PDA

View Full Version : Just Comments



XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 05:06 AM
Iam visiting recently some Forums and found some very interessting comments about the last patch. I know the names of the authors, they are high respected and high skilled people from both sides VVS and Luftwaffe.

Take a look for yourself:

---

I would like to point out, that the situation was fairly ok in 1.1beta. People on BOTH sides were quite happy with it, including myself (ok, maybe B-239 was little too good, but otherwise things were well in balance). Then everything changed dramatically in 1.11. What happened?? How can there be such a big difference between beta and final? Especially when neither side had serious complaints about beta version?

So my point is that although whining has always existed and will always exist, it has multiplied from 1.1b to 1.11. And as someone pointed out, some Axis veterans have quit flying VEF2. And I can't blame them! Me thinks that's serious, and Maddox should give the man back his Bf109. Thank you.

---

Right now in 1.11 I don't the 109's are that underpowered compared to how they were in reality. G2 actually climbs better than some reliable sources I've seen. It's the russians that are as usual too good. La(GG) series climbrate is a bloody joke. Russian armament vs german armament.. it's a big LMAO.. laGG3 DM, LaGG (no) overheat.. Bf109 DM, Mg151/15 still shootin peas.. Yak DM. Turnrates, climbrates... well really tuned! NOT.. There's too much to mention... I've never flown any of those a/c, but there are enough sources to compare performance with as it is in FB.. but ofc.. You is wrong, be sure.. your source not accurate, ours are.. "well, what sources are yours?" > "Sorry, can't say.. copyright etc.." Yadada... lol
You is wrong, be sure." Says enough.

---

Oleg trusts on his insiders too much, here examples:

1. The FM of 109 gets changed dramatically after each patch -> there is confusion in the development team of the real FM of the 109 series.

2. 109F4-G has too little cannon ammo vs. LaGG3(1941) on the other hand has an armanent modeled to it, that was very rare = 4*MGs and a Cannon. Most of the planes had 1 or 2*MG and a cannon or 3 MGs. Why do VVS-planes get different treatment in this case?

3. The development team doesn't listen to the evidence (documents) at all regarding the weights (109G6), ammo count (109F4-G), performance (Brewster) etc... provided to them by the eager players. That plays down the amount of people willing to play this game. All changes are more or less surprises -> the patch announcement days are like mini-christmasses : U never know what U will get.

I must say that I am very pleased with this game, but I am not sure, if I will by the add-on, cause Axis-planes are scaled down in many aspects in every patch. BUT mostly I am disappointed in the fact that the developers don't respect at all or respond to extensively reported documents of war time expererience on A/C performance. E.g. the Finnish community has well documented facts conserning 109G2, G6, G6late and Brewster but most of them are not listened at all.

---

I am impressed with the knowledge, both technical and historical and it never ceases to amaze me how dedicated some people are with IL2 and FB.

Most good ideas start out with the best intentions (to share a passion), and then get taken over by the money men (to make money). What I would imagine is, the money men want as many people to buy the game as possible (not necessarily play it), so that means hooking people with an aircraft for all types - some aircraft will be fast, some will have great firepower, some will be acrobatic (and if these keep changing - more people buy it). I don't suppose they care about historical accuracy or what plane it is, it's more about appealing to desires and shipping units.

---

Enough said. Dissapointment is the Result. I fly Fockes only and I have to notice that you again screwed it up. Iam tired of it...

YOU is wrong....





<center>http://www.Redwulf.de/Pic/aniwulf.gif
<center> Redwulf__1
<center> Geschwaderkommodore JV 44
<center> The Redwulf Squadron
<center>--------------------------------
<center>"A Wulf never walks alone"

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 05:06 AM
Iam visiting recently some Forums and found some very interessting comments about the last patch. I know the names of the authors, they are high respected and high skilled people from both sides VVS and Luftwaffe.

Take a look for yourself:

---

I would like to point out, that the situation was fairly ok in 1.1beta. People on BOTH sides were quite happy with it, including myself (ok, maybe B-239 was little too good, but otherwise things were well in balance). Then everything changed dramatically in 1.11. What happened?? How can there be such a big difference between beta and final? Especially when neither side had serious complaints about beta version?

So my point is that although whining has always existed and will always exist, it has multiplied from 1.1b to 1.11. And as someone pointed out, some Axis veterans have quit flying VEF2. And I can't blame them! Me thinks that's serious, and Maddox should give the man back his Bf109. Thank you.

---

Right now in 1.11 I don't the 109's are that underpowered compared to how they were in reality. G2 actually climbs better than some reliable sources I've seen. It's the russians that are as usual too good. La(GG) series climbrate is a bloody joke. Russian armament vs german armament.. it's a big LMAO.. laGG3 DM, LaGG (no) overheat.. Bf109 DM, Mg151/15 still shootin peas.. Yak DM. Turnrates, climbrates... well really tuned! NOT.. There's too much to mention... I've never flown any of those a/c, but there are enough sources to compare performance with as it is in FB.. but ofc.. You is wrong, be sure.. your source not accurate, ours are.. "well, what sources are yours?" > "Sorry, can't say.. copyright etc.." Yadada... lol
You is wrong, be sure." Says enough.

---

Oleg trusts on his insiders too much, here examples:

1. The FM of 109 gets changed dramatically after each patch -> there is confusion in the development team of the real FM of the 109 series.

2. 109F4-G has too little cannon ammo vs. LaGG3(1941) on the other hand has an armanent modeled to it, that was very rare = 4*MGs and a Cannon. Most of the planes had 1 or 2*MG and a cannon or 3 MGs. Why do VVS-planes get different treatment in this case?

3. The development team doesn't listen to the evidence (documents) at all regarding the weights (109G6), ammo count (109F4-G), performance (Brewster) etc... provided to them by the eager players. That plays down the amount of people willing to play this game. All changes are more or less surprises -> the patch announcement days are like mini-christmasses : U never know what U will get.

I must say that I am very pleased with this game, but I am not sure, if I will by the add-on, cause Axis-planes are scaled down in many aspects in every patch. BUT mostly I am disappointed in the fact that the developers don't respect at all or respond to extensively reported documents of war time expererience on A/C performance. E.g. the Finnish community has well documented facts conserning 109G2, G6, G6late and Brewster but most of them are not listened at all.

---

I am impressed with the knowledge, both technical and historical and it never ceases to amaze me how dedicated some people are with IL2 and FB.

Most good ideas start out with the best intentions (to share a passion), and then get taken over by the money men (to make money). What I would imagine is, the money men want as many people to buy the game as possible (not necessarily play it), so that means hooking people with an aircraft for all types - some aircraft will be fast, some will have great firepower, some will be acrobatic (and if these keep changing - more people buy it). I don't suppose they care about historical accuracy or what plane it is, it's more about appealing to desires and shipping units.

---

Enough said. Dissapointment is the Result. I fly Fockes only and I have to notice that you again screwed it up. Iam tired of it...

YOU is wrong....





<center>http://www.Redwulf.de/Pic/aniwulf.gif
<center> Redwulf__1
<center> Geschwaderkommodore JV 44
<center> The Redwulf Squadron
<center>--------------------------------
<center>"A Wulf never walks alone"

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 07:08 PM
S!

Agree with the man word by word!


<O_



HAUPTMANN LBR=Rommel 1‚¬ļ Technischer Offizier TOS I/JG52 - Erst Staffel - Nr. 7
http://www.luftwaffebrasil.hpg.com.br

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 10:36 PM
Well I could put up a hell of and arguement with ya but I cant do that as you are totally correct. I got ripped off when FB should of been a add on for IL-2.

