Jump to content
Jason_Williams

Discussion of Battle of Kuban Pre-Order

Recommended Posts

You're right, but also this test has been considered wihout arguments. So really.......

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/24965-video-test-20mm/

 

 

Veltro,

 

Would you please stop trying to Hi-Jack every fricking forum area trying to push your issue(s) with the same stuff. Saying that players are not buying BOK because other things have not been addressed, can be said in one sentence, period, without then using this BOK forum to once again push all the same tripe that you have done before.

 

If there is a problem, how about just PM the developers with your evidence as you will get your fan base support from the rest of 150GCT and I'm sure you will get the feedback and the attention you so seem to crave from the developers to resolve all of these issue or at least get an explanation.  I guess whilst you are doing all of this complaining, you will still expect the developers to waste time and effort on the IAR80 by quote "So, would be possible to brake the rules for this aircraft, giving it "a push", an acceleration in the business plan?" yet at the same time telling them they need to sort issues out.  As you have already identified, I'm sure that there is a Business Plan, however, with only a small team, perhaps the Pareto principles are being applied here!  

 

Therefore to coin an Aussie TLA, WTF do you really want?  NOTE, please do not answer in this forum and detract from the original intention of this forum about BOK pre-order.  

 

Regards

 

Haza

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cannon round on the left (or any of the other two for that matter) doesn't look like a Hispano Suiza to me.  Not sure what it is but it isn't a 20x110.

 

Yeah, looks like you are right.

 

20mm1.jpg

Edited by SuperEtendard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

An example, Bf-110 "glass" wing fix. Finally we got it after months of complains

 

Don't assume that the relationship between a stream of tirades on the forum and delivery of an update is causal.

One certainly followed the other, but I'd wager that insulting and abusive behaviour did not positively affect the delivery schedule.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is not an evidence? May be not, but enough for an answer that's not just an "only emotions", yes. Please help us to promote BoK, first of all with silent people who are not posting here, like our virtual squadron comrades for ex.

 

While I can't tell you if the damage model has issues (never flown a real PE-2 in combat) I can tell you the 109 driver wasn't aiming for the PE-2's vulnerable spots. That plane was like swiss cheese - as expected - but kept flying due to critical components not being hit. I have a photo here somewhere of a guy standing with his torso through a hole in his wing  made by a 40mm AAA round - missed the main spar - P40 flew home.

 

Whether or not the DM has issues my tip is - aim for the engines, pilot or fuel/oil lines inboard of the engines. Peppering the empennage is a waste of ammo as there is little to hit there.

 

Some aircraft were just built tough too: 

3661075e8a82d6f50490e7320e5a22f9.jpg

 

In the second video I noticed significant lag. The target LA5 was teleporting. This can affect hit detection - especially when angular velocity is high such as a 90 degree AOT snap-shot. It took a second for the hits to even register. My best guess is your rounds hit the tail and the damage to engine and wing were caused by fragmentation from the HE ammo. It sucks but I would have more to complain about than most in this department as my best ping to servers is about 370ms.

Edited by Dave
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right, but also this test has been considered wihout arguments. So really.......

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/24965-video-test-20mm/

 

The cannon round on the left is a 20x110RB round for the HS7 and HS9 cannon. It was based on the earlier Swiss Oerlikon FF S weapons, which the company Hispano-Suiza manufactured under license in France as HS.7 and HS.9.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The cannon round on the left is a 20x110RB round for the HS7 and HS9 cannon. It was based on the earlier Swiss Oerlikon FF S weapons, which the company Hispano-Suiza manufactured under license in France as HS.7 and HS.9.

 

 

Yes, you're correct.  I just checked.  Not the chambering used in HS cannon fitted to RAF fighters during the War but close. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the subject of 'the customer always being right', or not, I tend to agree with the view that sometimes customers are actually wrong.  However,  that interpretation simply distorts the actual meaning of the slogan.  When people say "the customer is always right" it isn't meant 'literally'. It just means it's makes good business sense to take customer complaints seriously.

 

Attacking customers, belittling the views expressed by customers, using threatening language towards customers, and generally disregarding the views of customers - these things are the very antithesis of the expression and the philosophy that sits behind it.

