PDA

View Full Version : OLEG Why do you keep killing planes ?



XyZspineZyX
12-05-2003, 05:19 PM
Oleg why is there so many changes in the planes everytime you put out a patch ?

This is really starting to drive me crazy.

First the hurrican,then the p51 and now the FW190A9

I don't understand why the planes keep changing ????


There are still sound issues, graphic issues and online play issues but it seems that you move forward on changing the planes instead of fixing the problems.

I'm about ready to take the game and throw it away. This happened in IL2 now the same crap in IL2FB.

Let me guess after the next patch you won't be able to fly any planes just in time for Battle over Britain....

XyZspineZyX
12-05-2003, 05:19 PM
Oleg why is there so many changes in the planes everytime you put out a patch ?

This is really starting to drive me crazy.

First the hurrican,then the p51 and now the FW190A9

I don't understand why the planes keep changing ????


There are still sound issues, graphic issues and online play issues but it seems that you move forward on changing the planes instead of fixing the problems.

I'm about ready to take the game and throw it away. This happened in IL2 now the same crap in IL2FB.

Let me guess after the next patch you won't be able to fly any planes just in time for Battle over Britain....

XyZspineZyX
12-05-2003, 06:30 PM
LastRights is basically correct.
Well, I`m still running through the planes in campaign. It`s alittle early to say, but this plane changing stuff is a little annoying, no actually REALLY annoying now...
I`m quite content to areoplanes that fly reasonably accurately compared to each other. All these faffing about making them stronger, then weaker, rolling faster, then not so fast, accelerating, decelerating....



It`s getting to the point where I`m not sure what i`m flying. Faithful recreations of WWII aircreaft (as close as PC technology can take us?) or a forum`s personal views all mashed together of how they think planes should fly.

Case in point.
The I16. I never really cared too much about how the I16 flew. I liked it cos it was Allied, it looked nice (the MINI of the WWII plane world) It had a character all its own. Still does./i/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif The fact that it flew very well and was as tough as old boots was beside the point.
1.Then it had the `neg-G` disadvantage. Fine.
2. Climb reduced.
3. Aceeleration reduced.
4. Basic toughness reduced.
5. Toughness reduced again.

I`m not complaining that the I16 is now quite weak, I`m complaining WHY all this couldn`t have been here in the first place? Surely, the neg-G problem was known before as well as some of the others?

Hurricane is a case in point too. It should never have been so gravity defying in the first place.


I`ll always like the I16 as well as other planes, but please let`s leave the aircraft as they are. No more fiddling about with them. Thankyou.

This is only a whine about CONSTANT aircraft changes. I think the 1.21 patch is good. This is mainly for the Campaign, graphical, sound and other improvements. I will give a proper thankyou later.... (Monday).




"Tis better to work towards an Impossible Good, rather than a Possible Evil."

SeaFireLIV.
(Spitfire Whiner Member).



Message Edited on 12/05/0305:36PM by SeaFireLIV

XyZspineZyX
12-05-2003, 06:59 PM
Wrong philosophy totally.

I won't get into why I think any particular plane is not modelled correctly. And it is frustrating that planes seem to ebb and flow in their abilities, when we're told that they're *always* modelled to a high degree of fidelity...

...but the end goal SHOULD be to just GET IT RIGHT. After that, let the chips fall where they may.

Just because it will make you comfortable that a plane is predictable and stable across versions does NOT make it right for that plane to be incorrect, or worse still, to STAY incorrect.

When these problems are uncovered, documented and backed up by facts and data, then by all means, the plane should be CORRECTED.

Being correct, de facto, is the cure for all ills. If it's correct, great. If it isn't correct, then it's *wrong*.

Windows 98SE
Athlon 1700+ 1.4GHz
Mobo: FIC AU13 (TFA42 BIOS)
nVidia onboard sound
1GB of 2100 DDR memory
Video Card: ATI Radeon 8500 128MB w/Catalyst 3.5
Cougar HOTAS
CH Pedals

XyZspineZyX
12-05-2003, 07:08 PM
Simple answer: The developers are not perfect so they need time to make fixes, no big deal...

:FI:SnoopBaron

http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_07.gif

:FI:SnoopBaron

http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_07.gif

XyZspineZyX
12-05-2003, 07:14 PM
Thankyou, Stiglr, I shall change my whole philosophical thinking from now on.


"Tis better to work towards an Impossible Good, rather than a Possible Evil."

SeaFireLIV.
(Spitfire Whiner Member).

XyZspineZyX
12-05-2003, 07:24 PM
Please enlighten me here... First you ask OM to change something...then you cry about it? What gives? What`s wrong with A9? Please don`t tell me it`s a useless brick now, cause i will laugh /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

One more thing for you LastRights, and i mean it /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif "Ploxomy tanzory vsegda yayza meshaut" Translate that one /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Regards,
VFC*Crazyivan
http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/ivan-reaper.gif

"No matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down." Ivan Kozhedub

ZG77_Nagual
12-05-2003, 07:29 PM
If they didn't change I'd be worried. Not likely a flight simm will ever be completely accurate - what is important here is relative performance - I can see one of the things that happens in this simm is, due to limitations in the code - which are largely dictated by limitations in hardware - compromises sometimes must be made - near as I can tell when they find themselves in this position they err on the side of relative performance - which is totally cool. This patch is far and away the best of the lot.

http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/pics/whiner.jpg

XyZspineZyX
12-05-2003, 07:44 PM
Enlighten you ok

First off I have never asked OM to change anything on any of the planes since the original release. So now that we have that straightened out is there any answer to my original question, why change the planes at all.


The only answer I can see is that the beta testers got beat so hard by the 190's that they cried all the way to Oleg and he changed the plane to keep his beta testers happy, happy they could actually shoot down a plane.


<AFJ>LastRights

XyZspineZyX
12-05-2003, 08:10 PM
LastRights wrote:
- Enlighten you ok
-

Ok i am enlightened.. /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

- First off I have never asked OM to change anything
- on any of the planes since the original release. So
- now that we have that straightened out is there any
- answer to my original question, why change the
- planes at all.
-

Are you the only one that plays FB around here and discuss things at this forum? /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

-
- The only answer I can see is that the beta testers
- got beat so hard by the 190's that they cried all
- the way to Oleg and he changed the plane to keep his
- beta testers happy, happy they could actually shoot
- down a plane.
-
-

I know quiet a few beta testers and believe me, you don`t want to end up in their gunsight, no matter what you fly /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif



Regards,
VFC*Crazyivan
http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/ivan-reaper.gif

"No matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down." Ivan Kozhedub

XyZspineZyX
12-05-2003, 08:12 PM
I agree to some posts here and want to contribute as well:

As said, this takes time to perfect something - I think there should be a tremendous pat on the back for the 1C that continues to evolve this product.

It's getting better and better - and, if you don't think it is - then go back to early versions http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

But, there is no way they are going to perfectly create every aircraft the first time right!

Take the p40 - first it had dive bug, fixed. then the roll rate was off, fixed. Now it is where it could have been in step one - but let's face it - there are only so many hours in a day!!!

It takes time to develop good software - people think this stuff just magically happens, it does not.

They aren't 'killing' planes, they are making them better. Be happy this isn't microsoft - maybe one patch - then done.


S!
609IAP_Recon

Forgotten Skies Virtual War
Forum: http://fogwar.luftwaffe.net/forums/index.php
Website: http://www.forgottenskies.com
Visit 609IAP at http://takeoff.to/609IAP


http://www.leeboats.com/609/sig/609_recon3.jpg


"What was truly obsolete happened to be the turning or dogfighting
combat that had been used during of WW I."

Erik Shilling - AVG - http://yarchive.net/mil/p40.html

XyZspineZyX
12-05-2003, 08:34 PM
LastRights wrote:
- Oleg why is there so many changes in the planes
- everytime you put out a patch ?
-
- This is really starting to drive me crazy.
-
- First the hurrican,then the p51 and now the FW190A9

The Hurricane flight model was wrong..... so it got amended. The P-51? I assume you are refering to the beta version P-51 in which case give yourself pinch and think about what you said..... FW-190A9... well whats up with that one? If it is the damage model (namely wings I imagine) we know there are issues with it (Oleg has said as much, and given reasons why it is hard to fix) and heck, its still a tough bird.... go play chicken with a P-51 and see who needs their chute first /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

- I don't understand why the planes keep changing ????
-
-
- There are still sound issues, graphic issues and
- online play issues but it seems that you move
- forward on changing the planes instead of fixing the
- problems.

I that not a bit of an over-simplification?

- I'm about ready to take the game and throw it away.
- This happened in IL2 now the same crap in IL2FB.
-
- Let me guess after the next patch you won't be able
- to fly any planes just in time for Battle over
- Britain....

Well if you feel that way... so be it..... bit I think you are missing the wood by focusing to much on a couple of the trees /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif


"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Gunther Rall

http://www.invoman.com/images/tali_with_hands.jpg


Look Noobie, we already told you, we don't have the Patch!

XyZspineZyX
12-05-2003, 08:37 PM
Love the latest changes...ebb and flow of development means that things get worked on, fiddled...stuff you hadn't considered before incorporated. Stuff changes.

Overall improvements are much better. FW still probably needs a complex DM but that takes time and I still fly it and think it the deadliest of fighters available.

Most people knew that the I-16 was far in advance of what it was supposed to be and that has largely been fixed. I actually like flying the thing from time to time now and I never used to.