Didnt hear all this complaining about A/C after the final patch for Il-2 cause everyone had fun there planes had distinct advantages. But now the VVS A/C have all the advantages.

Yeah ya know there are going to be people in this thread learn how to fly blah blah blah and all there other B.S. but then ya get that from people flying Yaks and LAs




"Of all my accomplishments I may have achieved during the war, I am proudest of the fact that I never lost a wingman. It was my view that no kill was worth the life of a wingman. . . . Pilots in my unit who lost wingmen on this basis were prohibited from leading a [section]. They were made to fly as wingman, instead."
Erich 'Bubi' Hartmann "Karaya One"

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 10:40 PM
Boo hoo......./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

47|FC
http://rangerring.com/wwii/p-47.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-19-2003, 10:51 PM
Very good post Redwulf right on the ball i reckon the majority will agree 100% but their will always be one or two wiseguyz that will probably reply to this thread with some BS probably cos they want their fantasy UFO la's and yak's to keep all their UFO glory.

This latest patch is an insult to the brave pilots from all sides that flew these great AC....

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 12:25 AM
necrobaron wrote:
- Boo hoo......./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Yup, and now it starts. The apologists and worshippers will decend upon this thread in droves, unable to do anything more than accuse the thread starter of doing something that he is not actually even doing.

Hopefully you guys will wake up and open your eyes, someday... /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Redwulf, you are right, but, expect to be flamed en masse by these tools. You would have more success talking to a wall unfortunately. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 12:37 AM
What? I was being sympathetic to the cruel plight Oleg has forced upon you. I really feel for you guys. The hand that Oleg has dealt you NO ONE should have to live with./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

47|FC
http://rangerring.com/wwii/p-47.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 12:44 AM
I have more fun in 1.11 then 1.1b rw1, nothing but 190s in 1.1b and thier constant roll with no blackout or redout, and stick yanking movements with no loss of E.

But now in 1.11 seems the la7 yaks mig3 and lagg have no loss of e under 5000,

even a 109k4 diving from 7000-8000m on a yak3 thats at 2 going 940kmph they gain on you till about 5000-6000m

I give up on this game ever being realistic i mean look at the hurri 303s p11s cant even shoot down each other without a pk the weakness of .50s on anything but 109s the weak 108 cannon takes 3-5 direct hits on a yak lagg la7

p40s roll rate is still worse then a p39s 190s still constantly roll without redouts or blackout you roll once in the p40 you bleed alot of speed and slightly red out.

People been saying 1.11 is the most equal patch i dont see it thatway at all

yak9t explodes a 190 in one shot everytime but takes some serious hits to down a yak from the 190.

really makes me think twice about buying another 1c game


http://mysite.verizon.net/vze4jz7i/ls.gif

Good dogfighters bring ammo home, Great ones don't. (c) Leadspitter

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 01:04 AM
I agree m8 and i cant understand how it went from getting good in 1.1b to totaly inconsistent in 1.11 what went wrong , more things are now unimproved than improved they nearly had it in the bag with 1.1b its fustrating to say the least.......

just hope this isnt how its gonna stay

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 01:10 AM
LW_lcarp wrote:
- Well I could put up a hell of and arguement with ya
- but I cant do that as you are totally correct. I got
- ripped off when FB should of been a add on for IL-2.
-
- Didnt hear all this complaining about A/C after the
- final patch for Il-2 cause everyone had fun there
- planes had distinct advantages. But now the VVS A/C
- have all the advantages.
-
- Yeah ya know there are going to be people in this
- thread learn how to fly blah blah blah and all there
- other B.S. but then ya get that from people flying
- Yaks and LAs
-
-
-

Turn off the speed display and mini-map, and when they whine, tell em learn how to fly. Can work two ways, they best not forget it.

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 01:16 AM
LW_lcarp wrote:Yeah ya know there are going to be people in this
- thread learn how to fly blah blah blah and all there
- other B.S. but then ya get that from people flying
- Yaks and LAs


Naaah,I usually fly Ju-87s,P-47s,Fw-190s,but rarely Red birds. They're kinda ugly,don't you think?

47|FC
http://rangerring.com/wwii/p-47.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 03:28 AM
Guys,

some of these comments showing me that some of you do not know me and the Squadron Iam representing. I do not complain the performance of the Focke series, this i gave up a long time ago. Iam just posting that the Dora specs are way off.- I also posted some comments from Forums that should make us concerned what way the game is going. And for those who dont know me......vist me in VOW or just in a fun server with open cockpit and I will show you a Focke :-)

<center>http://www.Redwulf.de/Pic/aniwulf.gif
<center> Redwulf__1
<center> Geschwaderkommodore JV 44
<center> The Redwulf Squadron
<center>--------------------------------
<center>"A Wulf never walks alone"

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 03:30 AM
Salut!

Having seen our renowned friend's comments Redwulf_1, I see am not the only to have noticed a weakness in the German airplanes (mainly the Bf109) and a worsening of speed in Fw 190 THE and D9, and one of our largest opponents La7 to have earnings an impressive reinforcement in the wings, and in the engine!
I didn't make as many tests as our friends, but our friend's word (Redwulf_1) a specialist of fantastic Fw190 no and thing of not taking in consideration!
I agree with our friend, and I reinforce q the 190s were not slow tao (the fw 190A4 could reach 670kmh!!!) With A9 I didn't get to pass of the 620!!! with different combinations of Prop+Wep step!
A safeguard: The Game in fact and great, but due to Sr Oleg to accept the community's opinions it is here registered mine!
Thank you very much

LBR=Gunther Rall Reichsfeldmarchall aus LBR squad.

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 03:44 AM
According to Yousss,a guy who apparently has ties with Oleg and 1C:
:=RU=Youss
- #Posts: 152
-
-
- RegDate: 16.04.2003
- Location: Belarus


BF was not genius at low alt. Where you make battle
- in VOW? 80% time in altitude less then 3000m.
-
- 1500-2500m is best altitude for Yaks, La. See to
- charts. Compare its with other datasource. Charts
- from game - calculated by FM v1.11. All BF have
- advantage at 5000m.
-
- To all BF-whinners:
- You not want real-specs. You want only easy kills,
- easy victoryes.
-
- You write, write, write ... "unreal", "unreal",
- "unreal"...
-
- And when Oleg make change for you - you begin cry
- about real?
- Anybody there know - what is real? Anybody here was
- at BF in battle? You got real specs in 1.11 - but
- you dont like this.

Why is the 109 not as good as you think it should be? There's your answer. I don't know if the guy is for real,but he makes good sense./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



47|FC
http://rangerring.com/wwii/p-47.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 03:58 AM
Well, from everything I have been reading about the new patch, I may not install it. I like many others were fairly satisfied with the beta. I'm afraid if I install the 1.11 I may end up using the add remove feature. So many planes seem to have lost things they had right, and so many more never had the wrong things corrected. The P-47, P-40 and P-39 have been making headines since the beginning. I dont know....starting to look like Mech warriors. Our options for planes seem to be heading that way. You want fast and maneuverable, or slow and heavly armored. Or maybe fast with little guns and high endurance. This is a good game, but, I'm curious as many others as to what direction it is going. No more Ubi soft games for me. The first was a total let down (Silent Hunter) and now this one seems to be slowly going down the tubes. I hope they can get it turned around in the direction it was going.

...and once you have tasted flight, you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward,
for there you have been and there you long to return.
~leonardo de vinci

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 07:20 AM
necrobaron wrote:
- Why is the 109 not as good as you think it should
- be? There's your answer. I don't know if the guy is
- for real,but he makes good sense.


