PDA

View Full Version : And idea to stop the whining and speculation



FA_Whisky
07-28-2005, 03:00 AM
Serving the forums here i found a low of useless whining and speculation on how planes should perform en how the perform in the game. The internet got planty of info on most planes, but official data to compare performance is somtimes hard to find.
I think it would be a nice to have some info on how the planes and flight model are modelled in the game. What are the limitations and what is possible with this game engine. If Oleg would shed some light on how max speed, drag, engine power, lift and that sort of things are calculated and how they are fit in the firtual air it would stop a lot of speculation. And it would be very interesting to see how this is done. I am for instance are very interested on how radiator drag and engine overheat is calculated.
If we would have soem info on this we can also be more helpfull to finetune the flightmodels and help to find and correct some bugs.
A up to date version like il2 compare that came from Oleg with a patch would also be nice. Than at least some of the info (that came with the older planes) is updated.

msalama
07-28-2005, 05:01 AM
Won't happen, because Oleg will probably never publish his core algorithms anywhere. But as for the underlaying physics / maths - well, that as we know is public information already...

So nothing will change, most likely.

HoldSteady641
07-28-2005, 05:41 AM
Better still, why not accept things, except when they're ludicrous (ie, a WWII plane outclimbing an F15)? pilots in WWII NEVER got to choose their outfit. Ever heared of a pilot whining 'OOhh no, not that dreadfull hurricane again with the lousy MG's, I want a tempest with a rotating 20 mm high velocity cannon and heatseaking missiles and a laser guided GBU Bomb and I want it now or else I aint flying!'

SeaFireLIV
07-28-2005, 06:17 AM
Shoot them all? Yes, that`s it - shoot AAAALLLLLL of them.


But not me. Thnx.

Bearcat99
07-28-2005, 07:05 AM
Why not just everyoine grow up and stop demanding perfection from a computer simulation of WW2 aviation based on a 5 year old engine stretched to it's limits?

Why not just spend more time flying the d@mn sim and learning it's ins and outs and less time findintg things to comnplain about.

When you look at the bowl it is definitely more sweet than sour, more full than empty, more hot than cold .... it tastes great and it's less filling to boot..... I never did understand the intensity, volume or hysteria of some of the complaints about this sim to begin with.

diomedes33
07-28-2005, 09:27 AM
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
Why not just everyoine grow up and stop demanding perfection from a computer simulation of WW2 aviation based on a 5 year old engine stretched to it's limits?


True IL2 is an engine that evolved over the last 5 years. But last month all that previous work on the flight models was thrown out and replaced by a brand new beta fm module. There is probably more background knowledge on how aircraft perform then there was in IL2 v1.0, but its still brand new code. Brand new complex code, that is most likely loaded with bugs because the most concise beta test paradigm in the world can't catch all the nuances of flight modeling.

1c/Maddox has been continually tweeking the FMs, DMs etc since its release. How can you believe that its "right" or polished when its a new system and has only been tested for 4 mo.

By laying down an infrastructure for the users to give 1c/Maddox feedback (ORR and email) and posting comments like, "we are partially introducing FM from our next simulation (BOB) for worldwide test." shows that they want to hear from the users.

IMHO posting that your favorite plane doesn't hold up to specs (esepcially when its within 5%, check the accuracy of your cherished chart) is a futile effort and little more than nitpicking, but posting about possible gross errors in the modeling could only be a good thing. I know full well the difficulties of coding a large complex program. I'd much rather someone tell me that they believe something is wrong so I can go through the source again and check to make sure there were no errors (i.e. misplaced decimal points, numbers transposed, methods called in wrong sequence, etc ...). Taking everything as gospel helps nothing other than your own satisfaction (if you are that's cool).

Bringing 1c/Maddox's attention to a 'bug' is just that telling them you think something is wrong, the ultimately decide. I just wish that 1c/Maddox would give us some feedback too. Like it can't be done, we're looking into it. Its a known bug we're fixing it. We rechecked and everything is working fine. However when some people here have absolutly no idea what professionalsim or courtesy are and publicly insult Oleg Maddox and developers, I see why they don't.

All of this is my oppinion and 1c/Maddox may be the money grubbing self-indulgent, producing un-polished cr4p, then proclaiming it the best out there evil company that some proclaim it is. Oh wait ... that's Microsoft.

Freefalldart
07-28-2005, 10:29 AM
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
Why not just everyoine grow up and stop demanding perfection from a computer simulation of WW2 aviation based on a 5 year old engine stretched to it's limits?

Why not just spend more time flying the d@mn sim and learning it's ins and outs and less time findintg things to comnplain about.

When you look at the bowl it is definitely more sweet than sour, more full than empty, more hot than cold .... it tastes great and it's less filling to boot..... I never did understand the intensity, volume or hysteria of some of the complaints about this sim to begin with.

Agreed http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif