many variables as possible and test the performance of the aircraft in this sim.

 

What's worse, is the people who constantly complain of bias, or incorrect performance or secret hidden agendas NEVER post their own tests to show prove their ideas, they just insist that they have special insight because of how hard core they are.

  • Upvote 4
Posted

Going back to RoF and up to the present day, one of the chief claims of this team is that the flight models are the flight models.  They are the same for the players and the ai, they are the same off line and on line.  It is one of the things they are very proud of and any claim that they have changed that is the claim that has to be supported. 

 

And rightly so, they should be proud of that. People are often quick to complain about stupid stuff the AI does, but you don't hear often enough how good it is when it does its job. It can taxi, take-off, cruise, fight, bomb, land, alone or in groups... All using the regular physics. It's no small feat to develop such an AI.

  • Upvote 1
StG2_Manfred
Posted

It doesn't matter who you are or where you fly, it matters that you can conduct documented, repeatable tests and post them for the consideration of others.

 

Personally I don't play anymore because it's just boring, I've been spending my time over the western front in a SPAD or DR1. That doesn't mean I can't create a test track, eliminate as many variables as possible and test the performance of the aircraft in this sim.

 

What's worse, is the people who constantly complain of bias, or incorrect performance or secret hidden agendas NEVER post their own tests to show prove their ideas, they just insist that they have special insight because of how hard core they are.

 

You mean like the documents and repeatable tests which you contributed? You demand constantly from others but never provide those evidence on your own.

 

Also, for me it's quite interesting how reflexive you all reply just when I mention your online time on an Expert servers.  

unreasonable
Posted

The most interesting thing I have learned from that site (indirectly) is that Cicero wrote that "There is no one who loves pain itself, who seeks after it and wants to have it, simply because it is pain".

 

Sometimes reading this forum you have to wonder if that is right... ;)

BraveSirRobin
Posted

The most interesting thing I have learned from that site (indirectly) is that Cicero wrote that "There is no one who loves pain itself, who seeks after it and wants to have it, simply because it is pain".

 

Sometimes reading this forum you have to wonder if that is right... ;)

 

Read the SimHQ forum and you won't have to wonder any more.

Original_Uwe
Posted (edited)

You mean like the documents and repeatable tests which you contributed? You demand constantly from others but never provide those evidence on your own.

 

Also, for me it's quite interesting how reflexive you all reply just when I mention your online time on an Expert servers.

I couldn't care less about online, but if you'd like to check my work go to the FM section.

 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/16186-german-fighters-speed-testing-they-seem-pretty-darn-close/?do=findComment&comment=265073

 

I even posted the test track mission so feel free to use it and dispute my results.

 

As far as climb and energy retention I'd love to test them but simply don't know how we go about that without so many variables as to make any test irrelevant.

Edited by forsale
Posted

I have never seen AI pilots of Yaks using full flaps down for a better turnrate, loop, dive..stability at high alts and more.. and climb at minimal speed.... like online pilots (yeah.. mabye AI pilots dont know that the Yak is able to use this) ...

II/JG17_HerrMurf
Posted

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

As a former tester I can tell you that is not true. Beta is done on a closed server and has a separate folder/login from what is used in open servers. Testers can fly in either but the Beta testing is isolated to that/those (Beta) servers.

SYN_Vorlander
Posted

 

As a former tester I can tell you that is not true. Beta is done on a closed server and has a separate folder/login from what is used in open servers. Testers can fly in either but the Beta testing is isolated to that/those (Beta) servers.

Thanks.

Posted

I have never seen AI pilots of Yaks using full flaps down for a better turnrate, loop, dive..stability at high alts and more.. and climb at minimal speed.... like online pilots (yeah.. mabye AI pilots dont know that the Yak is able to use this) ...

 

Yak's aren't the only one's who did this... 

 

QXpjEC5.png?1

Posted

 

Yak's aren't the only one's who did this...

 

QXpjEC5.png?1

That's an awesome quote. What's the source?

BraveSirRobin
Posted

It sounds like the B-17's flight model was messed up.

Posted

 

 From a combat report by F/Lt J.A. Coghlan, 56 Sqn, for July 10th, 1940:

 

"I found that I could better out-manoeuvre the Me 109’s and 110’s with 5 to 10 degrees of flap lowered. The loss of speed to my Hurricane was not appreciable. Engine revs were 28.00 on my rotol airscrew.”

 

http://www.pprune.org/8178787-post26.html

Posted

i remember lowering flaps was a common practice on the old 1946, that all

the planes has that combat position for the flaps (i think the only one that

does not had it was the spit and seafire)

Posted

Firstly, it would be better you say MAYBE the FM is in SP and  MP the same, because what evidence do you have for this statement?

 

..

This says a lot about your credibility.

  • Upvote 2
SKG51_robtek
Posted

This says a lot about your credibility.

That says that you are very trusting, as you dont have proof either.

 

Its all about trustworthiness, isn't it?

BeastyBaiter
Posted

Why wouldn't they be the same? Why would the devs go to the trouble of making two different sets of flight models? And if they did so, why would they claim there is only one flight model per plane and it's used everywhere by everyone, even the AI? I know how we can settle this whole silly debate:

 

post-13947-0-76924900-1434494527_thumb.jpg

BraveSirRobin
Posted

That says that you are very trusting, as you dont have proof either.

 

Its all about trustworthiness, isn't it?

 

No, it's about common sense.  And it should take you only a few minutes of testing to prove that there are different MP and SP flight models.  Have you done that?

 

BTW, it's impossible to prove that they're the same, because the doubter can always claim that they're different in ways that you have not tested yet.  Proving that they're different, on the other hand, should be pretty easy.  I'm looking forward to your results.

  • Upvote 1
StG2_Manfred
Posted

This says a lot about your credibility.

 

So? What does it say about my credibility? And who you are if you think you can judge the credibility of others?

 

If you'd read my post carefully you would have realized I didn't say the FM's are different, I was asking how one could say it for sure. And my initial statement was, that a lot of people here have apparently only little online experience and judge from fights they had against AI pilots. 

Posted

Because that's not how it works outside of sophomore bull sessions.  The, you can't prove it's not so argument can be used to prove anything!  You can't prove 'for sure' that the Wizard of Oz isn't real.  So what.  In the real world he's not real.  When RoF came out it was standard operating procedure for games to have different flight models for ai.  It was a way to even up the bad ai scripts.  RoF claimed and many tried and failed to disprove the fm's are the same.  They failed.  If you are arguing against a well supported claim it is up to you to prove the claim.  Otherwise to quote Calvin Coolidge:

 

"you lose"

StG2_Manfred
Posted (edited)

Once and for all I didn't say the FMs are different.

 

[Edited]

 

You can keep your Calvin Coolidge

Edited by Bearcat
Lets keep religion out of all this guys..
Posted

Once and for all I didn't say the FMs are different.

 

There is a 'well supported claim', that Jesus is the son of God. And quite a lot of people including me have doubts about it, even we cannot disprove it. Whatever you want to believe is of course up to you, but I prefer empiric evidence.

 

You can keep your Calvin Coolidge

 

Except in this case the Dev's and programmers are alive and here, able to state  their point, which they have done many times...not a very valid argument

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Posted (edited)

Is Manfred behaving like an a€&%# ?

 

Once and for all, I am not saying he is an a€&%# ! I am just asking ;)

Edited by BlackDevil
JG13_opcode
Posted

None of this is really constructive, is it?

 

If you can produce graphs that show the yak can/can't keep up, then show them.

 

If you can produce recordings/video that show the yak can/can't keep up, then show them.

 

Otherwise I'm not sure what you hope to accomplish.  :)

 

Internet_44c98f_352549.jpg

 

 

StG2_Manfred
Posted

Dakpilot and Blackdevil, both without a single record on www.il2.info - says enough....

9./JG27golani79
Posted

 

3) [...]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. :rolleyes:

 

 

The tailwheel lifts just fine .. well, and taking off below 150km/h with a 500kg bomb? Not gonna happen ..

=LD=Penshoon
Posted

I suck online but my take on this is that the 109 is superior in most performance figures but the Yaks handling is more forgiving to fly on the edge. With a small altitude advantage the Yak can keep up with the 109 for a while and force him to maneuver. As long as you keep the 109 in front of you turning you can stay with him and wait for an opportunity to hose him down. 

IRRE_Belmont
Posted

Dakpilot and Blackdevil, both without a single record on www.il2.info - says enough....

That is not a ''proof'', the site is not official and not every server is present there...

Enough said, keep your remarks for yourself next time  ;)

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...