Surprised to see Cliffs of Dover FMs very good considering the age

[Crump]

That discussion was specifically about whether the 190 supercharger gear change was triggered by pressure altitude or by atmospheric pressure, not "how engines work".  

 

No, that discussion was the fact you confused a pressure capsule that maintains a fixed point on the linkage adjustable datum with having anything to do with supercharger gear change being triggered by pressure altitude. 

 

Again, despite the linkage capsule adjustment instructions straight out the KG manual being posted for you to read AND the NACA measurements over density altitude...YOU CANNOT ADMIT YOU ARE WRONG.

Edited September 19, 2016 by Crump

[Crump]

 

 

So according to the developers, you were wrong - but you continue to repeat this nonsense.

 

They are flat out wrong and like you cannot explain why the FW-190 throttle can be labeled with throttle positions that always correspond to an engine setting under any density altitude....

 

 

 

While other aircraft cannot have the throttle marked to correspond to a specific engine setting under any density altitude....

 

 

Hint:  It has to do with the KG pressure capsules keeping a fixed point on the adjustable datum.....

[unreasonable]

I have no intention of rehashing this argument, anyone who is interested can read the original NACA document and read the conclusion in plain English.

 

The original threads seem to be lost now, no doubt much to your relief - having a philosphy graduate point out that you had misread an engineering graph must have been difficult.

 

But I am glad to see that you admit that the developers were in agreement with my point, even though you think "they are flat out wrong". Of course it is sometimes the case that everyone else is flat out wrong, while a single lone voice sees the truth....just not in this case.

 

Since this is not part of the FM discussion section of the forum your claim is a blatant violation of forum rules, btw, not that I approve of censorship.

[unreasonable]

I only looked at this thread since I, like almost everyone else, purchased CloD; more in hope than expectation given the way the project had been communicated over the years; then quickly discarded it as a tragic waste.

 

Not really having the time anymore to pursue patches and so on until they are stable and working, I had ignored the Team Fusion efforts up to now. Given the talk about releasing a new theatre, I have to assume that the work on the core game had progressed about as far as is possible, so it might be worth another look.

 

Obviously from this thread it seems that it is so I may well give it another go: my only remaining reservation is installation - I am not completely hopeless with installing odd stuff but there is a limit to how many hoops I will jump through; so is it easy? Is there an installer that will work with Steam copies? 

[Kurfurst]

UR, the Team Fusion patches are excellent, do not miss them out. They made CLOD what it should have been at the start.

 

They do work with steam installs, though I do not have CLOD and/or installed now (the 1940 Channel is, sadly, proved to be quite boring to me), but when I had their earlier patches, I recall it wasn't anything difficult to do. The instructions were clear and it worked well. There was even a performance boost (microlags gone)

Edited September 19, 2016 by VO101Kurfurst

[unreasonable]

UR, the Team Fusion patches are excellent, do not miss them out. They made CLOD what it should have been at the start.

 

They do work with steam installs, though I do not have CLOD (the 1940 Channel is, sadly, proved to be quite boring to me), when I had their earlier patches, I recall it wasn't anything difficult to do. The instructions were clear and it worked well.

 

Thank you for that, I shall give them a try. I am not too bothered about all of the details, it is only a game, but to my generation of Britons Spitfires have a special emotional pull; plus I very much like the BoB green and brown colour schemes. Also I get to fly over the area I was raised, even if it looks a bit odd - my grandfather was an RAF electrical fitter at Biggin Hill. So if Fusion have got the game into a state where you do not have to pull your hair out with frustration every ten minutes I will be delighted.

[Stig]

Their are lots of helpful guides  on theairtacticalassaultgroup.com/index.php and also www.aircombatgroup.co.uk/ and probably on other sites. It's well worth it. 

[Mysticpuma]

I only looked at this thread since I, like almost everyone else, purchased CloD; more in hope than expectation given the way the project had been communicated over the years; then quickly discarded it as a tragic waste.

 

Not really having the time anymore to pursue patches and so on until they are stable and working, I had ignored the Team Fusion efforts up to now. Given the talk about releasing a new theatre, I have to assume that the work on the core game had progressed about as far as is possible, so it might be worth another look.

 

Obviously from this thread it seems that it is so I may well give it another go: my only remaining reservation is installation - I am not completely hopeless with installing odd stuff but there is a limit to how many hoops I will jump through; so is it easy? Is there an installer that will work with Steam copies? 

 

Summary of what we have done and are in the progress of doing at Team Fusion

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJ38SWP6KWo

 

Cheers, MP

Edited September 19, 2016 by Mysticpuma

[II./JG77_Manu*]

So far i have around 500 hours in BoS, and 80 in Cliffs. If TF5.0 will become as good as it looks in the previews i think i will shift my main attentions over to Cliffs.

