Clear Blue Water

[Cynic_Al]

Obvious as it will sound, it's important be aware that Flying Circus is a new game; it has no history and regardless of the fact that it may be partially derived from earlier code, I would assert that no previous game can be cited when discussing or justifying issues that may arise relating to Flying Circus. The fact that issues relating to Flying Circus may have been debated to exhaustion elsewhere, cannot be used as justification to stifle or suppress those subjects being discussed here.

 

In case I'm not making myself entirely clear, we'll try a simple hypothetical example: If I were to discover that a particular plane had a performance notably inferior to figures that the game makers had elected to publish, and to which we must assume they give credence,  I would be obliged to ask for an explanation for such a discrepancy and when I could expect it to be corrected. Having made such an inquiry, I would hope that the community would not accept (much less give) any explanation based on past events unconnected to this game.

[LukeFF]

Geeze, are there any other demands while you are at it?

 

I'm seeing this as a veiled attempt to diss the flight models, which as we all plainly know have been transferred directly from ROF. And, like it or not, the 1CGS guys are not going to revisit them, for reasons that have been plainly given and explained by Jason.

 

32 minutes ago, Cynic_Al said:

I would assert that no previous game can be cited when discussing or justifying issues that may arise relating to Flying Circus.

 

Oh, gimme a break already. You know as well as anyone else here that people are going to reference Rise of Flight, and for very good reasons.

[HiIIBiIIy]

@ Cynic_Al  Why are you so cynical?

Edited July 19, 2018 by HiIIBiIIy

[Cynic_Al]

7 hours ago, LukeFF said:

Geeze, are there any other demands while you are at it?

 

I'm seeing this as a veiled attempt to diss the flight models, which as we all plainly know have been transferred directly from ROF. And, like it or not, the 1CGS guys are not going to revisit them, for reasons that have been plainly given and explained by Jason.

 

 

Oh, gimme a break already. You know as well as anyone else here that people are going to reference Rise of Flight, and for very good reasons.

 

Rise of Flight? Never heard of it. Are you a nominated representative of the company, authorised to make declarations on its behalf? I have not seen in this forum any official explanation about attitude there may be toward flight models. This is a new game and must be evaluated as such, with no reference to any perceived predecessor and there are no 'good reasons' to do otherwise. If Flying Circus flight models were discovered to be demonstrably incorrect,  the community would be entirely justified in expecting them to be corrected.  Any failure so to do, could inflict significant damage both upon the credibility of the product and the way it may be reviewed here and elsewhere, which I'm sure all concerned would wish to avoid.

In the past I'm sure I read elsewhere that the 'BoX' community was resilient and intolerant of adverse features in the products it uses, so it would be disappointing to see it letting itself down regarding this product.

 

Always remember that should you or anyone else feel restrained in speaking freely here, its possible you may find an alternative place for discussion.

[Archie]

I think I've found the first candidate for my ignore list. 

[Voidhunger]

[Cynic_Al]

1 hour ago, 6./ZG76_Archie said:

I think I've found the first candidate for my ignore list. 

 

Ah yes, that's the system that 'hides' posts from selected users, but not when quoted by others, so you still get to see at least parts of what they said, obliging you to disable the feature to ensure you didn't miss anything. Perhaps it would help if I change my name to 'Reality'; alternatively maybe I could furnish you with a bucket of sand. A more useful alternative would be to hear a counter argument, assuming you can construct one.

 

[HiIIBiIIy]

1 hour ago, 6./ZG76_Archie said:

I think I've found the first candidate for my ignore list. 

I would say more like the first candidate for permanent ban. ?

[Diggun]

23 minutes ago, Cynic_Al said:

Ah yes, that's the system that 'hides' posts from selected users, but not when quoted by others, so you still get to see at least parts of what they said, obliging you to disable the feature to ensure you didn't miss anything. Perhaps it would help if I change my name to 'Reality'; alternatively maybe I could furnish you with a bucket of sand. A more useful alternative would be to hear a counter argument, assuming you can construct one.

Learn to grammar. 

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

JFC... 

 

2 hours ago, Cynic_Al said:

-snip-

 

Always remember that should you or anyone else feel restrained in speaking freely here, its possible you may find an alternative place for discussion.

 

Like that one where you censor or remove any posts that are contradictory to your tender feelings all the while accusing the developer of doing the same thing?

 

Riiiiiight. ?

Edited July 19, 2018 by Space_Ghost

[unreasonable]

There is a difficulty that will not go away, that in the BoX series the developers have explicitly stated that they build their FMs without regard to "balance",  (or bias), but purely on the documented, factory fresh basis.  In the case of some RoF FMs that is manifestly not the case: some FMs have been balanced for MP, to the joy of some and the horror of others.

