Jump to content

Feedback


greybeard_52

Recommended Posts

greybeard_52

I often wonder if developers (even third parties) really want a contribution from users or if theirs is the classic "ivory tower" from which only something comes out and nothing can enter. I have experience of public contributions that have been destructive in the past, mostly because the questions were badly asked; therefore I share the prudence in evaluating comments and requests. But when I see objective motions ignored, while persevering in the questionable, I think this too is wasted time. If I then add that the observations, even if aimed at improving, often attract the aggressions of the "haters", I conclude that it is not really worth it.

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
[DBS]Browning

You should work on your post titles.

 

If you mean models and textures....
The Devs already source some skins from the community.

Models are more tricky as there are many hobby 3d artists and few professional ones who fully understand what is needed in a mesh beyond just a poly limit. Even when the Devs have a mesh that is fully up to spec (and all the documentation that goes with it), that is only a small part of the process.

 

To put it simply: If all the Devs needed to add an aircraft was a hobby quality 3d mesh, we would already have every plane from 1914-1946 ingame.

Edited by [DBS]Browning
Link to post
Share on other sites
greybeard_52
Posted (edited)

Evidently I couldn't explain myself. I was not referring to 3D models, but in general to suggestions for improving the game, supported by historical-scientific evidence. I very much appreciate the developers' effort to create and maintain a high level of realism, but precisely because of this when the public points out and proves gaps in this respect, I believe there should be a response positive and as fast as possible from the developers.

Edited by greybeard_52
spelling
Link to post
Share on other sites
Eisenfaustus
3 hours ago, [DBS]Browning said:

If you mean models and textures....

Think he is talking about criticism in general 

 

7 hours ago, greybeard_52 said:

or if theirs is the classic "ivory tower"

I know very few developers that have such a vivid and transparent communication with their community as Jason and his team. 

 

7 hours ago, greybeard_52 said:

But when I see objective motions ignored

First the absolute majority of motions aren’t objective - human usually aren’t in general. And for most suggestions you‘ll find as many players against it as are in favour. 
And even if you find something the majority would like to have added/changed that still doesn’t mean benefit and cost are a healthy relationship or it is at all possible with the current engine. 

14 minutes ago, greybeard_52 said:

when the public points out and proves gaps in this respect, I believe there should be a response positive and as fast as possible from the developers.

And what exactly was proven uncontested that the devs are ignoring in your opinion?

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
SharpeXB
On 4/29/2021 at 10:13 AM, greybeard_52 said:

I believe there should be a response positive and as fast as possible from the developers.

The Devs do actually respond to the correct type of feedback. But I don’t think anyone reading this thread can have the slightest idea what you’re posting about unless you can be specific. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
greybeard_52

I was making a conceptual speech, and therefore I couldn't be specific. But as an example of an objective lack whose correction suggestion was ignored, I can cite the (optional) removal of the external wing guns from the Fw 190A-8. But I don't want to create a duplicate here, I just want to respectfully point out that even the feedback, in its small way, requires a certain commitment; it would be easier to let it go and say nothing, or just stop buying the product.

Link to post
Share on other sites
SharpeXB
6 minutes ago, greybeard_52 said:

I can cite the (optional) removal of the external wing guns from the Fw 190A-8. But I don't want to create a duplicate here,

Then don’t. Just be brief and keep it to the topic wherever else that is. 

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
BraveSirRobin
23 minutes ago, greybeard_52 said:

I was making a conceptual speech, and therefore I couldn't be specific. But as an example of an objective lack whose correction suggestion was ignored, I can cite the (optional) removal of the external wing guns from the Fw 190A-8. But I don't want to create a duplicate here, I just want to respectfully point out that even the feedback, in its small way, requires a certain commitment; it would be easier to let it go and say nothing, or just stop buying the product.


If you don’t want to buy the product, don’t buy it.  And if you don’t want to buy it because of wing guns on the A-8, then you were really desperately looking for reasons not to buy it.

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
greybeard_52
10 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

Then don’t. Just be brief and keep it to the topic wherever else that is.

YOU asked to be specific!

 

9 hours ago, BraveSirRobin said:

you were really desperately looking for reasons not to buy it.

No need to look desperately, there are a lot!😄

Link to post
Share on other sites
BraveSirRobin
5 hours ago, greybeard_52 said:

 

No need to look desperately, there are a lot!😄


‘Then maybe you should have used a less embarrassing example than the A8 guns.

Link to post
Share on other sites
SharpeXB
6 hours ago, greybeard_52 said:

YOU asked to be specific!

Be specific in the correct section of the forum. What the point of a random rant thread? If your complaint is that nobody pays attention to you, maybe this is why. You should realize this whole thread doesn’t make any sense. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
greybeard_52
15 hours ago, BraveSirRobin said:

Then maybe you should have used a less embarrassing example than the A8 guns.

