Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Sublime

The Tempest Shrine (tempest discussion)

Recommended Posts

Yes men say yes. 

 

I personally wouldn’t use the word approachable and I have not seen anyone make unrealistic demands (is asking for historically correct power figures for aircraft unrealistic demands..?) or cause a ruckus.. 

 

Approachable in this situation would be after noticing a few questions from the community on the forums, a dev responding to those questions with information and their reasoning behind those decisions. This would clear up those questions as who are we to argue with that. 

Are we entitled to a response from the devs?? No. No we are not, however that is what makes good communication between devs/buyers which is important.

 

At the moment most mass concerns raised a group on this forum just gets ignored or downplayed until that group gets frustrated and then labelled as jerks and ostracised. That is not approachable.

 

Edit: @ICDP Mass labelling of bias is unfair and untrue. People normally have more interest a better knowledge base of their own countries aircraft. If they see their countries aircraft potentially being portrayed incorrectly they would voice their concerns as they are aware of that fact and are invested. I personally know very little/nothing about other countries aircraft however If I was invested and knowledgable in Russian or Axis aircraft I would be as vocal for their development too. However because I am not I do not. That is not bias. I (and I hope others) do not want British aircraft to be overpowered and the best in this sim I just wish for them to be portrayed in their most historically accurate for the time frame form possible. :salute: 

Edited by Bullets

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh well. Before Jason finally gets fed up and locks this thread, can I just say that I'm REALLY looking forward to the Tempest? It's the Bodenplatte aircraft that I want to fly above all others. Now to wait patiently... the day can't come soon enough.

Cheers.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find anything but indifference to be positive. 

When people say they pay big money and that entitles them to anything it is kind of funny. 

Problem is mostly lack of likeminded customer base and competition. 

It is kind of this or nothing in WW 2 cfs. 

That means devs are expected to please everybody. We all know that is not going to happened. I have tried every trick in the book to get this in my direction. Did not work. 

So I settled for what delivered, that gave me another perspective, you start to see the good things already there, mind got more set on what you can do and not what you think you want to do. 

My GB experience became 200% improved just by changing point of view 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, LuseKofte said:

 So I settled for what delivered, that gave me another perspective, you start to see the good things already there, mind got more set on what you can do and not what you think you want to do. 

My GB experience became 200% improved just by changing point of view 

 

Very positive way of looking at things. Will definitely try and do more of this in the future. :salute: 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jason has all right to be angry or iritated, i apologize for my part in all this and behaving like spoiled brat and bringing u its engine again.

I just got frustrated when i realized what engine type means for it, and developers dont deserve this level of nitpicking for sure, especialy after all its done for airplane and game improvments since Jason took over.

Like its said its only devs working and doing good job on making quality ww2 air combat enviroment for us, and it would be sad if they give up because vocal minority nitpickers like my self.

There is planty good said about them by most others, but i know its easy to focuse on negative so wrong impresion can be sean that they are not aprisiated by costumers, when most of their user base is greatfule for their work. I play the game that i like and will be glad to continue to buy other stuff they make for it, no mather for small stuff that dont feal right for me, and pipe down on complains.

 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone’s losing it over the Tempest and I’m just over here waiting for the Mustang...

 

Jokes aside, great job team. The DD was knocked out of the park and I have no doubt that BoBP will turn out to be one of the greats in flight sim history. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cant wait for the Tempest,its great that its been modelled and will hopefully re kindle my  love of flight sims.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

May I suggest that for a great read & wonderful photos that you take a look at WingLeader Magazine Vol.Two available here: https://www.wingleadermagazine.co.uk/

Though not specifically Tempest related Tiffy Boys deals in depth with Typhoon operations on D-Day & until the end of the war,with descriptions of operations complete with first person narratives that add color to the story. Its quite a read!

Also featured in the printed version is a series of articles describing the men ,equipment of the Dam Buster operations of 1943 plus other articles ( BoB Hurricane and Do-335)featured originally in the digital 4,5,& 6 issues.

 WingLeader Magazine is edited by Mark Postlethwaite who is also a very talented aviation artist and is beautifully put together with large format quality & seldom seen photos along with carefully put together flight diagrams & maps. Totally worth a look see!

 

wl.jpg

Edited by Blitzen
text
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Bullets said:

Yes men say yes. 

 

I personally wouldn’t use the word approachable and I have not seen anyone make unrealistic demands (is asking for historically correct power figures for aircraft unrealistic demands..?) or cause a ruckus.. 

