Jump to content
Gavrick

Developer Diary, Part 140 - Discussion

Recommended Posts

Some of you folks in this thread need to relax. This is a classic example of how to get revisions done.. No one will ever be 100% satisfied in this sim..  be glad that you have a team that will listen but don't expect to dictate the agenda on what, when or how things get done in this sim as far as fixes , revisions or any of that.. . 

 

Knock off the nonsense .. 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps those who claimed FM revisions were 'balancing' or bias have learned nothing either  :)

 

or maybe progress has been made, trust has been gained, and an easier and less antagonistic future lies ahead, one can only hope :cool:

 

Cheers Dakpilot 

You just wait for the more famous Yankee planes get into the game. Will be...interesting. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also I did not say that it isn't a good ground attack airplane. And sorry, when you write that you believe people want more than reality will give, what has this to do with the subject? Maybe you are right, maybe not, but it doesn't change the wrong things which should be fixed to get this sim closer to reality.

Yes, FW190 a ground attack plane. Except it was not, at least until the F type.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DEVS have already admitted that they were wrong and those who argued that FM was correct are in an uncomfortable situation. Let's stay 1 year flying the broken fw. Ever wondered if people were the same opinion? "DEVS are right, FM is correct." Although we have people with critical thoughts, because on the contrary, the Fw190 would never be correct. Why the DEVS did not wonder if the chart showing 1.17 was correct? Why not ask the community for help to know more about the test in the French wind tunnel? I think developers have learned from the bugs. Today I see that they are much more communicative. Glad it happened. I very much believe in this SIM and hope the defense cavalry has learned something too. Again, congratulations to the guys who took the time to find the documents. Congratulations to the DEVS for being more communicative. I've never stopped flying the Fw 190, it's my favorite bird

. We are in virtual skies, dear pilots. Horrido

Edited by JAGER_Kampf
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fantastic news!

thank you for re-analyzing this aircraft.

a large portion of your customer base will be grateful for your investment

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think I've had a chance to say anything.

 

Thank you for a wonderful update Roman! I loved the attention to detail and getting an inside look on whats going on with the FW190 and stuff in general. Also, loving Panzerbar's new skins! Spectacular work all around!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DEVS have already admitted that they were wrong and those who argued that FM was correct are in an uncomfortable situation. Let's stay 1 year flying the broken fw. Ever wondered if people were the same opinion? "DEVS are right, FM is correct." Although we have people with critical thoughts, because on the contrary, the Fw190 would never be correct. Why the DEVS did not wonder if the chart showing 1.17 was correct? Why not ask the community for help to know more about the test in the French wind tunnel? I think developers have learned from the bugs. Today I see that they are much more communicative. Glad it happened. I very much believe in this SIM and hope the defense cavalry has learned something too. Again, congratulations to the guys who took the time to find the documents. Congratulations to the DEVS for being more communicative. I've never stopped flying the Fw 190, it's my favorite bird

. We are in virtual skies, dear pilots. Horrido

 

I don't think anyone seriously argued that  the FW FM was correct and did not need adjusting, Just that the way many argued about it was wrong

 

The reason it took so long was more due to the ridiculous arguing, without any form of focus or data, to say that It would never have been fixed without the "outrage and threats" is patently wrong, shown by many fixes done on many aircraft (including FW 190) from sensible communication, this has always been the case when facts and or logical argument have been presented.

 

There were many claims about traits and performance of FW which were proved incorrect, you cannot fix something based on feelings, insulting/ridiculing Dev's is never a sound argument to make progress or a sensible way to communicate, terms such as 'defence cavalry' do nothing to help, I will however continue to argue against those who claim it is/was all a conspiracy based on bias

 

Cheers Dakpilot

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone seriously argued that  the FW FM was correct and did not need adjusting, Just that the way many argued about it was wrong

 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

I really do think there were people who argued seriously that everything is fine with the Fw FM. No need to defend that side of the party either. 