Especially when i get a VR device. I am worried that the current spotting in BoS (being forced to zoom in to see contacts) won't work too good in VR, wheras Cliffs's system seems way better suited for it

[SYN_Mike77]

I decided to fire this turkey up on my new rig and see what it would look like all maxed out, but now it wont even launch.   Typical CloD.

[SvAF/F16_Goblin]

Some stupid questions SYN_Mike:

Have you installed all TF patches?

Have you turned off patching in steam?

The last patch the other month broke everything and it won't launch on W10 with that installed.

Deactivate that update and install all TF patches in right order and it works. Hope that helps mate.

Edited September 19, 2016 by I./ZG1_Goblin

[Lusekofte]

 

 

Typical CloD.

 

Typical attitude, what about try to solve the problem. I can tell you about typical BOS. 1 wheel in the snow while taxiing and the bloody plane is stuck, if they fix this people going to take off in all directions and crash into someone, this is typical BOS and apparently a unsolvable one, yours is not. It is easy fixes with a easy search 

[Mysticpuma]

I decided to fire this turkey up on my new rig and see what it would look like all maxed out, but now it wont even launch.   Typical CloD.

Hi Syn. Don't despair. Firstly if you have installed from Steam CloD won't launch unless you do the following:

 

"Windows 8 and upwards users. Important!!!

 

If you have Windows 8 or 10 and want to run CloD (Vanilla) you will have to use the Cloder.exe file.

 

https://www.mediafire.com/?6td6vxnr0aensa5

 

Download it, unzip it. Copy the files into your C:\Program Files (x86)\Steam\steamapps\common\IL-2 Sturmovik Cliffs of Dover (or wherever your default steam Cliffs of Dover is installed)

 

Right- Click on the Launcher.exe in the same folder and choose "Properties". Click on the "compatibility tab", tick the box next to "Run as Administrator". Do the same for the Cloder.exe file you just copied into the same folder.

 

I had issues running the vanilla version again. This works fine now"

 

The thing is, if you patch your CloD with the Team Fusion patches (after turning off updates and betas from Steam) CloD will run fine.

 

For a more detailed article on what to do since the latest official patch broke most people's game, check out this thread:

 

http://theairtacticalassaultgroup.com/forum/showthread.php?t=23164

 

Cheers, MP

[DD_Arthur]

And don't forget to turn the gas off and put the Cat out!

[SYN_Mike77]

Exactly Arthur!  When it turns into a chore to even turn the game on, count me out.  Especially when there is a much better alternative out there.

[Sokol1]

I recommend use this, not that is need, but guaranteed.

Edited September 20, 2016 by Sokol1

[BraveSirRobin]

I can tell you about typical BOS. 1 wheel in the snow while taxiing and the bloody plane is stuck, if they fix this people going to take off in all directions and crash into someone, this is typical BOS and apparently a unsolvable one

 

That is actually easy to solve. Don't drive off the taxiway.

[Lusekofte]

-Yep I know, hd to steam a little, I just cannot stand the helplessness in this discussion, and I was not aiming for the balls I really do like BOS you know

[Crump]

I have no intention of rehashing this argument, anyone who is interested can read the original NACA document and read the conclusion in plain English.

 

The original threads seem to be lost now, no doubt much to your relief - having a philosphy graduate point out that you had misread an engineering graph must have been difficult.

 

But I am glad to see that you admit that the developers were in agreement with my point, even though you think "they are flat out wrong". Of course it is sometimes the case that everyone else is flat out wrong, while a single lone voice sees the truth....just not in this case.

 

Since this is not part of the FM discussion section of the forum your claim is a blatant violation of forum rules, btw, not that I approve of censorship.

I would not be so happy about it. It shows a gaping issue in the genre and the community. It also highlights the egofest and poisonous attitudes in both the community and the Dev's..

 

These are the result of systemic problems not individual or even specific design teams.

 

Most of these Dev's making flight sims are computer and graphic guys....not aeronautical sciences guys. It has become very expensive to develop these games and computer models. They seem to "go cheap" on the aerodynamics either gleening it off the internet, leveraging friendships, or renting some time from an engineer.

 

I think the Dev's in BoS modeled things they way they originally because they were given bad information. Any engineer who would simply shake his head at the idea basing an aircraft engines operation off pressure altitude. I am sure somebody in the dev team thought...wow, that is really weird and why would BMW do that. It is just not based on the science of how things work.

 

 

In BoS the community has an FW190 based on polars clearly entitled in German, "Propeller at Zero Thrust". That is a drag measurement tool for engineers. The wing lift production is not compatible to any condition of flight for the airplane.