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/temp_sig.jpg
"Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few." - Winston Churchill

XyZspineZyX
12-05-2003, 09:04 PM
Hmmm funny you mention the p40 when I was gnerally talking about the FW190A9, there was no problem with the plane so he changed it anyways, no bugs like the p40, yep might as well waste time fixing something that isn't broken.

Lets test this shall we

The Hurricane was spectacular then 1.11
The p51 was good, then 1.2RC01
KI-84 was a hopeful but now the pilot passes out way too much 1.21
The Yak3, now almost indestructable 1.21
The FW190A9 climb rate is killed 1.21

I see a trend here where it seems if a squadron does well with a plane it gets changed

XyZspineZyX
12-05-2003, 09:28 PM
- Lets test this shall we

Oh Yes, lets.

- The Hurricane was spectacular then 1.11

What excuse have you got for this? As the Hurricane was anything BUT spectacular. Sure, it did amazing things in the BoB, but performance wise, it was WAY over the top.

- The p51 was good, then 1.2RC01

Yeah, the P-51 got a touch slower, and it doesn't zoom as well, but you know, I don't think 2350m straight up makes much sense in this bird. The 1400 it does now is a hell of a lot more accurate. I wish it was abou6 60kph faster, and zoomed about 200m or so more, but its still "good"

- KI-84 was a hopeful but now the pilot passes out way
- too much 1.21

ROFL! *gasp* You mean now that the Ki-84 is turning even MORE sharply at faster speeds its porked? You think they just make up the blackout point for each airplane?? LOL

- The Yak3, now almost indestructable 1.21

Okie dokie...

- The FW190A9 climb rate is killed 1.21

I haven't tested it, but here is my guess. It doesn't climb the SAME as it did before, so try changing how you climb it. See the 109 Climb Rate posts by Buzzsaw for example. Lots of planes have had this change made to them.

- I see a trend here where it seems if a squadron does
- well with a plane it gets changed

Oh my, the grand conspiracy.. okie dokie..



:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+

"Flying is more than a sport and more than a job; flying is pure passion and desire, which fill a lifetime."

RAF74_JazzMan
RAF No.74 Squadron
http://www.aircombat.ca/RAF74/

http://home.sou.edu/~katzw/images/signature.jpg


"Individual victories in the air should be subordinate to the overall sucess of the group....The most important principle is to insure that those under you feel that their commander understands their worries; that the commander can be approached by anyone in the group; that what he demands of the group is necessary, and that you would never demand of them more that what you are willing to demand of yourself."

:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+:+

XyZspineZyX
12-05-2003, 09:41 PM
- I see a trend here where it seems if a squadron does
- well with a plane it gets changed
-
-

LMAO... made my day /i/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Regards,
VFC*Crazyivan
http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/ivan-reaper.gif

"No matter how good the violin may be, much depends on the violinist. I always felt respect for an enemy pilot whose plane I failed to down." Ivan Kozhedub

XyZspineZyX
12-05-2003, 11:11 PM
Stiglr wrote:

"...but the end goal SHOULD be to just GET IT RIGHT.
- After that, let the chips fall where they may.


Just because it will make you comfortable that a
- plane is predictable and stable across versions does
- NOT make it right for that plane to be incorrect, or
- worse still, to STAY incorrect.... "



I'll 2nd that.

Besides, makes things interesting to relearn flying with your favorite planes (when knowing the directive above applies to the changes).


Widgeon

XyZspineZyX
12-05-2003, 11:11 PM
Last rights wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>is there any answer to my original question, why change the planes at all?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Simple: because the modeling is [later] found to be incorrect. Why is that so hard to understand?



Windows 98SE
Athlon 1700+ 1.4GHz
Mobo: FIC AU13 (TFA42 BIOS)
nVidia onboard sound
1GB of 2100 DDR memory
Video Card: ATI Radeon 8500 128MB w/Catalyst 3.5
Cougar HOTAS
CH Pedals

XyZspineZyX
12-05-2003, 11:26 PM
Only '80' some flyables to keep track of and tune with every improvement? I think I can afford to cut the crew a little slack here.

XyZspineZyX
12-06-2003, 12:34 AM
It's a daunting task, sure...

but if they were accurate in the first place they would never need to be updated, true?

"Just get it right." Whether first time, third time, or however-manyeth time. That's the mantra.