 

I am not particularly an Fw fan or anything but if the fanboys can be blamed overreacting, so can the other side. 

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok enough of the bickering or I'll close it. Getting real tired of the bickering. Who gives a crap...we are going to work on the A3 now that we understand the issue better. We've explained why and we don't care who was right or wrong and neither should you. We've done this with multiple planes over the years, no big deal and part of the job. Just knock it off.

 

Jason 

  • Upvote 25

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok enough of the bickering or I'll close it. Getting real tired of the bickering. Who gives a crap...we are going to work on the A3 now that we understand the issue better. We've explained why and we don't care who was right or wrong and neither should you. We've done this with multiple planes over the years, no big deal and part of the job. Just knock it off.

 

Jason 

Well said.

 

FM is evolving with new data and it`s great. Team is doing awesome work.

Edited by Zami

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DEVS have already admitted that they were wrong and those who argued that FM was correct are in an uncomfortable situation. Let's stay 1 year flying the broken fw. Ever wondered if people were the same opinion? "DEVS are right, FM is correct." Although we have people with critical thoughts, because on the contrary, the Fw190 would never be correct. Why the DEVS did not wonder if the chart showing 1.17 was correct? Why not ask the community for help to know more about the test in the French wind tunnel? I think developers have learned from the bugs. Today I see that they are much more communicative. Glad it happened. I very much believe in this SIM and hope the defense cavalry has learned something too. Again, congratulations to the guys who took the time to find the documents. Congratulations to the DEVS for being more communicative. I've never stopped flying the Fw 190, it's my favorite bird

. We are in virtual skies, dear pilots. Horrido

 

I think there are lessons to be learned from the Fw experience both for the devs and also the community. 

 

I've followed many FM arguments on the forum and a disagreement that always arises is between those who demand hard documented evidence and dismiss out of hand all  experience-based complaints (either reports from WW2 pilots about how the real aircraft handled, or reports from virtual pilots) as 'feelings' and 'anecdotes'. These people - and I'm talking about forum members here - are usually from an engineering background and their training and experience has shown them the importance of relying on hard data to make conclusions. As a result they can be very dismissive of opinion. No matter how many community members may be convinced that something is wrong, hard data is all that counts.

 

But the Fw situation revealed something interesting. In this case the devs based a decision on hard factual evidence (Cl max=1.17) that apparently fulfilled all criteria for documented engineering accuracy. Based on the evidence in front of them their Fw flight model was accurate. Yet a very large part of the community were convinced it was wrong. And in this case they were proved right. In this case the 'feelings' and 'anecdotes' were hinting at a deep error in the apparently sound engineering evidence.

 

I think there has to be an important lesson here. When an aircraft's performance deviates in a major way from expectation and documented wartime reports maybe there should be a greater willingness to re-examine evidence and conclusions.

 

Maybe a better way can be found to address these issues in future. Some kind of more formalised process. There would need to be some kind of weighting process to establish cases worthy of attention as the devs can't possibly launch an investigation into every perceived (and often groundless) discrepancy.

 

Maybe what was eventually arrived at for the Fw could provide a template for the future, with a single community member or small group appointed to communicate with the devs in private while a request for finding new documented evidence is made to community members.

Edited by kendo
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there are lessons to be learned from the Fw experience both for the devs and also the community. 

 

I've followed many FM arguments on the forum and a disagreement that always arises is between those who demand hard documented evidence and dismiss out of hand all  experience-based complaints (either reports from WW2 pilots about how the real aircraft handled, or reports from virtual pilots) as 'feelings' and 'anecdotes'. These people - and I'm talking about forum members here - are usually from an engineering background and their training and experience has shown them the importance of relying on hard data to make conclusions. As a result they can be very dismissive of opinion. No matter how many community members may be convinced that something is wrong, hard data is all that counts.