 

IMO the devs have done a good enough job keeping the community informed about the general direction of the game.  What they have not done well, is to effectively manage criticism.  And that I think has unfortunate consequences for us all, devs included.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading some of the posts here ` i have come to the conclusion that most of you are just Bully boys .!!!!

 

If anyone try to express their grief or frustration over certain FM or the poor visibility or bad ground shading within the game ,  are totally debunk and set upon .

 

Be very careful Gentleman YOU all know there are problems ` keep sweeping it under the rug wont make it go away .

 

There are issues you know that .!!!  

 

We live in a free democracy , The world is changing .    

 

Have I bought into BOK .......NO.

 

I want too see things fixed first `that my excuse . Me being honest . 

 

See you online . 

 

Quick note .........When i was in America the biggest thing i noticed compared to other country's  ` WAS  its customer service and manners . 

Edited by II./JG77_Con

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is so difficult to make some kind of tests and to do it you have to spend a lot of time. Also we dont have the true data because devs keep in secret that data and the only way to prove that is with feelings, tracks, logs of the missions, and test like i show on the videos. 

But doing that you can not find the perfect data and some people will aswer you that is a coincidence, net-code problem if i bring tracks from online and things like that. Also some test like the prop hang problem that jordan and me made are not full accured we get different results i supose because he has more skill. hanging the 109 in vertical is imposibe for me but he manages to do it.

 

So when you are making all this test to bring empirical evidence, spending time without earnig money because we are not testers from the team, doing all to get a better product, to know that they will probaly are going to ignore you is disapointing. Maybe they are considering that but from the customer side the silence in some points is the worse thing.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello!

 

I have known and flown with Otto more than then years and I agree with his argument.

 

I have started to fly simulator in the 1991 with a Amiga and my first "Simulator" was LukasArts's Their Finest Hours. It was first version from Battle of Britain.

After that I flew MS Combat Flight Simulator 1 and 2, Mig Alley, IL2, CloD and BoS I have flown from its begun also some times I have flown DCS and

according to these experience I have to comment something.

 

There are lots of arguments of this simulator's bugs and it is waste to time repeat these details.

 

But I have to two things what I want to comment.

 

 First DM we know that there are lot of bugs but I hope that in the future it will be more correct than nowadays.

 

But what about BoK?

 

I hope that P39 DM will be correct because according to FAF (Finish Air Force) experience

during WW2 P39 was most easy plane to set on fire. Only one or two 20mm shells to a engine and it catchs fire immidiately.

 

After that FM of the Fw190. In the old IL2 FM of the Fw190 was undermodell all the time. And in BOS / BOM it continius.

I hope that developers who update FM of the A3 and will do FM of the A6 are going to read Wing Commanders Johnny Johnson's

story when he fought with Spit against Fw190 over Dieppe.

 

This is copy from Wikipedia "By August 1942, preparations were begun for a major operation, Jubilee, at Dieppe. The Dieppe raid took place on 19 August 1942. Johnson took off at 07:40 in Spitfire VB. EP254, DW-B. Running into around 50 Bf 109s and Fw 190s in fours, pairs and singly. In a climbing attack Johnson shot down one Fw 190 which crashed into the sea and shared in the destruction of a Bf 109F. While heading back to base, Johnson attacked an alert Fw 190 which met his attack head on. The dogfight descended from 8,000 to zero feet. Flying over Dieppe, Johnson dived towards a destroyer in the hope its fire would drive off the Fw 190, now on his tail. The move worked and Johnson landed back at RAF West Malling at 09:20"

 

In a book https://www.amazon.co.uk/Spitfire-Ace-Aces-Wartime-Johnnie/dp/1445604752 has more about these battle.

 

While Johnny Johnson was best British ace with 38 victories and best Spit ace during war only good lucky and own Destroyer's AA save his live over Dieppe because Fw190 A2 or A3 was so good against Spit Vb.

 

I hope that FM of the Fw!90 will be more correct in the future like FM of the Fw190 D9 in the DCS. If I compare FM of the D9 to other sim's FM of the Fw190 I think that they are different planes.

 

I hope that sim will advance to best sim ever but we'll se what happend in the future.