 

That is why the FM in the game behaves like a severe icing event instead of normal flight behaviors.

 

The same basic systemic problems are seen in CloD. That is why the negative G cut gains considerable velocity with a windmilling propeller and you gain airspeed in slip with a windmilling propeller.....

 

So, Is it better for those working on these games bury their head in the sand with cries of "You is wrong!" counting on the fact the majority of players have no experience outside of a game representation or do they listen to constructive criticism from knowledgable sources to improve the experience?

 

Pretending problems are not there when they clearly are present will only get them so far and only with a certain percentage of their customer base.

 

It will only continue the shrinking of player base and is not going to improve the long term picture or grow the community.

 

17. Spreading false or harmful information about the product is prohibited and will be deleted by forum administration. Claiming ignorance of the subject to justify harmful or obviously untrue info will not be tolerated.

Violations of this rule will result in the following:

First offense - 1 days ban on entry

 

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.

Exception to this rule: FM discussion

 

Not following this form in its entirety will result in locking (locking and deleting) such thread and also in the following:

First offense - 7 days ban on entry

Edited September 21, 2016 by BlackSix

[Stig]

If the aeronautical sciences guys always agreed with one another, i guess the computer and graphics guys might have an easier job. 

[Crump]

If the aeronautical sciences guys always agreed with one another, i guess the computer and graphics guys might have an easier job.

 

You mean if the safety engineer, philosophy major, and aeronautical sciences guys agreed with one another the computer and graphics guys would have an easier time.

[Stig]

In relation to  CFS I would settle for the aeronautical sciences guys.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

Most of these Dev's making flight sims are computer and graphic guys....not aeronautical sciences guys. It has become very expensive to develop these games and computer models. They seem to "go cheap" on the aerodynamics either gleening it off the internet, leveraging friendships, or renting some time from an engineer. I think the Dev's in BoS modeled things they way they originally because they were given bad information. Any engineer who would simply shake his head at the idea basing an aircraft engines operation off pressure altitude. I am sure somebody in the dev team thought...wow, that is really weird and why would BMW do that. It is just not based on the science of how things work. In BoS the community has an FW190 based on polars clearly entitled in German, "Propeller at Zero Thrust". That is a drag measurement tool for engineers. The wing lift production is not compatible to any condition of flight for the airplane. That is why the FM in the game behaves like a severe icing event instead of normal flight behaviors.

 

 Crump i believe that 1C/777 developers have aeronautical engineer in their team. His name is An. Petrovich and he is (?) responsible for flight models. Any way i remeber him from Rise of Flight. And i thinks of him as competent man.

 

IMHO It's good what are you doing (arguing with competent knowledge it seems), maybe not in this game but in next generation we will have fresh/yet another approach to filgh models which will shift towards more realistic modeling of flights physics. Your posts somehow serve that purpose.

 

In early stage of Rise of flight development there was place for discussion between developers and community about FM but today FM are big taboo and touchy subject.

Edited September 20, 2016 by 307_Tomcat

[Quax]

 I consider P3D next year when I buy a new rig.

 

 

FM of CloD is only outdated, FM in P3D is not existing   (...ok - it is only outdated as well, but from the first MSFS of 1988)

[ACG_KaiLae]

Actually, can you two please go PM and spare the rest of us your personal p****ng contest, pretty please!

Or, if you are really interested in solving this, go PM and present a common solution and present it in a understandable civil fashion that might make 777/1C listen to you and implement a better mathematical design.

They would actually need to post on the ATAG forum, but I think I said that already.

[Quax]

Regarding FM, I find bombers in BoS too responsive on commands, and sometimes unrealistically unsteady; I like more CoD's heavyness.

 

I am not sure, where this misunderstanding is coming from. "Heavy planes" are modelled as "non-responsive" in bad simulations. For example: B747 in P3D or xplane, or heavy bombers in Clod. This has nothing to do with reality. Try to fly a low circling in gusty winds with those sims, and you see that this can't be real.

[Lusekofte]

 

 

"Heavy planes" are modelled as "non-responsive"

 

or heavy bombers in Clod.

 

 

I get what he is talking about, compared to BOS I like Luftwaffe planes better in COD. But the PE 2 in BOS I like better than bombers in COD.

It is based on a overall judgement .

 

I like levelbombing in COD better also. And the JU 87 , damn I like it in COD. But it is over performing, and it does it in a way you simply cannot dislike it, because it feels right, but you know it isn´t :D 

 

Marcast got a personal preference and I do agree with him on this, I am not sure his statement would be considered wrong in a subjective context  either.