Pacific Theater, should the Dev's guess what they don't/can't know?

[Lupus]

Simply put, for the sake of getting a Pacific Theater campaign, are you okay with the Dev's making an educated guess at those plane characteristics that they can't, without some herculean effort, find out or would you rather they never did a Pacific Theater Campaign if they have to make some educated guesses?

[BMA_FlyingShark]

I think we had a similar poll like this a few years ago.

But anyway, yes from me.

 

Have a nice day.

 

[Props]

It's a flight "simulator" so yes a little fudging to fill in the gaps is fine with me. I know these guys will do their best in any regard and probably get it damn close. I never lose sight of the fact that DCS, MFSF2020, and X-Plane often struggle a bit too, even with modern aircraft, to get things "perfect" but still turn out high quality product just like IL2 GB does given the limitations of flight simulation on computers. Especially with all the possible PC configurations people use these days!

[BMA_FlyingShark]

I always say that I like realism as much as possible.

But if everything would be 100% realistic, we wouldn't even be sitting on a desk with a computer today.

We would all be in our early twenties in '40 - '45 flying real planes on the other side of the world and getting killed without a retry option.

Have a nice day.

 

Edited May 2, 2022 by FlyingShark

[FodderMonkey]

Are you new here? ?. The devs do everything meticulously. The main selling point of the platform is its detail and authenticity. They’re not going to sacrifice that just to put out another module. 

[Eisenfaustus]

I’m very ok with educated guesses. IL2 ‘46 FM was nothing but educated guesses and I had fun. Even today to create a damage model a pc can handle a lot has to be simplified which is very similar to educated guesses. To be honest - I personally would probably be unable to tell what was guessed and what known.
 

BUT…

Without knowing exactly how they create the planes and what information is missing I absolutely can’t judge if educated guesses are a viable option at all. Think about how long it takes them to create a plane currently with the necessary information available. I can imagine that there are lacks of information that can be easily bridged with educated guessing but that there are also gaps that can’t. 
Imagine you have to make an educated guess at a very early stage of a project - and much work relies on this estimate. Much later you realise you guessed wrong and are forced to start over. Since time is money - this can be a very risky course for the company. 

 

TL:DR

If only a few noisy rivet-counting-forum members are the problem - then yes please - ignore them and start guessing. 
If on the other hand guessing endangers the future of company a less risky path should be taken. 

[[CPT]Crunch]

Of course you have to guess, what do you think the historical record is?  All physical, written, and recorded evidence gets constantly evaluated and interpreted within a 'current' view for usage, since over time even a context tends to get lost.  The historical record itself chronically gets revised as the physical pieces and living witnesses fade and disappear, and formerly unknown evidence is discovered or a new consensus emerges.  Sorry but that crap they told you about impartiality and neutrality, although lofty goals, doesn't and has never existed.  A philosophical truth can speak and stand on its own, but a historical record has never spoken for itself.

[Eisenfaustus]

1 hour ago, [CPT]Crunch said:

Of course you have to guess, what do you think the historical record is?  All physical, written, and recorded evidence gets constantly evaluated and interpreted within a 'current' view for usage, since over time even a context tends to get lost.  The historical record itself chronically gets revised as the physical pieces and living witnesses fade and disappear, and formerly unknown evidence is discovered or a new consensus emerges.  Sorry but that crap they told you about impartiality and neutrality, although lofty goals, doesn't and has never existed.  A philosophical truth can speak and stand on its own, but a historical record has never spoken for itself.

All true for events and personalities - less so for technical facts.

 

In game terms: Important for missions and careers - not for DM/FM. 

[Gambit21]

I've seen enough proof in the pudding with aircraft where plenty of data exists to show me that a best guess on say a Val or Kate is more than feasible. I'll just leave it there.

 

Not to mention there's nobody alive who can argue any of it.

Also with regard to the more important aircraft (Zero, Oscar) there's more than one flying example around.

[BraveSirRobin]

16 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

 

Not to mention there's nobody alive who can argue any of it.

 

lol. If you go through the RoF forum you will see that “not being alive” or “not having data” are no impediment at all to very heated arguments about aircraft FM.  If anything, it makes the arguments worse, because no one can be proven wrong.

[Gambit21]

2 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

lol. If you go through the RoF forum you will see that “not being alive” or “not having data” are no impediment at all to very heated arguments about aircraft FM.  If anything, it makes the arguments worse, because no one can be proven wrong.

lol - OK fair point.
 

I’d be happy with flyable Zero and Oscar variants and let everything else be AI.
 

 

[Canvas25]

I'd say they would be ok with educated guesses rather than SWAGs. There will be lots of arguing and we will all enjoy it immensely.

 

If IL2 GB doesn't do it, then some other developer will, only worse.

[Ribbon]

18 hours ago, BraveSirRobin said:

lol. If you go through the RoF forum you will see that “not being alive” or “not having data” are no impediment at all to very heated arguments about aircraft FM.  If anything, it makes the arguments worse, because no one can be proven wrong.

Yeah but FM arguments goes on FIGHTERS not bombers, much less on attackers so i doubt anyone will complain about Val and Kate FM.

Those planes focus is to dive, drop the bomb/torpedo and run away home.

Ppl will argue about Zero, Oscar, Corsair, Hellcat which have sufficient data available.

Val and Kate guesstimation will be just fine!

[spreckair]

Unless the developers are getting feedback from pilots who actually flew both the real plane and the simulated one, it seems like the best estimation is par for the course for all of the aircraft, isn't it?  I get that the developers are striving for accuracy, but unless one actually flies the real plane to its limits, how can one know if they are on target with the simulation?  I am happy with the efforts that the developers have put forth so far, and I think (with a lot of challenge and difficulty) they would/could do the same with IJN/IJA aircraft.