 

So FC, long term, needs to follow either the BoX path or the RoF path: it cannot follow both. I am very much hoping that it will follow the BoX path and that balance in MP becomes an issue for server administrators using a choice of planes and modifications such as engine variants.

 

But this could take a long time: meanwhile we will have something like the RoF FMs whether we like it or not, but perhaps not exactly the same: a number of people have reported that the behaviour of the Dr.1 for instance is subtly different, but perhaps that is a placebo effect.

 

 

 

 

 

[J2_Trupobaw]

OP [...]
Go ahead. You will find that site owners came came from the same community we did, and have been upgrading their standards during four years we spent stranded on cannibal island. Especially when it comes to FM discussions, I'd love to see how the "no idle BS discussions" rule works in practice.

You may also find that forum rule 17 covers "false or harmful information about the product ". Not false and harmful . 

 

Quote

Always remember that should you or anyone else feel restrained in speaking freely here, its possible you may find an alternative place for discussion.

Nice try. Except it's been done before by bigger groups of people on bigger subjects (2015 unlocks forum wars, anyone ?). Didn;t work, for some reason.

@everyone else : meet Al. If you want to make him happy, make emotional responses to his posts then start arguing between each other.

 

2 hours ago, 6./ZG76_Archie said:

I think I've found the first candidate for my ignore list. 

Not just the first; be ready to keep adding his other accounts as they appear ?.

[JGr2/J5_Klugermann]

LMAO !!!!   

Edited July 19, 2018 by Klugermann

[Ceowulf]

10 minutes ago, LsV_Trupobaw said:

...during four years we spent stranded on cannibal island.


 

 

LOL.  Glad to see you're (we're all) in a better mood!

 

Ceowulf<><

Edited July 19, 2018 by Ceowulf

[J2_Trupobaw]

7 minutes ago, Ceowulf said:

 

LOL.  Glad to see you're (we're all) in a better mood!

 

Ceowulf<><

I was, until I realised I need to re-learn how to use these in discussion...

[HiIIBiIIy]

LOL       ?

[SYN_Haashashin]

Hi all,

 

This topic will remain locked. I do not see a need of unlocking it. I will say this again: Read the forum rules and follow them and all will be good. Now let me quote some of you to get things clear.

 

I picked to quote this part, You didnt use it to say nothing about FM discussion but you subtly did at the OP.

7 hours ago, Cynic_Al said:

I have not seen in this forum any official explanation about attitude there may be toward flight models.

This subsection has the same rules as all of them. Attitude about FM discussions is very very clear, read the rules:

18. Claiming that FM is incorrect without the required proof and starting a flame thread based on such claim is prohibited.

The form for an FM claim consists of:

• short but consistent description of the claim;
• link to a reference and to a specific part of such reference that describes correct behaviour of a disputed element/situation;
• game track record and the list of conditions used to recreate disputed element/situation

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

First offense - 7 days ban on entry

Second offense - 30 days ban on entry

Third offence - permanent ban on entry

 

Maybe, in the future there is a FM discussion section, I really dont know as of now. What I do know is that FMs seems to be final so the attitude toward the FM per se is very clear.

 

7 hours ago, Cynic_Al said:

 If Flying Circus flight models were discovered to be demonstrably incorrect,  the community would be entirely justified in expecting them to be corrected.

 

Read above...

 

7 hours ago, Cynic_Al said:

Always remember that should you or anyone else feel restrained in speaking freely here, its possible you may find an alternative place for discussion.

Never happens as long as you follow the rules and most importantly, you are respectfull with others points of view. Respect is everything. If not, sure you wont be posting here.

 

4 hours ago, unreasonable said:

But this could take a long time: meanwhile we will have something like the RoF FMs whether we like it or not, but perhaps not exactly the same: a number of people have reported that the behaviour of the Dr.1 for instance is subtly different, but perhaps that is a placebo effect.

As been stated, FM are the same. But this is a "new" engine...maybe subtly differences but not FM changes at all as the team said several times.

 

4 hours ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

Not just the first; be ready to keep adding his other accounts as they appear ?.

As soon as I discover anyone using duplicated accounts to post or to baypass a warning I wont hesitate in applying rule 21.

21. Registering and usage of a backup (optional) account without the consent of the forums administrator is prohibited. Violation of this rule will result in the deletion of the duplicate account and limited access rights for the main forum account for a period of 1 month.

 

Haash

Edited July 19, 2018 by SYN_Haashashin