 

But the Fw situation revealed something interesting. In this case the devs based a decision on hard factual evidence (Cl max=1.17) that apparently fulfilled all criteria for documented engineering accuracy. Based on the evidence in front of them their Fw flight model was accurate. Yet a very large part of the community were convinced it was wrong. And in this case they were proved right. In this case the 'feelings' and 'anecdotes' were hinting at a deep error in the apparently sound engineering evidence.

 

I think there has to be an important lesson here. When an aircraft's performance deviates in a major way from expectation and documented wartime reports maybe there should be a greater willingness to re-examine evidence and conclusions.

 

Maybe a better way can be found to address these issues in future. Some kind of more formalised process. There would need to be some kind of weighting process to establish cases worthy of attention as the devs can't possibly launch an investigation into every perceived (and often groundless) discrepancy.

 

Maybe what was eventually arrived at for the Fw could provide a template for the future, with a single community member or small group appointed to communicate with the devs in private while a request for finding new documented evidence is made to community members.

 

No sorry this will not happen. We are not going to be spending all day revising flight models. Our engineering team is already overworked and behind schedule. The 190 was a special case and will eventually work itself out. Those that know how to communicate with us on such matters can continue to do so if they find anything interesting. We  are grateful to those that found a missing piece of data and this is not the first time this has happened. But we're not going to appoint anyone special for review flight-models. We will continue to work with the community on an "as needed" basis. We need to continue to push forward with our plan. The time, resources and money available to constantly revise stuff is non-existent. 

 

Jason

  • Upvote 15

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love how the dev team are making this sim better and better... I play a lot and enjoy it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

love how the dev team are making this sim better and better... I play a lot and enjoy it!

 

Totally agree.

 

And to the Devs...Thank you for the good news.

Edited by MF-beepee
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to revisit from an old thread. I was exhausted by the bickering as well and tried to take a more centrist view for the good of the Fw and the game in general.  I had my faith shaken a bit in EA but have been among this teams more vocal proponents ever since. I'm glad the data was located and even more appreciative that reasonable voices prevailed inside and outside the DEV team. Thanks Jason, Thanks Gavrick, and Thanks Team (that's all of us as a Dev and Simmer community - in case you've lost sight of that):

 

AndyJWest, on 13 Sept 2016 - 17:04, said:snapback.png

Sorry, but the last thing the developers should do is base FM revisions on forum polls. 

To a major extent I agree. The original data should be the primary resource for all of the aircraft performance in game. The problem, however, is this; There are multiple layers of interpretation involved with what appears on screen.

 

The first layer is of the original documentation. There are multiple documents presented here and elsewhere which show slightly different data for the Fw. Some of that data is of captured AC, some is of factory fresh AC and some is of slightly different versions of the AC.

 

The next layer is the interpretation of that data by the DEVS. I am absolutely convinced they have done their level best to interpret it correctly. They are human and mistakes can and possibly have been made. The DEVS were sure the last iteration of the Fw was correct but then it was updated. There is nothing to say it could have been interpreted incorrectly this time as well or better data points exsist. I honestly believe they think it is correct now. I also think it could be tweaked again to stay true to the available data and have an AC we can all believe in. There is wiggle room in the data for sure.

 

The next layer is in the programming. The game engine must then interpret the data input into it and spit out it's best approximation of what the AC should do in relation to the physics it attempts to recreate on our screens. Everything we get on screen is an approximation along with a variety of compromises for computing/gaming purposes.

 

So, I voted yes. It is worth another look. The reason why is this; The AC does not, in fact, live up to the anecdotal information we have grown up with for roughly 75 years in the West. The Russian anecdotal information is different. Not biased but different. They encountered the AC under vastly different circumstances. The Fw, in game, is a fine AC. It is my primary ride and I do well with it - both as a lone wolf and as a dedicated pair. I am only shot down when I make a mistake, almost exclusively.

 

With that said, the final interpretation of the data is with the user. The aircraft should conform to the user's expectation (interpretation) of all of the above points.

 

The anecdotal information should be the LEAST important of all the data used by the DEVS in their final analysis.

