Jump to content
Irgendjemand

Does the FW190 FM need reevaluation?

FW 190 A3 FM - Needs attention?  

194 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you think the existing FW190 FM should be re evaluated

    • Absolutely - based on all the new information posted by numerous forummembers.
      167
    • I dont care - for whatever reason. Please elaborate below.
      12
    • No - leave it as it is. I think its OK right now.
      15


Recommended Posts

One of the things that I think a lot of people are missing here is how the DN engine works and how different it is from earlier simulator systems.

 

Back when RoF was fairly new they explained in some detail that this is not a table based model. It is a different type of system that models a reality and then things like plane models are inserted into the simulated reality. They can't just go into a table and change a value like for example "edit stall speed on FW190 to 175 kph. They have to change something like the shape of the wing on the FW 190 to accomplish this. Which may have many unintended consequences. What I think happened here is that they changed something in the physical model of the 190 to increase climbrate. That change inadvertantly changed other aspects of the flight model.

 

This feature of the engine has both good and bad aspects. The bad is that it makes changing flight models much harder. The good is the feeling of flight that everyone marvels at and that no other comercial sub $10,000 system has.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, that's the second time I have been misrepresented in this thread. I'm done here.  It is all rather pointless anyway, since the developers aren't going to put FM revisions to a vote. Though what the hell you think you are voting on anyway I have no idea, since you don't have access to the FM, and accordingly don't know what would need changing.

Believe or not, I trust that the Devs will take a look, even if they dont change anything they will make this for us, the poeple who will pay for it and it is going to give them credits from the community if they listen their customers. They do not nee to do just listen.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think JTD could say something about clmax both Yak1 and Fw190 in game and in reality

 

Why does the Yak-1 in game have a considerably higher maximum lift coefficient than the Fw 190 (both by your figures and my own testing), while the ClarkYH airfoil of the Yak-1 has a considerably lower maximum lift coefficient than the NACA 23xxx airfoil of the Fw 190? I'd prefer specific reasons over empty phrases, if you can spare the time. Thank you.

Edited by 303_Kwiatek
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not claiming that it (15.5 degrees) is wrong, I am claiming that only by addressing this head on will the controversy go away. This is not a court of law, and on one level it does not matter who is "right". What matters is how to calm everyone down and stop the arguments, more importantly encourage people to stay with the game.

 

You seem to mix up an appeal to reason with an appeal to authority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You seem to mix up an appeal to reason with an appeal to authority.

 

Not at all. Your posts, however, certainly do mix up various "arguments", making it hard to respond to them in a coherent way.

 

Asking people to provide some evidence for their assertions is an appeal to reason. Fair enough: actually, people have done this repeatedly on this specific topic. You might not find what they have said convincing, but that does not mean that they are either wrong or unreasonable in asking for a more forthcoming response to their enquiries.

 

Saying that such and such is an authority, therefore what he says is true, is an appeal to authority, which is a formal fallacy. The problem with your claim (and AndyJWest's) to be appealing to reason is that when the criterion for acceptable evidence is drawn so tightly as to rule out all practical possibilities, what looks like an appeal to reason becomes in effect an appeal to authority.

 

Your previous posts have not said explicitly that 1CGS knows best, therefore 15.5 degrees is correct, so perhaps you do not believe this after all. 

 

Perhaps you meant that, given their experience etc, 1CGS has probably got it right, I might agree. But others might not: it is only a probabilistic judgement after all. If you think that someone has probably got something right, then you have to accept that they might have got it wrong.

 

Perhaps you mean that, given the complex nature of the FM, 1CGS cannot get it right, while keeping other variables right as well. Then they should just say so.

 

Or perhaps you meant that, whether they know what they are doing or not, or are right or not, have control over the outcome or not, they will not change their minds due to a poll. You might be right about that too: I was simply pointing out that the unfortunate consequence of dismissing the concerns of your paying customers is to see many of them leave.

 

But you must forgive my confusion, it is hard to tell what your real views are in all the rhetoric. "Polls, oh yes, lets interview the medieval men on whether the Earth is flat or not and then burn the naysayers based on the so called 'public opinion'."  That one is called the Strawman fallacy; which I expect you know, but whatever, you use it anyway. I have to say it is not a good look if you want anything you say to be taken seriously.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Take-off speed with the Fw 190 was about 150-160 km/h IAS, that's pretty tricky ingame right now. If you take the stall speed in the description and calculate the Clmax from that, you wind up with a Clmax of ~1.14 in flight condition, which is just very low for that type of airfoil.

 

Other planes for comparison based on description stall speeds, Yak-1 = 1.25, Bf 109 F/G = 1.40. La-5 1.27, which is all very reasonable and the Fw 190 should at least have a higher Clmax than the Yak-1 out of those planes.

 

Of course, this is not 100% guarrenteed and exact (for instance, i'm pretty sure you can achieve slightly lower stall speeds than those in the description when flying the Fw 190 ingame right now), but i think it's obvious enough that there's something wrong with it.

Edited by Matt
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sorry if you find it difficult to give a coherent responses, although you could probably do better in this department if perhaps you would concentrate more on that instead of giving numerous examples of making strawman arguements seeking to misrepresent both mine and AndyJWest's points mixed thinly veiled and poorly executed ad hominem and discreditation logical fallacies, to which I do not wish to respond to.

 

As far as the criterion of acceptable evidence goes and as the strawman argument built upon that by you goes, namely, that it was drawn was so tightly that it 'practically ruled out all practical possibilities', well this is easy to check if bother to go back to post no. 108 we find that AJW has given you a simple preference (meaning its not limited to such evidence only) for possible evidence, which can be recalled as

 

(a) Primary sources: data from tests etc.

(b) Assessments by recognised experts on the subject

 

All this is pretty reasonable limits that are designed to limit discussions to a reasonable depth and to be based on objective evidence. Yes, it makes it hard to be successful with those 'I have an opinion, too'  kind of responses, which may make feel some to feel somewhat excluded from contributing to it, but that's just the way scientific discussions go. But the criterion is neither exclusive nor irrational, nor does it appeal to authority but purely to reason and the established limits of scientific debates. It is that criterion that gives a discussion weight, depth and quality and is in fact, not too hard to satisfy, where there is a valid point to make. It is the criterion that separates weeds from the chaff if you like and the criterion that helps developers decide which reported issues may be valid and which ones may be not.

 

Certainly, instead of provided primary sources and recognized expert opinion on the subject matter one can gamble on providing barren philosophical speeches instead or appeal to his own self-recognized authority; but such is done in full understanding that the de facto good practice of flight simulator development where the developers pride themselves on historical accuracy and physics based models is to provide EVIDENCE and that it can't be circumvented by trying to reverse the burden of proof. When these 'alternate methods' are applied, they are usually ignored.

 

The other false assertion on which this whole circular argument rests is that the developers must owe the concerned sim community citizen some kind of explanation every time any the question is raised, and its often repeatedly the same question. Well, they simply don't.

 

This is the umpteenth thread on alleged problems with Fw 190 flight model and its simply a question of resource management and selecting between assigning those development resources in a) rather pointless discussions that tend to emerge from time and time again, or b) actually developing the flight model and improving the product. The valid answer to that is always providing greater good to a larger number of customers, rather than trying to satisfy a limited number of inherently dissatisfied customers. But appealing to the will of the 'masses' and their alleged demands, based on the false but at the very least, unproven premise that they represent the majority of the customers is just leading us to the bandwagon logical fallacy, i.e. that a scientific / mathematics question can be decided upon popular vote. Perhaps that's the confusing analogue that you either could not or would not understand.

 

Now, the ultimate question of the thread is, of course, whether the complainers would stop their complaining IF they get an an answer to the validity of their claims by the developers, accepting that this answer may well be a negative one. If the answer is not (and who would bet on that one?), the time spent on giving an answer to said dissatisfied customers is just wasting developer time and energy.

Edited by VO101Kurfurst

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is slightly astonishing that in these of all threads some same old faces are shouting "show me the evidence! (for what you wrongly assume is wrong)" when "evidence" has been spread over dozens and dozens of pages.

 

It is also notable that in such (including, not exclusively) discussions like about the the Fw190, people who want things as they are, feel not being obliged to provide "evidence" likewise to tell everyone with a different idea that they are wrong. (Or where is it? I didn't find it. But I'd like to find it.)

 

Or has someone that is defending the status quo ever presented evidence beyond anecdotal ("Fw190 has a bad high speed stall!!" "Source?" "Everyone knows, 'coz its known!") to make his point other than saying "devs is right!"?

 

Not a healthy discussion culture (regardless of the true nature of the 190, no matter how it really might be). I think we (or most of us at least) are just genuinely interessted in how the crate is really flying. It shouldn't be a personal affair...

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Take-off speed with the Fw 190 was about 150-160 km/h IAS, that's pretty tricky ingame right now. If you take the stall speed in the description and calculate the Clmax from that, you wind up with a Clmax of ~1.14 in flight condition, which is just very low for that type of airfoil.

 

Other planes for comparison based on description stall speeds, Yak-1 = 1.25, Bf 109 F/G = 1.40. La-5 1.27, which is all very reasonable and the Fw 190 should at least have a higher Clmax than the Yak-1 out of those planes.

 

Of course, this is not 100% guarrenteed and exact (for instance, i'm pretty sure you can achieve slightly lower stall speeds than those in the description when flying the Fw 190 ingame right now), but i think it's obvious enough that there's something wrong with it.

 

Well 1.4 for the Me-109 tabs well with historical sources and 1.27 for the La-5 also AFAIK but is it really 1.25 for the Yak right now in BoS? Has something changed since JtD did his Yak measurements  which IIRC showed 1.39?

 

When it comes to the Fw-190, the chart linked earlier showed a Clmax of 1.2 which seems to be the one the developers use as a source now? This seems too low to me and a  more reasonable low Mach Clmax (Clmax has a strong Mach dependency) would be in the order of 1.3 to 1.35 IMHO.  According to my sources this is also the Clmax used for the DCS Fw-190D9 which as we know has exactly the same wing configuration.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The calculation is based on the stall speeds mentioned in the description. My tests also give a higher result, but that's not really the point here and every test will not be exact. Also the relative difference based on t he calculation  is 0.11 between the planes, in JtDs test it's around 0.14, so that's in relatively good agreement (again, taking the errors that can happen during tests in mind).

 

Anyway, based on the ingame description and on basically every ingame test, the Clmax of the Fw 190 is lower than that of the Yak-1 and that just shouldn't be the case. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The calculation is based on the stall speeds mentioned in the description. My tests also give a higher result, but that's not really the point here and every test will not be exact. Also the relative difference based on t he calculation  is 0.11 between the planes, in JtDs test it's around 0.14, so that's in relatively good agreement (again, taking the errors that can happen during tests in mind).

 

Anyway, based on the ingame description and on basically every ingame test, the Clmax of the Fw 190 is lower than that of the Yak-1 and that just shouldn't be the case. 

 

Exactly, and I believe that is why JtD posed the question about that in the "questions to the developers thread". So hopefully we can look forward either to an answer here in response to this poll or and answer to JtD's question there. Anyway, I'm still optimistic and hopeful that the type of two way communication that Jason has introduced will spill over also to these type of developer directed questions.  :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ell this is easy to check if bother to go back to post no. 108 we find that AJW has given you a simple preference (meaning its not limited to such evidence only) for possible evidence, which can be recalled as

 

(a) Primary sources: data from tests etc.

(b) Assessments by recognised experts on the subject

 

All this is pretty reasonable limits that are designed to limit discussions to a reasonable depth and to be based on objective evidence. 

 

 

But you have edited out what he added: "And no, I don't consider forum members to be in this category." Thereby explicitly ruling out anyone on the forum from making an assessment.

 

Yet we have and JtD, Matt for example who have made assessments. They clearly do not consider this to be so difficult. They may be wrong - I am not knowledgeable enough about the science to know, are you?  But they have made assessments based on the available evidence, including, so far as we know, the additional evidence sent to 1CGS that led to the most recent revisions that are causing the controversy.

 

No one is asking you to agree with them if you do not want to. What I think does cause annoyance is people posting as though anyone asking for a re-evaluation is a complete idiot.

 

Sorry if my quoting your "flat earthers" comment causes distress. The best solution is not to make such sarcastic and dismissive comments in the first place.

 

Oh and just a final comment, past my bedtime already. In my experience, talking to customers is very rarely "wasting developer time and energy", but if the developers think that way they can decide that for themselves.  Arguing about that in the forum really is pointless. I share the hope posted by others above that the new order of more open communication can settle this issue one way or another. 

Edited by unreasonable
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sorry if you find it difficult to give a coherent responses, although you could probably do better in this department if perhaps you would concentrate more on that instead of giving numerous examples of making strawman arguements seeking to misrepresent both mine and AndyJWest's points mixed thinly veiled and poorly executed ad hominem and discreditation logical fallacies, to which I do not wish to respond to.

 

As far as the criterion of acceptable evidence goes and as the strawman argument built upon that by you goes, namely, that it was drawn was so tightly that it 'practically ruled out all practical possibilities', well this is easy to check if bother to go back to post no. 108 we find that AJW has given you a simple preference (meaning its not limited to such evidence only) for possible evidence, which can be recalled as

 

 

Blimey! (rubs eyes in disbelief) it's the Molotov - Ribbentrop pact of flight sims :lol:  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blimey! (rubs eyes in disbelief) it's the Molotov - Ribbentrop pact of flight sims :lol:  

 

The so-called "Moppentripp".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your approach - and AndyJWest's - seems to be to say that people should just shut up and accept that 1CGS knows what is best. This is the appeal to authority, which really is a logical fallacy. Experience on this issue, and many other game design issues, shows that this simply does not work very well. Perhaps the noise on the forum will die away, but only because some of the people who care about the issue have given up and are now playing something else.

 

On the other hand, you do just the oppositite which is even less logical, given that the devs that you claim are perhaps wrong created a very believable WW2 flight sim with complex physics (so they deserve some authority) and that most of you guys claiming they are wrong don't put anything like a proof and do not create anything really constructive apart from aggressive discussions and bitter comments. Not saying that 1CGS are always true or that we must take all that they say or give us for gospel, but asking to revise things according to a poll result, that i cannot believe. So now science, accuracy or truth is a matter of elections? This is logical?

 

Ok the Fw190A3 is difficult to fly and is much more so since the patch. It stalls, yes we all noticed that. And most unfortunately it doesn't accelerate as fast in dives which makes it so much less fun for me. And because of that we would ask for poll results to revise a FM in a game?

 

Sorry but I sincerely hope devs don't pay ANY attention to this poll and rather look at calculations done by members here. If they change anything like FMs in the game because of a poll , because of the blackmailing "majority" of "faction" threatening to go away, many more people than you guys dissapointed by your favorite plane FM, will leave or lose trust in the game, i'm sure.  What will come next if we start this? A new feature like "Make a poll to revise you favorite aircraft FM"??

 

Black mailing constantly about going and playing something else because IL2 is a mere "product with issues" (God i cannot believe you manage compare IL2 to just another product) while staying, making noise as you say (because it is really only what you do here), looks so faint-hearted to me, sorry. Can't see much logic in this either (since you're talking so well about logical fallacy you should understand this, but for so much of you guys, which are still my fellow sim pilots that i like, i feel that it is more your frustration that is speaking and not you reasonning).

Edited by Yak9Micha
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maby poll about revision is not the best but i think desperatly solution when other ways doesn't work. Raports have been sended but without any reactions from developers. So poll show that many customers are interested in historical and accurate flight model and performance of Fw190

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kwiatek is right. I think there is a general misconception regarding this poll on your side Yak9Micha. No one is asking the Devs to change anything as a result of the poll. The poll is there to show that there is a large amount of people that is unhappy regarding the current state of the sim, BECAUSE data has benn provided that points at flaws, but which is being neglected.