- There is no version of the game in my language
- The manual is missing (which should be there, in accordance with the directives of the European community, in the user's language)
- The maximum detail LoD disappears just 250 m from the observer; together with it the external loads disappear
- The direction indicated for landing in careers is not always the correct one (upwind)
- The amount of hits needed to shoot down an enemy plane is much higher than the historically proven values
- Enemy AI does not blackout on high G-count turns, or suffers it very late in relation to the player
- The "Matrix agent" evasive maneuvers of the enemy AI are unreal
- Altitude limit of 2000 m in career mission generation

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
AndyJWest
13 minutes ago, greybeard_52 said:

- The manual is missing (which should be there, in accordance with the directives of the European community, in the user's language)

 

I think you'll find that EU directives concerning manuals only cover safety issues. Sell a power tool in the EU, you need to supply a manual. Entertainment software though? I very much doubt it. Fell free to prove me wring by citing the relevant directive...

Link to post
Share on other sites
greybeard_52
1 minute ago, AndyJWest said:

I think you'll find that EU directives concerning manuals only cover safety issues

Maybe you're right. For decades I worked in a factory whose machinery had to have manuals in our language, and we demanded it from our suppliers; but there were security issues involved ... I don't know, I should inquire.

Link to post
Share on other sites
LukeFF
Posted (edited)
55 minutes ago, greybeard_52 said:

The amount of hits needed to shoot down an enemy plane is much higher than the historically proven values

 

Source?

 

55 minutes ago, greybeard_52 said:

Enemy AI does not blackout on high G-count turns, or suffers it very late in relation to the player

 

Not so - it uses the same G-model as the player (we've gone around and around on this, both here and in the beta testing forum. I don't want to be the bearer of bad news, but you are misinformed).

 

55 minutes ago, greybeard_52 said:

The "Matrix agent" evasive maneuvers of the enemy AI are unreal

 

Not really - they're subject to the same laws of physics as the player.

 

55 minutes ago, greybeard_52 said:

Altitude limit of 2000 m in career mission generation

 

Again, not so. Altitudes higher than 2000 meters can and are generated.

Edited by LukeFF
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
greybeard_52
2 hours ago, LukeFF said:

Source?

Alfred Price "I grandi caccia della Seconda Guerra Mondiale a confronto" page 65 photo and relevant caption: a Spitfire tail torn off by a single MK 108 shell. In game I need to hit the same at least three times.

 

3 hours ago, LukeFF said:

Not so - it uses the same G-model as the player

Maybe, but I experience blackout just following AI in the same turn...

 

3 hours ago, LukeFF said:

Not really - they're subject to the same laws of physics as the player.

Sure! But they move too fast in too many direction at the same time. From their movements, I can guess that it's like they act in rapid and random succession on all control devices (I mean stick and pedals) in a way that no human could replicate.

 

3 hours ago, LukeFF said:

Again, not so. Altitudes higher than 2000 meters can and are generated.

True. In 475 hours of game (so far) I got 1 (one) recon intercept mission of a Ju 88 flying at 6500 m.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
AEthelraedUnraed
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, greybeard_52 said:

- There is no version of the game in my language

Based on your citing an Italian book title, I'm going to assume that that's your native language. I just did a quick search, and of 96801 games on Steam, 23056 have Italian language support. That's less than a quarter. Simply put, the Italian game market is not so huge compared to other markets that you can expect every game to support Italian. I rather have the Devs put their time and money into improving the base game and adding new features, than in support for yet another language (they already support seven different languages). And this comes from a person whose native language (Dutch) is not represented either....

 

Besides, you seem to speak English fine so I really don't understand what the problem is.

 

1 hour ago, greybeard_52 said:

Alfred Price "I grandi caccia della Seconda Guerra Mondiale a confronto" page 65 photo and relevant caption: a Spitfire tail torn off by a single MK 108 shell. In game I need to hit the same at least three times.

Anecdotal evicence. I don't doubt there was a Spitfire tail shot off by a single MK108 shell at some point. That's quite different from saying a single shell hit always (or often) results in a tail falling off.


Another anecdotal tale: Owen J. Baggett is said to have shot down a Japanese aircraft with his Colt 1911 pistol. According to your reasoning, the IL2 damage model should be changed so that the M1911 kills aircraft with just one or two hits.

 

1 hour ago, greybeard_52 said:

Maybe, but I experience blackout just following AI in the same turn...

In my experience, blackouts are almost always caused by pilot error or wong tactics. If you often blackout, you are probably moving too much in the horizontal plane. Look up the Yo-Yo maneuver. Basically, whenever you're close to a blackout, you should usually take that as a sign that you're wasting energy and are better off trading some speed for altitude. It also sounds like you're flying Lead Pursuit. That means that you're pulling more Gs than the AI you're following, so it makes absolute sense that you blackout sooner. Unless you're looking for a firing solution, you're much better off flying Pure or Lag pursuit. Whatever the case, this is caused by your flying and not by the game.

 

1 hour ago, greybeard_52 said:

Sure! But they move too fast in too many direction at the same time. From their movements, I can guess that it's like they act in rapid and random succession on all control devices (I mean stick and pedals) in a way that no human could replicate.

