PDA

View Full Version : Bias?



AI-1
10-27-2005, 07:27 AM
Ok, I know I need to be careful here, and I ask others to do the same if/when you reply so this does not degenerate into personal attacks or the like. Let me begin by reiterating part of a post of mine from another thread:



'Personally I find it difficult to believe that Oleg and the development team would risk their reputation within the industry and community because of 'favourite' plane/ sides, especially when trying to appeal to a global market (read appeal as attempts to generate sales), bearing in mind that appeal and reputation affects future projects. The affect is clearly seen within these forums; for example many have said they will buy BOB on the strengh of FB/ 1c reputation, OTOH many wont because of perception of bias.

FB isn't perfect, it is not accurate per se; but IMHO it is quite a remarkable product that still generates passion, enthusiasm, debate and interest, both in the product itself and the history in which it is seated, again IMHO to a degree which is at least on a par with the passions etc generated with the release of the original IL2, how long ago was that now? And to top it all off its still (IMHO) king of the hill, also it has the ability to appeal to the very casual through to 'serious' players, from 8+ to 80+. Would this still be the case if a deliberate bias was present?'



These forums hold particular interest for me, the WWII historical aspects and the discussions/ debates surrounding it, discussions about FB/PF etc; on the flip side reading these forums is like looking into a goldfish bowl of the human psyche, which is also of interest to me.

Bias or more correctly the term 'Bias' is batted around like a frenzied pinball on steroids, largely in response to game/sim changes people experience from patches (IMHO). 4.02 is no exception, whilst some may make accusations of dumbing down/favouritism (read bias) as a reaction to change in gaming experience resulting in frustration for them; others indicate, even clearly accuse Oleg/the development team of bias in one direction or another.

I myself have opinion/ perception as to how individual planes should perform etc like anyone else, and it does differ to varying degrees to what I think we have, however the differences I experience does not (for me) demonstrate any deliberate bias. So I am interested in what 'convinces' some to believe there is bias, am I missing something? I don't believe I lack understanding of aerodynamic theory as a cause of not 'getting it', or anything of that ilk as I have had a firm working background in aircraft engineering for over fifteen years (although at times I feel it needs dusting, I left it a while ago now) I would also say I have a fair grasp of history with regard to WWII, aviation in particular (and not just from google or its like). My current (study) interests lay with psychology (impression formation/ influences) , so in light of my past and current interests I am (politely) asking am I missing something?

Additionally I think this has a bearing of another aspect of my forum experience, which I believe most would agree with, which is (IMHO) a consequence of the accusations of bias (amonst other things), and it is simply that I miss Olegs input/ insight into FB/ PF and its development, not just that, but the possible implications for his (valued by me) input into future projects such as the forthcoming BOB.

I invite and welcome reply, but please lets not let this degenerate into something ugly, If anyone feels their (or evn my own) comments would cause this to happen please do it by PM. I hope this generates interesting discussion, (for me) it would be disappointing for it to be locked or deleted.

So am I missing something?

Regards

AI-1

GR142_Astro
10-27-2005, 07:31 AM
Bias can be a very, very subtle thing that creeps in by tiny increments.

AI-1
10-27-2005, 07:38 AM
Originally posted by GR142_Astro:
Bias can be a very, very subtle thing that creeps in by tiny increments.

I understand that, are you saying there is bias as I don't wish to make assumption? If so how, I have genuine interest with this, feel free to do it by PM as comments by post/PM are welcome http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

stubby
10-27-2005, 07:54 AM
Bias in a video game - who cares. A video game like Il2 was crafted from one guys mind for the sole purpose to entertain. Folks *****ing about FW190s vs La-5s is like two RPG geeks debating weather or not an Orc should have higher hit points than a cave trolll when both are equipped with ring armor. Nobody knows so you just got to make the best of what the game maker throws out.

BSS_CUDA
10-27-2005, 08:02 AM
heck you could make it so every one was flying the same plane with the same loadout and some ppl would be screaming bias http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Capt.LoneRanger
10-27-2005, 08:13 AM
Bullseye, Cuda http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

Kuna15
10-27-2005, 08:17 AM
@ AI-1 I agree with your observations.


Originally posted by stubby:
Bias in a video game - who cares. A video game like Il2 was crafted from one guys mind for the sole purpose to entertain. Folks *****ing about FW190s vs La-5s is like two RPG geeks debating weather or not an Orc should have higher hit points than a cave trolll when both are equipped with ring armor. Nobody knows so you just got to make the best of what the game maker throws out.

I must say that I mostly share this opinion.
There has been really too much debating over things that really can not be proved and we must all agree that accusing someone of being biased without evidences is probably not that good idea.

And if something does not feel right in game (everyone has his own opinion so do I) I don't think it was implemented there with bad intentions.

Like stubby said this is only a computer video game, although legendary one, but still a game.

WOLFMondo
10-27-2005, 08:20 AM
Some people think bugs and changes are to do with bias. Online red vs blue mentality.

Just an observation but there wasn't nearly as much of this prior to PF coming out.

NorrisMcWhirter
10-27-2005, 09:12 AM
Hate to say it but there was far less of this well before PF came out - and you know what I'm getting at.

It's not necessarily bias; it's just caving in to who whines the most/loudest.

And that's not necessarily the best thing to do when you tout a product on the basis of it's historical accuracy.

Ta,
Norris

Jumoschwanz
10-27-2005, 09:27 AM
If you have a room of a thousand poeple and ask them to write essay-answers to a series of questions, questions on any subject, there will be not two alike.

So also a thousand developing a WWII flight sim, all thousand flight sims will be each a personal interpretation.

So this is one man's, Oleg Maddox's personal interpretation of WWII air combat, along with those he invited to help him. Complaining about it is like telling VanGogh he needs to change one of his paintings a bit, he got it wrong!

Go paint your own or shut the f*&ck up.

Jumoschwanz

NorrisMcWhirter
10-27-2005, 09:37 AM
Well considered post there. Well done http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Ta,
Norris

Jetbuff
10-27-2005, 09:39 AM
I highly doubt there are any intentional biases in the IL-2 series. However, that does not prevent me from stating that there are some surprisingly persistant errors that continue to survive every patch. e.g. climb rates have been far too high across the board from day one, making the K-4 a rocket ship just so it can maintain its historical edge over its contemporaries; alternatively, I'm now finding turn-rates seem to increase at lower speeds which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Honestly, I think there has been a subtle and incremental arms-race as each plane has had its supporters lobby for more and more capability for that plane in order to "un-pork" it. I don't blame OM and co. for listening to these lobbies because quite frankly they are beyond annoying and, if they have a grain of truth in them - which they often do - they are impossible to ignore. No, I blame us, the fans for not being objective in our evaluations of the FM.

4.01 was a step in the right direction with planes behaving more plausibly - they really had weight and did not flop around the sky like overpowered RC planes. Indeed, I would have welcomed even more "toning down" of the FM across the board. But the whiners cried and we are now back to square one and I'm sad to say that this sim now resembles a twitch-game more than ever.

AI-1
10-27-2005, 09:54 AM
Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
Some people think bugs and changes are to do with bias. Online red vs blue mentality.

Just an observation but there wasn't nearly as much of this prior to PF coming out.

hmm.. hadn't thought of that, any idea as to why the difference with the release of PF? For myself, I think it maybe due to a greater mainstream attraction and and increase in our younger members to the community (to all: dont take this as a slur to our younger members or a tarring of the same brush to all) who may hold different perceptions on things. thoughts?

Regards

AI-1

AI-1
10-27-2005, 10:22 AM
Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
Hate to say it but there was far less of this well before PF came out - and you know what I'm getting at.

It's not necessarily bias; it's just caving in to who whines the most/loudest.

And that's not necessarily the best thing to do when you tout a product on the basis of it's historical accuracy.

Ta,
Norris

Possibly, but I dont buy that, though I respect your opinion, I agree that if it were toned down it would go against the claim of historical accuracy; I don't see Oleg/ development team doing this as it could/ would be damaging to a reputation built up thus far within the industry and community as a whole, doing such might make it more appealing in the short term and thus increase sales, but in the long term I would see it as very damaging to sales. My reason is that we are talking of a small team/ company competing amongst giants where I believe a strong reputation (IMHO) provides some degree of strengh and independance, and of course the ability to survive. One of the strengths of FB/ PF to date has been/ is duration, how many other products have had/ do have similar strength of following? Many of us try other things, myself included, yet many return, myself included, as the promise of better things haven't been fulfilled, certainly not to the broad degree which I believe FB/ PF still gives, and thats without product support being brought into the equation. On the possibiliby that reputation as I have described, does affect future prospects etc, especially in regard to future followings of future products, deliberate dumbing down wouldn't make sense. To take my point to further extreme, if FB/ PF became a crimson skies (all jokes aside w/regard to views, settings etc), I for one would leave and not come back and I would most likely go elsewhere for future projects, or stay in a time capsule with this one as it is, albeit in offline only.

A case may be made ascribing outside pressures forcing some change for the sake of wider and quicker appeal, who really knows except the man and team themselves, but if it were the case, (IMHO) it would still end with the same result, departure...

I'm still yet to be convinced of any solid reason of bias/ dumbing down, but as I say I respect your view http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

GR142_Astro
10-27-2005, 10:24 AM
Dunno, the LaGG DM continues to go unnoticed yet one whiff of gunfire completely knocks out the P47's supposedly robust Pratt and Whitney.

http://www.liberatorcrew.com/14_Life/Recon%20Truk_6-26-1944.jpg

AI-1
10-27-2005, 10:29 AM
Originally posted by Jumoschwanz:
If you have a room of a thousand poeple and ask them to write essay-answers to a series of questions, questions on any subject, there will be not two alike.

So also a thousand developing a WWII flight sim, all thousand flight sims will be each a personal interpretation.

So this is one man's, Oleg Maddox's personal interpretation of WWII air combat, along with those he invited to help him. Complaining about it is like telling VanGogh he needs to change one of his paintings a bit, he got it wrong!

Go paint your own or shut the f*&ck up.

Jumoschwanz

Please Jumoschwanz, I respectfully asked for this kind of comment to be kept out of this thread, it is unhelpful, and I am very interested in all views, whether they are right, wrong or indifferent, I dont wish to see this degenerate, no disrespect to you, I ask for respectful comments, otherwise please take it to PM - I'd like this topic to stay open, at least until theres been chance for others to respond (if they're going to).

Thanks.

Regards

AI-1

Loki-PF
10-27-2005, 12:12 PM
Bias?

Yes absolutely!

There can be no other way really.

I whole heartedly agree with what Jetbuff and others have said however, that it's not intentional.

