PDA

View Full Version : What is real ??



XyZspineZyX
09-26-2003, 10:18 AM
I bought the IL2 boxed product it was fine. Then downloaded the 1.1 then the 1.2 patches for the original game. Both were nice and seemed to be subtle difference.
Aircraft and the Allied/Axis was a matter of choice, and people flew the plane of their likings and it represented the necessities lacking in the Microsofts game
I bought it because it just blew CFS3 away and felt as an element in this game. Also I was lead to believe this was an accurate flight simulation according to Maddox and was presented as such.
Quickly, I hurried to the store to pick up the Forgotten Battles series from its release date , I was overwhelmed by the drastic changes in the flight charateristics of the aircraft, but was pleased of the nice touches with maps and other flyable aircraft.
Yet it truely bothers me to this day of how a "simulation" from the original IL2 was greatly altered by speeds represented; damage profiles and other intangables. How was done and why?
I do not understand of the reasoning of offering patches and then having to relearn a "suppose of" accurate flight model from the base models offered? What was wrong with IL2?
From the inception of IL2 FB we have been offered patches: 1.1, 1.1b then 1.11 to correct issues which more-or-less should have been to obtain better video than "correcting properly modeled aircraft"
Which is the real deal? What aircraft are "actual flight representations of your development team"? I share views of many and do not care about "catering" towards the masses. I bought this because you said it was "accurate" but neither is so after experiencing the amount of patches that are available. I would gladly choose my aircraft that I feel comfortable with.
I think a great deal of frustration has emerged because arguably this IL2 series to me is uncomfortable because I do not know what plane flys as it is represented by your designers.
I always thought a patch was to improve a game not ruin it? Unfortunately, the planes I used to fly remain "Hanger Queens"
So, my words as a consumer, I would appreciate not having any add-on aircraft before the fixing IL2/FB to the specs that the designers represent. Fluff don't cut it and your already balancing of trust may be regained by me. (Your customer.) Too many crappy games out there already. Ball is in your court.

XyZspineZyX
09-26-2003, 10:18 AM
I bought the IL2 boxed product it was fine. Then downloaded the 1.1 then the 1.2 patches for the original game. Both were nice and seemed to be subtle difference.
Aircraft and the Allied/Axis was a matter of choice, and people flew the plane of their likings and it represented the necessities lacking in the Microsofts game
I bought it because it just blew CFS3 away and felt as an element in this game. Also I was lead to believe this was an accurate flight simulation according to Maddox and was presented as such.
Quickly, I hurried to the store to pick up the Forgotten Battles series from its release date , I was overwhelmed by the drastic changes in the flight charateristics of the aircraft, but was pleased of the nice touches with maps and other flyable aircraft.
Yet it truely bothers me to this day of how a "simulation" from the original IL2 was greatly altered by speeds represented; damage profiles and other intangables. How was done and why?
I do not understand of the reasoning of offering patches and then having to relearn a "suppose of" accurate flight model from the base models offered? What was wrong with IL2?
From the inception of IL2 FB we have been offered patches: 1.1, 1.1b then 1.11 to correct issues which more-or-less should have been to obtain better video than "correcting properly modeled aircraft"
Which is the real deal? What aircraft are "actual flight representations of your development team"? I share views of many and do not care about "catering" towards the masses. I bought this because you said it was "accurate" but neither is so after experiencing the amount of patches that are available. I would gladly choose my aircraft that I feel comfortable with.
I think a great deal of frustration has emerged because arguably this IL2 series to me is uncomfortable because I do not know what plane flys as it is represented by your designers.
I always thought a patch was to improve a game not ruin it? Unfortunately, the planes I used to fly remain "Hanger Queens"
So, my words as a consumer, I would appreciate not having any add-on aircraft before the fixing IL2/FB to the specs that the designers represent. Fluff don't cut it and your already balancing of trust may be regained by me. (Your customer.) Too many crappy games out there already. Ball is in your court.

XyZspineZyX
09-26-2003, 11:35 AM
On my box (Forgotten Battles) it says:

[/i]Discover the war on the Eastern Front wtih the most accurate historical combat flight simulation ever created![/i]

It also says:

The most accurate historical combat flight simulation of all time with aircraft, cockpit and flight models faithful to historical data

History is subjective, new information surfaces and interpretations of known information changes.

You cannot objectively account for neither history nor flightmodels, but you can try. Il2/FB in ANY incarnation is a damned good attempt.

I see nothing in the above two statements on my gamebox that is not true, and I applaud the constant search for a more accurate representation of WWII air combat. I do so knowing that 1C could easily have stopped at 1.0 and let 1.1 only contain absolutely necessary bugfixes.

I started with playin the Il2 Demo - I played that for 3 months before I finally pulled my self together and bought the game. The Demo was so much fun that during those three months there WAS no real need to buy it. All in all I've bought exactly TWO games but I've received a plethora of patches and updates for absolutely free.

In the current software market that is IMHO absolutely amazing, and tells me that 1C Maddox MUST be driven by something else than pure greed for money. I am 100% convinced that this something MUST be passion for WWII combat flying.