Don't get me wrong, I don't know you well enough to really know if this is indeed the case, but, you sound like the type that would beleive Hillary Rosen when she says she's interested in artists compensation. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 07:35 AM
In FB1.1b, there was an obvious bug on engine overheating : the radiator set on auto acted as if wide open for cooling and closed for drag...

You cannot be serious when you say this was GOOD...

Unless, all you want is overmodelled Luftwaffe planes...

You may believe Luftwaffe propaganda, even pilots of WW2 did not believe what they were told about the performances of their planes : read recollections from Johannes Steinhoff or Peter Henn for example.

Oleg Maddox tries to portray planes in their operational state on the Eastern Front. This is very difficult and may explain many changes, and even blunders, in the FM/DM.

If you want "ideal" performances for planes then play Aces High, rather than Forgotten Battles.

Tym

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 07:42 AM
NN_Tym wrote:
- In FB1.1b, there was an obvious bug on engine
- overheating : the radiator set on auto acted as if
- wide open for cooling and closed for drag...
-
- You cannot be serious when you say this was GOOD...
-
- Unless, all you want is overmodelled Luftwaffe
- planes...
-
- You may believe Luftwaffe propaganda, even pilots of
- WW2 did not believe what they were told about the
- performances of their planes : read recollections
- from Johannes Steinhoff or Peter Henn for example.

And you beleive allied propaganda. I guess maybe it's a higher grade of bull$hit? You certainly seem to think it much more noble to do so.


- Oleg Maddox tries to portray planes in their
- operational state on the Eastern Front. This is very
- difficult and may explain many changes, and even
- blunders, in the FM/DM.

Pray tell, how do you know this? Are you a close associate or relative? Do you have special access to the goings on of 1C? Or are you just saying this because they themselves said so?


- If you want "ideal" performances for planes then
- play Aces High, rather than Forgotten Battles.

Why? All I have to do is use any commie plane and I can get not only "ideal" performance, but, in many cases, far better than ideal. No comment from you about that though. Interesting.

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 07:54 AM
http://www.vow-hq.com/index.php?page=forum&action=topic&id=1830&start=140

hm

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 08:04 AM
BlitzPig_DDT wrote/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif on't get me wrong, I don't know you well enough to
- really know if this is indeed the case, but, you
- sound like the type that would beleive Hillary Rosen
- when she says she's interested in artists
- compensation.

Well, I'm afraid I have no idea who "Hillary Rosen" is,but that's a moot point. Whether or not this guy is an 1C insider, I don't know and it doesn't really matter because frankly, I think he's right. It's not exactly a mystery that the 109 didn't perform well at lower altitudes which the La's,Yaks,etc DID. The fact of the matter is MOST of the airbattles on the Eastern Front were fairly low level. This DOESN'T mean the 109 wasn't good,it's just that it wasn't in it's "arena" so to speak. I think FB currently reflects that. As for the uber Soviet DM, that's another story. But to me,Yousss's explanation of the 109's performance is logical.

47|FC
http://rangerring.com/wwii/p-47.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 08:27 AM
Hillary Rosen is the only just now (as of a few weeks ago) retired head of the RIAA. Are you not in the US? I would have thought for sure that everyone in the US knows who she is by now.

Regardless - you agree with his comments. Could it be because you prefer it to be so? Seriously...

The simple fact of the matter is the G6 is modeled incorrectly. Also every 109, save the G2, is not able to achieve it's historic climb rates.

The VVS on the other hand is turning faster than it should, climbing faster than it should, not suffering from : overheated cockpits, poor instrumentations, poor glass clarity, poor (or total lack of) radio equipment, and in the case of some, like the LaGG, overheating. Plus the Laughin (La5FN) has a _better_ view than it should, meanwhile the 190 has a worse view than it should.

I also notice the P-47 in your sig. How about the fact that it is too slow on the deck (in FB), bleeds too much E, doesn't zoom in a manner reflecting historic data and reports, and the 27 rolls slower than the Wright Flyer. And the gun spread is inexcusable as well. The punch of. one of, if not the most heavily armed US fighers of the war has been all but removed since your rounds will go high, wide, and low of the target all at the same time, without your nose moving around. Do you think that this is correct too?

BTW - I fly the P-47 in FB. I'm just sick of seeing the LW slighted and people steadfastly agreeing with it simply because their favored side won the war and had better post-war propaganda as a result.

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 08:48 AM
necrobaron wrote:
But to me,Yousss's explanation of the
- 109's performance is logical.


And what part would that be that it was dumbed down to ballance the game



"Of all my accomplishments I may have achieved during the war, I am proudest of the fact that I never lost a wingman. It was my view that no kill was worth the life of a wingman. . . . Pilots in my unit who lost wingmen on this basis were prohibited from leading a [section]. They were made to fly as wingman, instead."
Erich 'Bubi' Hartmann "Karaya One"

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 08:50 AM
"In FB1.1b, there was an obvious bug on engine overheating : the radiator set on auto acted as if wide open for cooling and closed for drag...

You cannot be serious when you say this was GOOD...

Unless, all you want is overmodelled Luftwaffe planes...

You may believe Luftwaffe propaganda, even pilots of WW2 did not believe what they were told about the performances of their planes : read recollections from Johannes Steinhoff or Peter Henn for example.

Oleg Maddox tries to portray planes in their operational state on the Eastern Front. This is very difficult and may explain many changes, and even blunders, in the FM/DM.

If you want "ideal" performances for planes then play Aces High, rather than Forgotten Battles."


TYM, like DDT points out, propaganda works both ways.

Besides, the 'operational status' comment is a total bullshi*, even by my standards. When it comes down to derating performance with an historical agenda, clearly the issue must work both ways. Either internal faults, which is hardly something to be considered adequate in a mere game, should be portrayed for both sides or none at all.

I might have missed it, but where do the 'operational status' effect the other side? In the ASh or Klimov engines? Or even in the Merlin XXs? Or even in the same German engines of the BMWs?



-----------
Due to pressure from the moderators, the sig returns to..

"It's the machine, not the man." - Materialist, and proud of it!

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 08:57 AM
To sum it up, we don't want a self-appointed spokesman making up excuses as problem persists. If that guy is willing to just discuss performance of various planes as an individual, then fine. It can be fun.

But when the same guy, through his individual relationship with the developers themselves, dares appoints himself as 'Baghdad Bob' and claims his own historical point of view as a direct comment of the development staff, then it's a problem, and people are gonna challenge that openly.

It's a classic "they're my friends, and they say what I'm saying is right" situation.

Baghdad Youss is stirring up a lot of trouble by claiming things which cannot be confirmed.



-----------
Due to pressure from the moderators, the sig returns to..

"It's the machine, not the man." - Materialist, and proud of it!

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 08:57 AM
BlitzPig_DDT wrote:

Regardless - you agree with his comments. Could it
- be because you prefer it to be so? Seriously...

Why would I prefer it to be so? I hardly ever fly the Red birds.

The VVS on the other hand is turning faster than it
- should, climbing faster than it should, not
- suffering from : overheated cockpits, poor
- instrumentations, poor glass clarity, poor (or total
- lack of) radio equipment, and in the case of some,
- like the LaGG, overheating. Plus the Laughin (La5FN)
- has a _better_ view than it should

I attribute the performance to lower altitude,where most Red planes excelled. Overheated cockpits?! Poor glass clarity?! Gimme a break! That's purely nitpicking...(how can you simulate an overheated pit? Wear a sweater?!)