I mean, lets think about it for a minute....

There are things about planes in a flight sim that we know, like climb rate, roll rate, etc. etc.

These things were documented back in the day yet even these things are debatable (witness this forum!) in a sim, yes?

So tell me then, who decides how big the hitbox is for the control cables of aircraft X? Who decides how many hitpoints cockpit armor has on plane Y? Who decides how many bullet strikes make the "Z" model engine quit?

See what I mean? These things have never been documented so "someone" makes a call.

When you really think about it, there are wayyy more things about a planes behaviour in this sim that we don't know than we know.

So because of this situation, some person(s) have to make a judgement call, educated guess, call it what you like.

This is the wellspring of *feelings* based posts.....



.

danjama
10-27-2005, 12:38 PM
Exactly Loki, thats a good point!

My opinion is that Bias is not intentional! I believe that whatever changes 1C make to the game, it has affects across the whole planeset! Im not pretending to know anything of programming a game, but it makes sense. Although people complain, the game is biased yada yada yada, i think that it is a great simulation of ww2 combat! With warts and all! Last thing i want to add is that, although bias may exist, i dont think that it is particularly significant and noticable. Much of it is probably created through "our", the gamers; interpretations. I wont throw words like bias around concerning oleg and co, because i support what he has made, and i am grateful to him for it.

AI-1
10-27-2005, 02:29 PM
Originally posted by Jetbuff:
I highly doubt there are any intentional biases in the IL-2 series. However, that does not prevent me from stating that there are some surprisingly persistant errors that continue to survive every patch. e.g. climb rates have been far too high across the board from day one, making the K-4 a rocket ship just so it can maintain its historical edge over its contemporaries; alternatively, I'm now finding turn-rates seem to increase at lower speeds which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Honestly, I think there has been a subtle and incremental arms-race as each plane has had its supporters lobby for more and more capability for that plane in order to "un-pork" it. I don't blame OM and co. for listening to these lobbies because quite frankly they are beyond annoying and, if they have a grain of truth in them - which they often do - they are impossible to ignore. No, I blame us, the fans for not being objective in our evaluations of the FM.

4.01 was a step in the right direction with planes behaving more plausibly - they really had weight and did not flop around the sky like overpowered RC planes. Indeed, I would have welcomed even more "toning down" of the FM across the board. But the whiners cried and we are now back to square one and I'm sad to say that this sim now resembles a twitch-game more than ever.


Interesting point about 'bias creeping in' as mentioned in an earlier post, yet it is suggestive of 'unintentional bias' due to perhaps judgement calls having to be made within limitations of the game engine. I can offer no suggestion as to what I believe is correct or not with any firm convicted because to be honest I do not play often enough,and I really don't tend to stay with a plane type (which may change with the release of the tempest - a personal favourite http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif), so I dont' consider myself 'qualified' enough to do so. The patch aspect kinda seems to have a pendullum effect; in that 'errors' are highlighted and some may be overcompensated, these and others are then highlighted and then corrected and on it goes. Could this be down to a limitation of the game engine and best guess estimations or that some changes have broader effects than sometimes desired (really down to a possible limitation). TBH I don't know, I do tend to agree with the twitchyness, but again I also sense it might be a case of the pendullum has swung a bit too far and needs to swing back a little, but then that may only be a patch away and again on it goes. Thanks for your comments, appreciated.

Regards

AI-1

ashley2005
10-27-2005, 02:38 PM
Originally posted by stubby:
Bias in a video game - who cares. A video game like Il2 was crafted from one guys mind for the sole purpose to entertain. Folks *****ing about FW190s vs La-5s is like two RPG geeks debating weather or not an Orc should have higher hit points than a cave trolll when both are equipped with ring armor. Nobody knows so you just got to make the best of what the game maker throws out.

cave trolls own orcs tbh http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

danjama
10-27-2005, 02:41 PM
Got track? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

AI-1
10-27-2005, 02:45 PM
Originally posted by Loki-PF:
Bias?

Yes absolutely!

There can be no other way really.

I whole heartedly agree with what Jetbuff and others have said however, that it's not intentional.

I mean, lets think about it for a minute....

There are things about planes in a flight sim that we know, like climb rate, roll rate, etc. etc.

These things were documented back in the day yet even these things are debatable (witness this forum!) in a sim, yes?

So tell me then, who decides how big the hitbox is for the control cables of aircraft X? Who decides how many hitpoints cockpit armor has on plane Y? Who decides how many bullet strikes make the "Z" model engine quit?

See what I mean? These things have never been documented so "someone" makes a call.

When you really think about it, there are wayyy more things about a planes behaviour in this sim that we don't know than we know.

So because of this situation, some person(s) have to make a judgement call, educated guess, call it what you like.

This is the wellspring of *feelings* based posts.....



.

Agreed 100%, which is partly why I raise the question, reading some posts in some threads, some posters give the clear impressions that bias is deliberate. While I do dismiss some on the grounds of frustration venting rather than the poster having a distint and clear believe, some others I cannot dismiss so easily, therefore I am interested in what has them 'convinced', comes back to a personal interest of impression formation/ influences. What you say is also another reason why I don't post on this is porked and that is uber as I don't know the complexities of programming or what is going on in the background within the game engine to give me any real idea if something that I percieve to way off the mark is down to inaccuracy of input or limitation of this product. TBH I place faith (rightly IMO) in Oleg and team, as overall thus far (IMHO) they have and do deliver. It really amazes me that FB/ PF (at least for me) is still top draw and number 1 after, what is it now? 4 years?

Thanks for sharing your view.

Regards

AI-1

Bearcat99
10-27-2005, 02:59 PM
Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
Hate to say it but there was far less of this well before PF came out - and you know what I'm getting at.

It's not necessarily bias; it's just caving in to who whines the most/loudest.

And that's not necessarily the best thing to do when you tout a product on the basis of it's historical accuracy.

Ta,
Norris

Are you talking about in the old IL2 days? You have GOT to be kidding!! Then the bias was clear and obvious http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif!! (*Or so many folks said.... repeatedly I might add...) Oleg is Russian and of course the Russian planes were made "better".. because hey!!! They couldnt have been that good?!!?? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

I think the charges of bias are more the result of nationalism (right or wrong), people's lack of patience in learning how to fly not only thier chosen plane but how to fly against thier opponents.. (read benificiaries of the "bias"), and people taking the Russian aircraft of WW2 for granted... or not really knowing about them. My first introduction to Russian aircraft in WW2 was IL2. God only knows my history books never said much about the fact that they even had and airforce. Except for the modern one... the one we had to "beat at all costs to stop the spread of 'Godless Communism'.. yada yada yada..."
Oh.. but wait.. the Bias isnt only in the Russian planes.... the German nes too... so.. it is an anti American bias.... no wait .. there arent too many British planes in the sim.. so it is a dual bias.. agianst Britain, The U.S. (cause natch all our planes are porked... ) Oh wait.... but the Japanese planes are like UFOs... with gasoline on thier wings.. so the bias must be...... but wait... where are the italian planes!!??? BIAS!!!! Agaiin!!!!!


No.... sorry I dont think there is bias. I think that Oleg and 1C are trying thier best to produce a flight sim that is as accurate and marketable/flyable as possible. Who makes the calls and what yardstick do they use? I dont know.. but I dont think it is nationalism... or the groans and moans of all the "experts" here either. I just know that out of all the flight sims I have spent my hard earned money on none have given me the hours of enjoyment.... the bang I get for the buck I spent on this series... even at full price... is quite a bang indeed.. and it seems to show no signs of getting any softer either. All those other sims are either in a landfill somewhere or are sitting on my shelf here collecting dust because things in my little dungeon here havent gotten so cluttered yet that I have to make more room.... They sit there, unused... unthought of even.. except for when I hear people complianing about one thing or another with this sim.. the one I still fly in every single day that I am able to boot up my PC for at least 30-60 minutes... and still get the same rush from.. despite it's "incomplete" plane set, 6 year old engine, and obvious "bias".

Take to the skies more......

AI-1
10-27-2005, 03:01 PM
So noone really thinks there is any intentional bias? I find that refreshing (and expected), but it does highlight the other point in my initial post, that there is (IMHO) a downside to accusations of bias (amongst other things) as put forward in other threads. Simply the deminishing input/ insights of Oleg, which I miss alot. It may be coincidence, there may well be some very different reasons for it, but I can't help but feel (as some have already said in the past) that it has had a negative impact.

However I am really ineterested in peoples views on the bias question, and would like to thank those taking the time to reply, so yeah, thanks http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

P.s. sorry no tracks, evreybody knows that orcs are over-rated squealers, but cave trolls are too dim to notice; am I biased? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

Regards

AI-1

AI-1
10-27-2005, 03:12 PM
Originally posted by Bearcat99:

No.... sorry I dont think there is bias. I think that Oleg and 1C are trying thier best to produce a flight sim that is as accurate and marketable/flyable as possible. Who makes the calls and what yardstick do they use? I dont know.. but I dont think it is nationalism... or the groans and moans of all the "experts" here either. I just know that out of all the flight sims I have spent my hard earned money on none have given me the hours of enjoyment.... the bang I get for the buck I spent on this series... even at full price... is quite a bang indeed.. and it seems to show no signs of getting any softer either. All those other sims are either in a landfill somewhere or are sitting on my shelf here collecting dust because things in my little dungeon here havent gotten so cluttered yet that I have to make more room.... They sit there, unused... unthought of even.. except for when I hear people complianing about one thing or another with this sim.. the one I still fly in every single day that I am able to boot up my PC for at least 30-60 minutes... and still get the same rush from.. despite it's "incomplete" plane set, 6 year old engine, and obvious "bias".

This is pretty much my own experience and sentiment. Has it really been 6 years since the whispers of development began over at combatsimhq --------> Jeez now I feel old http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Where'd the time go ... oh yeah in the virtual pit http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Chuck_Older
10-27-2005, 03:23 PM
Originally posted by AI-1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bearcat99:

No.... sorry I dont think there is bias. I think that Oleg and 1C are trying thier best to produce a flight sim that is as accurate and marketable/flyable as possible. Who makes the calls and what yardstick do they use? I dont know.. but I dont think it is nationalism... or the groans and moans of all the "experts" here either. I just know that out of all the flight sims I have spent my hard earned money on none have given me the hours of enjoyment.... the bang I get for the buck I spent on this series... even at full price... is quite a bang indeed.. and it seems to show no signs of getting any softer either. All those other sims are either in a landfill somewhere or are sitting on my shelf here collecting dust because things in my little dungeon here havent gotten so cluttered yet that I have to make more room.... They sit there, unused... unthought of even.. except for when I hear people complianing about one thing or another with this sim.. the one I still fly in every single day that I am able to boot up my PC for at least 30-60 minutes... and still get the same rush from.. despite it's "incomplete" plane set, 6 year old engine, and obvious "bias".