Windows 98SE
Athlon 1700+ 1.4GHz
Mobo: FIC AU13 (TFA42 BIOS)
nVidia onboard sound
1GB of 2100 DDR memory
Video Card: ATI Radeon 8500 128MB w/Catalyst 3.5
Cougar HOTAS
CH Pedals

ZG77_Nagual
12-06-2003, 01:00 AM
Dinothread

http://pws.chartermi.net/~cmorey/pics/whiner.jpg

XyZspineZyX
12-06-2003, 01:18 AM
interesting a5,a8 and a9 have now same inialclimb 19m/sec

a9 with 250ps more power and more effectively propeller has sure better initialclimb as a8,


seem oleg like not complex 190 flighmodell

Message Edited on 12/06/0304:07AM by Skalgrim

XyZspineZyX
12-06-2003, 02:09 AM
Changing the flight model of an aircraft is not going to stop me from flying it. I flew the best crap plane of IL-2, the Fw-190, for a year before it was improved in FB. I'll fly it anyway, its not like it can get worse than it was in IL-2 =)

It Does seem like the Fw-190 Anton 8's climb rate has been decreased to about 20m/s (260kph climb speed) instead of the ~21-24m/s it had in 1.11/1.2.

I enjoy change in this game; some things may not be correct in the patches but if you point out blatant errors (with sources) to the dev team you will most likely see it corrected in the next patch.

Russian aircraft require skill to fly.
German aircraft require ten times that skill, and one hundred times the patience!

WUAF_CO_CRBNFRZ on HyperLobby

XyZspineZyX
12-06-2003, 02:14 AM
i don't have a problem with the planes being tweaked, but i must agree with the original poster about there still being general problems that need to be fixed. the sound, for lack of a better word, sucks. back in the il-2 days i had a sblive 5.1, now i have an audigy 2. surely two very popular cards. since i first tried this sim, i have had crackling, and weird echoes. i know how to fix it, but i shouldn't have to ratchet down my hardware and capabilities to fit the game. this is such a popular series with so many patches, that you would think they'd have the sound worked out by now. i, myself, would give up the tweaked flight models to be able to really enjoy the "aural pleasure" that my system is designed to give me. having said that, i love this sim, by far the best available, and will purchase every one that this team produces, sound and all.


My Specs:
Water Cooled Lian Li PC 75
Danger Den Water Blocks on CPU/Vid/N Bridge
Intel P4 3.0 GHz 800 MHz FSB@3.546 Ghz 944 FSB
DFI Lan Party Pro
1 Gig Corsair 4000 Pro 500 DDR w/activity LEDs
Radeon 9800 Pro 256 Meg
Sound Blaster Audigy 2
2 W/D 10,000 RPM 36 Gig Raptors in Raid 0
250 Gig W/D Caviar Edition
Logitech Z-680 (Running Digital and Analog, and yes i can play DVD's in the elusive 5.1 Digital)
ATI TV Wonder Pro w/ Remote Wonder
Pioneer DVR-A06
Lite-On 52X Burner
Lite-On DVD-ROM
22" Viewsonic P225fb
Logitech Mx 700
Eluminx Keyboard
Thrustmaster Tactical Board
E-Dimensional Wireless 3D Glasses
Sidewinder Game Voice
Sidewinder Force Feedback 2
Sidewinder Strategic Commander
Sidewinder Dual Strike
Thrusmaster Dual Power
Logitech Wingman Formula Force GP
Win XP Pro

XyZspineZyX
12-06-2003, 05:05 AM
crazyivan1970 wrote:
- Please enlighten me here... First you ask OM to
- change something...then you cry about it? What
- gives? What`s wrong with A9? Please don`t tell me
- it`s a useless brick now, cause i will laugh

It's far from a useless brick now! All it needs is a little bit of work to give it a complex DM, and a few more loadout options.

XyZspineZyX
12-06-2003, 07:05 PM
Just imagine.

(By the way, all numbers are made up, just trying to prove a point)

They ask you to do correct flight models for 40 flyable aircraft (This would be at the original IL-2 stage). You get it right, everyone´s happy.

Then you decide to release ten additional aircraft. You do their flight models, correctly, then release the "add-on".

Your customers play the game and realize that aircraft number 7 from the add-on has better flight characteristics than aircraft number 35 of the original batch, so you change aircraft number 7's flight model to be more accurate, RELATIVELY, compared to aircraft number 35.

Unfortunately, changing aircraft number 7's flight characteristics might have made it more "correct" compared to number 35, but NOW number 7 is a lot weaker compared to aircraft number 5 from the add-on. Aircraft number 5, however, cannot be "toned down" to better match up with number 7, because "weakening" number 5 would make it far less competitive with, let´s say, aircraft number 20 from the original batch.

Get the point?

You´re dealing with an ever-increasing number of airplanes every time a new add-on or patch is released. Cut the UBI people some slack, if you can. Remember that adding 10 new aircraft to 100 existing ones doesn´t mean 10% more work, it´s more along the lines of having to do 10 new ones PLUS having to rework, or at least reconsider, the 100 existing ones. So, where you assume it should only be "10% additional work" it´s actually something like 200% plus 10% added ones.

You can only justly criticize the developers if you can do it better, then you would be suggesting things, not saying that their work is crap.


GreyBeast_P39