I also notice the P-47 in your sig. How about the
- fact that it is too slow on the deck (in FB), bleeds
- too much E, doesn't zoom in a manner reflecting
- historic data and reports, and the 27 rolls slower
- than the Wright Flyer. And the gun spread is
- inexcusable as well. The punch of. one of, if not
- the most heavily armed US fighers of the war has
- been all but removed since your rounds will go high,
- wide, and low of the target all at the same time,
- without your nose moving around. Do you think that
- this is correct too?

Yeah,the Jug is a favorite of mine. I largely fly the D10 and 22,which roll like they should. The 27 should have a slower roll rate than the previous Razorbacks. Is it too slow? I don't know,never flew one/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif As for the gun spread,yes it does deviate too much IMO,but altering the convergence certainly helps. Does the 47 bleed too much energy,maybe but 1.11 largely corrected this,IMO. I love the Jug,but even I know she doesn't shine down low. High alt. is where she belongs.




47|FC
http://rangerring.com/wwii/p-47.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 09:13 AM
LW_lcarp wrote:And what part would that be that it was dumbed down to ballance the game

According to him that isn't a fact,just a guess as to the FM changes. Apparently even he doesn't know why.

47|FC
http://rangerring.com/wwii/p-47.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 09:42 AM
How about our 1943 La-5FNs using boosted power rating of mid/late '44 models? As the '43 La-5FNs were clearly indicated of limited boost usage of merely 2 minutes at take off, and their performance curve does not show a separate indication of speed/climb on WEP usage?

The '43 La-5FNs have all the best possible standard modification/error fixes crammed up into one plane, showing a very 'ideal' status as what the fighter was 'supposed' to do, opposed to what it actually did.

The same does not apply to 109s - all individual models have all individual faults modelled 1:1.

...

More historical accuracy is good. I love it.

Then shouldn't the other side receive the same treatment?






-----------
Due to pressure from the moderators, the sig returns to..

"It's the machine, not the man." - Materialist, and proud of it!

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 10:58 AM
-- Oleg Maddox tries to portray planes in their
-- operational state on the Eastern Front. This is very
-- difficult and may explain many changes, and even
-- blunders, in the FM/DM.
-
- Pray tell, how do you know this? Are you a close
- associate or relative? Do you have special access to
- the goings on of 1C? Or are you just saying this
- because they themselves said so?

Did you participate in any "chat" that BlueByte and UBI organized back in prerelease days of IL2 Sturmovick ? I happen to have... Oleg Maddox was way more talkative in those days. Nobody would insult him back then... There may be a link between the insults and the fact that Oleg Maddox doen't post here much anymore...

He clearly told that he wanted to portray the planes as they were flown by front units. Yet, he refused to have engine failures due to unreliable manufacturing or teething problems... Because it would hurt online balance (an error in my opinion).

Yet in those chats he also said that blinding sun was not to be include in Il2... And he found time to do it. He also said wounded pilots could not be simulated with any accuracy... And FB has such a simulation. So maybe...

Then, with the release of Il2, came the discussion about the derated FW190 engine. Luftwhinners cried this couldn't be. Oleg Maddox had evidences that most front units had derated engines. Hhe wanted to portray it, because he wanted an "operationnal" simulator, not a "prototypes" one... In the end, he had to use manufacturer tests to please the Luftwhinners.

I am not an Oleg Maddox fan. I just followed the developping of this sim from prerelease days... I don't think some choices made by the team were bad moves :
1. Encrypted cached mission files
2. Planeset (P47 has no right to be in an Eastern Front simulation)
3. Inability to include new units in missions
4. Weak Artificial Intelligence routines
5. Bad sound engine
6. Bad mid-distance graphics
7. Not enough features in FMB
...

By the way, since FB 1.11, I cannot play the sim anymore : half the internal sounds (buffeting, flaps, rolling on the ground, landing gear,...) are too faint to be heard on most planes, while external sounds are way too loud.


Tym

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 12:17 PM
- I might have missed it, but where do the
- 'operational status' effect the other side? In the
- ASh or Klimov engines? Or even in the Merlin XXs? Or
- even in the same German engines of the BMWs?

I cannot answer for most engines. Except that Oleg Maddox said even before the release of Il2 Sturmovick that he did not want to simulate engine reliability...

So if an engine overheats at a certain RPM, it will be simulated. While if some batches of engines had a problem that popped up on an irregular basis, then, it won't be simulated.

In my opinion, this is a bad choice. But most players would not like to have a plane with an unreliable engine... Especially if they only play in dogfight servers or online competitions... And those are the most vocal players out there.

Rather that whine, people would rather ask, respectfully, Oleg Maddox to include this feature. In my opinion, it would require the inclusion of a "date" for each mission. The date would be matched to a database, were the level of reliability of the engine would be set. Then again, it would mean the simulation would be oriented toward "missions" (multiply cooperative and offline campaigns), rather than pure competition.

Now let's talk about what I know. The Klimov of the Yaks 9 and 3 had teething problems : fuel injection. These problems were eventually solved. Unless you set a system as the one I have in mind, there is no way you can portray that problem of some Klimov in the game as it is now.

Also for the Yaks, the wing did break in dive... But not so easily on all models, later models of Yak3 were sturdier for example. Moreover, the wing lost some of its covering rather than break at once. Eventually losing this covering led to the loss of the wing, but some pilots managed to get out of the dive with damaged wings. In FB, we have a very weak wing, and the damage chosen as "early" damage is the loss of the aileron. Okay, so be it... It is difficult to portray the real thing, so we have a wing that is a little weaker than the real one (especially when the covering used another coating), and the aileron loss replace another damage.
A commonly known problem is the Yak3 landing gear lowering under heavy maneuvering. Once again, this was a problem for the first planes, it was eventually fixed.

For the engine, you have a system that doesn't portray a weakness. While for the wings, the sim emphasis a weakness that was ironed out in the end. This is a trade... For the landing gear, the problem was clearly a teething problem.

Did you ever see a Yak driver complaining about this ?

I also know that Bf109G, from a text about a Bf109 unit sent to rest on the Channel front from the East (can't remember which, but I can find it quickly) engines were prone to spontaneous burning. The problem was only solved with the Bf109G6. Marseille died because of this problem.

I also know that when the FW190 was put into production, the engine was very prone to overheating. Moreover, when manufacturers such as Arado or Fieseler were to build FW190, there were many problems : spare parts were not standardized enough to be used on most FW190... I have a report from the technical engineer of JG26.

After the war, the French tried to use some FW190A8 made from spare parts found in France and Germany, the whole thing proved so unreliable that some talked about sabotage...

When I put facts together, I come up with the idea that the reliability of German engines is a legend. All I have read show that they had to use very conservative settings to have them last long enough to be of any OPERATIONNAL use. Never forget that many German factories used deportes, underfed, with not much technical knowledge. Some systems had no such problems, because they used only German workers (radios, optics), but this was not that common...

The only way to have all of those factors simulated is to have the simulation have a date system built in and the unreliability linked to the date of the mission.

Tym

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 02:09 PM
overheating in 6000m with 600kmh TAS at -40‚?C is a OLEG joke I think/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Steinhoff writes in his Book "Street of Messina" that he had to close the radiators at that height because of undercooling the engine at high speed !

here you can see the "Schnellflugstellung" for fast flying with the 109 it should be our radiator 2 setting.
http://mitglied.lycos.de/kubanskiloewe/109kuehlklappen.jpg

Another Problem are the automatic Radiators in 1.11; they are more like divebrakes than optimized cooling systems/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://mitglied.lycos.de/kubanskiloewe/110missing.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 05:17 PM
Tym, you totally missed the point I was making. Oleg says it, and so you beleive it. Damn you are a trusting soul.