 

BUT it should not be completely excluded either.  The aircraft should conform to the user's expectation (interpretation) of all of the above points. (Yes, I repeated that on purpose.)

 

That is why I advocate here and elsewhere to have the stall characteristics, and those characteristics alone, be redone as they do not conform to just about any pilot accounts of the aircraft in combat. The stall characteristics in the previous iteration were sudden and seemed reasonable. The new stall is nearly instantaneous and ahistorical from everything I have ever read. I'm less vociferous about it only because I am tired. The debate is exhausting and the trolls on both sides somewhat insideous in their tactics. Some of the Luftie's claims are outrageous. Some of the detractor's claims are laughable as well.

 

The aircraft, honestly, ain't bad at all. It just isn't "right," either. It seems it would take an entire re-write, if I understand it correctly, to go deeply back into the coding. We can't just pick and choose a single aspect of the FM to tweak. It is part of the reason why adjusting the "fineness" improved some aspects and degraded another. Frankly, I'd pay for the programmer to go over the data again personally if that's what it'd take.

Edited by II/JG17_HerrMurf
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The devs admit the fw190 flight model needs a revision after meaningful reports are supplied to them..... yet people are still bickering.....

Understandably this has been a raw issue for a number of people, but we shouldn't act like the flood gate is now open to all of our concerns.

Perhaps we all need to see the big picture....

For example in DCS the Spitfire IX will soon be released at the cost of $40US, last I checked BOS didn't cost anyone $320 US for the standard version, and neither did BOM.

The devs are working hard to make the next iteration, so unless we are willing to spend $320 US for the standard version of Kuban, we should cut them some slack,

Be thankful for the open acknowledgement, and be patient. 

 

Edited by novicebutdeadly
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 190 is currently my favourite Axis plane to fly. Glad to see it will be getting better. With the A5 and Hs-129 coming, I may just be flying for the Germans over Kuban lol.  :salute:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

For example in DCS the Spitfire IX will soon be released at the cost of $40US

 

This is something I have tried for years to explain, people simply do not see it.

I can understand the price on the Spit, complexity cost, and if you take away the map you buy a entire new game with offline campaign, tutorials , missions and many month with great learning prosess.

 

This game offer a whole pack at a similar price, for its quality it is a bargain, still people believe they bought a real plane and have the same expectations 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any news on the release of the Yak1B Skin Template??? I wanna get skinnningggg hehe 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The devs admit the fw190 flight model needs a revision after meaningful reports are supplied to them..... yet people are still bickering.....

 

Understandably this has been a raw issue for a number of people, but we shouldn't act like the flood gate is now open to all of our concerns.

 

Perhaps we all need to see the big picture....

 

For example in DCS the Spitfire IX will soon be released at the cost of $40US, last I checked BOS didn't cost anyone $320 US for the standard version, and neither did BOM.

 

The devs are working hard to make the next iteration, so unless we are willing to spend $320 US for the standard version of Kuban, we should cut them some slack,

 

Be thankful for the open acknowledgement, and be patient. 

 

 

 

I'm sure the devs realize by now that they can please some of the people most of the time but never all of the people all of the time. The vast majority of us are just happy that further refinement in the data was made available by some people doing some really good research and that has benefited us all. I'm appreciative of that hard work on both the community and the developers side.

 

As for those who are still bickering... They were bickering the whole time and not really contributing anything else very useful and if it wasn't the FW190s lift coefficient it would be something else. It's always the same people.

 

Anyways... moving forward I'm really happy about this, I'm much more optimistic about the FW190A-5, and I'm looking forward to a lot more stick time in all of these aircraft. As I wrote recently on my blog, these changes plus some of the work they did with rudders and the flight model should make for a very enjoyable flying experience.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why do many see contrary opinions as if they were a fight?

It is very good that we have divergence of opinions, otherwise, fw 190 would be forever 1.17. But if in the forum we can only write "compliments" then ok.