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kwiatek is right. I think there is a general misconception regarding this poll on your side Yak9Micha. No one is asking the Devs to change anything as a result of the poll. The poll is there to show that there is a large amount of people that is unhappy regarding the current state of the sim, BECAUSE data has benn provided that points at flaws, but which is being neglected.

 THIS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read that Matt commented that Russian forum members had sent data concerning the stall issue, iirc. Has other data or tests been provided? If that is the case, I would suggest an acknowledgement from the devs that they have recieved this information and that they will be looking into it as time allows. Maybe that would calm things down a bit, and this poll, which I consider a Pandora's box,  could be closed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair gents, I don't think I've ever seen a DEV respond directly to a poll and certainly never to anyone asking/demanding a response from a particular DEV or group. It may have happened once or twice but that would be an exception to the rule. I wouldn't expect them to comment here directly. More likely in an announcement or diary down the road, if at all.

 

That is the precedent and I'm quite OK with it.

Edited by II/JG17_HerrMurf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same old story from ROF days, FM issues like this where not solved during whole development time of ROF...

 

The SE5a and the N17 were completely redone and are a job well done. Some alterations *due to the loud asking of the "comminity"* were made ("the patch") even though we were warned about it. We got it and the result is... well, we know, controversal to the eye of general "commuinity", depending on how you play the sim.

 

It is a dangerous path to go to just fulfill the yearning of the forum, as none of us has all the reasons on wich certain design choices were made.

 

Polls NEVER reflect truth, but the reflect opinions. To get an idea of how the forum-lurker-part of the "community" thinks about an issue, the poll is a vald tool. Doing stuff, that is entirely up to the devs. And why shouldn't 777 be interessted in our oppinion? What they do with it is another matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a dangerous path to go to just fulfill the yearning of the forum, as none of us has all the reasons on wich certain design choices were made.

Plus, those who actually take the time to post on this forum and respond to polls represent a very, very small cross section of those actually playing the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what this poll shows is a snapshot of the population percentage that thinks the current 190 FM is wrong.

.

this gives a clue to the previous arguments that "most pilots think it is right/wrong" discussions.

.

it also gives a hint about the general community agreement/disagreement of the posts in the threads. in other words, saying "it is ok as is" is certainly not a strong stance in the community.

.

it shows that a noticeably high percentage of the community, the players, the customers, are dissatisfied with this offering. seeing this is a 'realistic' flight sim, it is doubtful that the desire is anything except for a desire to be realistic.

.

imho, the current FW190 FM is a proverbial "fly in the ointment" for this game/sim. this is like a festering wound for the sim, and has more potential, as time goes on in the current condition, to cause growing dissatisfaction.

...concern about it should not be met with attempts to delegitimize, especially with respect to the high level information brought to the table already.

Edited by Gump

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Plus, those who actually take the time to post on this forum and respond to polls represent a very, very small cross section of those actually playing the game.

 

That doesn't mean that they who don't post do not have opinions on Fw 190 FM or don't care,  or thinks that this is is ok, nor this is reason to ignore minority who do care.

Edited by 307_Tomcat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the "FW Question" is Popular enough to at least the Devs take a look and judge. We do not want miracles and I am sure the Devs want this sim to be the best availible in the ww2 market.

 

The FW is a very popular aircraft, this won`t change sales but now that also the A5 is coming, there are a lot of "enthusiasts" that will buy it withouth hesitate seeing the "FW".

Edited by Ala13_ManuV
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The FW is a very popular aircraft, this won`t change sales but now that also the A5 is coming

 

This is a harsh statement but:

 

I won't buy BOK till FW is "fixed", Minengeschoss vs. Shvak 20 is "fixed",  Vya23 is "fixed"

 

This won't change sales a much but imho, based on the own experience, something is wrong with above things which is consistently denied

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The FM shouldn't be reviewed on the basis of a poll.