You don't see the problem here?

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 05:31 PM
necrobaron wrote:
- Why would I prefer it to be so? I hardly ever fly
- the Red birds.

Perhaps you don't fly commie, but, seems pretty clear you are not a hard core fan of the LW planes.

And in any event, not using their opposition doesn't preclude one from preferring them to be neutered.


- The VVS on the other hand is turning faster than it
-- should, climbing faster than it should, not
-- suffering from : overheated cockpits, poor
-- instrumentations, poor glass clarity, poor (or total
-- lack of) radio equipment, and in the case of some,
-- like the LaGG, overheating. Plus the Laughin (La5FN)
-- has a _better_ view than it should
-
- I attribute the performance to lower altitude,where
- most Red planes excelled. Overheated cockpits?! Poor
- glass clarity?! Gimme a break! That's purely
- nitpicking...(how can you simulate an overheated
- pit? Wear a sweater?!)

You missed the point. Not better than LW, better than they are supposed to. You know, overmodeled?

Glass clarity is nitpicking? Hardly. Give ME a break! Look at the late 109s. The glass is so bad you can barely use it in icons off servers. The D-10 and 22 have better views in spite of more obstructed pits due to glass quality. The soviets had horrid glass quality. This can be modeled. It should be modeled. It is not however.

Heat? One could say "you can't simulate wounding, go shoot yourself in the arm!". It's done fairly well here though (could still be better, but hey...). There are many, many ways of simulating it.

Now, given that these are things which did handicap the VVS planes (to say nothing of the crappy manufacturing quality), how is wanting it to be present in FB "nitpicking"?


- Yeah,the Jug is a favorite of mine. I largely fly
- the D10 and 22,which roll like they should. The 27
- should have a slower roll rate than the previous
- Razorbacks. Is it too slow? I don't know,never flew
- one/i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif As for the gun
- spread,yes it does deviate too much IMO,but altering
- the convergence certainly helps. Does the 47 bleed
- too much energy,maybe but 1.11 largely corrected
- this,IMO. I love the Jug,but even I know she doesn't
- shine down low. High alt. is where she belongs.

Once again, this is not about relative performances, it is about absolutes. Why do you seem to miss nad not care about that?

Also, you think that one has to fly the real thing in order to know anything about it? Seriously? You do realize that this would invalidate all testing and test results as well as prevent any developer from calling anything realistic, and the even Oleg would then be just guessing. Right?

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 06:19 PM
BlitzPig_DDT wrote:
- Tym, you totally missed the point I was making. Oleg
- says it, and so you beleive it. Damn you are a
- trusting soul.
-
- You don't see the problem here?

I don't know Mister Oleg maddox personnally. But, from all I have read, seen and heard from poeple that work with him, he's a very HONEST man. He may not suffer fools gladly, he may also not master English as many poeple there. But I cannot portray him as a liar...

Anyway, if I am invited in a house, I restrain myself from insulting the owner of the house... Being called a liar is one of the worst insult for man with an engineer background in my opinion...

Maybe my education is much too Outlandish to be understood here...

Tym

Message Edited on 09/20/0307:22PM by NN_Tym

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 06:27 PM
Oh yes, your education is so superior that you can't understand marketing or human nature. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 06:40 PM
NN_Tym wrote:
-- Being called a liar is one of the worst insult for
- man with an engineer background in my opinion...


WOW Didnt know he could drive a TRAIN also. Dont know seen to many things that have been Over engineered in my days to care about the engineer title. Seems every one want it too.



"Of all my accomplishments I may have achieved during the war, I am proudest of the fact that I never lost a wingman. It was my view that no kill was worth the life of a wingman. . . . Pilots in my unit who lost wingmen on this basis were prohibited from leading a [section]. They were made to fly as wingman, instead."
Erich 'Bubi' Hartmann "Karaya One"

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 07:05 PM
BlitzPig_DDT wrote:
- Oh yes, your education is so superior that you can't
- understand marketing or human nature.

I never said my education was superior, I just said it was different, outlandish.

I think Oleg Maddox did an honest job, because he is an honest man. He did blunders, as anyone else. But he does not deserve, in my opinion, the title of liar.

His "human nature" would lead to do what ? Give the VVS planes an unfair, and unrealistic, edge over the German planes ?

This is, for me, an isult pure and simple...

Tym

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 07:12 PM
LW_lcarp wrote:
-
- NN_Tym wrote:
--- Being called a liar is one of the worst insult for
-- man with an engineer background in my opinion...
-
- WOW Didnt know he could drive a TRAIN also. Dont
- know seen to many things that have been Over
- engineered in my days to care about the engineer
- title. Seems every one want it too.

You seem to be a gentleman of a very weird kind. I made clear that I did not have the same education of many posters there. This includes that my native language is not English.

My dictionnary (Harrap's Shorter français/Anglais) translates "ingénieur" into "engineer". There is no mention that trains are involved... But now enlight me and tell me how I should have translated this word in your fine language.

If you wish, I could make an answer in my native language making a fool of yourself. It would be very easy... It could take you years to try to translate what I wrote into your language...

Tym

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 08:17 PM
NN_Tym wrote:
- LW_lcarp wrote:
--
-- NN_Tym wrote:
- My dictionnary (Harrap's Shorter français/Anglais)
- translates "ingénieur" into "engineer". There is no
- mention that trains are involved... But now enlight
- me and tell me how I should have translated this
- word in your fine language.


An Engineer before everyone wanted to be one and add it to there job title (ie mechanical engineer. electrical engineer,etc) was the guy who drove trains. as in a train engineer. But then the garbagemen wanted to be sanitation engineers and it went rampant from there. Hope that explains the train comment for ya /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif



"Of all my accomplishments I may have achieved during the war, I am proudest of the fact that I never lost a wingman. It was my view that no kill was worth the life of a wingman. . . . Pilots in my unit who lost wingmen on this basis were prohibited from leading a [section]. They were made to fly as wingman, instead."
Erich 'Bubi' Hartmann "Karaya One"

XyZspineZyX
09-20-2003, 08:25 PM
NN_Tym wrote:

-
- I don't know Mister Oleg maddox personnally. But,
- from all I have read, seen and heard from poeple
- that work with him, he's a very HONEST man. He may
- not suffer fools gladly, he may also not master
- English as many poeple there.
-
-

He is not honest enough to admit he made an error in the modelling of the Fw190's forward view.


http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/west-battleline.jpg



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 10:59 AM
MiloMorai wrote:
-
- He is not honest enough to admit he made an error in
- the modelling of the Fw190's forward view.

So because Oleg Maddox believes he's right, it makes him dishonest... Interesting.

Tym

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 11:40 AM
Is this the typical French thought process? No Tym, just not as honest to the degree you claim he is./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif



NN_Tym wrote:
- MiloMorai wrote:
--
-- He is not honest enough to admit he made an error in
-- the modelling of the Fw190's forward view.
-
- So because Oleg Maddox believes he's right, it makes
- him dishonest... Interesting.
-
- Tym



http://www.stenbergaa.com/stenberg/west-battleline.jpg



"Only a dead 'chamber pot' is a good 'chamber pot'!"

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 07:38 PM
It can only be 1 of 2 things. Either he is not all that bright, because it's rather obvious that the FB 190 pit view is incorrect, or, he's not honest enough to admit he's wrong.

Take your pick.

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 07:50 PM
BlitzPig_DDT wrote:
- It can only be 1 of 2 things. Either he is not all
- that bright, because it's rather obvious that the FB
- 190 pit view is incorrect, or, he's not honest
- enough to admit he's wrong.
-
- Take your pick.