 

 

Best Regards

 

SFF_Vellu

Squadron's WO

Edited by SFF_Vellu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I've been developing software for a little over 20 years now and I'm yet to meet a customer who was right. Bo* is being developed by a handful of developers. They don't have the megabucks to plough into development that Activision will drop on their next title with an audience of 10 million players. As a result 1CGS must prioritise based upon the best data they have on potential ROI. I'd love to see what all the whining know-it-alls on software development best-practice have produced themselves from which they can produce evidence for their claims. The same people seem to want 2016 physics with real-time fluid dynamics modelling, tera-polycount models, 1000 actors within the frustum, infinite frustum depth, screen-filling particle and fluid effects, 4k textures, 100ms network latency regardless of geography, MIT machine-learning-research-project adaptive AI, all rendered at 120FPS on 1995 hardware for $50. The reality is that, even with its flaws, BoS/M is the best currently shipping WW2 combat flight sim available at any price. Big software houses won't even touch this market because the financial gain simply simply isn't here. What we have instead is one of a handful of consumer products I can think of which does employ anything close to an Agile development process. They ship early and often and make enhancements/bugfixes when and where possible in response to our feedback.

 

+1

 

When I was considering to buy BOS, I searched for its reviews and ran into numerous complaints and derogatory comments about developers.

I thought 1CGS was the most evil developer out there in the entire history of gaming and I decided not to buy the product.

Few weeks after, one of my flight mate (Falcon BMS) recommended the product when I shared my search results with him. So I decided to give it a try.

I have been amazed how well devs communicate and listen to communities. I haven't yet to see a game with almost weekly DD and constant upgrades to its physics, graphics, interface etc.

From reading their diaries to forum responses, I feel they are genuinely good hearted and very capable group of chaps who deserve much more than what are said to them in this very forum daily.

I am also disturbed how malicious reviews and comments are out there about BOS on the web which I based my earlier decision not to purchase.

 

BOS was well worth way more than I paid for. I have pre-ordered BOK, and am eagerly waiting for subsequent releases.

 

I wonder how many precious sales were lost at the end due to all these completely one-sided-negative, non-contructive comments where those purchases could have been fueled, encouraged devs to improve the game further today.

 

Given my impression of 1CGS' capability and earned trust so far, I view that what will stop this game from maturing further is not dev but these toxic players turning the community into a very hostile and unpleasant experience.

Edited by Cute_retriever
  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

We live in a free democracy , The world is changing .    

 

It's an internet forum, not some sort of national government.

 

:rolleyes:  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the subject of 'the customer always being right', or not, I tend to agree with the view that sometimes customers are actually wrong.  However,  that interpretation simply distorts the actual meaning of the slogan.  When people say "the customer is always right" it isn't meant 'literally'. It just means it's makes good business sense to take customer complaints seriously.

 

Attacking customers, belittling the views expressed by customers, using threatening language towards customers, and generally disregarding the views of customers - these things are the very antithesis of the expression and the philosophy that sits behind it.

 

IMO the devs have done a good enough job keeping the community informed about the general direction of the game.  What they have not done well, is to effectively manage criticism.  And that I think has unfortunate consequences for us all, devs included.

 

Wulf, I agree with you. It makes good business sense to take customer's complaints seriously. And on balance I think they've done that. The whole revised strategy announced by Jason is about taking customer's complaints seriously.

 

But they just can't please everyone. A lot of noise can be generated on this forum by a comparatively small amount of people. Perceptions may be right or wrong. People's views can be wrong. People disagree all the time - eg some didn't like the revised gun sounds introduced a few months back while most did.

 

But what I see again and again is people who seem to have no idea how to put a position across in a reasonable way. They jump in with both feet convinced they are correct and demanding instant fixes. Often they threaten to abandon the game if they don't get their way. Often they complain of bias and build up conspiracy theories. Their strategy is almost guaranteed to annoy people - both other people on the forum and probably the devs too.

 

Of course imperfections exist and there is more to be done - always will be - but on balance I would say most customers are pleased with the way things are going. Keeping the customer satisfied has to mean going for the greater mass of the customer base -some people are never satisfied. And chasing after the needs of every malcontent with a grievance can't be done without junking what seems to be a very tightly defined schedule.