Remember something: never let your arrogance be greater than your humility.

Waiting for the new FM.  Thank you :cool:

Edited by JAGER_Kampf
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Why do many see contrary opinions as if they were a fight?
It is very good that we have divergence of opinions, otherwise, fw 190 would be forever 1.17. But if in the forum we can only write "compliments" then ok.
Remember something: never let your arrogance be greater than your humility.
Waiting for the new FM. No more post. Thank you :cool:

 

 

Contrary opinions is completely fine and very useful in a debate. It's also a healthy thing to have in a community.

 

That is totally different than the troop of people who have been running around in every forum post they can find basically yelling "FIX THE FW190!!!" "DEVS BIAS!!!" and the kind the nonsense that is not a contrary opinion, or a useful piece of information, or a considered point in any way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The wood filler block at the bottom of the left pane and the offset of the pane holder at the top, as well as the vertical supports on either side of the center pane, all give indication that you may be looking at a thin plexiglass replacement less then 1/2" thick only instead of the thick glass that was original. Would you have any photos of other original il2's?

 

Now that I see it looks like it is for the side panels, but the central ones looks thick indeed, notice how the line which separates the street from the building gets distorted between the frontal and side windshields (the similar effect which happens in the Fw).

 

This is another picture I could find of an IL-2 cockpit, other than that couldn't find much more:

 

2001-133.jpg?itok=EawTgwYv

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No sorry this will not happen. We are not going to be spending all day revising flight models. Our engineering team is already overworked and behind schedule. The 190 was a special case and will eventually work itself out. Those that know how to communicate with us on such matters can continue to do so if they find anything interesting. We  are grateful to those that found a missing piece of data and this is not the first time this has happened. But we're not going to appoint anyone special for review flight-models. We will continue to work with the community on an "as needed" basis. We need to continue to push forward with our plan. The time, resources and money available to constantly revise stuff is non-existent. 

 

Jason

 

That's totally understandable.

 

My suggestion wasn't meant as something that should be a first step in any disagreement. As you say resources aren't available and most issues that are raised turn out to be misunderstandings or user error.

 

But for a situation like the Fw that turned into a stale-mated festering sore for a year or more and seriously damaged and divided the community - for a situation like that - maybe grasping it with a more direct creative approach earlier could have provided a resolution and a fix?

 

It's done and sorted now, but if a situation like that were to develop in future then maybe having another weapon in the armoury to deal with it might be helpful? That's really all I'm suggesting.

 

Kudos anyway for the fix and the work done.

Edited by kendo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's totally understandable.

 

My suggestion wasn't meant as something that should be a first step in any disagreement. As you say resources aren't available and most issues that are raised turn out to be misunderstandings or user error.

 

But for a situation like the Fw that turned into a stale-mated festering sore for a year or more and seriously damaged and divided the community - for a situation like that - maybe grasping it with a more direct creative approach earlier could have provided a resolution and a fix?

 

It's done and sorted now, but if a situation like that were to develop in future then maybe having another weapon in the armoury to deal with it might be helpful? That's really all I'm suggesting.

 

Kudos anyway for the fix and the work done.

 

I'm going to pretend you didn't say that the immature fighting, bickering, personal insults amongst the community was our fault. So annoying.

 

Jason

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to pretend you didn't say that the immature fighting, bickering, personal insults amongst the community was our fault. So annoying.

Jason, I didn't say that. That's the exact opposite of what I think. If my post has come across that way I apologise. I've been vocal at times in criticising what I saw as really unreasonable behaviour and crazy accusations. I feel that the devs have been reasonable throughout this matter and have been open to revising the FM provided sufficient evidence was forthcoming.

 

The point I was trying to make was that with the Fw FM it led to a stale-mated situation which, without new forthcoming evidence, couldn't be resolved. And that maybe a situation like that where there seems to be a deep problem somewhere unknown could justify a more pro-active dev-community search to actively uncover new data.