 

It should be reviewed on the basis that it is demonstrably wrong.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The traces of male excitement should be eventually removed from the canopy.

Edited by [DBS]El_Marta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A self selected internet poll is as accurate a snap shot of the whole population of the group as a paper airplane would be a snapshot of the real FW190

Edited by SYN_Mike77
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

what this poll shows is a snapshot of the population percentage that thinks the current 190 FM is wrong.

.

this gives a clue to the previous arguments that "most pilots think it is right/wrong" discussions.

.

it also gives a hint about the general community agreement/disagreement of the posts in the threads. in other words, saying "it is ok as is" is certainly not a strong stance in the community.

.

it shows that a noticeably high percentage of the community, the players, the customers, are dissatisfied with this offering. seeing this is a 'realistic' flight sim, it is doubtful that the desire is anything except for a desire to be realistic.

 

Your reasoning isn't entirely correct because there is the non-response bias. The only way to your argument to be true is if every BoS player had been exposed to this question, or at least the ones with the a random probability of being exposed to it (which would be the same for all the playerbase), and then with all of them answering it.

 

Since not every player visits the forums and not every forum user visit the poll / FM section and since not every one that has seen this topic have voted you can't really make those conclussions. 

 

You could have if every BoS player has the same random probability of encountering this question, and all of them answering it.

 

What you can say is that most of the people who checks the poll/FM section and is interested into voting in polls thinks the Fw-190 FM needs a reevaluation.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That doesn't mean that they who don't post do not have opinions on Fw 190 FM or don't care,  or thinks that this is is ok, nor this is reason to ignore minority who do care.

 

And I never said that, so don't put words in my mouth.

 

 

The FW is a very popular aircraft, this won`t change sales but now that also the A5 is coming, there are a lot of "enthusiasts" that will buy it withouth hesitate seeing the "FW".

 

Most likely the A-3 will see a review by the developers when they are preparing to put the A-5 into the game - just like they have plans to look at the "old" Bf 109 flight models.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the things that I think a lot of people are missing here is how the DN engine works and how different it is from earlier simulator systems.

 

Back when RoF was fairly new they explained in some detail that this is not a table based model. It is a different type of system that models a reality and then things like plane models are inserted into the simulated reality. They can't just go into a table and change a value like for example "edit stall speed on FW190 to 175 kph. They have to change something like the shape of the wing on the FW 190 to accomplish this. Which may have many unintended consequences. What I think happened here is that they changed something in the physical model of the 190 to increase climbrate. That change inadvertantly changed other aspects of the flight model.

 

This feature of the engine has both good and bad aspects. The bad is that it makes changing flight models much harder. The good is the feeling of flight that everyone marvels at and that no other comercial sub $10,000 system has.

 

And which also means the 3d model has an impact on how the FM behaves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the other hand, you do just the oppositite which is even less logical, given that the devs that you claim are perhaps wrong created a very believable WW2 flight sim with complex physics (so they deserve some authority) and that most of you guys claiming they are wrong don't put anything like a proof and do not create anything really constructive apart from aggressive discussions and bitter comments. Not saying that 1CGS are always true or that we must take all that they say or give us for gospel, but asking to revise things according to a poll result, that i cannot believe. So now science, accuracy or truth is a matter of elections? This is logical?

 

Ok the Fw190A3 is difficult to fly and is much more so since the patch. It stalls, yes we all noticed that. And most unfortunately it doesn't accelerate as fast in dives which makes it so much less fun for me. And because of that we would ask for poll results to revise a FM in a game?

 

Sorry but I sincerely hope devs don't pay ANY attention to this poll and rather look at calculations done by members here. If they change anything like FMs in the game because of a poll , because of the blackmailing "majority" of "faction" threatening to go away, many more people than you guys dissapointed by your favorite plane FM, will leave or lose trust in the game, i'm sure.  What will come next if we start this? A new feature like "Make a poll to revise you favorite aircraft FM"??