This is pretty much my own experience and sentiment. Has it really been 6 years since the whispers of development began over at combatsimhq --------> Jeez now I feel old http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

Where'd the time go ... oh yeah in the virtual pit http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I also agree 100%

Here's a real world example:

I'm working on a space-deployable 'flimsy' antenna at work. I thought my boss wanted two templates cut from aluminum, so I cut them

He had actually wanted two halves. It was just a mis-communication

Did he start yelling at me, "You are so biased in favor of our competitors"?

No. He said, "boy, you sure screwed that up"

So was it bias against my company, or was it a mistake? Well, if my name was Oleg Maddox and my boss was a fair number of folks here, I would obviously be sabotaging my own firm

fordfan25
10-27-2005, 03:27 PM
Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
Hate to say it but there was far less of this well before PF came out - and you know what I'm getting at.

It's not necessarily bias; it's just caving in to who whines the most/loudest.

And that's not necessarily the best thing to do when you tout a product on the basis of it's historical accuracy.

Ta,
Norris


yes yes we know what your getting at http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif its the same BS your getting at in every post in every thread like this you have ever made http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

jds1978
10-27-2005, 03:28 PM
bias...

such a vague concept. there are plenty of ways bias can creep in. institutional bias, bias as the result of "group think", bias due to poor information....

the general catch-all term "bias" is a cop out and the result of polarization/atomization of civil society. the rise of modern communications, neo-liberal economics and the increasing "cult of personality" effect within politics has turned the planet into one big interconnected SNAFU with an "all against one, one against all attitude." bummer

arcadeace
10-27-2005, 03:30 PM
Enough people do think there is intentional bias AI-1, in favor of the other guy. So, Oleg is either a dupe and believes one side of whining, or caves in to their bias to console. Diehard blue and red guys know this as fact, and they are never gonna be convinced otherwise.

crazyivan1970
10-27-2005, 03:33 PM
You know what`s funny, even back in IL2 days, when threads about bias were much more common on this board, at any given time you could go to russian boards and find same type of threads stating complete opposite... Oleg, you sold your soul to Goering - shame on you!!! - Something along those lines.

I always found that bias accusations were signs of personal weaknesses. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Basically.... excuses, excuses...

LStarosta
10-27-2005, 03:41 PM
And yet we don't see many HEY OLEG, MY <insert Soviet plane here> IS PORKED!!! threads.

fordfan25
10-27-2005, 03:41 PM
Originally posted by ashley2005:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by stubby:
Bias in a video game - who cares. A video game like Il2 was crafted from one guys mind for the sole purpose to entertain. Folks *****ing about FW190s vs La-5s is like two RPG geeks debating weather or not an Orc should have higher hit points than a cave trolll when both are equipped with ring armor. Nobody knows so you just got to make the best of what the game maker throws out.

cave trolls own orcs tbh http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i agree. iv seen CRASH take out 4 orcs with out a scratch http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

crazyivan1970
10-27-2005, 03:45 PM
Originally posted by LStarosta:
And yet we don't see many HEY OLEG, MY <insert Soviet plane here> IS PORKED!!! threads.

You don`t see it here Starosta http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif , keyword is "here" http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

AI-1
10-27-2005, 04:39 PM
Originally posted by jds1978:
bias...

such a vague concept. there are plenty of ways bias can creep in. institutional bias, bias as the result of "group think", bias due to poor information....

the general catch-all term "bias" is a cop out and the result of polarization/atomization of civil society. the rise of modern communications, neo-liberal economics and the increasing "cult of personality" effect within politics has turned the planet into one big interconnected SNAFU with an "all against one, one against all attitude." bummer

I agree that bias is a vague concept in many ways, but it is vague because of simplistic appliaction. Bias is a simple concept (IMHO), but how one arrives at being biased and in what direction IS I believe very complicated and difficult to unravel, if indeed it is actually really possible to do with current theories/ research. which is why I asked the question in terms of peoples convictions of the presence deliberate bias, and what gives them those convictions. I suppose this thread is kind of OT in some ways, but I thought it was a great way to explore the question (as it is fairly topical at the moment IMO) in an informal way, which gets away from 'students' and 'single culture' approaches. I also believe that 'bias' is all too frequently used as a cop out, but then I also believe we are all guilty of 'copping out' with things in life, taking the easiest options available is ... well just so easy and more comfortable ... and who doesn't like comfort, in whatever form it takes?

You give an interesting concise view, if a little cynical http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif, but then read into any subject enough, gain a little insight and I can't help but think we'd all be a little cynical http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif. Inversley it gives so much validity to the expression 'ignorance is bliss' http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

P.s just reread what I have written, it may appear that I am mocking, I am not. It is apparent you have theorectical grounding in your comments, I also know how my own learning experiences had changed my perspectives on and within many topics; the irony is many of my views end in the same direction ---------->'bummer' http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Regards

AI-1

AI-1
10-27-2005, 04:46 PM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
You know what`s funny, even back in IL2 days, when threads about bias were much more common on this board, at any given time you could go to russian boards and find same type of threads stating complete opposite... Oleg, you sold your soul to Goering - shame on you!!! - Something along those lines.

I always found that bias accusations were signs of personal weaknesses. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Basically.... excuses, excuses...

ROLF, I hadn't thought about the other forums, thats just too funny http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif. Makes me wonder what angle the other boards take too, anyone of our more linguistically talented (than I) members have a take on this. Seriously I'm really interested. Thanks for that Ivan http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Regards

AI-1

horseback
10-27-2005, 05:08 PM
Let's be honest; everyone has a point of view. It is composed of experience, culture (or in some cases, the lack thereof), education/indoctrination (all too often the same thing), language skills, personality type (I, for one, am never going to be confused with little Mary Sunshine) and upbringing.

From this noxious brew each of us builds his own expectations for this sim. How much it meets those expectations, balanced by our own understanding of, and compensation for, our own personal biases determines whether we perceive a 'bias' in depiction of our favorite aircraft.

Some of our more mercenary types don't care as long as their favorite online mount is as superior as can be managed by hook or by crook. Some members of this forum are more affected by a fashionable anti-Westernism than any real devotion to accuracy. Some of us are constantly struggling with knee-jerk spasms of nationalism brought on by the anti-Westerners' jabs.

And finally, some are victims of a one-sided self-education composed primarily of the descriptions on the sides of plastic model kits.

Bias will always be with us. A totally honest and unbiased human being would be intolerable to live around. After all, the last guy reputed to be unbiased and without fault was nailed to a cross a couple thousand years ago.

Fortunately, I'm safe from that.

cheers

horseback

FoolTrottel
10-27-2005, 05:13 PM
It's all in the mind isn't it?

From 'An International Reader's Dictionary' by Michael West, M.A., D.Phil:
"He is biased: He has an idea fixed in his head, and he will not judge fairly"

How does it work? It's simple.

One cannot cope with the things one is presented with.
Meaning: One's Perspective vs. Reality

There's several things one can do:
- Accept things the way the are, change your perspective so it reflects reality (no stress, this is the easy way out, will work, if you're not too stubborn ... and/or not too proud)
- Fight it, and try to change reality in a way that it will reflect your perspective (Very difficult, as one can only do so much ... will cause lot's of stress)
- Workaround: Pretend you've changed reality into your perspective ... if uttered, this will be interpreted by others as bias! (Sure, same story goes for them others!)

(Yeah, I always wanted to study Philosofy, never started it though, being too afraid of going completely crazy ...)

Of course, this is only my opinion, the way I see it, the way I cope ... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Oh, and the ones very sure about their opinion, the ones that just hold on.... those are the ones to watch!

Have Fun!

AI-1
10-27-2005, 05:23 PM
Originally posted by horseback:

some are victims of a one-sided self-education composed primarily of the descriptions on the sides of plastic model kits.



http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

AI-1
10-27-2005, 05:32 PM
There seems to be a lot of tumbleweed blowing in this thread with respect to the question (for those that think there is intentional bias) as to why this sim is biased; awfully quiet...

To those that have replied, interesting and varied takes, thanks http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Regards

AI-1

FoolTrottel
10-27-2005, 05:47 PM
So I am interested in what 'convinces' some to believe there is bias, am I missing something?

Was this the original question?

If so, I think I've answered it. No, I'm sure.

Or is it: "As to why this sim is biased" ?

That's a bias in itself ...

Or am I missing something?

Here's another reason 'bias' exists: misunderstanding eachother ....

And for that matter: This sim is not biased ... I'm sure...

Oh, and have fun!

chris455
10-27-2005, 06:04 PM
Originally posted by NorrisMcWhirter:
Hate to say it but there was far less of this well before PF came out - and you know what I'm getting at.

We always know what you're "getting at".
Don't think we don't.
"Ta,"
Chris

AI-1
10-27-2005, 07:09 PM
Originally posted by FoolTrottel:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">So I am interested in what 'convinces' some to believe there is bias, am I missing something?

Was this the original question?

If so, I think I've answered it. No, I'm sure.

Or is it: "As to why this sim is biased" ?

That's a bias in itself ...

Or am I missing something?

Here's another reason 'bias' exists: misunderstanding eachother ....

And for that matter: This sim is not biased ... I'm sure...

Oh, and have fun! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, perhaps I phrased it poorly; the question was really aimed at those who thought it was deliberately biased, what made them think it was biased in any particular direction, I don't see that it is, hence why I ask am I missing something? But views on bias in general regarding FB/ PF were most welcome, as is your input. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Regards

AI-1

geetarman
10-27-2005, 07:21 PM
Originally posted by Jetbuff:
I highly doubt there are any intentional biases in the IL-2 series. However, that does not prevent me from stating that there are some surprisingly persistant errors that continue to survive every patch. e.g. climb rates have been far too high across the board from day one, making the K-4 a rocket ship just so it can maintain its historical edge over its contemporaries; alternatively, I'm now finding turn-rates seem to increase at lower speeds which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Honestly, I think there has been a subtle and incremental arms-race as each plane has had its supporters lobby for more and more capability for that plane in order to "un-pork" it. I don't blame OM and co. for listening to these lobbies because quite frankly they are beyond annoying and, if they have a grain of truth in them - which they often do - they are impossible to ignore. No, I blame us, the fans for not being objective in our evaluations of the FM.

4.01 was a step in the right direction with planes behaving more plausibly - they really had weight and did not flop around the sky like overpowered RC planes. Indeed, I would have welcomed even more "toning down" of the FM across the board. But the whiners cried and we are now back to square one and I'm sad to say that this sim now resembles a twitch-game more than ever.

I agree with you re: 4.02. But now at least all planes are twitchy, unlike 4.01 which only had "certain" planes flying like they were on the head of a pin, while others flew on rails ... and you know what I'm getting at.

4.01 was hardly the pinnacle of anything.

LStarosta
10-27-2005, 08:00 PM
http://home.comcast.net/~l.starosta/bias.jpg

Be sure.

horseback
10-27-2005, 08:16 PM
Originally posted by AI-1:
There seems to be a lot of tumbleweed blowing in this thread with respect to the question (for those that think there is intentional bias) as to why this sim is biased; awfully quiet...

To those that have replied, interesting and varied takes, thanks http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Regards

AI-1

Okay, I'll be direct: Of course Oleg and his team are biased. They are mostly products (successful products, which speaks very well of them as individuals) of the old Soviet system, which fell apart due to its internal inconsistancies.

They grew up in a system awash in propaganda, and even though things have opened up and a lot of information is flowing both ways now, some old mindsets are hard to give up.

Hence, things like calling Lockheed's factory data and the P-38's Pilot's Manual 'propaganda', the paper mache R-2800, the high recoil pea-shooter .50 cal HMGs, the torque-y, compressibility at 3000m P-38, that odd bar obstructing the FW's sight, its sluggishness & yo-yoing DM, and the twitchy, bouncy, fragile Mustang (formerly known as the 'Cadillac of the Skies').

That said, I think he's trying to make a good-faith effort, but there is a strong mixture of egotism and provincialism at work there (said the pot, calling the kettle black).

I'm deeply disturbed to find that the man is human after all...

cheers

horseback

AI-1
10-27-2005, 08:24 PM
Originally posted by LStarosta:
http://home.comcast.net/~l.starosta/bias.jpg

Be sure.

Care to expand, i.e. give reason or are you just going to continue to spam?

Regards

AI-1

AI-1
10-27-2005, 08:47 PM
Originally posted by horseback:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AI-1:
There seems to be a lot of tumbleweed blowing in this thread with respect to the question (for those that think there is intentional bias) as to why this sim is biased; awfully quiet...

To those that have replied, interesting and varied takes, thanks http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Regards

AI-1

Okay, I'll be direct: Of course Oleg and his team are biased. They are mostly products (successful products, which speaks very well of them as individuals) of the old Soviet system, which fell apart due to its internal inconsistancies.

They grew up in a system awash in propaganda, and even though things have opened up and a lot of information is flowing both ways now, some old mindsets are hard to give up.

Hence, things like calling Lockheed's factory data and the P-38's Pilot's Manual 'propaganda', the paper mache R-2800, the high recoil pea-shooter .50 cal HMGs, the torque-y, compressibility at 3000m P-38, that odd bar obstructing the FW's sight, its sluggishness & yo-yoing DM, and the twitchy, bouncy, fragile Mustang (formerly known as the 'Cadillac of the Skies').

That said, I think he's trying to make a good-faith effort, but there is a strong mixture of egotism and provincialism at work there (said the pot, calling the kettle black).

I'm deeply disturbed to find that the man is human after all...

cheers

horseback </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting perspective, which may hold some truth, however if it is as you describe, is that intensional bias or unintentional in your view. My point being that if the environment of an individuals background generates certain beliefs, then surely the resulting 'bias' is unintensional? Also what you describe ref. p-38/ p-51 may be a consequence of inaccuracies of overcompensation/ over correction of previous patch 'errors', a kind of pendullum effect I decribed earlier, possible as a consequence of game/ time limitations? I'm not saying this is the case, but I am suggesting something like it is possible, but the consequence may be percieved as bias. Has all non-russian data been dismissed? Personally I have no idea what the facts are which is why I ask. Also I'm not sure how one can make a good faith effort if there is an interplay of egotism and provincialism, seems contradictory to me http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Regards

AI-1

Badsight.
10-27-2005, 09:01 PM
Originally posted by stubby:
Folks *****ing about FW190s vs La-5s is like two RPG geeks debating weather or not an Orc should have higher hit points than a cave trolll when both are equipped with ring armor. Nobody knows so you just got to make the best of what the game maker throws out. thats not true , this is a historical simulation based on real events & real manufactured machinery

your analogy is out to make inaccuracy as baseless , which isnt true at all

Badsight.
10-27-2005, 09:04 PM
Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
I always found that bias accusations were signs of personal weaknesses. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Basically.... excuses, excuses... personal weakness , or serious gameplay experience backed up with testing ?

Badsight.
10-27-2005, 09:08 PM
personally the kind of bias that struck me is very diminished since PF came out , it was glaring in FB v1.xx
Originally posted by GR142_Astro:
Dunno, the LaGG DM continues to go unnoticed yet one whiff of gunfire completely knocks out the P47's supposedly robust Pratt and Whitney. no the LaGG is one of the Glaring ones Astro , same with the P-47 P&W - a provable durable motor IRL

people have been flying with & fighting against tuff LaGG's that they have gotten used to it i guess , but it & the p-47 engine DM are far from un-noticed

AI-1
10-27-2005, 09:51 PM
@ Badsight: so are you saying there is deliberate bias? As I say I am not qualified to comment as to what is definitely accurate or inaccurate, literally I just take it as it is and just play, though I don't dispute that some exist. Is it down to deliberate bias or unintensional bias considering the complex range of factors that interplay in both FB and our perspectives?

Regards

AI-1

Badsight.
10-27-2005, 09:59 PM
no , im saying what i typed
Originally posted by AI-1:
literally I just take it as it is and just play we all do

AI-1
10-27-2005, 10:11 PM
Originally posted by Badsight.:
no , im saying what i typed<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AI-1:
literally I just take it as it is and just play we all do </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ok, fair enough about what you typed, but do you have an opinion with the inaccuracies other than they exist? I am very interested with this subject . However I do completely disagree with your comment that 'we all do', reading these forums does not leave me with the impression that all take FB as it is and just play, which I am glad of as it often provides interesting and fairly frequently very informative posts. I do get inspired at times by the sheer wealth of knowledge on many matters held by many here; and quite humbling http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Regards

AI-1

crazyivan1970
10-27-2005, 10:38 PM
Originally posted by Badsight.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by crazyivan1970:
I always found that bias accusations were signs of personal weaknesses. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Basically.... excuses, excuses... personal weakness , or serious gameplay experience backed up with testing ? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Serious game players will look at themselves first. Somehow i doubt that they will issue bias accusations... unless i missunderstand meaning of serious gaming.

Badsight.
10-27-2005, 11:06 PM
ok i meant serious gameplay experience as in trying to get indepth in the game with all sides in all different kinds of modes (DF , coop , ect ect) with different difficulty settings

but also "indepth" as in seriously played , hard-core , for hours/days on end
Originally posted by AI-1:
However I do completely disagree with your comment that 'we all do', reading these forums does not leave me with the impression that all take FB as it is and just play sorry , i should have said we all have too
because their is no changing the sim to suit because its a closed non-moddable code

LEBillfish
10-27-2005, 11:10 PM
The only "bias" I see is here when a person states "my plane" should be the best because. In truth most players are biased about their fav's.....Wanting to fly it not how the plane requires yet how they want....Then scream bias when not aces.

Why I fly well known crappy planes....Just to see the biased players scream in chat when I shoot them down http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Jetbuff
10-27-2005, 11:16 PM
Originally posted by geetarman:
I agree with you re: 4.02. But now at least all planes are twitchy, unlike 4.01 which only had "certain" planes flying like they were on the head of a pin, while others flew on rails ... and you know what I'm getting at.

4.01 was hardly the pinnacle of anything.
I never stated that 4.01 was a pinnacle, but it is certainly better imo than the current patch. The way planes (all of them) can be thrown around the sky now is quite alarming and just plain freaky. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

As to certain planes getting shafted / uberized every patch, it's inevitable due to the sheer number of planes involved and the fact that this is not a table-based FM. We can only hope that what errors do exist remain minor and limited to only a few planes so that they can be avoided if need be.

AI-1
10-28-2005, 05:59 AM
Originally posted by Badsight.:
ok i meant serious gameplay experience as in trying to get indepth in the game with all sides in all different kinds of modes (DF , coop , ect ect) with different difficulty settings

but also "indepth" as in seriously played , hard-core , for hours/days on end<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AI-1:
However I do completely disagree with your comment that 'we all do', reading these forums does not leave me with the impression that all take FB as it is and just play sorry , i should have said we all have too
because their is no changing the sim to suit because its a closed non-moddable code </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You mistunderstood what I originally said though badsight, when I said 'I take it as it is and just play' I mean't I don't come to the forum and splatter it with this is uber and that is porked because this plane or that plane doesn't perform to my expectations. Not painting all with the same brush here as there are many folk here that do provide good data/ evidence of inaccuracy (another reason why I enjoy these forums), howevr some do just slate FB/ PF because of failed expectation and scream bias or at least suggest strong undertones of it. But you have given another reason why I still play FB/ PF; its closed nature has assured (IMHO) its integrity and durable appeal. Nice to see we haven't arrived at supersonic 153's armed with MK108's and phasors. Sure there are some inaccuracies, but at least we all share the same ones; and sometimes, just sometimes I get the impression that too much focus is placed on what is 'wrong' when there is just so much that is 'right', especially when taking into account the sheer scale of the thing etc (no reference being made here to constructive, supported criticism made by some).

Regards

AI-1

Lucius_Esox
10-28-2005, 06:15 AM
AI-1

I think studying group dynamics in a remote context (i.e. the net) would be an interesting area to study from a psychological aspect.

I for one think this has a large effect on percieved bias on these boards.

stubby
10-28-2005, 06:39 AM
Originally posted by Badsight.:
thats not true , this is a historical simulation based on real events & real manufactured machinery

your analogy is out to make inaccuracy as baseless , which isnt true at all

Easy does it. You're playing a VIDEO GAME regardless of your fantasy of being a real WWII pilot. You sit there drinking a wine cooler flying a virtual P51 w/ a 40$ joystick and you think you're flying a simulation based on real events? That's rich. You're playing a video game that uses a set of tables and formulas that give each plane a set of properties that are as far removed from reality as a dark elf running through the wooods of Mirkwood firing his bow at mutant spiders. Analogy is most appropriate. The day you strap yourself in a 1 million dollar simulator being run by the US DOD, then I'll give you more credibility. You're flying a game that cost you 40 bucks designed to run on 1000 Gigahertz PC - how advanced or close to reality do you think it can be? Keep it real son.

han freak solo
10-28-2005, 07:44 AM
Originally posted by AI-1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LStarosta:
http://home.comcast.net/~l.starosta/bias.jpg

Be sure.

Care to expand, i.e. give reason or are you just going to continue to spam?

Regards

AI-1 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No levity in this thread then. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

AI-1
10-28-2005, 07:50 AM
Originally posted by Lucius_Esox:
AI-1

I think studying group dynamics in a remote context (i.e. the net) would be an interesting area to study from a psychological aspect.

I for one think this has a large effect on percieved bias on these boards.

I agree 100%, which is why I'm kind of exploring the idea here, for one it gets away (to a degree) from the limitations of ethnocentricity and others major criticisms of much of available research; of course it brings in a few other issues but it does make an interesting change. I find forums, concentrate opinions, if for no other reason of the poster having anonimity and feeling 'safe'. Many interesting aspects to explore. I also find interpretation of language read mmeaning) fascinating considering the diversity of nationality and culture; as I said it's like looking into a goldfish bowl of the human psyche, it presents a unique opportunity in research. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Regards

AI-1

AI-1
10-28-2005, 08:07 AM
Originally posted by han freak solo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AI-1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LStarosta:
http://home.comcast.net/~l.starosta/bias.jpg

Be sure.

Care to expand, i.e. give reason or are you just going to continue to spam?

Regards

AI-1 </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No levity in this thread then. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

? you find my comment disrespectful or unappreciative of humour? or both? I respectful asked for polite comments in my initial post, ones which hopefully would not encourage this thread to degenerate http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif . Two posts from LStarosta inferring bias (IMHO) without any real discussion, and the latter especially, which I take as an idication of his opinion, does nothing more than provoke (IMHO), isnt that an aspect of spamming? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif or am I misunderstanding something, I don't see that I am but I know I could also be wrong. I did ask also if he would care to expand, you know, to aid understanding, I ask the same, respectfully, to you.

Am I missing something? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Regards

AI-1

carguy_
10-28-2005, 08:51 AM
Everyone has their opinions so I`ll just add mine if you don`t mind.
I think that Oleg ,according to his data,knows how to recreate mutual planes performance.That the Me109 is no match for a P47 in dive,that the Yak stays far behind a Me109 in a spiral climb and the Spitfire has no problems with outmaneuvering a Me109.

Although there are two biggest factors that pose as obstacles to recreate it all.

1.Technology.Pretty obvious that your home PC is ,and in few more years at least,will not be able to simulate physics to an extent that would let Oleg create perfect plane performance due to its weight,power,wing profile,etc.
There are too many compromises made for a home PC to run such a sim in a perfect WWII warbirds physics simulation.

2.Market laws.Oleg knows that some planes would not be able to fly their second flight because they were of poor quality,they could not take high/low temperatures,etc.Oleg also knows that each side has its worst and best planes yet he can`t let us play a scenario that would make one side win 9:1 in the end.Simply because the user flying the losing side says BS and quits.
In an online world most of users are of the similar flying skills.That is where the plane flown really matters UNLIKe in real world where a very good pilot was not a common thing hence back then the pilot did 90% of the job in winning his battle.
You can`t make a game ,where a nation that presents a gaming nation big enough to make the game success or a failure,in which one side has all good and best planes,the other has mostly bad,few good and really few superb planes and the 3rd has all good planes without really bad or really good planes.
What I`m saying is,out of say 300.000 players that bought the game,maybe 10.000 really care as to how really their favorite plane flew.If their favorite plane sux,they just quit playing the game,because there is no reason why they should be getting nervous instead relaxed while spending their free time.
Oleg knows that and models planes accordingly.I don`t blame him.All I care is to fly the real thing I obviously will never in my life.Oleg has to make money,Oleg knows what not to do pretty well.As for me I`m getting sick with the game.All planes are now more or less all the same unlike in IL2 days.
All I know that in WWII there was only one airforce that had been dominating through the whole war.That is what I concluded from watching ,reading,hearing about WWII and I will not change my mind.I know that it all can be BS cuz I may be heavily biased and stuff.I can`t help it.
That said, from the start I have been hoping that the game is very close to real,that those planes really flew like this.Because if it comes out that none really flew like this there is no reason for me to play the game.

Ofcourse there are few big mistakes Oleg made and most of us know what they are although he will not change.


As a guy who sits by the joystick and stares at the monitor I can say whatever will be will be,I will not change it so I buy or not buy the game.It is so simple.Real life often smashes our dreams.It may be that there will never be a 90% historicaly accurate WWII flightsim.That`s how life is,go and play a game o`soccer with yer friend outside or take a gal out for a drink sometime.

HayateAce
10-28-2005, 09:15 AM
Originally posted by carguy_:
I think that Oleg ,according to his data,knows how to recreate mutual planes performance.That the Me109 is no match for a P47 in dive

I assume you are trying to be funny.

bazzaah2
10-28-2005, 09:21 AM
I don't know about all this bias stuff, but I do know I just got a Bf109-G10 broke in half and burning from a 2 second burst of my Yak9U's machine gun from a distance of about 500m. Equally, a 1 second burst from a G2 on a LaGG3 from say 100m will maybe get a fuel leak (though to be fair a PK as well in which case job done). I do not believe that - if it can be described as bias - it is deliberate but something's up in terms of relative effectiveness of weaponry or DM (take your pick) (based on an admittedly small sample). I always used to laugh at the whiners but I'm starting to think some of them may have a point.

I think I might agree with Carguy about a degree of homogenisation in FMs as well, to some degree at least.

heywooood
10-28-2005, 09:55 AM
I wonder if when a pilot got shot down in WWII he didn't scream "bias" or "cheater" at the top of his lungs.

I mean - lets face it - thats game over and he didn't get a chance to fully realise the value of experience, let alone understanding all the nuances of different airframe handling capabilities and their relative performance in airial combat. Right?

The other guy just cheated or had an unfair advantage built into his plane....yes?

Get shot down (virtually mind you)...blame Oleg.
You can do it because you are not really dead...you can come in here and whine about it.
Those other guys cant do it because they're really dead...no crying to Boulton-Paul or Brewster or Junkers or Hitler or Churchill etc..

Game over.

Of course their will be some discrepancies - that is human nature - all I'm saying is deal with it.
Someone strove to make the greatest combat flight sim of all time and all some kids can do is grind about how unfair and biased it is. "the other kids got all the good planes" whaa-haa.
As if the flight sims made in America don't enhance the US planes' capabilities slightly?
Maybe?

AI-1
10-28-2005, 10:31 AM
Originally posted by carguy_:
Everyone has their opinions so I`ll just add mine if you don`t mind.
I think that Oleg ,according to his data,knows how to recreate mutual planes performance.That the Me109 is no match for a P47 in dive,that the Yak stays far behind a Me109 in a spiral climb and the Spitfire has no problems with outmaneuvering a Me109.

Although there are two biggest factors that pose as obstacles to recreate it all.

1.Technology.Pretty obvious that your home PC is ,and in few more years at least,will not be able to simulate physics to an extent that would let Oleg create perfect plane performance due to its weight,power,wing profile,etc.
There are too many compromises made for a home PC to run such a sim in a perfect WWII warbirds physics simulation.

2.Market laws.Oleg knows that some planes would not be able to fly their second flight because they were of poor quality,they could not take high/low temperatures,etc.Oleg also knows that each side has its worst and best planes yet he can`t let us play a scenario that would make one side win 9:1 in the end.Simply because the user flying the losing side says BS and quits.
In an online world most of users are of the similar flying skills.That is where the plane flown really matters UNLIKe in real world where a very good pilot was not a common thing hence back then the pilot did 90% of the job in winning his battle.
You can`t make a game ,where a nation that presents a gaming nation big enough to make the game success or a failure,in which one side has all good and best planes,the other has mostly bad,few good and really few superb planes and the 3rd has all good planes without really bad or really good planes.
What I`m saying is,out of say 300.000 players that bought the game,maybe 10.000 really care as to how really their favorite plane flew.If their favorite plane sux,they just quit playing the game,because there is no reason why they should be getting nervous instead relaxed while spending their free time.
Oleg knows that and models planes accordingly.I don`t blame him.All I care is to fly the real thing I obviously will never in my life.Oleg has to make money,Oleg knows what not to do pretty well.As for me I`m getting sick with the game.All planes are now more or less all the same unlike in IL2 days.
All I know that in WWII there was only one airforce that had been dominating through the whole war.That is what I concluded from watching ,reading,hearing about WWII and I will not change my mind.I know that it all can be BS cuz I may be heavily biased and stuff.I can`t help it.
That said, from the start I have been hoping that the game is very close to real,that those planes really flew like this.Because if it comes out that none really flew like this there is no reason for me to play the game.

Ofcourse there are few big mistakes Oleg made and most of us know what they are although he will not change.


As a guy who sits by the joystick and stares at the monitor I can say whatever will be will be,I will not change it so I buy or not buy the game.It is so simple.Real life often smashes our dreams.It may be that there will never be a 90% historicaly accurate WWII flightsim.That`s how life is,go and play a game o`soccer with yer friend outside or take a gal out for a drink sometime.

Oooookay?!, I'm not sure I follow completely but I'll try:

1. Perfection is never obtainable, and perfection is a subjective issue anyway. For example the only perfection I know of is within my daughter, true for me, but subjective. As for PC games, the best that can be hoped for are approximations, models are just models, reductionist mathematical constructs which in todays tecjnology can be fairly accurate and very inaccurate at the same time depending on the variables in any given condition, at least that is my understanding.

2. Further simplification of reality is necessary to allow current technology to produce real time rendering of a mathematical 3d world and computation of many conditions that interplay in a dynamic fashion, I can't even imagine how many conditions are and are not modelled, but in both cases I'm pretty certain it is enough to be impressive.

I have to disagree with regard to pilot skill online though, I find it as diverse as the opinions that I find on these forums, to me there is a broad range of skill, mine being at the lower end, but I do find there is consistantly, variation http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif . Sometimes I find I like to watch others from external view and can be awed by what I see, then again some make me crack up as I wonder if they even have a licence to walk http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif ; but again it can be argued that my observations are incorrect.

Maybe only a small number of players 'care' about their planes, thats neither here nor there for me. What matters to me is that the one man that matters regarding FB, as it affects my gameplay, does in my view care, because he has demonstrated (IMHO) passion for what he does, although I will admit that on occasion I would say some of his remarks smack of being jaded and weary. Hardly surprising with some of the comments that get directed at his on occasion, but again he always seems to bounce back, due in large part (agin IMHO) because of passion.