I am a mathematician by formation... Whenever I see the "obvious" word, I get the feeling I am tricked...

You THINK it is wrong, he THINKS it is right. You build up your own logic on the fact that many poeple think just like you. Anyway, this doesn't mean that you are right.

I know Shane, the one that made the Me262 cockpit 3D model. He explained me whow a cockpit is done... There in no way you can "cheat", unless you change the dimensions of the cockpit itself. The only parameter that you can work on is the position of the pilot's "head"...

I also know that Oleg Maddox team used German plans for the Focke-Wulf.

Now, (I guess) you think refraction would make the bar invisible. Maybe you're right... But refraction is not modelled... And it may not be as significant as you think because of ballistics, and the Revi parameters.

If Oleg maddox is a liar, why do you hang around there ? He cannot be trusted, so try something else.

Tym

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 07:57 PM
NN_Tym wrote:I am a mathematician by formation... Whenever I see
- the "obvious" word, I get the feeling I am
- tricked...
-
- You THINK it is wrong, he THINKS it is right. You
- build up your own logic on the fact that many poeple
- think just like you. Anyway, this doesn't mean that
- you are right.
-
- I know Shane, the one that made the Me262 cockpit 3D
- model. He explained me whow a cockpit is done...
- There in no way you can "cheat", unless you change
- the dimensions of the cockpit itself. The only
- parameter that you can work on is the position of
- the pilot's "head"...
-
- I also know that Oleg Maddox team used German plans
- for the Focke-Wulf.
-
- Now, (I guess) you think refraction would make the
- bar invisible. Maybe you're right... But refraction
- is not modelled... And it may not be as significant
- as you think because of ballistics, and the Revi
- parameters.
-
- If Oleg maddox is a liar, why do you hang around
- there ? He cannot be trusted, so try something else


Great post Tym. But they'll still argue with someone who actually knows what they are talking about. There's no sense in arguing with them. A real 109 pilot could post that the 109 wasn't exactly perfect, and they would argue with him. They would pull out their little charts and graphs, and show every one just how "cool" they are. Luftwhiners are masters of nitpicking a topic to death.

47|FC
http://rangerring.com/wwii/p-47.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 08:13 PM
Necro, sorry but, you're an idiot. You've been leaning in that direction for sometime now, but just went full bore.

Neither you, nor Tym read (or understood if you did read) the entire thread on the 190 view (all 6 pages of it). Cirx and others quite explicitly and undeniably proved that the 190 view is wrong. They backed this up with visual proof that can be viewed and judged for oneself.

Do not presume to tell me what I base my opinions on, or what I would argue with. That is the very tactic you both espouse against.

Furthermore, if you are indeed a mathmetician Tym, where do you get off with this "base *your* logic" crap? There is only logic. Period. Either something is logical, or it isn't. There are no variations on it at all. If the process is not followed correctly, it isn't logic. Only erroneous starting data can lead to erroneous conclusions when the process is followed. I find it exceedingly hard to beleive that any mathmetician wouldn't know this. Then again, this is the internet and we can be anything we want to be here.

Necro, you have yet to provide a single thing of value to any thread of this type I have seen you invovled in. Oleg worship is all I've seen from you. And even then you don't point to the scripture, as it were. You could at least try that much. Oleg is wrong. Suck it up and deal with it.


http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=Olegmaddoxreadyroom&id=zuucp

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 08:36 PM
DDT wrote:
- Furthermore, if you are indeed a mathmetician Tym,
- where do you get off with this "base *your* logic"
- crap? There is only logic. Period. Either something
- is logical, or it isn't. There are no variations on
- it at all. If the process is not followed correctly,
- it isn't logic.

Nothing against you personally DDT - although I do think you could possibly do with a valium prescription - but this section just made me laugh out loud.

Oh boy.



http://home.iprimus.com.au/djgwen/fb/worker_parasite.jpg

Need help with NewView? Read this thread. (http://forums.ubi.com/messages/message_view-topic.asp?name=us_il2sturmovik_gd&id=yzbcj)

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 08:48 PM
clint-ruin wrote:
- DDT wrote:
-- Furthermore, if you are indeed a mathmetician Tym,
-- where do you get off with this "base *your* logic"
-- crap? There is only logic. Period. Either something
-- is logical, or it isn't. There are no variations on
-- it at all. If the process is not followed correctly,
-- it isn't logic.
-
- Nothing against you personally DDT - although I do
- think you could possibly do with a valium
- prescription - but this section just made me laugh
- out loud.
-
- Oh boy.

Blind faith is irritating to me is all. However, I am correct there. What was funny about it? Other than needing valium. lol

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 08:51 PM
BlitzPig_DDT wrote:
- Necro, sorry but, you're an idiot. You've been
- leaning in that direction for sometime now, but just
- went full bore.
-
- Neither you, nor Tym read (or understood if you did
- read) the entire thread on the 190 view (all 6 pages
- of it). Cirx and others quite explicitly and
- undeniably proved that the 190 view is wrong. They
- backed this up with visual proof that can be viewed
- and judged for oneself.
-
- Do not presume to tell me what I base my opinions
- on, or what I would argue with. That is the very
- tactic you both espouse against.
-
- Furthermore, if you are indeed a mathmetician Tym,
- where do you get off with this "base *your* logic"
- crap? There is only logic. Period. Either something
- is logical, or it isn't. There are no variations on
- it at all. If the process is not followed correctly,
- it isn't logic. Only erroneous starting data
- can lead to erroneous conclusions when the process
- is followed. I find it exceedingly hard to beleive
- that any mathmetician wouldn't know this. Then
- again, this is the internet and we can be anything
- we want to be here.
-
- Necro, you have yet to provide a single thing of
- value to any thread of this type I have seen you
- invovled in. Oleg worship is all I've seen from you.
- And even then you don't point to the scripture, as
- it were. You could at least try that much. Oleg is
- wrong. Suck it up and deal with it.


Hehe, my point is proven yet again. Luftwhiners just can't stand it when people disagree with them or have different views. I'm automatically an "Oleg worshipper" for stating my opinion. I'm not saying the 190 view is correct,but it's as correct as it's gonna be. FB does NOT model refraction. Period.

(btw,you Lufties haven't exactly "added" to the community yourselves. You and the arrogant newbies have done NOTHING but add hostility to these boards.)

47|FC
http://rangerring.com/wwii/p-47.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 09:39 PM
- Furthermore, if you are indeed a mathmetician Tym,
- where do you get off with this "base *your* logic"
- crap? There is only logic. Period. Either something
- is logical, or it isn't. There are no variations on
- it at all. If the process is not followed correctly,
- it isn't logic. Only erroneous starting data
- can lead to erroneous conclusions when the process
- is followed. I find it exceedingly hard to beleive
- that any mathmetician wouldn't know this. Then
- again, this is the internet and we can be anything
- we want to be here.

I don't want to seem rude, but this is wrong...

Mathematicians created several kind of logic. Myself, I studied two such kinds of logic : Tarskian (hope this "translation" is correct) and linear... The second one is very weird. I also heard of "blurred" logic, that is very effective in decision making. But never studied that.

You seem to use the first one. But you think Axioms and rules of logic with tell if something is either right or false... G√¬∂del proved that this was false in the 30s if I recall correctly.

Anyway, I have to teach my students everyday that some erroneous starting "data", with an erroneous process, can sometimes lead to a nice and neat "result"... And that is very dangerous ! Because some poeple will conclude that the whole thing is good.

