AndyJWest Posted June 24, 2018 Posted June 24, 2018 I've been noticing quite a few 'bug reports' lately to the effect that something-or-other isn't modelled in the simulation, and therefore there is a bug. To my mind, this is not only a misuse of terminology, but less than helpful. A bug is, per the software industry's definition, something not working as intended. It isn't something they never intended to do, but 'should'. The developers are well aware that this simulation doesn't model everything. No simulation possibly can. They are working with finite resources, and have to make decisions about what is or isn't modelled, and to what degree of fidelity. They may well be interested in our opinions regarding improvements and new features we'd like to see, but mislabelling them as 'bug reports' isn't the way to do it. In fact it's probably the best way to get ignored. So a simple suggestion: before reporting a 'bug', ask yourself whether it really is one. And if it isn't, post it in the suggestions subforum instead. 1 19
Requiem Posted June 24, 2018 Posted June 24, 2018 Yeah that's a fair point, but I think many new people will start knowing what the devs aim to model/not model in time. Besides...have they technically modeled the entire universe since you can navigate by the stars at night? ?
-TBC-AeroAce Posted June 24, 2018 Posted June 24, 2018 1 hour ago, AndyJWest said: I've been noticing quite a few 'bug reports' lately to the effect that something-or-other isn't modelled in the simulation, and therefore there is a bug. To my mind, this is not only a misuse of terminology, but less than helpful. A bug is, per the software industry's definition, something not working as intended. It isn't something they never intended to do, but 'should'. The developers are well aware that this simulation doesn't model everything. No simulation possibly can. They are working with finite resources, and have to make decisions about what is or isn't modelled, and to what degree of fidelity. They may well be interested in our opinions regarding improvements and new features we'd like to see, but mislabelling them as 'bug reports' isn't the way to do it. In fact it's probably the best way to get ignored. So a simple suggestion: before reporting a 'bug', ask yourself whether it really is one. And if it isn't, post it in the suggestions subforum instead. U could not have put it better!
angus26 Posted June 25, 2018 Posted June 25, 2018 Completely agree, so much of this “we need this”, or “you guys didn’t do this” is just unessesary and pointless.
II/JG17_HerrMurf Posted June 25, 2018 Posted June 25, 2018 We should probably keep in mind that a large part of the undoing of CloD was feature creep and trying to model every single detail under the sun. It cratered the community and that negative experience is still shaking the foundations of our once healthy genre. The devs have gone a long way to remedying that situation by staying on task while taking some low risk chances with such things as Po-2’s and Ju-52’s (etc) at the prodding of this very vociferous rabble. I think they are doing alright and this community is generally pretty appreciative. That said, I’d really like to see..... 1 2
US63_SpadLivesMatter Posted June 25, 2018 Posted June 25, 2018 "But muh pilot body and clickpits..." 3
EAF19_Marsh Posted June 25, 2018 Posted June 25, 2018 Not being able to model the entire universe is a bug in the universe, not in the flight sims... Quote We should probably keep in mind that a large part of the undoing of CloD was feature creep and trying to model every single detail under the sun The day they showed us previews of the 'love rat' spitfire pilot with his (your?) g/f on his lap I knew that CLoD was doomed. 1
angus26 Posted June 25, 2018 Posted June 25, 2018 1 hour ago, EAF19_Marsh said: The day they showed us previews of the 'love rat' spitfire pilot with his (your?) g/f on his lap I knew that CLoD was doomed. Not to get too sidetracked here, but what was that about? I wasn’t really into Il2 at the time, can I get a brief explanation as to what that spitfire/this whole CloD thing was about?
1CGS LukeFF Posted June 25, 2018 1CGS Posted June 25, 2018 15 minutes ago, angus26 said: Not to get too sidetracked here, but what was that about? I wasn’t really into Il2 at the time, can I get a brief explanation as to what that spitfire/this whole CloD thing was about? It was a mission where the player flew a Spitfire with his girlfriend sitting on his lap. Aka the "Heartbreaker." https://www.google.com/search?q=il2+clod+heartbreaker&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj9xdndsO7bAhUPVsAKHXhhAE0Q_AUICSgA&biw=2560&bih=1335&dpr=1.5
EAF19_Marsh Posted June 25, 2018 Posted June 25, 2018 Quote Not to get too sidetracked here, but what was that about? I wasn’t really into Il2 at the time, can I get a brief explanation as to what that spitfire/this whole CloD thing was about? It was a part - IIRC - of the single-player campaign. That they wasted time on this was indicative of the absence of clarity that dogged the project.
1CGS LukeFF Posted June 25, 2018 1CGS Posted June 25, 2018 (edited) 6 hours ago, 19//Rekt said: LOL...looking over the aircraft in CLOD, I saw "Heartbreaker" and assumed it must've been a real hot rod version of the Spit that was supposed to break the Germans' hearts. That, or it was the limited edition Pat Benatar model. ? Edited June 25, 2018 by LukeFF
RedKestrel Posted June 25, 2018 Posted June 25, 2018 9 hours ago, LukeFF said: It was a mission where the player flew a Spitfire with his girlfriend sitting on his lap. Aka the "Heartbreaker." https://www.google.com/search?q=il2+clod+heartbreaker&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj9xdndsO7bAhUPVsAKHXhhAE0Q_AUICSgA&biw=2560&bih=1335&dpr=1.5 Heartbreaker? I imagine that went over like a lead zeppelin... 1
senseispcc Posted June 25, 2018 Posted June 25, 2018 (edited) A "bug" is when something is not working or better said not working correctly, by definition if it is not there it cannot be a bug. What it can be is an oversight. And yes indeed a game simulation or game can never be perfect by definition, those are not reality! Even war-game in the real world do not pretend to be prefect and they are at one on one scale on the real terrain with real planes, guns, soldiers, tanks, etc… and still they are not real they are simulation of a possible real situation. They shall never be perfect but is that a reason to stop trying to get them as real as possible in the boundaries of the physical means to simulate reality? I say no. But there are 2 factors to take into account: 1/ the amount of money spend to develop the simulation, is it profitable, yes or no? 2/ is the simulation playable on common machines that you can find in the majority of homes and that the persons how play the game can afford? If you can answer yes to this 2 questions, then you have a viable simulation for the player and the firm that produce it. The perfect simulation for all is not for today nor for tomorow. 10 hours ago, EAF19_Marsh said: It was a part - IIRC - of the single-player campaign. That they wasted time on this was indicative of the absence of clarity that dogged the project. His fuel mix is to poor, there should be more fuel.?? Edited June 25, 2018 by senseispcc
[CPT]milopugdog Posted June 25, 2018 Posted June 25, 2018 One time I dove through a cloud in the Ju-87 in CloD. Was very surprised to find this on my windscreen! 4
EAF19_Marsh Posted June 25, 2018 Posted June 25, 2018 Appears that the Fuhrer is watching you! Hang on, is that text not from Biggs at the Battle of Yavin? https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/c66c9b47-a41c-436a-8a68-8950d2127dc1
II/JG17_HerrMurf Posted June 25, 2018 Posted June 25, 2018 2 hours ago, LukeFF said: That, or it was the limited edition Pat Benatar model. ? I'd actually pay for that. Jason, Premium perhaps? 1
Guest deleted@30725 Posted June 25, 2018 Posted June 25, 2018 I remember Jason in interviews saying that 'this is a game, it's meant to be fun', so go have fun.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now