 

Approachable in this situation would be after noticing a few questions from the community on the forums, a dev responding to those questions with information and their reasoning behind those decisions. This would clear up those questions as who are we to argue with that. 

Are we entitled to a response from the devs?? No. No we are not, however that is what makes good communication between devs/buyers which is important.

 

At the moment most mass concerns raised a group on this forum just gets ignored or downplayed until that group gets frustrated and then labelled as jerks and ostracised. That is not approachable.

 

Edit: @ICDP Mass labelling of bias is unfair and untrue. People normally have more interest a better knowledge base of their own countries aircraft. If they see their countries aircraft potentially being portrayed incorrectly they would voice their concerns as they are aware of that fact and are invested. I personally know very little/nothing about other countries aircraft however If I was invested and knowledgable in Russian or Axis aircraft I would be as vocal for their development too. However because I am not I do not. That is not bias. I (and I hope others) do not want British aircraft to be overpowered and the best in this sim I just wish for them to be portrayed in their most historically accurate for the time frame form possible. :salute: 

 

It wasn't aimed purely at you Bullets but when the same names keep popping up in the same type of discussions, then it is easy to see why a perception of bias is possible.  Think about how people perceive the type of post where you claim "I will stop supporting this sim until my favourite plane is fixed".  Please don't take that as an insult because IMHO you usually post rational and sensible stuff.

 

The worst types on all sim forums follow the same posting patterns (and I don't put you into this category).

  • Pop up to decry the devs as "biased" when they perceive their favourite plane/is nerfed by even a few percent.
  • Do the same when they perceive the "enemy" planes are a few percent faster.
  • Use only the best real life test results when it comes to their favorite aircraft.
  • Use the worst case real life test results for "enemy" aircraft.

If we look at historical records the 2nd batch of Tempests (300) were produced between May and Sept 1944 with Sabre IIa engines at 9 lb boost.  Then from Sept the Tempests were produced with Sabre IIb engines at 11 lb boost.  I know and agree that the Sabre IIa was upgraded to IIb standards but they weren't all done overnight and that means it is perfectly reasonable for a 9 lb boost Tempest soldiering on until  late 44/early 45 when they were all finally converted.

 

This document shows that Sabre IIa engines were still being converted to IIb standards in Jan 1945.

 

419-RSU-Jan45-Sabre_IIb_conversions.jpg

 

Would I love to see the Sabre IIb modelled as well?  Of course I would but if it isn't then I can't complain that it would be historically inaccurate, because a 9 lb boost Tempest fits just as well within the BoBP time-frame no matter how much some of us wish otherwise.

 

I know the K4 got its ultra rare 1.98 ATA mod but whataboutery is not a valid form of counter argument.

 

In short, the developers are not "wrong" to model a + 9 lb boost Tempest for the BoBP timeframe.

  • Upvote 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Blitzen said:

Tempest related Tiffy Boys

 

"Our worst enemy was the dam trigger-happy Americans. 😈

To them we looked like a Focke-Wulf or a Messerschimitt.

It didn't seem to matter to them that we are a British's aircraft with those great big invasion strips on each wing."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, ICDP said:

 

It wasn't aimed purely at you Bullets but when the same names keep popping up in the same type of discussions, then it is easy to see why a perception of bias is possible.  Think about how people perceive the type of post where you claim "I will stop supporting this sim until my favourite plane is fixed".  Please don't take that as an insult because IMHO you usually post rational and sensible stuff.

 

The worst types on all sim forums follow the same posting patterns (and I don't put you into this category).

  • Pop up to decry the devs as "biased" when they perceive their favourite plane/is nerfed by even a few percent.
  • Do the same when they perceive the "enemy" planes are a few percent faster.
  • Use only the best real life test results when it comes to their favorite aircraft.
  • Use the worst case real life test results for "enemy" aircraft.

If we look at historical records the 2nd batch of Tempests (300) were produced between May and Sept 1944 with Sabre IIa engines at 9 lb boost.  Then from Sept the Tempests were produced with Sabre IIb engines at 11 lb boost.  I know and agree that the Sabre IIa was upgraded to IIb standards but they weren't all done overnight and that means it is perfectly reasonable for a 9 lb boost Tempest soldiering on until  late 44/early 45 when they were all finally converted.

 

This document shows that Sabre IIa engines were still being converted to IIb standards in Jan 1945.

 

419-RSU-Jan45-Sabre_IIb_conversions.jpg

 

Would I love to see the Sabre IIb modelled as well?  Of course I would but if it isn't then I can't complain that it would be historically inaccurate, because a 9 lb boost Tempest fits just as well within the BoBP time-frame no matter how much some of us wish otherwise.