This makes me also disagree that planes are deliberately being made to perform the same, it does not make sense, just going by the constant evolution of the product and enduring commitment demonstrated by Oleg and team. If it were the case, it would be far simpler, less time consuming, and certainly less stressful (given the environment of these forums at times for example, bearing in mind, as Ivan reminded me, Oleg gets the same on the other language forums) to make an air quake with everything equal and be done with it. Why bother with commitment? The two just don't fit together.

Regarding the dominating airforce, you may be correct or incorrect, I respect your opinion, for me there are many impressive things and many less so about most of them, all have aspects which are admirable and abhorrent; yet there if nothing wrong in personal favourites.

And there is nothing wrong in bias per se, it is after all something that we all share as people; what can be wrong is in its use, but again thats subjective. When it comes to people there are simply no clear absolutes (thankfully), its what makes us lively and interesting, at least thats my take on it.

I'm certain also that what we currently have will change as it always does, for better and worse, but for me it will still be interesting and fun will be had. You sound dispondant carguy and that is a shame, I hope it changes for you.

Even with what you say, and I do take it on board, I still believe that overall we still have a product that is top draw in comparison to its peers (IMHO), which I find is impressive to say the least as it is ancient from a computer timeline perspective; which is heartening as a reminder to the young pretenders out there never to dismiss the older guys (or gals) on a basis of age! LMAO http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Still with respect to the topic question, I am yet to be convinced of any deliberate bias on the part of the developers in FB/ PF, which is also heartening to me. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Although my opinion does differ to yours on some points I do appreciate your input.

Regards

AI-1

AI-1
10-28-2005, 10:49 AM
Originally posted by heywooood:
I wonder if when a pilot got shot down in WWII he didn't scream "bias" or "cheater" at the top of his lungs.

I mean - lets face it - thats game over and he didn't get a chance to fully realise the value of experience, let alone understanding all the nuances of different airframe handling capabilities and their relative performance in airial combat. Right?

The other guy just cheated or had an unfair advantage built into his plane....yes?

Get shot down (virtually mind you)...blame Oleg.
You can do it because you are not really dead...you can come in here and whine about it.
Those other guys cant do it because they're really dead...no crying to Boulton-Paul or Brewster or Junkers or Hitler or Churchill etc..

Game over.

Of course their will be some discrepancies - that is human nature - all I'm saying is deal with it.
Someone strove to make the greatest combat flight sim of all time and all some kids can do is grind about how unfair and biased it is. "the other kids got all the good planes" whaa-haa.
As if the flight sims made in America don't enhance the US planes' capabilities slightly?
Maybe?

Now thats a real interesting take on it, let me explain and add to that.

As you say, the fallen don't get to have a say and those that survive may to a degree praise their ride for 'protecting' them or many other reasons, I have yet to read a pilots account where they praised their own skill, maybe their training but not skill. I find most accounts contain humility and respect for their opponant overall and I wonder if some of the comments that praise their opponants aircraft are really giving respect to the opponant themselves in an indirect way. The more I think of this, the more I think it holds a trueth, because of what is at risk - life. This is something that we can not really appreciate from a simulation, even in a mild sense. I'm not dismissing all that is said about about adversaries equipment when in praise, just that it might be a large factor. Thanks Heywooood, something else for me to ponder http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Regards

AI-1

JuHa-
10-28-2005, 10:56 AM
I'm going to do something stupid and rant. Don't read any further unless ranting is interesting
to you.

--

Bias. I believe that there's three different camps here. Russian, European and American ones.

And I'm just using Fw190vsBf109 as an example here: while Fw was held in high regard among
Europeans (RAF), and some respect also for the Bf - Russians thought otherwise.

(yeah, read a book sometime ago) Their belief
was that Bf was quite exceptional and Fw
nothing special.

While the Germans thought that Bf was a good weapon on the hands of an expert, a normal
pilot would do better in a Fw. Quite the reverse in IL2. Fw requires an expert to be a success.

Europeans have been arguing a long time about Spit vs. Bf109 and haven't really appreciated
the best that Soviets flew. Thought them more as flying clay pigeons. Well, they're not in IL2.
So the Russian planes are a bit of mystery to them. An unpleasant one.

Once I was in America, visited a random bookshop
and browsed two books describing various WWII
aircrafts. Checked out Bf - well, performance
figures were given for an E model and picture
was of an G10. Same in the other book. Read a
bit more about P-51 - yep, H model was in
pictures and performace figures too.

Surely not the best books, but if that's the way things are presented normally or in most books -
it will affect the reader's opinion through
the years.

So comparing E against P51H all the years, and then someone from other part of the world comes
and says that P51s weren't that great... A bit hard to believe. Add the general mentality that
"our nation is the best" (it's everywhere,btw)
so we got our third screamer in the party.
--

So now we're flying a simulator made in Russia and with love. No denying that simple fact.
I appreciate the general passion that dev. team
has toward the sim, had to say this to be fair.

There is/was an American sim, where it was quite
easy to see the bias. 5-10 mk108 rounds to down
a P-51D. "As real as it gets" Shure. Made for homemarket, I believe. In comparison,it took 1 mk108 to kill a Bf, which is about right, IMHO.

I'm yet to see a German made simulator, would be interesting to see how the planes would be
represented there.

It's easy to see too that the planes that served well the Soviets are also quite good in IL2.
I haven't heard much whining about these models from the flying side. The receiving end tends
to disagree.

So we have Sim from party nro.3 and parties
1 and 2 arguing all over about it. All have
different backgrounds/unintentional biases which seem to just exaggerate the small issues found.

--
Yet, the problems in IL2 are about one tenth of the past competiteve products - we should keep it in perspective. Most of the easy performance
figures are reasonably correct, at least in
relation to other planes. What the whines
are mostly are just about the nuances and
hard-to-measure sort of things.

Thats it.

Badsight.
10-28-2005, 12:18 PM
Originally posted by stubby:
Keep it real son. thats what FB is replicating

real events & real machinery

your analogy is beyond stupid , its a deliberate attempt to put down any idear that the perfomance of any part of FB matters

Mirkwood is a fantasy forest , OTOH you can travel to Berlin

WW2 , it was a 5 year event during the 1940's , you have heard about it right ?!?!?

has no-one ever relayed to you that FB isnt an arcade game yet ?!? , its a history based simulation of WW2's airwarfare , & yes its designed to run on a home PC

that it doesnt need to cost a million dollars or require a specially built machine in no way excludes it from that lable

so quit with lame attempts at putting down idears about fidelity

stubby
10-28-2005, 01:15 PM
Originally posted by Badsight.:
so quit with lame attempts at putting down idears about fidelity

Hey look, don't soil your panties over my opinion. I love the game and play it religiously but I accept it for what it is - a VIDEO game. What's amusing is hearing guys like you b&tch about fidelity and 'real' when all you got is books based on other people's opinions, WWII movies and charts to base your whole opinion on what 'real' is all about. So, if you want to pretend that you are really some hot a$$ WWII pilot flying a plane in a video game, more power to you, that's what gaming is all about. But don't get self righteous, boo hoo and get all high-n-mighty about it.

AI-1
10-28-2005, 01:22 PM
Originally posted by stubby:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight.:
thats not true , this is a historical simulation based on real events & real manufactured machinery

your analogy is out to make inaccuracy as baseless , which isnt true at all

Easy does it. You're playing a VIDEO GAME regardless of your fantasy of being a real WWII pilot. You sit there drinking a wine cooler flying a virtual P51 w/ a 40$ joystick and you think you're flying a simulation based on real events? That's rich. You're playing a video game that uses a set of tables and formulas that give each plane a set of properties that are as far removed from reality as a dark elf running through the wooods of Mirkwood firing his bow at mutant spiders. Analogy is most appropriate. The day you strap yourself in a 1 million dollar simulator being run by the US DOD, then I'll give you more credibility. You're flying a game that cost you 40 bucks designed to run on 1000 Gigahertz PC - how advanced or close to reality do you think it can be? Keep it real son. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The analogy you use, makes little sense, orcs and trolls are the stuff of stories and myth unless you 'live' in middlearth, this product is based on a past reality, so there are real reference points to go by. At the end of the day all flight simulators have basic commonalities, they all use number crunching in some fashion to simulate/ help with the suspension of disbelief, which on a home PC can be done fairly well (IMHO), its all a matter of degree. And please lets not pick holes in each other, you have PM and email for that, thankyou.

Regards

AI-1

AI-1
10-28-2005, 01:23 PM
Originally posted by stubby:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Badsight.:
so quit with lame attempts at putting down idears about fidelity

Hey look, don't soil your panties over my opinion. I love the game and play it religiously but I accept it for what it is - a VIDEO game. What's amusing is hearing guys like you b&tch about fidelity and 'real' when all you got is books based on other people's opinions, WWII movies and charts to base your whole opinion on what 'real' is all about. So, if you want to pretend that you are really some hot a$$ WWII pilot flying a plane in a video game, more power to you, that's what gaming is all about. But don't get self righteous, boo hoo and get all high-n-mighty about it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Take it to PM please

Regards

AI-1

AI-1
10-28-2005, 01:28 PM
Originally posted by JuHa-:
I'm going to do something stupid and rant. Don't read any further unless ranting is interesting
to you.

--

Bias. I believe that there's three different camps here. Russian, European and American ones.

And I'm just using Fw190vsBf109 as an example here: while Fw was held in high regard among
Europeans (RAF), and some respect also for the Bf - Russians thought otherwise.

(yeah, read a book sometime ago) Their belief
was that Bf was quite exceptional and Fw
nothing special.

While the Germans thought that Bf was a good weapon on the hands of an expert, a normal
pilot would do better in a Fw. Quite the reverse in IL2. Fw requires an expert to be a success.

Europeans have been arguing a long time about Spit vs. Bf109 and haven't really appreciated
the best that Soviets flew. Thought them more as flying clay pigeons. Well, they're not in IL2.
So the Russian planes are a bit of mystery to them. An unpleasant one.

Once I was in America, visited a random bookshop
and browsed two books describing various WWII
aircrafts. Checked out Bf - well, performance
figures were given for an E model and picture
was of an G10. Same in the other book. Read a
bit more about P-51 - yep, H model was in
pictures and performace figures too.

Surely not the best books, but if that's the way things are presented normally or in most books -
it will affect the reader's opinion through
the years.

So comparing E against P51H all the years, and then someone from other part of the world comes
and says that P51s weren't that great... A bit hard to believe. Add the general mentality that
"our nation is the best" (it's everywhere,btw)
so we got our third screamer in the party.
--

So now we're flying a simulator made in Russia and with love. No denying that simple fact.
I appreciate the general passion that dev. team
has toward the sim, had to say this to be fair.