 

I don't know the details of what went on behind the scenes here to fix this and I'm not trying to tell the experts how to do their job. I've nothing but praise for the work and the patience shown in face of the difficulties and the determination to keep improving. I meant this as a positive suggestion. Nothing more.

Edited by kendo
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm going to pretend you didn't say that the immature fighting, bickering, personal insults amongst the community was our fault. So annoying.

 

Jason

Jason: Kendo was nothing but polite and trying to be helpful. The behavior of the community is not your fault, and Kendo said no such thing, but how you treat persistent complaints does have an impact on the attitude within the community.

 

I have absolutely no doubts about your and the teams full commitment to improving the entire sim as you expand it, and the results you produce clearly bear that out.

 

Still, some people have been left feeling exactly the opposite, until just now when Roman clearly and concisely stated the hows and whys of the Fw 190 FM and what changes are planned. Suddenly even the harshest critics are full of praise. That tells me, that it might be a good idea to look at how to further improve the (already good) communication with especially the most volatile parts of the community to minimize issues like this in the future.

  • Upvote 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jason: Kendo was nothing but polite and trying to be helpful. The behavior of the community is not your fault, and Kendo said no such thing, but how you treat persistent complaints does have an impact on the attitude within the community.

I have absolutely no doubts about your and the teams full commitment to improving the entire sim as you expand it, and the results you produce clearly bear that out.

Still, some people have been left feeling exactly the opposite, until just now when Roman clearly and concisely stated the hows and whys of the Fw 190 FM and what changes are planned. Suddenly even the harshest critics are full of praise. That tells me, that it might be a good idea to look at how to further improve the (already good) communication with especially the most volatile parts of the community to minimize issues like this in the future.

+1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had the reigns again for about 90 days. Whatever beef you have with us about whatever lasting more than that you need to drop. Has nothing to do with me or my way of doing things. Many things you wanted were prohibited before, but not now. So just stop the bickering and give me time to make stuff you have been asking for for 3 years.

 

In 2.006 you get DX11 (hopefully if bugs are squashed) and the damn built-in FPS counter the community has asked for years. I have 12 months to undo and change much of what was done in 36. Give me and the team a break and get behind us to support us and not critique us so much. Kuban needs to sell if you want the Pacific or anything else new. We've been on the edge of extinction for going on 8 years now. We're tired of it and the drama.

 

I realize some of you are just trying to be helpful, but we get it. We don't need so many suggestions constantly. We have many limits on what we can say and when about various topics. 99% of our answers will be "don't know".

 

Jason.

  • Upvote 21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come on, guys!

We have a dedicated and fantastic development team that's providing us with hundreds/thousands of hours of top-quality entertainment - for us to come really close to living out our dreams!!

 

They also give us regular and informative feed-back - keeping us "in the loop"!

 

PLEASE treat them with sensitivity!

 

One tip: It's HOW you ask, and debate, things that's so important!

 

If you want to be "heard", do so politely and reservedly!

 

I'm "old school" (63 years-old) and, sadly, I've seen a decline in the levels of respect/decency exhibited on the part of many who frequent the various flight sim forums that I've followed/participated in.

 

For the sake of our relatively small WWII flight sim community, keep it polite and decent in the future!

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had the reigns again for about 90 days. Whatever beef you have with us about whatever lasting more than that you need to drop. Has nothing to do with me or my way of doing things. Many things you wanted were prohibited before, but not now. So just stop the bickering and give me time to make stuff you have been asking for for 3 years.

 

 

Quite. There has been a "reset" in policy that has already shown results in communication but will take time to show it's full range of benefits, and most of us are delighted ( I hope and believe) and wish you luck going forwards.

 

Let's just give the team time and see what they come up with.  Meanwhile there is still plenty to talk about.

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was going to say about the same thing unreasonable just said - I can see things changing for the better, and it is my impression that many others do the same.

 

So Jason & team, please also look at the bright side - we see that things are changing for the better.