However on my box it also says 'meet the vibrant online community at www.il2sturmovik.com' (http://www.il2sturmovik.com'). In that regard I do feel a bit slighted, 'cause there are a lot of 'stick-in-mud' types, ruining the atmos (not specifically aimed at original poster - we are talking about consumer expectations vs. what was promised ) with nitpicking, wild claims and bad attitudes. Still they are only a small percentage. Online on HL I meet a lot of folks who NEVER post here, and who are quite satisfied and happy with the game.

C!

<A HREF="http://giap.webhop.info" TARGET=_blank>
http://www.baseclass.modulweb.dk/giap/var/storage/original/image/69giap_badge_roshko.jpg
</A>

XyZspineZyX
09-26-2003, 11:42 AM
- History is subjective, new information surfaces and
- interpretations of known information changes.
-

No, history doesn't change. And i think that this community including Oleg Maddog should not try to decide which document is correct and which is not by speculating irrelevant things of conserned test.It is raping of history if doing so.

About authors question:

I'm able to land bf109G2 in game using full (110%) power. You may also think that what is realistic and what is nothttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Is there some document saying that this was possible.

XyZspineZyX
09-26-2003, 11:50 AM
I didn't say that history changes - I said that intepretation of it changes... is that wrong ?

Do you for one second think that there is something called 'objective history' ?

C!

<A HREF="http://giap.webhop.info" TARGET=_blank>
http://www.baseclass.modulweb.dk/giap/var/storage/original/image/69giap_badge_roshko.jpg
</A>

XyZspineZyX
09-26-2003, 11:53 AM
Well there was H.Wind doing it, additionally he was wounded. However, I think it was only 100% (Finnish G-2s being limited) /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

-------------------------------------
http://people.freenet.de/hausberg/schimpf.gif

XyZspineZyX
09-26-2003, 12:22 PM
Wind did not land using 100% power.

"The ground crews and other pilots of the base watched in horror what would happen; the Bf 109 was notoriously difficult to land even when flown by a pilot in normal condition and not battle-damaged. Capt. Wind adjusted the engine power by switching ignition off and on, and MT-439 made a bouncing landing at 11.00 hours, staying on the gravel runway until at the end the fighter drifted to the left side."

He used magnetos to adjust power.

XyZspineZyX
09-26-2003, 12:47 PM
ROSHKO_69.GIAP wrote:
- I didn't say that history changes - I said that
- intepretation of it changes... is that wrong ?
-
- Do you for one second think that there is something
- called 'objective history' ?

I just find hard to believe that intepretation of history changes during all patches of IL2/FB
When you take all those patches and spot the changes you'll notice it too.

With all respect this was just my observation of this history and document -talk.

During all this two years there has allways been many archives of planes testdata and their datas haven't changed at all.

What i meant was that when you have some document, people are speculating of it (methods, fuel, testpilot etc..) in these boards and that is weird IMO.

XyZspineZyX
09-26-2003, 04:52 PM
- I just find hard to believe that intepretation of
- history changes during all patches of IL2/FB
- When you take all those patches and spot the changes
- you'll notice it too.

Well - a lot of guys submit all kinds of info on these boards, plus I am pretty sure that Oleg and crew haven't stopped thinking. So change is bound to happen in my view. I totally agree that there has been a lot of changes, and some of the changes might not have been for the better. That to me is not a fallacy - that is a sign that FB is living and that 1C Maddox is commited to it still.

- With all respect this was just my observation of
- this history and document -talk.

Sure bud - I didn't sense any disrespect from you, and I certainly didn't mean any disrespect to you either.

- During all this two years there has allways been
- many archives of planes testdata and their datas
- haven't changed at all.

No, the contents of the data might not change in it self. But new info on how a test was performed can appear. Also there is the software itself. Imagine that to get a family of planes right, they have to change something in the physics engine. Later they discover that this change had a negative effect on certain other planes. Stuff like that...

- What i meant was that when you have some document,
- people are speculating of it (methods, fuel,
- testpilot etc..) in these boards and that is weird
- IMO.

Ok - I don't understand this. In my view this is a very good thing ?

C!

<A HREF="http://giap.webhop.info" TARGET=_blank>
http://www.baseclass.modulweb.dk/giap/var/storage/original/image/69giap_badge_roshko.jpg
</A>

XyZspineZyX
09-27-2003, 04:12 AM
LLv26_Sami wrote:
-- History is subjective, new information surfaces and
-- interpretations of known information changes.
--
-
- No, history doesn't change. And i think that this
- community including Oleg Maddog should not try to
- decide which document is correct and which is not by
- speculating irrelevant things of conserned test.It
- is raping of history if doing so.
-

Well said.
Its all the interpretations that screw things up. Facts are facts, no interpretation needed. Make the performance match the aircraft specs. The real ones. The only things subjective and therefore subject to change are those things we have little or no data on. Not the case with World War 2 planes. There is plenty of data and even people still alive who built and flew the things. Were not talking about 5 million year old dinosaurs. The information and planes are only 60 years old.

It just doesnt make sense Admiral. They had everything going for them. Are we better than they are or just luckier?