In fact, the problem here is prejudice... You want to prove a point, you unearth your data and build up your own rules (calling it logic). Poeple do it everyday. I guess I do it too. Let's see. I look at your data and "logic" and use my own data and "logic" to prove them useless. Now who is right ? This remains to be "proven"...

But, if we simply stay on the "honesty of mister Oleg Maddox" topic. I am pretty sure I am right, and no science tells me that. Simply an education.

I come here to post, so I show respect to the one that rules the board. Clean, clear and simple morale rule... If I have no respect for the board (because of the ruler, posters), I simply don't post there anymore.

Tym

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 09:54 PM
Let's see. 1 - I have yet to see a single whine here on these board. What I have see is LW haters and Oleg worshippers accuse anyone who has something to say that is less than praise, of whining. This is your battle standard. It's carried by those with nothing to counter with.

You obviously take offense to the product and it's creator being critizied. You have no direct ties to him. You are not his partner, you are not in his family, and you are not his personal friend. One must conclude then, that you either worship the man, or his product. There just aren't any other possibilities. You must feel that it is perfect (or at least the way you want it) right now and either take offense to something you like being critized, or, you fear that changes will be made to it. It's also not a stretch to say that you will deny all the above. It's human nature. So, present your side of it then.

See, if you didn't think it was "just right", then you too would be interested in having changes made. And, even if you felt that it was a pointless endevour, the intelligent one with that position would simply ignore all this and occupy their time with better things.

If you do think it's "just right", then you are a victim of somebodies propaganda. Maybe Oleg's, maybe the allies, maybe the community of LW haters/OAKs who themselves were victimized by one or more of the above.

Why? Simply because you either don't read all the evidence brought against this product and apply a little logic, or, you read it, but dismiss it immediately. Perhaps a mixture of a little of both. Either one is the result of a closed mind. One which has already decided how things "should" be and doesn't wish to be confused with the facts.

Look at the biggest enemies on this board. Milo, Issy, Huck, Chimp, BuzzU/Rocrawler/(god knows whatelse next week), Maxguns, and myself (not in any particular order or matchup). We have all agreed on certain points. If people who would rather argue for the sake of arguing than agree, do in fact agree, on anything, that shows that there is something to it.

No, people agreeing on something doens't make it true by itself. The point however is that it demonstrates a commonality of information and acceptance. Acceptance which would rather not be given, even if the only alternative was to nit-pick spelling.

The bottom line is this, the 109s are hosed, and the 190 view is wrong. Both can be fixed. Neither has. The P-47 is also hosed. The VVS is overmodeled in MANY instances as well.

There are serious, obvious, and documentable problems in this game. They do add up to being skewed in favor of the VVS. To say otherwise is to plug your ears, close your eyes and pretend you don't see or hear anything.

Now, why would you possibly want to do that? And we get back to "love the game" and/or "love the developer".

It's all over your terminology, and stance. You clearly don't read what is posted here. Only someone who hasn't read it could say that the people you call luftwhiners don't add anything substantive or constructive.

I could point you to the links, but, why should I? Would it really make any difference? You've seen the threads, you chose to ignore them, or the value of their content.

You see, this isn't about agreeing or disagreeing. We aren't talking favorite colors here. This is about the fact that you are straight up totally incorrect in this matter. And you would rather attempt to discredit those who are, and congratulate those who are as incorrect as you are. Blind faith is the proper term.

Incidentally - I fly the P-47 in game. I'm waiting on the P-51, and will jump to the F4U or especially the F6F if we ever get them. I am not biased toward the LW. While your grouping is totally inaccurate and based in nothing by your own delusions to begin with, lumping me in there is even more inaccurate.

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 10:06 PM
Blitz,let me make this clear. I have NOTHING against you, but I take offense when I'm labeled a "Oleg worshipper". I love a healthy debate,but there's no need to get nasty and start name-calling. I just think people are blowing this out of context and should deal with the hand their given. I primarily fly USAAF,Luftwaffe,RAF,and possibly soon Regia Aeronautica. Think about those poor RegiaWhiners. They have NOTHING to fly. I feel for them much more than I ever will for the Luftwhiners. I can't wait to see the P-51Whiners(you know there will be some). The Luftwhiners will say it's overmodelled while the 51Whiners will say it's undermodelled. Quite a show, I must say.../i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

47|FC
http://rangerring.com/wwii/p-47.jpg


Message Edited on 09/21/0304:20PM by necrobaron

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 10:11 PM
My above post was to Necro.


Tym, processes and logic itself are 2 seperate components. It's not unlike different kinds of math. But, logic itself is still an underlying component of any "logical" process. Consider it a kind of thought. You might go in different directions with it, but at each intersection you are still applying basic logic. The most basic of which is the tried and true "fish" bit.

It's a pet peeve of mine to here people say "by your logic" or any derivative because I don't have my own logic. Nobody really does. It's something that is external to all people and a part of the nature of the universe. When it comes to people the variables are understanding and honesty (both are influenced by many other factors as well).

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 10:19 PM
And my above post was to Blitz..../i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

47|FC
http://rangerring.com/wwii/p-47.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 10:23 PM
necrobaron wrote:
- And my above post was to Blitz..../i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
-
- 47|FC

DDT.


I added that because Tym snuck in front of me. lol

XyZspineZyX
09-21-2003, 10:25 PM
Oh,okay./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

47|FC
http://rangerring.com/wwii/p-47.jpg

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 02:12 AM
In this youre wrong..

Oleg, Youss and his friend got all my research results from 4 years about the Doras.

Sources are:
Technikmuseum Dessau
German Museum Munich
Flugzeugwerft Schleißheim
Original Dora Handbook Dated Januar 1945
Original Dora Handbook Dated Oktober 1944
Parts 0-8

A lot of charts, original Testflight sheets......a lot of stuff got submitted to them. I allowed them to enter my server for all the stuff...

I earned "Flamer, German Pilots have cheaten in their numbers of kills, learn to fly, German planes werent that good, the Focke view is correct, the guns are correct, Velocity of bullets are wrong,Muzzle flash was that way, etc etc.....I just wanted to be constructive and got such replies...

So what?

I just want a correct modeled Dora. Let me make this clear....Iam not complaining the performance of the Doras after patch 1.11. Iam just saying they are not correct modelled. Such answers are arrogant, impudent and a sort of " I dont care "

Gimme a piece of crap, mount two wings on it, gimme a cannon and call that piece of s*** FOCKE. I will fly it..
Periode



<center>http://www.Redwulf.de/Pic/aniwulf.gif
<center> Redwulf__1
<center> Geschwaderkommodore JV 44
<center> The Redwulf Squadron
<center>--------------------------------
<center>"A Wulf never walks alone"

<center>http://www.Redwulf.de/Pic/aniwulf.gif
<center> Redwulf__1
<center> Geschwaderkommodore JV 44
<center> The Redwulf Squadron
<center>--------------------------------
<center>"A Wulf never walks alone"

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 02:34 AM
Redwulf will you email me?

If you have such research I would like to ask some questions (non IL2 related) and get some data for our reconstruction of the cockpit.

email is 190@triplane.net

S!

http://www.triplane.net/remlink/misfits_cirx.JPG

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 02:39 AM
@cirx

Mail on its way

<center>http://www.Redwulf.de/Pic/aniwulf.gif
<center> Redwulf__1
<center> Geschwaderkommodore JV 44
<center> The Redwulf Squadron
<center>--------------------------------
<center>"A Wulf never walks alone"

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 03:26 AM
If I'm not mistaken the data for correctness of the flight models was done before IL2 was released. In FB they have changed three times now(damage model keeps changing also). Now if everything was researched and implemented in the first game, why so many changes? I just don't understand what I'm missing here. I'm sure it wasn't the Luftwhinners because their planes have become worse. By saying everything is correct originally it leaves a lot of people guessing just what the heck is going on.