There is/was an American sim, where it was quite
easy to see the bias. 5-10 mk108 rounds to down
a P-51D. "As real as it gets" Shure. Made for homemarket, I believe. In comparison,it took 1 mk108 to kill a Bf, which is about right, IMHO.

I'm yet to see a German made simulator, would be interesting to see how the planes would be
represented there.

It's easy to see too that the planes that served well the Soviets are also quite good in IL2.
I haven't heard much whining about these models from the flying side. The receiving end tends
to disagree.

So we have Sim from party nro.3 and parties
1 and 2 arguing all over about it. All have
different backgrounds/unintentional biases which seem to just exaggerate the small issues found.

--
Yet, the problems in IL2 are about one tenth of the past competiteve products - we should keep it in perspective. Most of the easy performance
figures are reasonably correct, at least in
relation to other planes. What the whines
are mostly are just about the nuances and
hard-to-measure sort of things.

Thats it.

Very Interesting view, and if I may say very valid, thankyou JuHa http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Ref. the part about IL2's problems, I agree totally, yet I sometimes get the impression that this point conveniently gets forgotten, or some are just plain not aware of it (IMHO) http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

Regards

AI-1

LStarosta
10-28-2005, 03:28 PM
Sorry AI-1...

Under the circumstances, I couldn't resist.

And I thought my first comment was a legitimate point...


PM me when you pull that diamond out yer butt.

AI-1
10-28-2005, 04:33 PM
Originally posted by LStarosta:
Sorry AI-1...

Under the circumstances, I couldn't resist.

And I thought my first comment was a legitimate point...


PM me when you pull that diamond out yer butt.

And that would achieve? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

arcadeace
10-28-2005, 05:55 PM
AI-1 I think if your serious about psychology and others' opinions (especially concerning bias) you should better understand the nature of the forum you're inquiring. I find some of the "troll" posts a touch of reality.

The premise of this discussion is ripe for circular reasoning. You believe there's no intentional bias and wonder why others see it but you're starting from your own bias. It seems to me you've attempted a discourse (politely so) from an angle being above some of those whom you want answers. This thread is really no different than a hundred others.

Here's my biased opinions. I think there has been bias with Oleg, especially with early FB Russian models. I think he can be susceptible to 'bias' and market this sim even if it means satisfying the loudest most persistent whiners. I think he's also very human and I really don't understand what the ultimate unbiased disposition means. I think he genuinely tries, with more integrity and commitment than any other maker of sims. I think he listens to the community at large, taking suggestions, and weighing them against a mountain of compiled research. I think he's trying to be realistic and fair with no ill-will to intentionally undermine accuracy.

He's been a frustrated man realizing in his mind with the best efforts, he will never satisfy everyone. And I consider myself very fortunate to have bought this sim instead of sticking with MS and CFS3.

han freak solo
10-28-2005, 06:41 PM
Originally posted by heywooood:
I wonder if when a pilot got shot down in WWII he didn't scream "bias" or "cheater" at the top of his lungs.

I mean - lets face it - thats game over and he didn't get a chance to fully realise the value of experience, let alone understanding all the nuances of different airframe handling capabilities and their relative performance in airial combat. Right?

The other guy just cheated or had an unfair advantage built into his plane....yes?

Get shot down (virtually mind you)...blame Oleg.
You can do it because you are not really dead...you can come in here and whine about it.
Those other guys cant do it because they're really dead...no crying to Boulton-Paul or Brewster or Junkers or Hitler or Churchill etc..

Game over.

Of course their will be some discrepancies - that is human nature - all I'm saying is deal with it.
Someone strove to make the greatest combat flight sim of all time and all some kids can do is grind about how unfair and biased it is. "the other kids got all the good planes" whaa-haa.
As if the flight sims made in America don't enhance the US planes' capabilities slightly?
Maybe?

That's the exact response I was thinking of, heywooood. Right on the money. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

han freak solo
10-28-2005, 06:55 PM
Originally posted by AI-1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LStarosta:
Sorry AI-1...

Under the circumstances, I couldn't resist.

And I thought my first comment was a legitimate point...


PM me when you pull that diamond out yer butt.

And that would achieve? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, you'd be a richer person. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

AI-1, not picking on you here. Many of us on this forum are just used to different levels of humor to keep things social. Even the most serious of dramas have light moments to ease the tension.

AI-1
10-28-2005, 07:38 PM
Originally posted by Arcadeace:
AI-1 I think if your serious about psychology and others' opinions (especially concerning bias) you should better understand the nature of the forum you're inquiring. I find some of the "troll" posts a touch of reality.

The premise of this discussion is ripe for circular reasoning. You believe there's no intentional bias and wonder why others see it but you're starting from your own bias. It seems to me you've attempted a discourse (politely so) from an angle being above some of those whom you want answers. This thread is really no different than a hundred others.

Here's my biased opinions. I think there has been bias with Oleg, especially with early FB Russian models. I think he can be susceptible to 'bias' and market this sim even if it means satisfying the loudest most persistent whiners. I think he's also very human and I really don't understand what the ultimate unbiased disposition means. I think he genuinely tries, with more integrity and commitment than any other maker of sims. I think he listens to the community at large, taking suggestions, and weighing them against a mountain of compiled research. I think he's trying to be realistic and fair with no ill-will to intentionally undermine accuracy.

He's been a frustrated man realizing in his mind with the best efforts, he will never satisfy everyone. And I consider myself very fortunate to have bought this sim instead of sticking with MS and CFS3.

I take your point and you may be correct. However I have acknowledged that we are all biased to a degree, I am no exception, neither is Oleg. But my interest as stated was with regard to intentional bias and perhaps (in hindsight) I didnt explain it very well or in terms that were accessable to all, By deliberate bias I meant deliberate policy/ effort to favour this plane and dis-favour that plane or the like. I asked those who thought as such to offer their reasoning for their convictions. I do also believe that to make it clear to all as to my intentions is also quite difficult, the many nationalities, cultures, age/ learning/ comprehension levels and language barriers/ comprehension and possible interpretations etc make it difficult.

Many threads that have discussed 'errors' have gone down the pan, often degenerating into nationalistic boxing matches for example; in the process Oleg gets accused of deliberate bias as its his product. We all know this and I'm not saying anything new and I know that too.I tried to phrase my question and position to avoid that. Maybe I should have refrained from offering opinion to responses, I did it to promote further discussion on certain points or to stem what I saw as responses which (I believed) would incite mud slinging and lock/ deletion.

Perhaps I should have asked if the 'porking' and 'ubering' of planes as believed by some people is deliberate; hindsight and reflection is helpful and that does seem more straight forward, but still it seems too provocative and would (IMHO) result as a minimum in straight yes and no answers which is not what I was seeking. What I seek is along the lines of what you and others have provided; reasoned perspectives (as I understand the replies).

And yes I am serious about psychology and others opinions, and I believe I understand the forums, but am willing to be corrected if I have errored; your point with regard to 'troll' posts is valid, and my response may make me come across as a humourless bore, or at least intolerable, but they cause conflict in a thread that attempts discussion (IMHO). If I have been disrespectful/ belittling or the like in response I apologise to LStarosta and anyone who sees it that way; not my intention.

Regards

AI-1

AI-1
10-28-2005, 07:40 PM
Originally posted by han freak solo:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AI-1:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LStarosta:
Sorry AI-1...

Under the circumstances, I couldn't resist.

And I thought my first comment was a legitimate point...


PM me when you pull that diamond out yer butt.

And that would achieve? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, you'd be a richer person. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

AI-1, not picking on you here. Many of us on this forum are just used to different levels of humor to keep things social. Even the most serious of dramas have light moments to ease the tension. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I understand that, please read my response to Arcadeace, hopefully that might clear things up a little.

On a side note: my own humour goes along the lines of Billy Connally, Black Adder, Monty Python etc http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif
Regards

AI-1

heywooood
10-28-2005, 07:47 PM
I'm sorry,...who?

AI-1
10-28-2005, 07:57 PM
Originally posted by heywooood:
I'm sorry,...who?

uum ..eeerrr .... Comedy genius from the UK, choices from the U.S would be Bill Hicks, Woody Allen, Mel Brooks and along those lines (I am correct in thinking your from the land that gave us Micky Mouse, McDonalds and oh yeah Ruby Wax,aren't I http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif)

Regards

AI-1

arcadeace
10-28-2005, 08:07 PM
Well that€s probably one of the best thought out responses to my posts lol.

I think a lot of the muck really does come down to judging Oleg with crooked favoritism, deliberately sticking it to some at the expense of the €˜truth€. Of course he's a dupe too.

I know you€re genuine. Ultimately I think the effort is fruitless to accomplish anything constructive, but if you can find it further revealing... Its another stimulating thread. That€s always enough to get our 2 cents http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

wayno7777
10-28-2005, 11:50 PM
Personally, I got rid of my bias when they came out with radials.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/1072.gifThat should read bias-ply tires.... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Xiolablu3
10-29-2005, 03:40 AM
People expect too much from a game.

OK you say the Zoom climb ont he p47 is wrong, how doyou go abaout changing it?

Have you guys any idea how hard it would be to change all the parameters in the program just to change this one thing?

The game continues to get better and better as time goes on, things get corrected/tweaked etc.

Oleg and his team are just trying to get the best representation of hte real thing.

Listen to how much BS we have heard in the west about the 'p51 won the war' how it was the best fighter ever, dont you think the Russians have had this too about the La7/Yak3p etc??

Bias is inevitable, however this sim is a great representation of WW2 aircraft, all the planes are how I would expect them too behave in combat.

Some people seem to think that just because the p47 was well armoured, it should be indestrucable to 20mm and 30mm hits. Obviously not true. All planes have vulnerable places to be hit.

Everyone from a certain country wants to think that their planes were the best, its what they have heard on their local TV and its national pride. Its not always true however.

Edited : after taking note of Norris's post below http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

NorrisMcWhirter
10-29-2005, 03:53 AM
^ watch what you're saying - you'll be accused of having a chip on your shoulder next http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Ta,
Norris

Xiolablu3
10-29-2005, 04:16 AM
Note taken Norris, post edited according ly after being worried it would be taken the wrong way http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I have no chip m8, I love our cousins across the pond, howver its very trying when u hear thread after thread about how p51 and p47 were porked because Oleg hates the west. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

If that were the case then the Spit would be porked, however its a great dogfighter in the game and everything I have read about it. There doesnt seem to be any bias in there.

Planes fly as I would expect them too after reading about ww2 planes for around 15 years.

Do you think there is a conspiracy against the US planes Norris?