 

I know the K4 got its ultra rare 1.98 ATA mod but whataboutery is not a valid form of counter argument.

 

In short, the developers are not "wrong" to model a + 9 lb boost Tempest for the BoBP timeframe.

 

Maybe they're not "wrong" strictly going from very handpicked facts, but since you brought up the K-4, you can't take some data that is at the very least in doubt and model a very high boost on one plane, then completely ignore the veritable mountain of data that is effectively beyond doubt regarding higher boost pressure clearances and completely ignore it for the very same timeframe.

 

That is just asking to get accused of being biased, and @Jason_Williams really shouldn't be surprised how every discussion about topics related to this eventually gets out of hand, and quite honestly, him going Captain Capslock yet again in here is not the correct approach.

Edited by PainGod85

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It must be frustrating to deal with the same individuals  and their rantings time and time again. Oops did I say that aloud? 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, LF_Gallahad said:

It must be frustrating to deal with the same individuals  and their rantings time and time again. Oops did I say that aloud? 

Problem was exacerbated by giving the K-4 meme max power setting and not confirming the same thing for the Allies.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, PainGod85 said:

 

Maybe they're not "wrong" strictly going from very handpicked facts, but since you brought up the K-4, you can't take some data that is at the very least in doubt and model a very high boost on one plane, then completely ignore the veritable mountain of data that is effectively beyond doubt regarding higher boost pressure clearances and completely ignore it for the very same timeframe.

 

That is just asking to get accused of being biased, and @Jason_Williams really shouldn't be surprised how every discussion about topics related to this eventually gets out of hand, and quite honestly, him going Captain Capslock yet again in here is not the correct approach.

 

  • Pop up to decry the devs as "biased" when they perceive their favourite plane/is nerfed by even a few percent... CHECK
  • Do the same when they perceive the "enemy" planes are a few percent faster... CHECK
  • Use only the best real life test results when it comes to their favorite aircraft... CHECK
  • Use the worst case real life test results for "enemy" aircraft... CHECK

 

Four for four, well done.  Then goes on to finish off by calling out one of the devs and uses whataboutery because the devs dared to give the K4 an option for higher boost.

 

Nice.  Is it any wonder Jason gets annoyed now and again with this type of response.

Edited by ICDP
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not pointed to anyone particularly in this forum. But the fact is that you can`t never ever please all in the sim crowd. There is always someone who finds something wrong in his opinion. It can`t be helped, that`s the way it is. Period

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It pains me to see biased people from both sides go on these mini crusades.  It's funny because the majority of us want fairness and accuracy for all sides where possible.

 

I love the fact the K4 has the higher boost as an option because like it or not it was a thing historically (rare or not)

I would love to see an option for higher boost on the P-47, Tempest, Spitfire, Mustang and all other aircraft as and where warranted.  But that's part of being objective and unbiased when it comes to these things.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, ICDP said:

It pains me to see biased people from both sides go on these mini crusades.  It's funny because the majority of us want fairness and accuracy for all sides where possible.

 

I love the fact the K4 has the higher boost as an option because like it or not it was a thing historically (rare or not)

I would love to see an option for higher boost on the P-47, Tempest, Spitfire, Mustang and all other aircraft as and where warranted.  But that's part of being objective and unbiased when it comes to these things.

Agree.

I love the K4 with 1.98 ata.

I‘d love 150 octane for the Spitfire.

I love that at least from what I‘ve seen in the Video the Tempest will get 11+ lbs.

 

Naysayers to historically provable facts should just stay out of this forum, it‘s servers who should decide which mods to allow. 

Edited by So_ein_Feuerball

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, AndyJWest said:

Man. Bet that got passed up toa manager;)

The moment the tempest is out im gettjing on berloga with it so I can writhe in ecstasy the first time I catch someone with a good full on burst from all 4 cannon...

Itll have the satisfaction I get now when flying a 109 D9 and noticing we.re beating up on the allies and respawning in a spit ix and turning it around a little bit at least.. But more. So much more.  And Ill play around witb the P38. The pony can wait 😛

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Jason_Williams said:

 

It's very off-putting to the team and does not motivate them one bit to go the extra mile for you, which when you cry and campaign about +11lb boost, and assuming we add it, is what we are doing.