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 01:54 PM
Maybe the german planes where not bad enough for some strange ego‚¬īs?

Since IL-2 we see that the performance of the german planes goes down.

It started with IL-2 as I was able to outturn the russian planes with an FW 190A5 under use of flaps. They start crying and I was called cheater in the games. The bf 109 was superior and we were able to outclimb and outrun them as well. And then it starts. Patch after patch after patch. Result: no more use of flaps, german planes were slower, damage model changed etc etc. I remember their advertisement: Flightsimulation, best ever, absolutely well researched and so on. So why we needed these patches?

The FB started and we see now the same thing. bf109 were superior, the Doras were fast, we boomed and zoomed them down. The models werent correct at the time, but LW Pilots dealed with it. They found the plus of the german planes. Maybe to good. Because now the campaign started.

Beta Testers reported version 06. 07 and whatever and in the background people like Charnota, Youss got involved in that. With each betatest the performance got lower. Then 1.1b came out, but some people thought the german planes are still to good. 1.1 the fake one, well overworked and bf109 without a rudder........kinda patchwork. Fast made without a quality control. Quick fixed, changed DM areas in the german planes ( now you cant fly a Dora with a hit in the wing ), cowling is more like a airbrake etc etc.... a lot of people now are frustrated, this thing is called 1.11. Boom and Zoom is nearly impossible, speed bleed and bad zoom climbs brings you at a point were you have to deal with turning. ---with russian advantage of course.... Now they call it balanced.........gimme a break, we going to fly in an Arcade game? Time to get my Amiga back from garbage.

Time will come and you VVS Whiners will fly against german AI Pilots, because there wont be a german Squad you can fly against. Have fun.....

This simulation needs correct modeled planes with all its strenght and weakness and NOT russian √ľberplanes because in History Germany has lost the war...

A lot of people have offered their help, a lot of people had the historical and well researched datas of the planes.
We named our sources.....what Olegh did? Questioning him brought the result: >Sorry cant tell.Copyright< ..big LOL.

What they bring? A compare sheet from Youss with speeds and results you never can reach under all circumstances. This is a fake and a big joke as well.

Now start to give me names and tell me I have to learn to fly.....

<center>http://www.Redwulf.de/Pic/aniwulf.gif
<center> Redwulf__1
<center> Geschwaderkommodore JV 44
<center> The Redwulf Squadron
<center>--------------------------------
<center>"A Wulf never walks alone"

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 02:34 PM
agree ! Redwulf is right !

nice post

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 02:35 PM
I notice that many of the apologists choose to simply ignore this, or at best demand proof.

Fact is this simply runs counter to their agenda and so they wish to minimize it. Anyone with any amount of objectivity knows what Redwulf 1 just said is true (the motives be postulated are debatable, but I refer to the changes in FM and DM only, those did in fact happen).

But, what do we hear in response? "learn to fly" "stop whining" and "they can be used successfuly" in some cases, even after detailed reports showing absolutely everything, plus tracks, all of which are corroborated, they still come back with "prove it". Never mind that it just was. Naturally they didn't bother to read those threads and now expect to be spoon fed again. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 02:59 PM
BlitzPig_DDT wrote:
- I notice that many of the apologists choose to
- simply ignore this, or at best demand proof.
-
- Fact is this simply runs counter to their agenda and
- so they wish to minimize it. Anyone with any amount
- of objectivity knows what Redwulf 1 just said is
- true (the motives be postulated are debatable, but I
- refer to the changes in FM and DM only, those did in
- fact happen).
-
- But, what do we hear in response? "learn to fly"
- "stop whining" and "they can be used successfuly" in
- some cases, even after detailed reports showing
- absolutely everything, plus tracks, all of which are
- corroborated, they still come back with "prove it".
- Never mind that it just was. Naturally they didn't
- bother to read those threads and now expect to be
- spoon fed again. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif
-

I can answer you question about my motive

I just want correct specs in the planes. As Dora enthusiast and researcher for more then 4 years on the Dora it makes me mad to see how they just created a worse thing. Thjis is not a Dora the specs are way off. I dont know anything about the bf109 series but if I read the comments here I expect the same on its side. Maybe i was a bit hot tempered in this post, BUT in facts Iam right.
-



<center>http://www.Redwulf.de/Pic/aniwulf.gif
<center> Redwulf__1
<center> Geschwaderkommodore JV 44
<center> The Redwulf Squadron
<center>--------------------------------
<center>"A Wulf never walks alone"

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 03:10 PM
Redwulf__1 wrote:
- Guys,
-
- some of these comments showing me that some of you
- do not know me and the Squadron Iam representing. I
- do not complain the performance of the Focke series,
- this i gave up a long time ago. Iam just posting
- that the Dora specs are way off.- I also posted some
- comments from Forums that should make us concerned
- what way the game is going. And for those who dont
- know me......vist me in VOW or just in a fun server
- with open cockpit and I will show you a Focke :-)
-

I'll tell you one d@mn thing...however bad the FMs, DMs and WMs are...they dont stop you guys from being pretty tough to evade or bring down....../i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

~S~


<CENTER>http://www.world-wide-net.com/tuskegeeairmen/ta-1943.jpg <marquee><FONT COLOR="RED"><FONT SIZE="+1">"Straighten up.......Fly right..~S~"<FONT SIZE> </marquee> http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat

<CENTER><FONT COLOR="ORANGE">vflyer@comcast.net<FONT COLOR>
<Center><div style="width:200;color:red;font-size:18pt;filter:shadow Blur[color=red,strength=8)">99th Pursuit Squadron

XyZspineZyX
09-22-2003, 05:21 PM
Redwulf__1 wrote:
- I can answer you question about my motive
-
- I just want correct specs in the planes. As Dora
- enthusiast and researcher for more then 4 years on
- the Dora it makes me mad to see how they just
- created a worse thing. Thjis is not a Dora the specs
- are way off. I dont know anything about the bf109
- series but if I read the comments here I expect the
- same on its side. Maybe i was a bit hot tempered in
- this post, BUT in facts Iam right.

You misunderstood me. I was not questioning your motives.

XyZspineZyX
09-23-2003, 04:29 AM
Sorry me dummy, DDT Nightshifting kills me.......

OK but here some news.

I told you guys that I have posted the Dora facts some time ago in this forum. After 1.11 a big rumor started in the LW community and it looks like our efforts werent in vain. Some days ago I offered Youss again these datas and he got an access into my server to take a look to some of these...
After some days I asked him for a reply:
---
Youss in the closed threat you wrote No more work on FW and ME‚¬īs. I gave you the access to my server with all the historical and researched specs of the Doras. Did you present them to Dimas? What hes saying about it? What Oleg saying about these specs ? Please keep me updated or was this all in vain? You have my email address, so write me if you dont like to post it here
---

Here his answer:

Yes. This docs was sended to Dimas, and aswer was "allready have".

I dont ask Dimas about Dora - becouse he have lot work with addon.

till now:

1. DM - engines and controls - repaired.
2. Acceleration - partically solved for FW and BF (problem was in auto-pitch mode).
---


I assume the first step into the right direction and a way to hold this discussion constructive,, we should keep it that way

<center>http://www.Redwulf.de/Pic/aniwulf.gif
<center> Redwulf__1
<center> Geschwaderkommodore JV 44
<center> The Redwulf Squadron
<center>--------------------------------
<center>"A Wulf never walks alone"