 

I partly agree with your last point. I think the whole 190 issue could have been handled better - at least from a communication point of view - but I see faults on both sides there too.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember Microsoft Flight from Microsoft?

I was enjoying this game...

But it stopped ... because it was not profitable enough for M$$$$ I believe.

What a waste!

 

IL2 BoX is not profitable enough, and yet they continue it. they do not let us down.

 

I admire that. And I am happy to spend money for them.

 

Yes , IL2 BOX is not perfect, nothing is perfect,

 

But this is the best WW2 sim in this world.

 

There is not competitors, and they will never be I believe.

 

Thanks to them , we are in the golden age, again.

 

I love playing this sim . everyday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a CUSTOMER:

 

I would be delighted to buy BOK - I've already spent 240$ (1 gifted BOS) + Yak1b + JU52 on this sim and would gift/buy more if the sim bugs could be fixed instead of new "fancy" content.

 

There are problems which prevent me from "donating" (weird thinking from my opinion @Jason) into this sim, which need to be fixed before I "DONATE MORE":

  • MP performance - ~60 players on MP server is lame ....
  • 10km drawing distance -  really, I now now how my goldfish feels
  • FM & DM fixes are pending while new "shiny" content is "developed"
  • .......

Apparently this is some sort of gamble between "customer needs" and "some other needs" (which are unclear to me). Maybe the market targeted in this sim is somewhat different from I am familiar with?? Maybe the 100$ is not worth 6000 RUB???

 

So once developers introduce bug fixes instead of fancy nice "skins, unfinished planes, eye candy, grass" I would be delighted to pay "tens of thousands RUB", which is the currency you are apparently looking for ...

 

Go read The Machine that Changed the World ... basics ...

 

You're right Otto.

And where did I ask for a donation? If you don't like what we build, feel free not to purchase. I've said this a million times. You're posts are getting quite combative. Please tone it down.

 

Jason

A You are not Jason.

 

Simple as that.

 

Ramm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reading some of the posts here ` i have come to the conclusion that most of you are just Bully boys .!!!!

 

If anyone try to express their grief or frustration over certain FM or the poor visibility or bad ground shading within the game ,  are totally debunk and set upon .

 

Be very careful Gentleman YOU all know there are problems ` keep sweeping it under the rug wont make it go away .

 

There are issues you know that .!!!  

 

We live in a free democracy , The world is changing .    

 

Have I bought into BOK .......NO.

 

I want too see things fixed first `that my excuse . Me being honest . 

 

See you online . 

 

Quick note .........When i was in America the biggest thing i noticed compared to other country's  ` WAS  its customer service and manners . 

 

I can't agree with you on that. There are maybe a few people here who at times can take an over-defensive view of the game.

 

But as someone who considers himself a neutral and tries to see both sides of an argument, I have to say that the problem is the way the complaints are often made. There is often not much evidence or inconclusive evidence combined with a lot of grievance and attitude. People react badly to aggression and threats. Most of what you see (including my own first post in this thread) is just a response from people fed up with having unreasonable opinions rammed down their throat again and again.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't agree with you on that. There are maybe a few people here who at times can take an over-defensive view of the game.

 

But as someone who considers himself a neutral and tries to see both sides of an argument, I have to say that the problem is the way the complaints are often made. There is often not much evidence or inconclusive evidence combined with a lot of grievance and attitude. People react badly to aggression and threats. Most of what you see (including my own first post in this thread) is just a response from people fed up with having unreasonable opinions rammed down their throat again and again.

 

Well said kendo!

 

A lot of people make a complaint about something and they pair that complaint with innuendo, hostility, insults, incredulity or some combination of those. The problem isn't that there are complaints about the flight models. I've made them and we've all made them. It's the way they are done... AND when people respond negatively to the negativity then the problem gets put on them "being fanboys" rather than understanding that it was their approach the whole time.

 

It happens over and over.

 

The real work and progress gets made when a neutral tone is struck and real effort is put into figuring out the problem.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember Microsoft Flight from Microsoft?

I was enjoying this game...

But it stopped ... because it was not profitable enough for M$$$$ I believe.

What a waste!

 

IL2 BoX is not profitable enough, and yet they continue it. they do not let us down.

 

I admire that. And I am happy to spend money for them.

 

Yes , IL2 BOX is not perfect, nothing is perfect,

 

But this is the best WW2 sim in this world.

 

There is not competitors, and they will never be I believe.

 

Thanks to them , we are in the golden age, again.

 

I love playing this sim . everyday.

Golden age? You sir needed to experience the golden age when it was here. It is not here anymore and BoX did not bring it back. Yet, I hope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't take anywhere near $5000 to be able to run this game properly.

Yes, it runs fine on very old hardware, a 700-900$ PC will run it on high I guess. The dev team did a nice job making the Dx9 engine go well with most PCs, and it is an accomplishment worth mentioning. Though they did make some sacrifices, as the multiplayer/ sp campaign are not impressive number-wise esp. when we talk about objects in mission. Hopefully Dx11 changes that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wulf, I agree with you. It makes good business sense to take customer's complaints seriously. And on balance I think they've done that. The whole revised strategy announced by Jason is about taking customer's complaints seriously.

 

But they just can't please everyone. A lot of noise can be generated on this forum by a comparatively small amount of people. Perceptions may be right or wrong. People's views can be wrong. People disagree all the time - eg some didn't like the revised gun sounds introduced a few months back while most did.

 

But what I see again and again is people who seem to have no idea how to put a position across in a reasonable way. They jump in with both feet convinced they are correct and demanding instant fixes. Often they threaten to abandon the game if they don't get their way. Often they complain of bias and build up conspiracy theories. Their strategy is almost guaranteed to annoy people - both other people on the forum and probably the devs too.

 

Of course imperfections exist and there is more to be done - always will be - but on balance I would say most customers are pleased with the way things are going. Keeping the customer satisfied has to mean going for the greater mass of the customer base -some people are never satisfied. And chasing after the needs of every malcontent with a grievance can't be done without junking what seems to be a very tightly defined schedule.

 

I partly agree with your last point. I think the whole 190 issue could have been handled better - at least from a communication point of view - but I see faults on both sides there too.  

 

 

Okay let's look at a case in point.  Let's have a quick look at the way the devs have managed the disquiet associated with the 190.  And by this I mean the issue in general, rather than the specifics of the FM or concerns about the rendering of the model - relatively small issues in the context of the game but for the enthusiast, incredibly frustrating.   

 

Instead of acknowledging that there appear to be issues, their response has been, in essence, to ignore or attack the individuals delivering the message.  Okay, so what should they have done?  Well, why not just embrace the criticisms and undertaken to work with the community, as time and money allow, to address them.   There's an old saying and it goes something like this: "You catch more flies with honey."  If they had done that, (and it's never too late), if they had just acknowledged they're not infallible but are happy to listen and engage, we wouldn't have the gangrenous open weeping wound that we have today.  

 

In such circumstances is it really fair to blame this state of affairs on those customers who, having paid for something feel their concerns about that product are now being disregarded, or the devs who have it within their power to effect change, should they so chose.  How hard would it really be to arrive at a situation where the heat is taken out of this issue?  After all, the devs can find the time to build tanks, paratroopers and aircraft like the Ju 52 (an aircraft that will be about as popular as dog vomit once people realize that no matter how good they think they are, they're going to be as good as dead in a combat zone).  What conclusions should we come to in such circumstances?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The devs actually worked together with some community members to help sort whatever is off with the Fw-190. They used community help to find a missing document containing the data they needed to fine-tune the airframe, and in parallel also received a compiled document containing extensive data comparisons between the in-game Fw-190 and real life test data outlining the differences which could be leading to the reported instability. On top of that, they have given a timeline for evaluating the issue - namely when they create the flight model for the Fw-190A-5 since then it will be easier to work on the Fw-190A-3 without disrupting the development schedule. :)

 

EDIT: Worth mentioning that they didn't make a big deal out of it, all it took was a couple of personal messages plus a supporting thread to reach this. Probably explains why many people aren't aware that it happened in the first place.

 

The difference was, these contributions were made in a friendly tone inviting cooperation. Though there were times when members of the development team went aggressive on members during The Great Fw-190 Wars, this only happened after many members - including those involved in the direct discussion and others who weren't - had flung all kinds of insults and offences at the development team. Claims of bias and incompetence, personal attacks, conspiracies, snarky condescending tones and the whole of it were (and still are sometimes) daily here.

 

Whatever happened is past though, we've come to a point where both parties have reached a common language and the format for developer-community cooperation is reaching its prime form. Community members helped supply the required data for the Fw-190A-3, a community member was of great help in the fine-tuning of the MiG-3 3D model, another community member has created the official skins for the Bf-109G-4... It's looking very, very good so I suggest both sides keep it up even if they don't agree all the time. Keeping this framework alive is very important for the future.

Edited by 55IAP_Lucas_From_Hell
  • Upvote 11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I wonder how many precious sales were lost at the end due to all these completely one-sided-negative, non-contructive comments where those purchases could have been fueled, encouraged devs to improve the game further today.

 

 

That's the tragedy. Some people are extremely vocal and bring the money question to the table because they know it hurts the devs. 

 

"Fix" the 190 or I will not support ..... "Fix" the russian bias or I will not support ..... "Do this and do that" or I will not support... 

 

Everywhere, all the time, youtube, steam, on this very forum.... They know it will hurt the devs and so they try to be as loud as possible, hoping the devs cave in.

 

It's a shame really. People would rather hurt the project that think for a second about what they actually have.

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay let's look at a case in point.  Let's have a quick look at the way the devs have managed the disquiet associated with the 190.  And by this I mean the issue in general, rather than the specifics of the FM or concerns about the rendering of the model - relatively small issues in the context of the game but for the enthusiast, incredibly frustrating.   

 

Instead of acknowledging that there appear to be issues, their response has been, in essence, to ignore or attack the individuals delivering the message.  Okay, so what should they have done?  Well, why not just embrace the criticisms and undertaken to work with the community, as time and money allow, to address them.   There's an old saying and it goes something like this: "You catch more flies with honey."  If they had done that, (and it's never too late), if they had just acknowledged they're not infallible but are happy to listen and engage, we wouldn't have the gangrenous open weeping wound that we have today.  

 

In such circumstances is it really fair to blame this state of affairs on those customers who, having paid for something feel their concerns about that product are now being disregarded, or the devs who have it within their power to effect change, should they so chose.  How hard would it really be to arrive at a situation where the heat is taken out of this issue?  After all, the devs can find the time to build tanks, paratroopers and aircraft like the Ju 52 (an aircraft that will be about as popular as dog vomit once people realize that no matter how good they think they are, they're going to be as good as dead in a combat zone).  What conclusions should we come to in such circumstances?

 

 

you are wrong

 

 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe this  is the best WW2 sim and I guess there will be no competitors in the near future.

 

But, I agree with Otto to the point that  bug fixes must have a priority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

we wouldn't have the gangrenous open weeping wound that we have today.

 

and I thought this was a PC game......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's an internet forum, not some sort of national government.

 

:rolleyes:  

You best get used too it in America my friend change is heading your way . ;)  ;)  

 

And yes i can tell its an internet forum half the people wouldn't be as rude in person . !!!  :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't agree with you on that. There are maybe a few people here who at times can take an over-defensive view of the game.

 

But as someone who considers himself a neutral and tries to see both sides of an argument, I have to say that the problem is the way the complaints are often made. There is often not much evidence or inconclusive evidence combined with a lot of grievance and attitude. People react badly to aggression and threats. Most of what you see (including my own first post in this thread) is just a response from people fed up with having unreasonable opinions rammed down their throat again and again.

So in away you agree with me . ;)

 

There is plenty of evidence just plenty . :ph34r:

 

Its not a problem i fly anyhow ` online mainly but the stats ` i cant take seriously too many bugs in FM .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The devs actually worked together with some community members to help sort whatever is off with the Fw-190. They used community help to find a missing document containing the data they needed to fine-tune the airframe, and in parallel also received a compiled document containing extensive data comparisons between the in-game Fw-190 and real life test data outlining the differences which could be leading to the reported instability. On top of that, they have given a timeline for evaluating the issue - namely when they create the flight model for the Fw-190A-5 since then it will be easier to work on the Fw-190A-3 without disrupting the development schedule.

 

As noted already a few times, i really think communication is a big problem. The 190 issue wasn't communicated in the English Forum at any point. Last answer in English forum was "all fine, just feelings".

I only know it, because the people involved told me...otherwise i'd probably still be raging about it here and there  :blush:  

They should be really clear about issues in both Forums, not only the Russian one..would probably prevent a lot of anger from people who are not so perfectly informed..

Edited by II./JG77_Manu*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As noted already a few times, i really think communication is a big problem. The 190 issue wasn't communicated in the English Forum at any point. Last answer in English forum was "all fine, just feelings".

I only know it, because the people involved told me...otherwise i'd probably still be raging about it here and there  :blush:  

They should be really clear about issues in both Forums, not only the Russian one..would probably prevent a lot of anger from people who are not so perfectly informed..

 

This I can get behind. Sometimes the communication from the team is excellent, especially from developer updates, but sometimes its not so good. Even if I were to agree (not that I do specifically) with the sentiment behind "all fine, just feelings" I would never write that as a PR/Communications person (and I am one, its my job) as it will surely upset and enrage a bunch of people.

 

I thought we did have a post somewhere saying the FW190 issue would be looked at again?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found out about it in the English forum, it came up on opcode and then Crump's last thread there. A dev first popped in to request information on opcode's thread, then one of the people involved (can't recall the username) said they had reached a conclusion on the data submitted and will look at it. Separately, and a while later, Crump submitted his own report and posted that he was told this was going to be looked into later on when the Fw-190A-5 is developed.

 

Not sure it was ever mentioned through the Russian forum so I can't say.

 

(And hello there ShamrockOneFive, marketing and comms worker here myself, and occasional makeshift PR guy :biggrin:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Not sure it was ever mentioned through the Russian forum so I can't say.

Ok, then it's a problem in general, not only the English forum.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would guess the proper public announcement will come through a developer's diary released when they start working on the Fw-190A-5. They have been pretty consistent at letting information out only once it's confirmed and worked on, so judging by the precedent this should follow that standard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I found out about it in the English forum, it came up on opcode and then Crump's last thread there. A dev first popped in to request information on opcode's thread, then one of the people involved (can't recall the username) said they had reached a conclusion on the data submitted and will look at it. Separately, and a while later, Crump submitted his own report and posted that he was told this was going to be looked into later on when the Fw-190A-5 is developed.

 

Not sure it was ever mentioned through the Russian forum so I can't say.

 

(And hello there ShamrockOneFive, marketing and comms worker here myself, and occasional makeshift PR guy :biggrin:)

A large part of the BOS/M community is more than annoyed with the quality of the FW190 FM and, what is even more serious, is how this issue is handled by the developers team. One more reason to ensure that intentions are clearly communicated in all forums (Russian and International). I fully agree with ShamrockOneFive statements and I think in many ways, the communication of the developers is excellent in others it leaves much to be desired.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would guess the proper public announcement will come through a developer's diary released when they start working on the Fw-190A-5. They have been pretty consistent at letting information out only once it's confirmed and worked on, so judging by the precedent this should follow that standard.

 

I don't mean to gaslight anything/anybody but they've also been pretty consistent with posting details on the Russian forums which never make it to their Western consumers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Factually, but most of it comes from chit-chat rather than announcements. It would be good if one more member of the dev team besides BlackSix and Jason hung out here often, then we'd see the snippets you're missing mode of the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would guess the proper public announcement will come through a developer's diary released when they start working on the Fw-190A-5. They have been pretty consistent at letting information out only once it's confirmed and worked on, so judging by the precedent this should follow that standard.

 

I can't see this consistency. Just recently there was a mention about some "prop-hanging" 109s (a "problem" i really can't see, and quite some tests by the community showed the same), and that they "look into it", while there was nothing but a mere opinion from forum member. This gets into a Dev Diary - while at the same time the 190 story doesn't. Back then when they nerfed the Yak flaps, there was only denial, until they eventually fixed them, and then it made it's appearence in the DD. It seems pretty selective at times, probably "political" reasons...anyway.

There are just numerous occasions of questionable PR, mostly communication in the forum, which cause such an upstir. This is the reason of many bad reviews and hate in other Forums, metacritic, TS etc, more then anything else (like game design, FM, etc)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...