NorrisMcWhirter
10-29-2005, 04:43 AM
Conspiracy? No, the 4.02 US planes are *very easy* to get success in and I'd say I actually had more 4.02 stick time with them now than my usual 190 ride.

If you asked me whether there was any positive discrimination in this game, my answer would be another matter. There has been since day one so , like the 190 view bar, it's not going to change now http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

IMO, what some might think of as bias is applied for each new patch depending on the whining preceeding it.

Ta,
Norris

carguy_
10-29-2005, 04:46 AM
Yesterday I watched a program on Discovery presenting 10 the most greatest fighters ever.
Presentation and plane reviews by one Brit and rest of Americans.

1.P51Mustang
2.Spitfire(esp.MKII)
3.Mig21 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

P51 was said to be the best fighter ever.It had all pros of Spitfire plus great range INCLUDING the same horizontal abilities http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

One guy said "I`ve flown Hornets,F86 though Spitfires and the Mustang is by far the best aircraft." http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif
Talking about being boneheaded!Has he ever heard of a P47 or a FW190?

"The P51 Mustang destroyed over 5THOUSAND enemy aircraft and was the most feared plane on WWII skies".
I think that the Me109 had more through one Russian campaign http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

BaldieJr
10-29-2005, 07:31 AM
Yeah but nobody likes nazis so thier planes doent count dude.

AI-1
10-29-2005, 09:00 AM
Originally posted by carguy_:
Yesterday I watched a program on Discovery presenting 10 the most greatest fighters ever.
Presentation and plane reviews by one Brit and rest of Americans.

1.P51Mustang
2.Spitfire(esp.MKII)
3.Mig21 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

P51 was said to be the best fighter ever.It had all pros of Spitfire plus great range INCLUDING the same horizontal abilities http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

One guy said "I`ve flown Hornets,F86 though Spitfires and the Mustang is by far the best aircraft." http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif
Talking about being boneheaded!Has he ever heard of a P47 or a FW190?

"The P51 Mustang destroyed over 5THOUSAND enemy aircraft and was the most feared plane on WWII skies".
I think that the Me109 had more through one Russian campaign http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Was there any distinction made between air and ground losses, or was it a ball park figure given?

Curious.

Regards

AI-1

JuHa-
10-29-2005, 10:55 AM
Baldie Jr:

Yeah but nobody likes nazis so thier planes doent count dude.

Finland, Hungary (+ some others) were then Nazis
too, because these countries flew German planes ?

Interesting argument, I'd say http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Guess I can now add one more achievement on my CV.

Lav69
10-29-2005, 11:18 AM
Originally posted by Loki-PF:
Bias?

Yes absolutely!

There can be no other way really.

I whole heartedly agree with what Jetbuff and others have said however, that it's not intentional.

I mean, lets think about it for a minute....

There are things about planes in a flight sim that we know, like climb rate, roll rate, etc. etc.

These things were documented back in the day yet even these things are debatable (witness this forum!) in a sim, yes?

So tell me then, who decides how big the hitbox is for the control cables of aircraft X? Who decides how many hitpoints cockpit armor has on plane Y? Who decides how many bullet strikes make the "Z" model engine quit?

See what I mean? These things have never been documented so "someone" makes a call.

When you really think about it, there are wayyy more things about a planes behaviour in this sim that we don't know than we know.

So because of this situation, some person(s) have to make a judgement call, educated guess, call it what you like.

BINGO!!!!!

Archangel2980
10-29-2005, 11:32 AM
http://www.grimmemennesker.dk/data/media/2/armpit-woman.jpg http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

AI-1
10-29-2005, 01:38 PM
Originally posted by Archangel2980:
http://www.grimmemennesker.dk/data/media/2/armpit-woman.jpg http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Care to elaborate?

Regards

AI-1

Archangel2980
10-29-2005, 04:10 PM
It's how I visualize you guys over the net.

AI-1
10-29-2005, 04:23 PM
Originally posted by Archangel2980:
It's how I visualize you guys over the net.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif your part of the same group?! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

Regards

AI-1

han freak solo
10-29-2005, 05:39 PM
Originally posted by carguy_:
Yesterday I watched a program on Discovery presenting 10 the most greatest fighters ever.
Presentation and plane reviews by one Brit and rest of Americans.


Even on the Military Channel, newer shows come up with the same subjective conclusions.

The latest one I just saw this week had the P-51 on top with the F-22 at #10. It had the Me-262 mid-pack and slightly above it was a tie between the Mig-15 and the F-86. 5 of the top ten were American planes.

One of the ratings per plane was the "Fear Factor". Meaning, how fearsome was the plane to the armchair experts. No kidding.

There is only one good thing about any of these shows. The wartime film footage.

Xiolablu3
10-30-2005, 05:30 AM
The Military channel top 10 progs demonstrate the US bias straight away, they know most about their own aircraft and little about others, so they assume theirs to be the best.

This is why a sim like IL2 with its realistic look on things/maybe slight Russian bias, comes as such a disapointment. They have heard that they had the best dogfighters in the world all their lives thanks to TV etc, when they suddenly find out they werent so great they get a little annoyed.

Do you think a Russian top 10 fighters would be anything like the Military channels top 10??

han freak solo
10-30-2005, 06:22 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
Do you think a Russian top 10 fighters would be anything like the Military channels top 10??

It would have the natural bias of the "home team" Russian aircraft. I would expect no less and hold no grudges because of it.

When I was a young American (David Bowie song playing) I loved believing that we had the best equipment. It helped make a person proud of their country and potentially willing to serve their country. You wouldn't want to join the military of "x" country if you thought that "x" country had cr@p equipment would you?

"Ooooh! Flintlock muskets for side arms! Sign me up!" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif (circa 1985)

Lucius_Esox
10-30-2005, 06:43 AM
The ability to see through bias has got to be a lifelong struggle, hasn't it ?

Is it possible, wise even.

AI-1
10-30-2005, 08:50 AM
Originally posted by Lucius_Esox:
The ability to see through bias has got to be a lifelong struggle, hasn't it ?

Is it possible, wise even.


I agree it is a lifelong endevour, if attempted at all; I beieve that the best we can hope for is to try and be objective and questioning with what is presented to us, this only helps to minimise it, but we can only try. At the same time bias does have its uses, one that comes to mind, is it can help instill confidence in our equipment, our abilities and the groups we are a part of; which IMHO is vital during times of competition (war, sport and the like), one of the main reasons for propaganda. People can achieve so much more than may otherwise be done when they have confidence and enthusiasm can't they (as long as they remain aware of complacency and the like).

Even propaganda that states the <insert plane here> was best and 'won the war' serves a positive purpose as it has reflective qualities on the nation's/ state's ability to produce the goods again so to speak, as and when needed, in the eyes of the recipient. So IMHO it would be unwise, even dangerous to abandon both bias and propaganda; its just up to the individual to interpret and employ them as wisely as possible.

In these forums, at times, a little restraint would be beneficial for all, though difficult to achieve at times; one man's truth is another man's lie/ propaganda/ bias: but that's just my take.

Regards

AI-1

Friendly_flyer
10-30-2005, 03:16 PM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
The Military channel top 10 progs demonstrate the US bias straight away, they know most about their own aircraft and little about others, so they assume theirs to be the best.

It was shown here just 5 minutes ago. Finding "the best" of almost 100 years of flight history will by necessity be a bit of comparing apples and oranges. How do one rate the performance of a WWI double decker to a modern jet fighter? The ranking was appalling nevertheless, I€m actually quite a bit upset.

The Spitfire was ranked 6th, the Mustang (not surprisingly 1st). At the end, one of the program, the commentators made a comparison of Spitfire and Mustang directly. The Mustang was said to be superior because it had a €œcooler cockpit€ and "superior armament". Now, I will accept a claim of superiority based on the Mustangs long legs, but armament!?! Anyhow, a parameter like agility, manoeuvrability or some such parameter of turning performance was not considered, something I find rather odd when considering a fighter.

So, there may be a bias in this sim, as mechanical failure is not modelled (something which surely would affect the Russian planes badly), but it€s really nothing to the bias some TV-programs demonstrates.

No German planes seem to have met even the entry specifications for the program.

[Rant off]

JuHa-
10-30-2005, 04:31 PM
Originally posted by Friendly_flyer:
No German planes seem to have met even the entry specifications for the program.


They didn't even make it to the gun cam clips?
/sarcasm

Nah, criterias for these lists are quite hard to do, so let's not be too harsh about one program.

Friendly_flyer
10-31-2005, 12:57 AM
Featured a lot, I'm afraid.

Actually, there was a German plane in the list. Me 262 came in at no 8 (I think). It got in so low due to low production run and unreliable airframe and engine.

The again, it did beat the Harrier...

Udidtoo
10-31-2005, 01:38 AM
Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
The Military channel top 10 progs demonstrate the US bias straight away, they know most about their own aircraft and little about others, so they assume theirs to be the best.

This is why a sim like IL2 with its realistic look on things/maybe slight Russian bias, comes as such a disapointment. They have heard that they had the best dogfighters in the world all their lives thanks to TV etc, when they suddenly find out they werent so great they get a little annoyed.

Do you think a Russian top 10 fighters would be anything like the Military channels top 10??

What makes me chuckle at posts like this one is how many members from countries outside the U.S. have told me with a great deal earnestness that if only some Hollywood esqe mass media could spring fourth in their own country then it could produce nothing but beacons of truth. Factual, fair and even handed reporting of the highest truths, free from any stain of nationalistic bias because as all good and noble denizens of Mother Earth know, bias begins in New York and ends in L.A............ok, sure.

BTW, when you paint with that broad of a brush and lump us all into one group that was raised on propaganda and assert that 'They' are all disappointed in this game..... well, tuck that back in m8 a little of your bias is peeking out. Other than I am now 98.7% stall proof I am most defiantly not disappointed in this game nor unaware that just possibly, had I not bothered to actually find truth for myself,there may be some misguided info shoved our way on the telly.

Your probably right though. "They" and 'Them' done been fooled 'their' hole life. It really is rampant. Those not fooled by that there tv, etc. Would be myself, A guy named Ted in Buffalo N.Y. A priest from Sioux Falls who although forbidden to actually shoot at another pilot does offer last rights to everyone in his squadron that bails near a enemy airfield and "Big Wanda" a lady trucker out of Santa Fe who plays on a laptop. Other than that short list *they* are all heartbroken idiots and you have em all sussed m8. good on ya.

Friendly_flyer
10-31-2005, 05:29 AM
Udidtoo is right, off coerce, most countries are biased. However, US being the biggest fish in the pond, its bias are a bit more visible than that of the smaller fry.