Strange, I have no issues replicating the maneuvers of the AI at all. Unless I'm a superhuman, it sounds like you may simply have the wrong gear. If you can spend a couple of bucks, invest in pedals and a better HOTAS.

 

1 hour ago, greybeard_52 said:

True. In 475 hours of game (so far) I got 1 (one) recon intercept mission of a Ju 88 flying at 6500 m.

You do realise that in the theatres that are represented in IL2, combat was mostly at relatively low altitudes?

Edited by AEthelraedUnraed
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Eisenfaustus
6 hours ago, LukeFF said:

Again, not so. Altitudes higher than 2000 meters can and are generated.

On this he has a point though. While this would certainly not be a reason not to buy the game for me I still think a little more variety wouldn’t hurt. 
 

Even on the Eastern front air combat occurred up to 5000m sometimes.  
 

A typical attack altitude for German bombers - if weather allowed- would also rather have been 4000m then 2000m. 
 

And for Fw190 units 2000m is the worst altitude for cruise - 1500m and lower or 3000m and higher - in between the supercharger sucks. 
 

So yes - the standard altitude could be a little less standard ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites
greybeard_52
Posted (edited)
18 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

Anecdotal evicence.

Anecdotal?! It was an experiment performed by RAF shortly after the war's end. There's a PHOTO, not the tale of a pilot!

 

18 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

If you can spend a couple of bucks, invest in pedals and a better HOTAS.

Again you MISREPRESENT what I said; I don't want replicate AI evasive manoeuvers (maybe when I become Neo😄, but I would be just as ridiculous).

 

17 hours ago, Eisenfaustus said:

Even on the Eastern front air combat occurred up to 5000m sometimes.

I was about to answer the same thing when I read this message from you ...

 

P.S.: I forgot to add the worst of all: since update to game version 4.6 the simulation often crashes to desktop.

Edited by greybeard_52
P.S.
Link to post
Share on other sites
unreasonable
Just now, greybeard_52 said:

Anecdotal?! It was an experiment performed by RAF shortly after the war's end. There's a PHOTO, not the tale of a pilot!

 

 

30mm MS again, huh? This has been discussed on the forum at greeeeeeeeat length. If you find the forum search function not so useful, it is better to search something like "Forum.Il-2sturmovik.com 30mm" in Google and you will see the arguments that raged.

 

What that test you mentioned showed is that a 30mm MS fired at a certain angle, that penetrated to the right depth, and then had a fuze which detonated correctly, could indeed blow the tail section off a Spitfire. No-one disputes that. 

 

In reality, they did not all hit at the right angles, did not all penetrate and explode in the right depth in the right place. The game may not get everything right, but it takes a great deal more than this superficial complaint to establish that.

 

I suspect that the reason that a fair number of people respond negatively to your seemingly endless complaints, is that they read as though you think that you are the first person ever to have noticed these issues, that the developers have never considered them, and that you are entitled to have responses.  Actually, if you will not or cannot research the issues, in what is now a decade long, work in progress of development,  anyone who responds with information is doing you a favour. 

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
AEthelraedUnraed
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, greybeard_52 said:

Anecdotal?! It was an experiment performed by RAF shortly after the war's end. There's a PHOTO, not the tale of a pilot!

It's a single experiment in controlled circumstances. Again, I don't doubt that occasionally, tails would have been blown off by single shells. But again, that's completely different from stating that every shell hit should result in a blown off tail. Anyway, @unreasonable has phrased it much better than I can.

 

4 hours ago, greybeard_52 said:

Again you MISREPRESENT what I said; I don't want replicate AI evasive manoeuvers (maybe when I become Neo😄, but I would be just as ridiculous).

So you complain about not being able to replicate AI maneuvers, yet if I say that I as a human pilot am able to, you say you don't *want* to replicate AI maneuvers?:scratch_one-s_head: Might the fact that you don't want to replicate AI maneuvers have anything to do with the issue that you don't replicate AI maneuvers? :dry:

 

4 hours ago, greybeard_52 said:

I was about to answer the same thing when I read this message from you ...

And occasionally, as @LukeFF pointed out, altitudes higher than 2000m are generated. If that does not happen in your case, you're extremely unlucky. Again, the *majority* of air to air combat on the Eastern Front occurred at low altitudes. Complaining that the majority of generated missions does so too, is therefore rather a moot point.

 

4 hours ago, greybeard_52 said:

P.S.: I forgot to add the worst of all: since update to game version 4.6 the simulation often crashes to desktop.

Well, "worst of all" doesn't go very far if this is basically the only real issue you bring up. If you use Steam, this is caused by the Steam client and can be solved by updating it. The details are somewhere on the Forums. I suggest you use Google Search to find it.

 

Anyway, perhaps it's still possible for you to get a refund. You may want to try to get one instead of futilely trying to enjoy this game.

Edited by AEthelraedUnraed
  • Upvote 1
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...