If you don't just want to take my feelings as indication, look at the likes the developer diaries were getting a year ago and what they are getting now. Even small news get more likes then big news got back then. The first one this year to have more than 50 is from August, and the lowest number of likes since then is 49.

We're with you.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite. There has been a "reset" in policy that has already shown results in communication but will take time to show it's full range of benefits, and most of us are delighted ( I hope and believe) and wish you luck going forwards.

 

Let's just give the team time and see what they come up with.  Meanwhile there is still plenty to talk about.

 

Agree.

FW-190A-3/5 DD has been officialy confirmed, and Jason has confirmed as well they are aware about our MG151/20 "complains".

It's time for a break after so many months of flame, here or with another sim waiting for check and fix.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I interpret from Jasons comment (which is more than fair) is that bottom line: BOK needs to sell.

 

In my view, Jason's new leadership will solely based on BOK units sold. Praises on forums help but low sales with high praises doesn't mean anything. I see about less than 20% BOK pre order sales compared to BOS preorder. Thats 5 times less than what Jason mentioned while back (they expect bok sales to be in par with bos).

 

At this rate, I wont be suprised if there wont be a Pacific title or any other updates after BOK release.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since purchasing this game, I've always felt there is a constant by effort by the developers to improve it; whilst trying to create the new content that the community wants.

As other people have said we are lucky to have this game.

Good WWll flight sims are thin on the ground right now; so from my point of view I'll back it all the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blowing up bridges driving a plane ,(in a good sim), yes much better option ..

A Pacific Theatre, I'd pre-order now and support that too.

For the popular folks out there, that like a good WW2 plane combat simulator and have the time to support it, social media could be a very worthy thing.. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had the reigns again for about 90 days. Whatever beef you have with us about whatever lasting more than that you need to drop. Has nothing to do with me or my way of doing things. Many things you wanted were prohibited before, but not now. So just stop the bickering and give me time to make stuff you have been asking for for 3 years.

 

In 2.006 you get DX11 (hopefully if bugs are squashed) and the damn built-in FPS counter the community has asked for years. I have 12 months to undo and change much of what was done in 36. Give me and the team a break and get behind us to support us and not critique us so much. Kuban needs to sell if you want the Pacific or anything else new. We've been on the edge of extinction for going on 8 years now. We're tired of it and the drama.

 

I realize some of you are just trying to be helpful, but we get it. We don't need so many suggestions constantly. We have many limits on what we can say and when about various topics. 99% of our answers will be "don't know".

 

Jason.

 

Thank you for your words, sounds promising! I'm being patient now.

 

Manfred

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If BOK did not sell much, because of a sense of mistrust, he took over a part of the community. I think that feeling has begun to change due to recent events. "Gain the respect and admiration of people and they follow you to hell if you need them." Let's give time to time

Edited by JAGER_Kampf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I interpret from Jasons comment (which is more than fair) is that bottom line: BOK needs to sell.

 

In my view, Jason's new leadership will solely based on BOK units sold. Praises on forums help but low sales with high praises doesn't mean anything. I see about less than 20% BOK pre order sales compared to BOS preorder. Thats 5 times less than what Jason mentioned while back (they expect bok sales to be in par with bos).

 

At this rate, I wont be suprised if there wont be a Pacific title or any other updates after BOK release.

 

And the huge problem with this is that thanks to the way BoS is set up on Steam, any eventual buyers of BoK on Steam *need* to own BoS first. Like it or not, Steam gets a far higher amount of traffic and exposure than this website and not finding a way to make BoM & BoK standalone on Steam is a huge act of shooting oneself in the foot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately, there isn't much time when a game developer notes pre-order sales is vital to survival of this project.  Not even a commercial viability.  A survival. 

When pre-order is requirement to stay afloat, there isn't much waiting time. 

 

BOM may be an explanation of post BOS situation, but BOK low sales may just be a representation of members don't put money where their mouth is at. 

 

I love to be on the wrong side on this. 

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...