 

Black mailing constantly about going and playing something else because IL2 is a mere "product with issues" (God i cannot believe you manage compare IL2 to just another product) while staying, making noise as you say (because it is really only what you do here), looks so faint-hearted to me, sorry. Can't see much logic in this either (since you're talking so well about logical fallacy you should understand this, but for so much of you guys, which are still my fellow sim pilots that i like, i feel that it is more your frustration that is speaking and not you reasonning).

 

1) The only reason that anyone is asking for a re-evaluation is because we know the developers are doing a good job, on the whole. If they were not, no-one would bother, they would simply leave without comment.

 

2) The poll is an indication of dissatisfaction, no where has anyone asked them to revise anything "according to a poll".

 

3) Many people want the devs to look at the calculations done by some forum members, and at least explain in some detail why their results differ. The fact that they have been so far reluctant to do that is the source of the dissatisfaction.

 

4) As to aggressive and bitter comments - I agree that some complainants express themselves in this way, and that is regrettable. Accusing people of "black mailing", however, as you have done pretty much takes first prize for aggressive and bitter language. If people get fed up with aspects of the game of course they will go elsewhere: this is just a simple fact. And for most people with other things to do in their lives, Il-2, or any other computer video game, is just another product, incomprehensible though that may be to you.

 

 

A self selected internet poll is as accurate a snap shot of the whole population of the group as a paper airplane would be a snapshot of the real FW190

 

Of course, but what self selected polls do tell you - better than random samples - is the opinion of people who are highly motivated. If their opinion counts for no more than the opinion of a random customer, then the poll is useless.

 

On the other hand, if you believe that the highly motivated segment of the user base has a disproportionately large impact, perhaps because they are opinion leaders, being more likely to write Steam reviews for instance, then paying attention to their concerns  is fairly important.

Edited by unreasonable
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) The only reason that anyone is asking for a re-evaluation is because we know the developers are doing a good job, on the whole. If they were not, no-one would bother, they would simply leave without comment.

 

2) The poll is an indication of dissatisfaction, no where has anyone asked them to revise anything "according to a poll".

 

3) Many people want the devs to look at the calculations done by some forum members, and at least explain in some detail why their results differ. The fact that they have been so far reluctant to do that is the source of the dissatisfaction.

 

4) As to aggressive and bitter comments - I agree that some complainants express themselves in this way, and that is regrettable. Accusing people of "black mailing", however, as you have done pretty much takes first prize for aggressive and bitter language. If people get fed up with aspects of the game of course they will go elsewhere: this is just a simple fact. And for most people with other things to do in their lives, Il-2, or any other computer video game, is just another product, incomprehensible though that may be to you.

  

Of course, but what self selected polls do tell you - better than random samples - is the opinion of people who are highly motivated. If their opinion counts for no more than the opinion of a random customer, then the poll is useless.

 

On the other hand, if you believe that the highly motivated segment of the user base has a disproportionately large impact, perhaps because they are opinion leaders, being more likely to write Steam reviews for instance, then paying attention to their concerns  is fairly important.

 

Agree 100% and in addition to being highly motivated, many of those who are active here and have consequently participated in the poll are enthusiasts well read up on WW2 history, pilot accounts, flight trials etc which is another thing to bear in mind when evaluating the poll numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

Most likely the A-3 will see a review by the developers when they are preparing to put the A-5 into the game - just like they have plans to look at the "old" Bf 109 flight models.

Finally your normal post !  :salute:  Hopefully that is true ..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Most likely the A-3 will see a review by the developers when they are preparing to put the A-5 into the game - just like they have plans to look at the "old" Bf 109 flight models.

:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Most likely the A-3 will see a review by the developers when they are preparing to put the A-5 into the game - just like they have plans to look at the "old" Bf 109 flight models.

 

Crossing my fingers for the "most likely" part :)

Given how tight the time and financial schedule seems to be for the team, using the development time allowed to the A5 to double check calculations on the wing profile is probably the wisest choice they have.

The fact that the airframe of the A5 is different whereas wings are the same might also well highlight what needs to be done on the current FM.

Edited by F/JG300_Gruber

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...