 

Jason

 

 

Am I reading it correctly that Jason is saying it's currently limited to 9lb but possible later addition of 11? Like 150 octane?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, =RvE=Windmills said:

 

 

Am I reading it correctly that Jason is saying it's currently limited to 9lb but possible later addition of 11? Like 150 octane?

 

Where did you read that? I can't see anything in Jason's recent posts that says anything of the sort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ICDP said:

If we look at historical records the 2nd batch of Tempests (300) were produced between May and Sept 1944 with Sabre IIa engines at 9 lb boost.  Then from Sept the Tempests were produced with Sabre IIb engines at 11 lb boost.

 

That's inaccurate, they were being delivered with a mix of IIA & IIB in the second batch. For conversions, Tempests had priority over Typhoons. I read all the squadron ORBs from Volkel.

 

 

873050224_1-Tempestspring012.thumb.jpg.5ad470afe11ff447757937415189bcb6.jpg

Edited by Talon_
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ICDP said:

 

  • Pop up to decry the devs as "biased" when they perceive their favourite plane/is nerfed by even a few percent... CHECK
  • Do the same when they perceive the "enemy" planes are a few percent faster... CHECK
  • Use only the best real life test results when it comes to their favorite aircraft... CHECK
  • Use the worst case real life test results for "enemy" aircraft... CHECK

 

Four for four, well done.  Then goes on to finish off by calling out one of the devs and uses whataboutery because the devs dared to give the K4 an option for higher boost.

 

Nice.  Is it any wonder Jason gets annoyed now and again with this type of response.

 

Nice strawman.

 

If you go back to my posting history, you'll find at least one post I remember offhand where I said that I'd be fine with moonshine boost on the 109K-4 and even the D-9 on the condition the allied planes received their 150 octane fuel, and I wasn't even asking for the British 81" Mustang squadrons then.

But hey, it's easier to just ignore any kind of criticism and refuse to even consider the point that it might be justified.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ICDP said:

 

It wasn't aimed purely at you Bullets but when the same names keep popping up in the same type of discussions, then it is easy to see why a perception of bias is possible.  Think about how people perceive the type of post where you claim "I will stop supporting this sim until my favourite plane is fixed".  Please don't take that as an insult because IMHO you usually post rational and sensible stuff.

 

 

Granted that claim I made wasn't the most reasonable statement I have ever made. The Tempest has never been  one of my favourite aircraft and It didn't even make my top 3 of planes I was most excited for in BoBP, it was simply I was frustrated with the Devs (potential as It's not been released or confirmed yet) decision to model yet another British aircraft with clipped wings (figuretively not literally). Especially when the community had posted countless sources which had just gone pretty much ignored. :salute: 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, PainGod85 said:

 

Nice strawman.

 

If you go back to my posting history, you'll find at least one post I remember offhand where I said that I'd be fine with moonshine boost on the 109K-4 and even the D-9 on the condition the allied planes received their 150 octane fuel, and I wasn't even asking for the British 81" Mustang squadrons then.

But hey, it's easier to just ignore any kind of criticism and refuse to even consider the point that it might be justified.

 

It wasn't a strawman at all, you are still doing the "whataboutery" logic.  So you would accept the LW having higher boost but only on the condition your favourite side got theirs as well?  Can you not see why this confirms your bias.

 

The devs made a call and regardless of what you or anyone else "feels" there is no bias or malice in their decisions.

34 minutes ago, Talon_ said:

 

That's inaccurate, they were being delivered with a mix of IIA & IIB in the second batch. For conversions, Tempests had priority over Typhoons. I read all the squadron ORBs from Volkel.

 

 

873050224_1-Tempestspring012.thumb.jpg.5ad470afe11ff447757937415189bcb6.jpg

 

It doesn't matter how much you wish it otherwise, the fact is the + 9 lb boost on the Tempest does historically fit within the BoBP timeframe.  I would love to see higher boost versions and do agree they were common but there are limits to resources that dictate what the devs can and cannot do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ICDP said:

 

It wasn't a strawman at all, you are still doing the "whataboutery" logic.  So you would accept the LW having higher boost but only on the condition your favourite side got theirs as well?  Can you not see why this confirms your bias.

 

The devs made a call and regardless of what you or anyone else "feels" there is no bias or malice in their decisions.

 

You are aware whataboutism is about a distinct, unrelated issue getting mentioned to deflect from the original?

 

We just want the same standards to apply to everyone, and this is not the case right now at all. The well documented use of 150 octane fuel gets completely disregarded for the allies while an engine rating that is barely documented in BP's timeframe was added for the Germans.

 

Can you not see this indicates a double standard on the part of the devs?

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...